Continue the debate in here

Page 5 of 15 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10 ... 15  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:33 am

Your quite right, I wouldnít agree with murdering it. Nor do I think abortions should be carried out after approx 20 weeks, as current evidence suggests that at this stage the unborn foetus has some form of nervous system. However, before that, the ĎUnborn Babyí is not a baby. I am not saying abortion is right, but I am certainly saying that it is not totally wrong either. There are circumstances when it is beneficial that an abortion should be carried out, but do I agree that it is ok for a woman to have an abortion, simply because it is an inconvenience? No, but it is not my body, and I have no say in the matter.

If you knew somebody was self harming themselves, would you do anything about it? Or would you say its not your body and you have no say in the matter?

Apologies Dave, but you donít. You have already stated that in a scenario of Ďmotherí or Ďfoetusí you would pick foetus, despite the FACT that the foetus has no nervous system, or sense of pain, yet the mother should die, because it has potential?

In the abortion issue the mother and the unborn baby can't both be winners. The unborn baby deserves to live. The unborn baby should not be treated like its an inconvenience and needs to be gotten rid of. Women should double check if there are health risks before trying to have kids.

But what happened to free will?

Free will exists. You can not sin and think you can get away with. God doesn't stop you doing things that are good and proper. When the Jews in the Old Testament did what was right and proper they prospered but when they did evil things they where exiled out of their land.

Dave, you admit that that higher authority picks and chooses what is moral. Your higher authority, deems slavery as moral, or at least, ok. Your higher authority deems the genocide of the Ishmaeliteís as ok, Moses murdering an Egyptian as ok. The least your higher authority could do is be consistent.

God is always consistent. Its us humans that aren't consistent. The Bible never says that when Moses killed the Egyptian it was an ok and right action. But the Bible does show that even though Moses did a terrible thing, God was prepared to forgive him. God creates man perfect and what does man do? He disobeys God. Where the Ishmaelite's sinful and evil people? Yes they where.

You are comparing two very different scenarios. The murderer is causing suffering and pain to another human, the mother is not! If you have a tumour on your leg and it needs to be amputated, who do you think should have the final decision on the course of action to take? You or the doctor?

It is clear that abortion causes the women mental suffering. Check this article:

http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=6587

Is it morally right to cause suffering to yourself?

Are you sure? I mean, if the stem cells form a 3 day old embryo can be used to cure Parkinsonís, is there anything wrong with using them to do so? Which do you think suffers more, the embryo, or the Parkinsonís sufferer?

Does using the stem cells from the embryo cause the end of that potential life becoming a human? If so then it is wrong to use the cells. Its not a fair comparison comparing an embryo and a Parkinsonís sufferer. If you claim the embryo has no nervous system then of course it is going to suffer less than the Parkinsonís suffer. But that doesn't mean that it is right to end the life of the embryo.

Iím going to make a bold statement here, and donít take it out of context, itís in relation to your Ďall life is preciousí comment...

Some people deserve to be killed!

Every human that has sin in their life deserves to die. Even you and me. Our only hope is Jesus. He is the solution to the world's sin problem.

Then abortion is ok! The parents made the baby!

It is God who creates life.

Christians also have a habit of picking and choosing parts of the Old Testament, what makes you think this is not discarded with the law of not eating shell fish? This also raises the question of Original Sin. If unborn babies go to heaven, then it is safe to say that we are not born with original sin. It also asks the question, and I want an answer, at what age does this free pass to heaven expire?

I would say the age of understanding is when a person knows right from wrong. When they have a sense that things are right and wrong. At that point it is then possible for them to be aware of their sin problem and in turn their need for a Saviour.

What if your pastor, who I assume you believe has the Holy Spirit, say he thinks murder is ok? Is he right or wrong? You will say wrong, simply because you disagree with it. I guarantee you, that you would not for one second think that maybe he is right, after all he does have the Holy Spirit!
I would test what he says against what the Bible says. If he says he is a Bible believing Christian then it would be easy to spot wrong teaching if what he teaches goes against what the Bible says. The Bible is clear on murder;
EXODUS 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

Because at that time, there was a new messiah born every day, and killed every day. What did the Romans have to gain from showing a tomb with a body in it? It wasnít as if Millions of Christians existed back then. At most maybe a few hundred!

Well the Romans wanted a peaceful occupation of the Holy Lands during Jesus' time. Therefore showing the world the tomb would have quashed the rise of Christianity. That in turn would have saved them having to persecute and kill so many Christians. Some of the Roman Emperors where treated like Gods and demanded worship like Gods. Christianity went against that.

Imagine you are in the company of a terrorist. He tells you there is a bomb in a city. He knows where it is, and when it is going to go off. Now this city is too large to be evacuated in time, so you must find out where that bomb is. How would you do it? Needless to say, the terrorist is not going to just tell you. But you know this bomb will kill thousands. What action are you willing to take in order to ascertain the location of the bomb? Would you torture the terrorist? Put him through excruciating pain to get him to talk, and save thousands of innocent people? What would be the moral action? To ascertain the location by ANY MEANS NECESSARY, or let thousands of people die because of you religious belief? What would you do?

First I would pray to God for help. And then I would try and reason with the bomber. I would try and convince him that there is more to life than killing the lives of innocent people who probably have done nothing wrong to him. Torture would be a last resort.

But it is my duty to my society to intervene if I thought this person would carry out a murder. I do not wish suffering on any innocent person, a murder is inflicted on a second party. If the same person wanted to cut his foreskin off, then itís none of my business, weather I think itís right or wrong.

You say you do not wish suffering on any innocent person. What about an unborn baby? It is innocent. So why is it ever right to kill an unborn baby? If somebody was in a coma, would they feel any pain if their life support was switched off?

I think your Ďfaithí acts as a comforter to you. You are like a child with a dummy and you do not want to part with is because it makes you feel insecure and weak. It is your fear that stops you from carrying out REAL research.

Real research? I found that article that details research showing that women who have an abortion suffer more long term mental problems than women who miscarriage. That is real research.

According to the bible, murder is not always wrong!

Do you think it is fair that man sins against God?

What about the 99.8% of American prisoners who believe in God? If they had the Holy Spirit, then why are they in Jail? Only 0.2% of American prisoners are atheists. If you were right and Believers are more moral than non-believers, then why arenít there more atheists in jail?

How many of those prisoners where Christians before they committed the crimes that got them put in jail?

There was no Ďrise of Christianityí. There was a cult. It eventually grew. If Muhammad did not rise to heaven on a winged horse, then why canít Christians show his burial site?

What about The Mosque of the Prophet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

In 632, Muhammad fell ill and suffered for several days with head pain and weakness. He succumbed on Monday, June 8, 632, in the city of Medina. He is buried in his tomb (which previously was in his wife Aisha's house) which is now housed within Mosque of the Prophet in Medina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosque_of_the_Prophet

I quote:
The Mosque of the Prophet ( Arabic: المسجد النبوی ) [IPA /mśsʤıd śnːśbśwı], in Medina, is the second holiest mosque in Islam. It is the final resting place of Muhammad.

The most notable feature of the Prophet's Mosque is the green "Dome of the Prophet", which rises higher amongst the sea of white domes. This is where the tomb of Muhammad is located; early Muslim leaders Abu Bakr and Umar ibn al-Khattab are buried in an adjacent area as well.

Let us assume that there was no body in the tomb, that does not mean that Jesus was the son of God. There are cases of people surviving crucifixion. Josephus Flavius writes about one such case. Would it not be more feasible that Jesus survived and went into hiding?

Ah. The swoon theory. If Jesus had only passed out, he would have been in no condition to push away the heavy stone in front of the tomb and in His weak post crucified state He wouldn't have inspired anybody. He would have been weak and only just alive.

Surely their motive should have been praising God, not starting a religion! I guess you admit that they were trying to start a religion, what better way than to lie in a book.

They did praise God. Their main concern was the spread of the Good News about Jesus. The starting of a religion was a product of their desire to spread the Good News about Jesus. Jesus gave the disciples the Great Commission;
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

What is written in the Bible is no lie. What was written in the New Testament got 11 disciples martyred.

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:03 am

If you knew somebody was self harming themselves,
would you do anything about it? Or would you say its not your body and you have
no say in the matter?

Why do people self harm? It is a psychological illness. All illnesses should be treated.

In the abortion issue the mother and the unborn baby
can't both be winners. The unborn baby deserves to live.

Then on what grounds do you declare the child the Ďwinnerí?

The unborn baby should not be treated like its an
inconvenience and needs to be gotten rid of. Women should double check if there
are health risks before trying to have kids.

You obviously have never been in love!

Free will exists. You can not sin and think you can
get away with.

Fair enough, but why does God kill some sinners yet let others die naturally?

God doesn't stop you doing things that are good and
proper.

Martin Luther King!

When the Jews in the Old Testament did what was
right and proper they prospered but when they did evil things they where exiled
out of their land.

Moses was a murderer, why was he then made a leader?

The Bible never says that when Moses killed the
Egyptian it was an ok and right action. But the Bible does show that even
though Moses did a terrible thing, God was prepared to forgive him.

But you said above, that God punishes some with death, even Genocide, (Ishmaelites), so why not punish Moses? Adam and Eve were not slaughtered, but died naturally. This is not consistant!

God creates man perfect and what does man do? He
disobeys God.

A perfect man cannot disobey something. If it could it wouldnít be perfect in the first place.

Where the Ishmaelite's sinful and evil people? Yes
they where.

Where the Jews sinful and evil people? Yes they where.

It is clear that abortion causes the women mental
suffering.

We are talking about DEATH!

Is it morally right to cause suffering to yourself?

No! Do you care to disagree?

Does using the stem cells from the embryo cause the
end of that potential life becoming a human?

Yes, as does scratching your nose. Should potential life have a higher value than an existing one?

Its not a fair comparison comparing an embryo and a
Parkinsonís sufferer.

It is fair! Why would you think it wasnít.

If you claim the embryo has no nervous system then
of course it is going to suffer less than the Parkinsonís suffer. But that
doesn't mean that it is right to end the life of the embryo.

Does it mean itís right to prolong the Parkinsonís patients suffering?

Every human that has sin in their life deserves to
die. Even you and me.

Speak for yourself.

It is God who creates life.

Without man and woman getting it on, he canít!

I would say the age of understanding is when a
person knows right from wrong.

What does the word of God have to say on this? I donít want your opinion, I want an answer!

I would test what he
says against what the Bible says. If he says he is a Bible believing Christian
then it would be easy to spot wrong teaching if what he teaches goes against
what the Bible says. The Bible is clear on murder;

Quote:EXODUS 20:13 Thou
shalt not kill.

Unless your Moses!
You see, sometimes it ok to murder!

Well
the Romans wanted a peaceful occupation of the Holy Lands during Jesus' time.
Therefore showing the world the tomb would have quashed the rise of
Christianity. That in turn would have saved them having to persecute and kill
so many Christians. Some of the Roman Emperors where treated like Gods and
demanded worship like Gods. Christianity went against that.

As did Judisim!

First I would pray to God for help. And then I would
try and reason with the bomber. I would try and convince him that there is more
to life than killing the lives of innocent people who probably have done
nothing wrong to him. Torture would be a last resort.

Would you torture him?

You say you do not wish suffering on any innocent
person. What about an unborn baby?

An unborn baby is not a person!

If somebody was in a coma, would they feel any pain
if their life support was switched off?

Maybe not. Are they brain dead?

Real research? I found that article that details
research showing that women who have an abortion suffer more long term mental
problems than women who miscarriage. That is real research.

Very Good. But Iím talking about biblical and scientific!
When you actually read your non-biblical sources for Jesus, you realised you were wrong. Now go and do that with every reference you copy from Christian sites.

Do you think it is fair that man sins against God?

Stupid question. I donít believe God exists. Man does not sin.

Do you think it is fair to give infinite punishment for finite sins?

How many of those prisoners where Christians before
they committed the crimes that got them put in jail?

A vast majority, considering that the vast majority of the American population are Christians.

What about The Mosque of the Prophet?

Apologies I was wrong there. I was thinking of the tomb of Jesus in Kashmir, where the religious leaders will not let any digs to find a body.

Ah. The swoon theory. If Jesus had only passed out,
he would have been in no condition to push away the heavy stone in front of the
tomb and in His weak post crucified state He wouldn't have inspired anybody. He
would have been weak and only just alive.

What about his 11 buddies?

What is written in the Bible is no lie. What was
written in the New Testament got 11 disciples martyred.

What is written in the Qurían is no lie. What was written in the Qurían and Hadith got 19 followers martyred.

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:56 pm

Why do people self harm? It is a psychological illness. All illnesses should be treated.

So what if a women had an abortion and then developed mental problems and then suffered from depression? Which would cause less suffering after 5 years; having the child and giving it up for adoption or having an abortion?

Then on what grounds do you declare the child the Ďwinnerí?

Are human rights not meant to protect the voiceless in society? The unborn baby doesn't have a voice to defend itself when its inside a women. In cases of euthanasia a patient is meant to give agreement to themselves being killed before they are killed. How does an unborn baby give agreement to themselves being killed in abortion?

Fair enough, but why does God kill some sinners yet let others die naturally?

That is up to God. My question is; Why do people blame God when bad things happen and then forget to thank God when the good times are in town and they are being blessed?

Moses was a murderer, why was he then made a leader?

God had plans for his life.

But you said above, that God punishes some with death, even Genocide, (Ishmaelites), so why not punish Moses? Adam and Eve were not slaughtered, but died naturally. This is not consistant!

God can forgive people. He forgave the people in Nineveh. Sometimes God lets somebody live because of the sake of somebody else. For example King Solomon sinned against God in the last years of his life, but God didn't let the kingdom be torn apart during Solomon's lifetime for the sake of Solomon's father King David.

1KINGS 11
1 But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.
3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.
4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
6 And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.
7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.
9 And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice,
10 And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded.
11 Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant.
12 Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it for David thy father's sake: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son.
13 Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe to thy son for David my servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake which I have chosen.

Where the Jews sinful and evil people? Yes they where.

Yes I agree they where sinful and evil people. The Bible never hides this fact. The Jews where exiled because they where sinful and evil and went against God. Thats right, they turned their backs on the God who rescued them out of slavery in Egypt.
2KINGS 17
7 For so it was, that the children of Israel had sinned against the LORD their God, which had brought them up out of the land of Egypt, from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and had feared other gods,
8 And walked in the statutes of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel, and of the kings of Israel, which they had made.
9 And the children of Israel did secretly those things that were not right against the LORD their God, and they built them high places in all their cities, from the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city.
10 And they set them up images and groves in every high hill, and under every green tree:
11 And there they burnt incense in all the high places, as did the heathen whom the LORD carried away before them; and wrought wicked things to provoke the LORD to anger:
12 For they served idols, whereof the LORD had said unto them, Ye shall not do this thing.
13 Yet the LORD testified against Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the seers, saying, Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep my commandments and my statutes, according to all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets.
14 Notwithstanding they would not hear, but hardened their necks, like to the neck of their fathers, that did not believe in the LORD their God.
15 And they rejected his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their fathers, and his testimonies which he testified against them; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that were round about them, concerning whom the LORD had charged them, that they should not do like them.
16 And they left all the commandments of the LORD their God, and made them molten images, even two calves, and made a grove, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served Baal.
17 And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
18 Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight: there was none left but the tribe of Judah only.
19 Also Judah kept not the commandments of the LORD their God, but walked in the statutes of Israel which they made.
20 And the LORD rejected all the seed of Israel, and afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of spoilers, until he had cast them out of his sight.
21 For he rent Israel from the house of David; and they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king: and Jeroboam drave Israel from following the LORD, and made them sin a great sin.
22 For the children of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did; they departed not from them;
23 Until the LORD removed Israel out of his sight, as he had said by all his servants the prophets. So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day.
Seems like the Jews where being very ungrateful towards God.

Quote: Is it morally right to cause suffering to yourself?

No! Do you care to disagree?
Yes I agree its wrong to cause suffering to yourself. But we know that abortion causes a women mental suffering. And if there is a chance of death, then the women should not be trying to have kids.

Does it mean itís right to prolong the Parkinsonís patients suffering?

There are ways to make life more bearable for a Parkinsonís patients suffering without killing an unborn baby to get stem cells. What if stem cells where used on the Parkinsonís patient and the patient's body rejected them? You wouldn't have cured the Parkinsonís plus you would have ended the life of an unborn baby. Everybody loses in this case.
What does the word of God have to say on this? I donít want your opinion, I want an answer!
The Bible passage I already mentioned (about King David's son) deals with this issue. The Bible in general does not deal that much with this issue; its not as clear as the issues of murdering or stealing for example. I mentioned the age of understanding issue to highlight the fact that Christianity doesn't straight away say that baby's who die go to hell.

Unless your Moses!
You see, sometimes it ok to murder!

The Bible never says that what Moses did was Ok. But God forgave him.

Would you torture him?

I'm not sure what I would do. If I really feared for my life I'm not sure I would think rationally. I might become desperate.

Stupid question. I donít believe God exists. Man does not sin.
So why do you argue so much against God? Where does evil come from? If you don't believe in God then you can't blame the existence of evil on God. By saying God created evil, you must therefore believe in God. I couldn't blame yellow patches on a grass lawn on fairies because I don't believe fairies exist. I would have to believe they existed before I could even begin to blame them. If you believe in God then you can't deny the existence of sin. How can you say man does not sin?
Do you think it is fair to give infinite punishment for finite sins?
Can you ask this question if you don't believe in the existence of God or sin? Could you judge the morality of a murder before you have decided whether you believe the murder actually took place?

Sin is an offence against an infinite God. The punishment fits the crime.

I was thinking of the tomb of Jesus in Kashmir, where the religious leaders will not let any digs to find a body.

Well if they did dig in Kashmir they wouldn't find Jesus' body because Jesus never lived in Kashmir. In fact the Romans never even got as far as India. Here is a map of the areas that where part of the Roman Empire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Roman_Empire_Territories.png
The Roman Empire did not include Pakistan or India. And if the body was dug up and there where marks of crucifixion on the body you would have to conclude that the Romans weren't the only people who knew how to perform crucifixions. If Jesus had visited India at anytime during His lifetime it would have been a very important issue and would have been mentioned in the Bible. But in the Bible there is no mention of a visit to India by Jesus. There was a mention in the Gospels when Jesus talked to the Samaritan women. Now if the Gospel writers are prepared to include that then surely they should have included the details of Jesus' visit to India if He went there. Clearly Jesus never went to India, otherwise the Bible would mention it.
What about his 11 buddies?
Well if Jesus was still dead and in the tomb, the disciples would have eventually given up on the whole God and Jesus thing and returned to their lives before they met Jesus; fishermen etc. A dead Jesus would have left the disciples with nothing worth dieing for and no promised Holy Spirit. For Jesus, His teachings and His followers, it would have been all over. Thats why the fact that Jesus IS alive, is so important. It is the cornerstone to the whole of Christianity. If Jesus is still dead then there is no way for people to be saved from their problem of sin.

What is written in the Qurían is no lie.
So you believe what the Qur'an has to say?

What was written in the Qurían and Hadith got 19 followers martyred.
A martyr is: 'One who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty for refusing to renounce their religion.'

The September 11 attackers where not being persecuted when they crashed the planes into the Twin Towers. It was their choice. They weren't being asked to renounce their religion.

If the disciples of Jesus and writers of the Bible wanted to lie when writing the Bible to increase the chances of their religion spreading, then why are there difficult and sometimes hard to believe bits in the Bible? Surely leaving out verses and passages about slavery, rape and women would have made the Bible more believable and easier to accept. Also I would say that making sure that all 4 Gospels 100% agreed on everything would increase the chances of Christianity spreading. If the New Testament is full of lies, why would the writers of the New Testament have included those lies if the inclusion of them was going to increase the likelihood that they would die for their faith in Jesus? William, would you lie about events that took place if you knew your lying would increase the chances of you being killed? The writers of the New Testament had to be writing about what actually took place.

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:28 am

So what if a women had an abortion
and then developed mental problems and then suffered from depression? Which
would cause less suffering after 5 years; having the child and giving it up for
adoption or having an abortion?

Dave, the analogy I/we were discussing, was if the mother would die during birth.

Are human rights not meant to
protect the voiceless in society? The unborn baby doesn't have a voice to
defend itself when its inside a women.

The unborn baby is not in society!

In cases of euthanasia a patient is
meant to give agreement to themselves being killed before they are killed. How
does an unborn baby give agreement to themselves being killed in abortion?

Even if an unborn baby could decide if it wanted to die, you still wouldnít let it because it goes against your religion. Do not say that because the baby cannot choose, then it should be respected, when the people who can choose YOU do not respect.

That is up to God.

Then we no longer have free will.

Why do people blame God when bad
things happen and then forget to thank God when the good times are in town and
they are being blessed?

Only Christians do that.

God had plans for his life.

According to you, murder is always wrong! Do you still stand by this?

God can forgive people. He forgave
the people in Nineveh. Sometimes God lets somebody live because of the sake of
somebody else. For example King Solomon sinned against God in the last years of
his life, but God didn't let the kingdom be torn apart during Solomon's
lifetime for the sake of Solomon's father King David.

You make a baseless assumption. The Kingdom of David was not large, nowhere near as big as the bible portrays it.

Yes I agree they where sinful and
evil people. The Bible never hides this fact. The Jews where exiled because
they where sinful and evil and went against God. Thats right, they turned their
backs on the God who rescued them out of slavery in Egypt.

I was talking about BEFORE they were exiled. When they did ĎGodís Workí were they evil?

Yes I agree its wrong to cause
suffering to yourself. But we know that abortion causes a women mental
suffering. And if there is a chance of death, then the women should not be
trying to have kids.

Not every child is conceived by choice.

There are ways to make life more
bearable for a Parkinsonís patients suffering without killing an unborn baby to
get stem cells. What if stem cells where used on the Parkinsonís patient and
the patient's body rejected them?

The point of using stem cells is that they NEVER get rejected! That is why they are so important.

You wouldn't have cured the
Parkinsonís plus you would have ended the life of an unborn baby. Everybody
loses in this case.

Your ignorance is clear to see.

The Bible in general does not deal
that much with this issue; its not as clear as the issues of murdering or
stealing for example.

WAIT A MINUTE! The PERFECT word of GOD is not clear? It is no longer perfect!

mentioned the age of understanding
issue to highlight the fact that Christianity doesn't straight away say that
baby's who die go to hell.

You didnít answer my question! What age does this change?

The Bible never says that what
Moses did was Ok. But God forgave him.

Why didnít he forgive the Amalicites or Ishmaelites?

I'm not sure what I would do. If I
really feared for my life I'm not sure I would think rationally. I might become
desperate.

Your life is not in danger, its the thousands of others that are. What would you do?

So why do you argue so much against
God?

Because people like you are destroying the world, politically, intellectually and geopolitically.

Where does evil come from?

According to the bible, God! Isaiah 45:7

Evil is not an entity that exists, just the same as right does not exist. In the 250,000 years or so that homo sapiens have been on this planet, at what point was right and wrong established? It is impossible, because there is no definite Right or Wrong. To torture a man who has planted a nuclear bomb that will kill millions is seen as right, yet torturing a man for pleasure is seen as wrong.

Can you ask this question if you
don't believe in the existence of God or sin?

You are the one who claims that god loves me and is just, so why shouldnít I ask this question? You obviously donít have the knowledge to answer it.

Could you judge the morality of a
murder before you have decided whether you believe the murder actually took
place?

I suppose you could. If I said to you that Saddam Hussein had been murdered, would you see that as being Immoral?

Sin is an offence against an
infinite God. The punishment fits the crime.

God really likes his S&M!

Well if they did dig in Kashmir
they wouldn't find Jesus' body because Jesus never lived in Kashmir. In fact
the Romans never even got as far as India.

Who is talking about the Romans? I said that, because of a religion, we cannot dig at a sacred place. So we cannot conclusively rule out that Jesus was buried there. I donít think the body of a Jew is there, but at the same time I know a Jew didnít raise from the dead. Check out Ockhamís Razor!

Clearly Jesus never went to India,
otherwise the Bible would mention it.

According Hinduisim (I think) the disciples didnít go with him. The bible says the disciples stayed around the med, so if Jesus did go, they wouldnít have known what he was doing.

http://www.psychics.co.uk/yoga/did_jesus_go_to_india.html

Read the footnotes especially.

Well if Jesus was still dead and in
the tomb, the disciples would have eventually given up on the whole God and
Jesus thing and returned to their lives before they met Jesus; fishermen etc.

Baseless assumption. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deception

This article is something most, if not all, believers are guilty of. Especially you.

Thats why the fact that Jesus IS
alive

Then he didnít die for your sins!

So you believe what the Qur'an has
to say?

Do you think I would be having this debate if I did? The reasons for the Qurían and Bible, being the perfect word of the creator of the universe are the same. The bible is infallible, because it says so, and the Qurían is infallible because it says so.

A martyr is: 'One who voluntarily
suffers death as the penalty for refusing to renounce their religion.'

I think we are dealing with semantics here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr

Read the first paragraph especially.


A martyr is a person who is put to death or endures suffering because of a
belief, principle or cause. The death of a martyr or the value attributed to it
is called martyrdom. In different belief systems, the criteria for being
considered a martyr is different. ...

If the disciples of Jesus and writers of the Bible wanted to lie
when writing the Bible to increase the chances of their religion spreading,
then why are there difficult and sometimes hard to believe bits in the Bible?

May I ask you what parts of the bible you find unbelievable and hard?

William, would you lie about events
that took place if you knew your lying would increase the chances of you being
killed?

I wouldnít lie at all!

But I see what you are trying to do. Dave, at the time of the writing of the Gospels, you would have been killed for going against the authorities, regardless of what cult you were in. An atheist who rebelled against the Romans would have suffered the same fate as a Jew, Christian and Zoroastrian who did the same.

The writers of the New Testament
had to be writing about what actually took place.

So I guess you believe the dead of Jerusalem got out of their graves and walked the streets. Yet only one person chose to record this event?

I think we need to move on from the Ďmoralityí section, you are going in circles. But before we end could you answer me this with a YES or NO. Do you agree with the following statement?

Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone. Ė John 8

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:25 pm

Dave, the analogy I/we were discussing, was if the mother would die during birth.

How many incidents of abortion do you know of that where undertaken because the mother was going
to die if she gave birth to the child and not undertaken because of the inconvenience of having the child?

I did more research into this and found the following article:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
This article shows that the two most common reasons for women having an abortion in America in 2004 where:

unready
can't afford baby now

You can also have a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

In 1998 a study showed that the two most common reasons for abortion where:

# 25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
# 21.3% Cannot afford a baby

These are not reasons that have to do with the potential death of the mother if she gives birth to the child. They are reasons that deal with the inconvenience of having a baby. In the developed world any sensible person should not consider having a baby if they weren't ready or couldn't afford it. As for the developing world families tend to be larger. One of the reasons for this is because there is a higher child mortality rate than developed countries.

If circumstances for a women resulted in the child being unwanted (which would have to be a terrible set of circumstances), I believe giving birth to the child and giving the child up for adoption would be the right thing to do rather than killing it.

There is sanctity to life. It is our moral duty to preserve life.

I also quote from that Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States another interesting fact:
In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.
. So it is clear that in America the vast majority of abortions are not undertaken because the women's health is at risk or that she might even die during giving birth to the child.

The unborn baby is not in society!
The baby still deserves protection.

Even if an unborn baby could decide if it wanted to die, you still wouldnít let it because it goes against your religion. Do not say that because the baby cannot choose, then it should be respected, when the people who can choose YOU do not respect.

Suicide, abortion and euthanasia are the same as murder. If asked for advice by a women in regard to whether she should have an abortion, I would explain to her that I believe it is wrong. As I believe it is wrong I couldnít therefore help her to have an abortion, but I couldnít stop her going ahead and getting an abortion anyhow. Todayís society in Northern Ireland and Britain is becoming increasingly more tolerant. This is a worrying thing, especially in regard to new laws that prevent Churches from turning away gay couples that want to get married. What is more important; peopleís human right to choose for themselves whether an action is right or wrong or the actual morality of whether an action is right or wrong?

Then we no longer have free will.
Like Iíve always said and still do say, humans do have free will. The problem is sin.

Only Christians do that.

What about the tsunami in Asia? Many non Christians where quick to blame that on God. But I wonder how many of those people ever bother to thank God for the food they have to eat every day. In the developed world a lot of people are guilty of being ungrateful for the material things they have. People in the developed world want more and more stuff, yet how often do they bother to take stock of what they currently have and how they have already been blessed. When bad things happen, people often want somebody to blame and that somebody ends up being God.

According to you, murder is always wrong! Do you still stand by this?
Yes I stand by it. I stand by the fact that in the Old Testament a lot of the nations mentioned where evil and sinful. I stand by the fact that even the Jews werenít perfect. I also stand by the fact that when Moses killed the Egyptian, it was wrong. I also stand by the fact that God forgave Moses and I respect God for doing that. God should have punished Moses for his crime of murdering, because thatís what his actions deserved, but God had mercy on Moses.

You make a baseless assumption. The Kingdom of David was not large, nowhere near as big as the bible portrays it.
The size of the Kingdom of David doesnít matter that much. Compared to the rest of the world, Northern Ireland isnít very big either.

I was talking about BEFORE they were exiled. When they did ĎGodís Workí were they evil?
They where no more evil than any other nation on earth at that time. The difference was that they where Godís chosen people; a fact which they took for granted.

The Jews had to have been evil because that was the reason they got exiled. If they had been good and followed God they wouldnít have got exiled.

God chose the Jews to be His people. By doing that He demonstrated a lot of patience to put up with them as long as He did before He let them be exiled. Countless times God sent prophets to warn the Kings of Israel and Judah about the morality of their actions and countless times the people ignored God. If a child ignores its parents, would you expect the child to be punished? Yes you would. Likewise if Godís chosen people ignore Him, then they deserved to be punished and they were when they got exiled.

As for all the nations the Jews killed. Well those nations where sinful and evil and deserved Godís wrath because sin goes against God. God is a Holy God and you canít be in the presence of a Holy God if you are sinful. Thatís why the Jews needed their blood sacrifices to atone for their sins, whilst we now need Jesusí death on the cross before we can approach God. Without Jesus in your life youíre going to be condemned guilty by God because of your sin. And your going to get sent to Hell.

All evil in the world is the result of sin and quite often its manís actions that are to blame for the terrible things that happen in the world and not God. Hitler and the Germans where responsible for the Holocaust and not God.

Not every child is conceived by choice.
Thatís no excuse for the parents not loving the child. Itís not fair on the child as the child never gets to choose his parents or the circumstances under which he was conceived. When you allow abortion you demean the value and sanctity of life. You then only value human life to the highest of standards if itís not an inconvenience. You cannot allow or perform abortions unless you lower the standards by which you value human life. A mother who wants an abortion might as well say ďI donít care much for this baby. I donít want it.Ē

The point of using stem cells is that they NEVER get rejected! That is why they are so important.
You mean there has never been a case where a human body rejected stem cells? What about the problem of immune rejection? What makes stem cells from an embryo better / more effective than adult stem cells? Could we not harvest stem cells from an umbilical cord straight after birth removing the need to kill an unborn baby to get stem cells?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7864.html
I quote from this article:
Hopes for treating disease with stem cells from umbilical cord blood has received a major boost, following the discovery of primitive cells with clinical potential matching that of the far more controversial embryonic stem cells (ESCs). The latter are originally derived from human fetuses, which are then destroyed, and have become a major ethical issue, especially in the US.
Furthermore, the same team is applying new microgravity technology - originally developed by NASA for the International Space Station - to make large enough quantities of the stem cells to repair tissue damage in patients.

You can have a read of this BBC News article as well:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4157362.stm

WAIT A MINUTE! The PERFECT word of GOD is not clear? It is no longer perfect!
The fact that the Bible doesnít cover every issue that ever faced humanity does not make it imperfect.

You didnít answer my question! What age does this change?
Iím not actually 100% sure on the age. You see I believe that if a person knows right from wrong, is aware of their problem of sin and their need of a Savior to solve that sin problem, they have reached the age of understanding. But not all children develop at the same rate. Some will be aware of their need of a Savior before other children. Also Iím still trying to reconcile the issue of mentally handicapped people who canít think for themselves; whether or not they have reached the age of understanding. So I canít give you a precise age by which every human would be at the age of understanding.

Why didnít he forgive the Amalicites or Ishmaelites?
Did they ask for forgiveness? Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where somebody, or nation, truly repents and asks God to forgive them and God refuses to forgive?

Your life is not in danger, its the thousands of others that are. What would you do?
I would very nicely ask the bomber to reconsider his actions.

Because people like you are destroying the world, politically, intellectually and geopolitically.
In what ways do you think Iím destroying the world politically, intellectually and geopolitically?

I would have to agree that religion has been used by people throughout history to mistreat other humans and make them suffer. I believe using religion to cause suffering to anybody else is wrong. The crusades where a terrible thing that involved people misrepresenting the true message of Christianity to further their own cause and that was totally wrong.

You see people are very quick to point out the harm that religion has caused to the world and yet they ignore all the good religion has brought. 3 Christians who had an impact in Britain (and the rest of the world) for good are: William Wilberforce, William Booth and George MŁller:

William Wilberforce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce
William Wilberforce (24 August 1759Ė29 July 1833) was an English politician and philanthropist. A native of Hull, Yorkshire, he began his political career in 1780 and became Member of Parliament for Yorkshire (1784Ė1812), and independent supporter of the Tory party. A close friend of Prime Minister William Pitt, in 1785 he underwent a conversion experience and became an evangelical Christian. In 1787 he came into contact with Thomas Clarkson and a group of anti-slave trade activists, including Granville Sharp, Beilby Porteus and Hannah More and Lord Middleton.
At their suggestion he was persuaded to take on the cause, and became one of the leading English abolitionists, heading the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade, which he saw through to the eventual passage of the Slave Trade Act in 1807.

William Booth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Booth
William Booth (April 10, 1829 Ė August 20, 1912) was a British Methodist preacher who founded The Salvation Army and became the first General (1878-1912). The Christian movement, with a quasi-military structure and government - but with no physical weaponry, founded in 1865 has spread from London, England, to many parts of the world and is known for being one of the largest distributors of humanitarian aid.

George MŁller: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_M%C3%BCller
George MŁller (September 27, 1805 Ė March 10, 1898), a Christian evangelist and coordinator of orphanages in Bristol, England, cared for 10,024 orphans in his life[1]. He was well-known for providing an education to the children under his care, to the point where he was accused of raising the poor above their natural station in life.

You see when true Christianity is involved people do not suffer. True Christianity is about helping people in need, alleviating suffering where possible, loving people, caring for people, telling them about Godís gift of Salvation through Jesus so that they can be saved from eternity in Hell, etc. That was what Jesusí ministry on this earth was all about. And Jesusí death on the cross was so that sinful people like you and me could have our sin problem dealt with if we repent, ask for forgiveness and put our trust in Him. For Jesus to go to the cross, that required love about all else.


Last edited by on Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:46 am; edited 9 times in total

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:25 pm

This is an interesting article taken from The Apologetics Study Bible
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Apologetics-Study-Bible-HCSB-Chuck-Colson/dp/158640024X/ref=sr_1_1/026-9850124-7822807?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193592340&sr=1-1
Has Christianity Had a Bad Influence on History?
by Alvin J. Schmidt

No Christianity hasnít had a bad influence on history, Christian beliefs and practices- that is, those consistent with Christís teachings-have produced countless positive by-products in history. This is true even though evil actions of erring Christians, especially prominent leaders (some probably not even truly Christian), are regularly recorded in history books, leading many to believe that Christianityís influence has been mostly harmful. Commonly cited examples are the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the medieval witch persecutions, the executions of Hus and Savonarola, and the Roman Catholic Churchís silencing of Galileo. These acts were sinful and morally wrong-highly inconsistent with Christís teachings.
Christianity has had numerous positive influences on history. Largely unknown in todayís world, even to countless Christians, it elevated the sanctity of human life. In ancient Rome and other pagan societies, human life was cheap and expendable. The early Christians, motivated by the gospel, opposed abortion, infanticide, child abandonment, suicide, and the gladiatorial contests- all legal and widely practiced in the Roman era,. Fifty years after the legalization of Christianity in A.D.313, the now Christianized Roman emperors outlawed these inhuman acts. Infanticide and child abandonment are still illegal in most Western countries, and while abortion has unfortunately made a comeback in the West, nobody has yet suggested that gladiators be brought back for popular entertainment.
In the fourth century Christianity introduced hospitals to the world. Greeks and Romans had no such institutions of compassion. Christians, moved by Christís words ďI was sick and you looked after meĒ (Mt 25:36), built hospices as early as 325 and hospitals in 369-first in the East and then in the West. The names of numerous hospitals still reflect this Christian origin: St. Johnís Hospital, Lutheran Hospital, Presbyterian Hospital, etc.
Before Christianity appeared, women were practically slaves, having little or no freedom and dignity. Not so in the Christian church! Women were baptized and instructed along with men and took communion along with men. Adultery was no longer defined in terms of a womenís marital status; a married man having sex with a single women now was also guilty of adultery. Christianity permitted a women to reject a male suitor and inherit property. She no longer had to worship her husbandís pagan gods.
Here are other positive effects:
ē Countries where Christianity has had the greatest presence were the first to abolish slavery. By contrast, slavery is still present in many Islamic countries.
ē The principle that no man is above the law originated with St. Ambrose. In 390 he demanded that Emperor Theodosius repent for wantonly killing 7000 people. He told the emperor he wasnít above the law. In 1215 the Magna Carta expanded this Christian concept of liberty and justice.
ē Christian teachings resulted in economic, political, and religious freedom.
ē Universities grew out of the churchís medieval monasteries.
ē Christian theology, not pagan pantheism, motivated early scientists to explore Godís natural world.
ē Christianity inspired the invention of the musical scale and great musical compositions.
Finally, Christianityís influence is present in many of the Westís social institutions and in its nomenclature, literature, and education, shaping much in the daily lives of people-both Christian and non-Christian.


Last edited by on Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:59 pm; edited 2 times in total

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:55 pm

According to the bible, God! Isaiah 45:7
From New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/International-Encyclopedia-Difficulties-Zondervan-Understand/dp/0310241464/ref=sr_11_1/026-9850124-7822807?ie=UTF8&qid=1193695352&sr=11-1

In Isaiah 45:7 we read, ď[I am] the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all theseĒ (NASB). The word rendered by NASB as ďcalamityĒ is the Hebrew raí, which has the basic meaning of ďevilĒ (either moral evil or misfortune evil). Here it points to the painful, harmful consequences that followed the commission of sin. Notice how James goes on to indicate how this process works: ďBut each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth deathĒ (James 1:14-15, NASB).
Evil is not an entity that exists, just the same as right does not exist. In the 250,000 years or so that homo sapiens have been on this planet, at what point was right and wrong established? It is impossible, because there is no definite Right or Wrong. To torture a man who has planted a nuclear bomb that will kill millions is seen as right, yet torturing a man for pleasure is seen as wrong.
Thatís why you need a higher authority as the basis for morality. Then you can know right from wrong regardless of your circumstances.

I suppose you could. If I said to you that Saddam Hussein had been murdered, would you see that as being Immoral?
Another issue; capital punishment. Is it right or wrong? Does a murderer deserve to die for his crimes? Iíve said murder is wrong regardless of the circumstances. Iím not sure about capital punishment. Depends which you think is an adequate punishment; the death penalty or the rest of the personís life spent in jail.

Richard Dawkins thinks Saddam Hussein should have been kept alive for research purposes: http://richarddawkins.net/article,482,n,n
Do you agree or disagree with Dawkins on this?

We don't need to research Saddam Hussein. We all know how to commit evil actions; its in bred into our natures from birth.
PSALMS 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
And only Jesus can solve our problem of sin.

God really likes his S&M!
What do you mean by S&M?

Who is talking about the Romans? I said that, because of a religion, we cannot dig at a sacred place. So we cannot conclusively rule out that Jesus was buried there. I donít think the body of a Jew is there, but at the same time I know a Jew didnít raise from the dead. Check out Ockhamís Razor!
Of course youíre going to say that you donít think Jesus is buried there. If He was buried there then you couldnít deny that Jesus was a real person and did in fact live on this earth. Saying that, I donít believe Jesus is buried there either, because if He is then my claim that Jesus is still alive falls flat on its face. The body needs dug up to end the controversy once and for all. But itís more than likely not the body of Jesus anyhow. I mentioned the Romans because they where the main people who did crucifixions and the Romans never made it as far as India.

So basically there are two ways to look at the resurrection story:

The Romans failed to murder Jesus, the body being released for burial before Jesus is actually dead, Jesus being buried in a tomb, Jesus having the strength to get up, move the heavy stone, escape from the Roman guards, never be caught again in His lifetime by the authorities who should have been out looking for Him since the Romans guards would have alerted the authorities and then Jesus inspiring the disciples to give their life for Him. Remember that Jesus is weak and suffering the effects of the crucifixion. Oh Yeh and the Romans never showing us the tomb with Jesus in it, if Jesus did die and was still buried.

Or
Jesus was crucified. He died and was buried. He rose from the dead on the third day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one,"

Which of those two stories is the simplest? I believe Jesus rose from the dead and is alive. And because He is alive He can deal with my sin problem and yours to.
According Hinduisim (I think) the disciples didnít go with him. The bible says the disciples stayed around the med, so if Jesus did go, they wouldnít have known what he was doing.

What about the apostle Thomas? He went to India. Surely he should have known about any visit to India by Jesus.


Thatís not the only website to mention Jesus in India. Here is another one I found:
http://www.alislam.org/topics/jesus/
I believe Jesus ascended back to Heaven and never went to India.

Quote: Well if Jesus was still dead and in
the tomb, the disciples would have eventually given up on the whole God and
Jesus thing and returned to their lives before they met Jesus; fishermen etc.
Baseless assumption.
When Jesus was arrested the disciples deserted Him.
MARK 14
41 And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: it is enough, the hour is come; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.
42 Rise up, let us go; lo, he that betrayeth me is at hand.
43 And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.
44 And he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead him away safely.
45 And as soon as he was come, he goeth straightway to him, and saith, Master, master; and kissed him.
46 And they laid their hands on him, and took him.
47 And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.
48 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me?
49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled.
50 And they all forsook him, and fled.
And Peter even denied Jesus.
MARK 14
66 And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:
67 And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.
68 But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.
69 And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them.
70 And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto .
71 But he began to curse and to swear, saying , I know not this man of whom ye speak.
72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

So Iím fairly certain that if Jesus had died and was still dead and never rose and wasnít alive, then the disciples would not have had the inspiration or desire to persevere with the Christianity thing and would have eventually gone back to their old lives before they met Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deception
This article is something most, if not all, believers are guilty of. Especially you.
Being a Christian requires faith. To say Christians are self deceived is to ignore oceans of evidence in its favor.

William, you donít know the origins of life. You also donít know if there is a God or not. A person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say from their own knowledge with 100% certainty that there is no God.

Which takes more faith - to believe God created life or, like one of the crackerís of DNA, Francis Crick's view - "Among Crickís writings was ďLife Itself: Its Origin and Nature,Ē a book suggesting that the Earth began when microorganisms were dropped by a spaceship from a higher civilization."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5549247/

Then he didnít die for your sins!
Yes He did. He died and then rose back to life.

May I ask you what parts of the bible you find unbelievable and hard?

I never said unbelievable. I will admit some parts, especially in the Old Testament are harder to accept because of the impact they have on my life. My point was that if the disciples wanted Christianity to spread, any harder bits left out of the Bible would have made it easier to accept.

But I see what you are trying to do. Dave, at the time of the writing of the Gospels, you would have been killed for going against the authorities, regardless of what cult you were in. An atheist who rebelled against the Romans would have suffered the same fate as a Jew, Christian and Zoroastrian who did the same.
How do you answer the fact that Pilate, even though he knew that Jesus was not guilty, condemned Jesus to death. And why did Pilate have Jesus killed? Because he was afraid there would be a riot.

Another thing. Why did Emperor Nero place blame for the fire in Rome on the Christians? Nero could have blamed the fire on anybody. Why the Christians?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Nero#Great_Fire_of_Rome
] Tacitus described the event:
ď Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
So I guess you believe the dead of Jerusalem got out of their graves and walked the streets. Yet only one person chose to record this event?
Yep I believe the dead of Jerusalem got out of their graves. If 500 people had written about the event, would that change your mind on whether it actually happened or not?

Answer this question: Are you choosing not to believe what the Bible has to say because you actually donít want to believe it or are you choosing not to believe it because you think it doesnít offer enough evidence to warrant belief?

Quote: Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone. Ė John 8
That was a statement that Jesus made in regard to people who were looking for Jesus to condemn a prostitute. Jesus was making the point that none of the accusers where sinless; they all had sin in their life. I can see you want me to say yes to agreeing to that verse because that means I canít point out what is wrong in other peopleís lives. Yes I agree with it; Iím as much in need of a Saviour to save me from my sin problem as anybody else. My aim is to point people to Jesus.

William, you will be held accountable by God for your sin. Sin is a reality which you cannot deny. Iím letting you know that Jesus can save you from your sin problem and can save you from eternal damnation in hell. If you donít want to accept Jesusí gift of salvation, then thatís your choice. Likewise, if you want to pick holes in every belief system, religion and philosophy that you know of, then thatís your choice. And let me remind you that science does not have all the answers. If it did then it would be a closed book with nothing more for humanity to discover.

This is an interesting article (entitled 'Science cannot provide all the answers'):
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,,1035025,00.html

The article deals with the way scientific explanations about the origins of life tend to leave God out of the picture. The article also asks the question: Why do so many scientists believe in God? I quote from the article:

The subject - the place of humans in the universe - is a challenge. To the scientific way of thinking, humans no more have a "place" in the scheme of things than hamsters or harp seals. The universe itself may be an incomprehensible event, and life a so far unexplained one, but scientists see no ladder of creation with humans at the pinnacle. They can see no "purpose" in being. We are here because we are here, a lucky accident - lucky for us - but there was nothing inevitable about the evolution of humanity, or its survival. God is not part of the explanation.
Stannard has fewer doubts. "I would say that God does take a personal interest in us. If you were allowed one word to describe God by, that word would be love. That does not come from evolution by natural selection, it seems to come from somewhere else, and the whole idea of morals does not naturally arise out of evolution. Biologists will talk about altruism, but they are using it in a very technical sense, which is not the religious idea of altruism. It is more a case of you scratch my back and I will scratch yours."
What about the eternal destiny of humans? Can science give us an answer to that? Can we know, merely through science, what happens after we die and whether we end up in Heaven or hell? Can science provide a solution to the sin in humans?

In the above article, in response to the question posed to Russell Stannard; Does it worry him that science - his science - could be about to explain the whole story of space, time matter and energy without any need for a Creator?, Stannard said: "No, because a starting point you can have is: why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there a world? Now I cannot see how science could ever provide an answer,".

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:04 pm

If science could provide all the answers, then why would any scientist believe in God? Another article that deals with this issue:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1361840.ece

I quote:
So why are things not as simple as Dawkins wants us to believe? The beginnings of an answer are to be found in a wise book written back in 1987 by Sir Peter Medawar, who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine for his work on immunobi-ology. In The Limits of Science, Medawar reflected on how science, despite being ďthe most successful enterprise human beings have ever engaged uponĒ, had limits to its scope. Science is superb when it comes to showing that the chemical formula for water is H2O. Or, more significantly, that DNA has a double helix.

But what of that greater question: whatís life all about? This, and others like it, Medawar insisted, were ďquestions that science cannot answer, and that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answerĒ. They could not be dismissed as ďnonquestions or pseudoquestions such as only simpletons ask and only charlatans profess to be able to answerĒ. This is not to criticise science, but simply to calibrate its capacities.
It is clear that science cannot provide all the answers.

Please give me an honest answer to these question(s):
What is your ultimate purpose in life? What do you seek after more than anything else that gives your life meaning? Do you believe Heaven and hell exist? If you believe when you die, thatís it, then what are you aiming for in your life? That would mean youíre striving towards nothing. Do you realize that if you believe Heaven and Hell exist and that youíre accountable to God that can change your life priorities and give your life ultimate meaning and purpose?
ďHe is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.Ē
- Jim Elliot
Do you think I would be having this debate if I did? The reasons for the Qurían and Bible, being the perfect word of the creator of the universe are the same. The bible is infallible, because it says so, and the Qurían is infallible because it says so.
An interesting article: http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=258
I quote:
Christ Is Superior to Muhammad. Muhammad, the founder of Islam agreed with Jesus and Moses that God is one, that he created the universe, and that he is beyond the universe. There is considerable agreement over the events of the first sixteen chapters of Genesis, to the point where Hagar was cast out from Abramís house. After this, the Bible focuses on Isaac while Islam is concerned with what happened to their forefather, Ishmael. The teaching of Muhammad may be summarized in the five doctrines:
1. Allah is the one true God.
2. Allah has sent many prophets, including Moses and Jesus, but Muhammad is the last and greatest.
3. The Qurían is the supreme religious book, taking priority over the Law, the Psalms, and the Injil (Gospels) of Jesus.
4. There are many intermediate beings between God and us (angels), some of whom are good and some evil.
5. Each manís deeds will be weighed to determine who will go to heaven and hell at the resurrection. The way to gain salvation includes reciting the Shahadah several times a day ('There is no God but Allah; and Muhammad is his prophet.'), praying five times a day, fasting a month each year, almsgiving, and making pilgrimages to Mecca.
Christ offers a superior message. Jesus made superior claims to those made by Muhammad. Jesus claimed to be God. Muhammad claimed only to be a mere man who was a prophet. If Jesus, then, is not God, he is certainly no prophet. Jesus offered a superior confirmation for his claims. Jesus performed numerous miracles. Muhammad performed no miracles and admitted in the Qurían that Jesus did many. Only Jesus died and rose from the dead.
Christ offers a better way of salvation. Unlike the God of Islam, the God of the Bible reached out to us by sending his Son to earth to die for our sins. Muhammad offered no sure hope for salvation, only guidelines for working oneself into Allahís favor. Christ provided all that is needed to get us to heaven in his death, 'For Christ also died once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that he might bring us to God' ( 1 Peter 3:18 ).
Christ offers a superior model life. Muhammad spent the last ten years of his life at war. As a polygamist he exceeding even the number of wives (four) he had prescribed for his religion. He also violated his own law by plundering caravans coming to Mecca, some of whom were on pilgrimage. He engaged in retaliation and revenge, contrary to his own teaching.
From Every Day With Jesus 2nd November 2007:
A certain missionary tells how, when he began his ministry in Asia, everything of the gospel he presented to the people was met by the bland response, ďWhat you say is good, but we have something similar in our sacred books.Ē When he talked about Jesus Christís teachings, and highlighted biblical instruction on turning the other cheek or going the second mile, people would react by saying something like this: ďOur sacred books tell us we are to be like sandalwood, which, when smitten by an axe, pours its perfume upon the very axe that smites it.Ē When he talked about the sufferings of Christ on the cross they told him about the Hindu god Shiva (one of the chief Hindu gods) who Ďdrank poison that we might ambrosia taste.í The missionary said to himself, ďHow can I show these people the uniqueness of the Christian faith?Ē Then it dawned on him that one of the greatest differences between the Christian faith and other religions lies in the fact that God became a baby. When he talked about the incarnation he noticed that peopleís interest was aroused. Those who became Christians told him later, ďOur religion contains many words, but we have nothing to equal a Word became flesh.Ē

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:50 am

1st Post

How many incidents of abortion do
you know of that where undertaken because the mother was going to die if she
gave birth to the child and not undertaken because of the inconvenience of having
the child?

Quite a few, actually.

I did more research into this and
found the following article:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

This article shows that the two most common reasons for women having an
abortion in America in 2004 where:



unready

can't afford baby now



You can also have a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States



In 1998 a study showed that the two most common reasons for abortion where:



# 25.5% Want to postpone childbearing

# 21.3% Cannot afford a baby

I donít dispute this. What I am saying, is that although you may say it is wrong for those reasons, it is not ALWAYS wrong and it depends on circumstances.

If circumstances for a women
resulted in the child being unwanted (which would have to be a terrible set of
circumstances), I believe giving birth to the child and giving the child up for
adoption would be the right thing to do rather than killing it.

I agree! But I would not force a victim of rape, to carry an unwanted child, just so it can be adopted after birth. Although, I would prefer the adoption route. Tell me this, would you adopt a child, simply because the mother didn't want it?

Suicide, abortion and euthanasia
are the same as murder.

How can you keep going on about free will etc, yet not allow people to act on it? You contradict yourself. Either we have free will to do those things or we donít, which is it?

The problem is sin.

Euthanasia and suicide are not caused by sin!

I also stand by the fact that God
forgave Moses and I respect God for doing that.

Can you show me the verse where God forgives Moses? And is it true that God ĎMurderedí people, is murder, even when carried out by God, wrong?

The size of the Kingdom of David
doesnít matter that much. Compared to the rest of the world, Northern Ireland
isnít very big either.

Well, it does. The bible claims that David had a great kingdom, but in reality, it was actually very small.

They where no more evil than any
other nation on earth at that time. The difference was that they where Godís
chosen people; a fact which they took for granted.

If the population of the Earth were the descendants to two people, Adam and Eve, then all of the people are Godís people.

Well those nations where sinful and
evil and deserved Godís wrath because sin goes against God.

Even the children? God kills babies, yet why do you insist it is wrong to do so?

Thatís no excuse for the parents
not loving the child. Itís not fair on the child as the child never gets to
choose his parents or the circumstances under which he was conceived.

True, but illnesses sometimes play a factor in the lack of a relationship between a mother and child.

When you allow abortion you demean
the value and sanctity of life.

What about when God killed thousands of children?

You mean there has never been a
case where a human body rejected stem cells? What about the problem of immune
rejection? What makes stem cells from an embryo better / more effective than
adult stem cells?

No stems cells cannot be rejected, because they are specifically grown for the patient. And yes stem cells can be taken from other places, but they are not, as far as I am aware, as useful as embryonic stem cells.

The fact that the Bible doesnít
cover every issue that ever faced humanity does not make it imperfect.

True. But if it tells us that young babies go to heaven, yet does not tell us when they lose their free pass, then it DOES become imperfect.

Did they ask for forgiveness? Can
you show me anywhere in the Bible where somebody, or nation, truly repents and
asks God to forgive them and God refuses to forgive?

How can a child ask forgiveness for the sins of itís parents?

I would very nicely ask the bomber
to reconsider his actions.

Then you are directly responsible for the death of thousands of innocent people. Well done!

In what ways do you think Iím
destroying the world politically, intellectually and geopolitically?

Politically: You, and people of your ilk, are trying to pass laws that would make democratic nations into theocratic ones.

Intellectually: By trying to force schools to TEACH creationism and even the pseudo-science of ID, you are retarding the education systems of the world.

Geopolitically: The conflict in the middle-east is over land that was promised to a people, by an invisible, Supreme Being, in his role as an omniscient real-estate agent.

You see people are very quick to
point out the harm that religion has caused to the world and yet they ignore
all the good religion has brought. 3 Christians who had an impact in Britain
(and the rest of the world) for good are: William Wilberforce, William Booth
and George MŁller:

Dave, I do not dispute the good people have faith have done. However, it does not prove what they believe is true. The good in the world is carried out by all. That was the point of the challenge. You do not need a belief in God or a God to be good. And by the way, who was William Wilberforce against in his fight against slavery? The church. He was on the losing side of the theological argument. You point him out as a pious man who freed the slaves, yet you do not mention the thousands of pious men who OWNED slaves.

You see when true Christianity is
involved people do not suffer.

Can you provide an example of TRUE Christianity? (Do not quote the bible, as it is historically inaccurate.)

2nd Post

This is an interesting article
taken from The Apologetics Study Bible

Dave, do not provide a link, and then proceed to copy the text of the link. Donít worry, I read your links.

3rd Post

Thatís why you need a higher
authority as the basis for morality. Then you can know right from wrong
regardless of your circumstances.

Society form the dawn of man, have survived without a higher authority. Is there anything you cannot do with God on your side?

Iím not sure about capital
punishment. Depends which you think is an adequate punishment; the death
penalty or the rest of the personís life spent in jail.

Perhaps you should answer your own question, before making a statement along the lines of murder is ALWAYS wrong! Could you elaborate on your views of capital punishment?

Do you agree or disagree with
Dawkins on this?



We don't need to research Saddam Hussein. We all know how to commit evil
actions; its in bred into our natures from birth.

No, we donít NEED to research him, but it may be useful. I however, disagree with Dawkins. I was glad to see that man have his neck elongated.

And only Jesus can solve our
problem of sin.

Prove it!

What do you mean by S&M?

Look it up!

Of course youíre going to say that
you donít think Jesus is buried there. If He was buried there then you couldnít
deny that Jesus was a real person and did in fact live on this earth.

That is not the reason why I donít think he is buried there, it is because there is little to no evidence for his existence at all.

So basically there are two ways to
look at the resurrection story:

Your wrong here. Lets examine it further using Ockhams Razor:

1. A man died, and after 3 days rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. And only four men in history thought it prudent to record this event. One of which also saw many other deceased people rise from the grave.

2. A man died, and his comrades stole his body, in order to create a cult.

3. A story was told, and passed on for generations, until it was accepted as fact.

As we go through this short list, we see that as we progress, the events listed become more likely. What do you think is more likely:

1. The laws of biology were suspended, so that a child could be born of a virgin. Or...

2. A young Jewish girl lied?

What about the apostle Thomas? He
went to India. Surely he should have known about any visit to India by Jesus.

You do not accept the Gospel of Thomas as ĎGospelí so even if he did mention it, you would not believe it. Am I right?

I believe Jesus ascended back to
Heaven and never went to India.

Can you prove it?

Being a Christian requires faith.
To say Christians are self deceived is to ignore oceans of evidence in its
favor.

If there is evidence, then you no longer require faith!

Faith: Belief without Evidence www.innvista.com/culture/religion/diction.htm

Faith: Loosely, holding something as true without proof that it is. Many people would extend this definition to include not only "belief without evidence" but also "belief despite evidence to the contrary." Proof, in this context, must be understood as objective, scientific evidence/proof. ... www.jashan.net/sites/satanism/dict-common.php

William, you donít know the origins
of life. You also donít know if there is a God or not. A person would have to
be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say from their own knowledge with
100% certainty that there is no God.

True. But neither do you!

Which takes more faith - to believe
God created life or, like one of the crackerís of DNA, Francis Crick's view -
"Among Crickís writings was ďLife Itself: Its Origin and Nature,Ē a book
suggesting that the Earth began when microorganisms were dropped by a spaceship
from a higher civilization."

Is there a point to that question?

Yes He did. He died and then rose
back to life.

Prove it!

I will admit some parts, especially
in the Old Testament are harder to accept because of the impact they have on my
life.

Which parts?

How do you answer the fact that
Pilate, even though he knew that Jesus was not guilty, condemned Jesus to
death. And why did Pilate have Jesus killed? Because he was afraid there would
be a riot.

Another thing. Why did Emperor Nero place blame for the fire in Rome on the
Christians? Nero could have blamed the fire on anybody. Why the Christians?

Politics! Itís a bitch isnít it!

Yep I believe the dead of Jerusalem
got out of their graves. If 500 people had written about the event, would that
change your mind on whether it actually happened or not?

It would make it a slightly more reliable account. Ever since that Easter day in the middle-east, has anyone else rose form the dead?

Are you choosing not to believe
what the Bible has to say because you actually donít want to believe it or are
you choosing not to believe it because you think it doesnít offer enough
evidence to warrant belief?

Enough evidence? It doesnít have any!

Yes I agree with it

Then who are you to judge what is right and what is wrong?

William, you will be held
accountable by God for your sin.

Prove it!

Sin is a reality which you cannot
deny.

Prove it!

And let me remind you that science
does not have all the answers.

How moronic of you to assume that I need reminding of this fact!

What about the eternal destiny of
humans? Can science give us an answer to that?

Can you prove it exists? How can science answer a question regarding something that does not exist? And lets not forget, science does not go off in a tangent and venture in places it does not belong, i.e. the supernatural.

"No, because a starting point
you can have is: why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there a
world? Now I cannot see how science could ever provide an answer,"

Science may never answer all of the questions posed, but that does not mean that religion can.

4th Post

If science could provide all the
answers, then why would any scientist believe in God? Another article that
deals with this issue:

When did I, or any scientist say that science answers everything? I want a reference!

What is your ultimate purpose in
life? What do you seek after more than anything else that gives your life
meaning? Do you believe Heaven and hell exist? If you believe when you die,
thatís it, then what are you aiming for in your life? That would mean youíre
striving towards nothing. Do you realize that if you believe Heaven and Hell
exist and that youíre accountable to God that can change your life priorities
and give your life ultimate meaning and purpose?

Why are you making an assumption based on nothing? I havenít answered the questions yet, and already you have made a conclusion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a break down of the questions I asked (and want answers to):

Tell me this, would you adopt a child, simply because the mother didn't want it?
How can you keep going on about free will etc, yet not allow people to act on it? You contradict yourself. Either we have free will to do those things or we donít, which is it?
Can you show me the verse where God forgives Moses? And is it true that God ĎMurderedí people, is murder, even when carried out by God, wrong?
Even the children? God kills babies, yet why do you insist it is wrong to do so?
What about when God killed thousands of children?
How can a child ask forgiveness for the sins of itís parents?
Can you provide an example of TRUE Christianity?
Is there anything you cannot do with God on your side?
Could you elaborate on your views of capital punishment?
Prove It!
Am I right?
Can you prove it?
Prove it!
Which parts?
Ever since that Easter day in the middle-east, has anyone else rose form the dead?
Then who are you to judge what is right and what is wrong?
Prove it!
Prove it!
Can you prove it exists? How can science answer a question regarding something that does not exist?
When did I, or any scientist say that science answers everything? I want a reference!
Why are you making an assumption based on nothing?

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:58 pm

Quite a few, actually.
Can you show me those examples?

I donít dispute this. What I am saying, is that although you may say it is wrong for those reasons, it is not ALWAYS wrong and it depends on circumstances.
Abortion is always wrong. Iíve already shown that research shows that women tend to have mental problems long term when they have an abortion. You canít complain about babies dying in the Old Testament and then turn a blind eye to the millions of unborn babies that die every year because of abortion. Your not being consistent. Are you going to tell me there has never been an abortion anywhere in the world that was performed after the nervous system of the unborn child had developed?

What about the pregnant women that died in the September 11th attacks and the Omagh bombing? Did those unborn babies deserve to live or die?

I agree! But I would not force a victim of rape, to carry an unwanted child, just so it can be adopted after birth. Although, I would prefer the adoption route. Tell me this, would you adopt a child, simply because the mother didn't want it?
Yes I would. But only if the mother really didnít want the baby. And if the mother was considering giving the child up for adoption because she couldnít afford to raise the child, then I would consider giving financial support before considering adopting the child and taking it away from the mother.

How can you keep going on about free will etc, yet not allow people to act on it? You contradict yourself. Either we have free will to do those things or we donít, which is it?
Your forgetting about sin. There are consequences to our actions when we sin. God cannot ignore humanityís sin.

William do you want to be able to sin and not be held accountable to God for your actions? When parents set guidelines for their children, does that mean that the children no longer have freewill?

Euthanasia and suicide are not caused by sin!
That could only be a true statement if you could prove to me that when murder takes place it isnít a sinful act.

Can you show me the verse where God forgives Moses? And is it true that God ĎMurderedí people, is murder, even when carried out by God, wrong?
We can assume that when God met Moses in the burning bush that God had forgiven Moses. Mosesí murdering of the Egyptian was wrong, but God had forgiven Moses and was still prepared to use Moses.

Murder carried out by God is only wrong if you can prove that no sinful person deserves to die. God provides Jesus as our way to have our sin problem dealt with. If you ask God to forgive you for your sins, God will forgive and if youíre saved you will get into Heaven. Can God turn a blind eye to sin? Was anybody that died in the Old Testament without sin? If you disobeyed your parents, would you have any right to complain if they decided to punish you?

God warned Adam and Eve about the consequences there would be if they ate from the tree in the Garden of Eden they werenít supposed to eat from. Do you think God should have gone back on what He said in the warning and been more lenient on mankind after Adam and Eve sinned in the garden? Should mankind have been punished for going against God considering God created mankind? This is an interesting article on this issue:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/death.asp

I quote:
A matter of the will more than of the hand, sin is an act of rebellion, revolution, and anarchy against Godís righteous government. As such it is an affront to the holiness of God. The measure of Godís wrath against sin is the measure of His holiness. And the measure of the penaltyódeathóis the measure of the enormity of the offence.
Well, it does. The bible claims that David had a great kingdom, but in reality, it was actually very small.
And why does this matter?

If the population of the Earth were the descendants to two people, Adam and Eve, then all of the people are Godís people.
Being descendants of Adam and Eve means that we are all like Adam and Eve, in that we are made in Godís image, but also that we have inherited the sin problem that Adam and Eve had because of their disobedience towards God. The Jews, well they were chosen by God to be His special race.

Even the children? God kills babies, yet why do you insist it is wrong to do so?
Because neither you or me are God. Only God is allowed to decide who lives or dies.

What about when God killed thousands of children?
What about when God warned the Pharaoh to let the Jews leave Egypt? The Egyptians had been warned.

No stems cells cannot be rejected, because they are specifically grown for the patient. And yes stem cells can be taken from other places, but they are not, as far as I am aware, as useful as embryonic stem cells.
What about immune rejection?

http://www.explorestemcells.co.uk/ImmunologicalChallengesStemCells.html

I quote:
What Is Immune Rejection?
Immune rejection is a complication that may occur with stem cell transplantation. When it occurs the immune system of a person sees the transplanted cells as 'foreign' and thus begins a fast and possibly aggressive response to attack those cells that are not recognized as 'self.' During a chronic rejection response, the attack is:
ē Milder
ē Occurring over a longer time period
In the case of acute rejection, the attack is:
ē Aggressive/strong
ē Immediate
Whether a rejection is acute or chronic, the ultimate consequence is that the patient's body rejects the stem cells.
What about stem cells from an umbilical cord?

True. But if it tells us that young babies go to heaven, yet does not tell us when they lose their free pass, then it DOES become imperfect.
Yeh but if it did tell us the exact age then you would probably point out people who are mentally handicapped and canít think for themselves, as examples of people who havenít reached the age of understanding by that age.

The Bible doesnít tell me what to have for breakfast every morning. Does that make it imperfect?

If the Bible did give us answers to everything, would you not just say humans added that to the Bible as they discovered the answer to that question? The Bible is a closed book.

How can a child ask forgiveness for the sins of itís parents?
Thatís one of the issues with sin. When you sin it can cause suffering in other people. A child doesnít need to ask forgiveness for the sins of itís parents. A child will be judged individually on its own sin. Here is Jesus' response to this issue:
JOHN 9
1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
6 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,
7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
8 The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?
9 Some said, This is he: others said , He is like him: but he said, I am he .
10 Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?
11 He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.
Then you are directly responsible for the death of thousands of innocent people. Well done!
No Iím not. The bomber is. Thatís like saying the airline pilots of the planes on September 11th are responsible for all the people who died in the Twin Towers because they failed to stop the hijacking of their planes. The person who commits the sin that causes the suffering is responsible. You might find this interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

William, what are your views on the Principle Of Double Effect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect

I think it is very difficult when your presented with 2 options and both options result in a morally wrong action. It is wrong to torture. So I can't torture the bomber. Yet the bomber's actions are also wrong. Although I could talk to the bomber and try to convince him that his actions are wrong and to give up the location of the bomb so it can be defused before it goes off, I just couldn't torture the bomber because its wrong. If I tortured him, then there would be nothing to stop me committing other morally wrong actions if circumstances allowed me to justify those actions.

Politically: You, and people of your ilk, are trying to pass laws that would make democratic nations into theocratic ones.
And why is this a problem? At present in the world, countries with a strong Christian ethos are the countries that provide the most freedom for people to live their lives the way they want. If you lived in an Islamic country you wouldnít be allowed to drink alcohol, you would get your handed chopped off if you were caught stealing and women have to cover themselves from head to toe when out in public. As for Christian America you can actually get abortions on demand, though I donít agree with that.
Intellectually: By trying to force schools to TEACH creationism and even the pseudo-science of ID, you are retarding the education systems of the world.
We have to provide all sides of the origin of life debate. Evolution leaves far too many unanswered questions, which is why schools should teach creationism. I think creationism is better than ID because ID kind of leaves God out of the picture by saying that the whole world looks designed but not pointing specifically to God of the Bible as the creator. If a school only taught evolution how would you propose that school deal with children who raise questions and doubts about evolution? In a free society children deserve to know about all the possible solutions, so that the children themselves can make their own minds up about what they believe. There is no freedom for children to choose if a school teaches only one side of the origin of life debate. This then raises the issue of when does science and religion collide.
Geopolitically: The conflict in the middle-east is over land that was promised to a people, by an invisible, Supreme Being, in his role as an omniscient real-estate agent.
You forget the fact that God created the whole world.
PSALMS 24
1 The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
Dave, I do not dispute the good people have faith have done. However, it does not prove what they believe is true. The good in the world is carried out by all. That was the point of the challenge. You do not need a belief in God or a God to be good. And by the way, who was William Wilberforce against in his fight against slavery? The church. He was on the losing side of the theological argument. You point him out as a pious man who freed the slaves, yet you do not mention the thousands of pious men who OWNED slaves.
Pious men who owned slaves? Like whom?

Can you provide an example of TRUE Christianity? (Do not quote the bible, as it is historically inaccurate.)
Jesus, Billy Graham and Ravi Zacharias.

Dave, do not provide a link, and then proceed to copy the text of the link. Donít worry, I read your links.
Actually that link takes you to the listing for the book on Amazon. You would actually need to buy the book before you could read the article, which is why I included the article here inside my post on this forum. Thereís good articles in it; you would find it interesting.

Society form the dawn of man, have survived without a higher authority. Is there anything you cannot do with God on your side?
Yeh but without God there is nothing to stop humans destroying themselves in the future. If you reject God then everything and anything could be permissible. What if in the future sometime you met somebody who said they thought it was morally right to force women to give up their unborn babies so that stem cells could be harvested to cure illnesses? Without God, how would you purpose dealing with that situation? What if you thought it was wrong but the other person thought it was right? Could you convince the other person that it was wrong merely by telling them you thought it was wrong? Both you and the other person could give reasons for their views; you could say its wrong because women suffer, whilst the other person could say its right because millions of people are cured of illnesses. Without God and a higher authority it is very difficult to come to a moral agreement.
Absent an absolute moral authority independent of fallible humans, the only meaning ďwrongĒ could have (pertaining to conduct) would be ďin opposition to X,Ē or ďfalling short of Xís standards,Ē which are only persuasive to those who have already accepted X.
Calvin Freiburger
If you reject God and a Higher Authority then what somebody thinks is right could be what somebody else thinks is wrong. There probably where some Germans in the second world war that thought they were doing the right thing by murdering the Jews.
Perhaps you should answer your own question, before making a statement along the lines of murder is ALWAYS wrong! Could you elaborate on your views of capital punishment?
I believe that people who murder shouldnít be killed as two wrongs donít make a right. Anybody who sets out to plan and kill another person should be incarcerated for life. Anybody who kills by accident should be sent to prison and released after serving their sentence; the length of time depends on the circumstances surrounding what they did. If you introduce capital punishment for every case of murdering, then people would have to be given the death sentence if they pushed a burglar down the stairs and he broke his neck and later died.

What if the family of the person sentenced to death suffered because the person was sentenced to death?

What are your views on the current debate in America over whether people suffer too much when they are given lethal injection?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1887887,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7072223.stm

No, we donít NEED to research him, but it may be useful. I however, disagree with Dawkins. I was glad to see that man have his neck elongated.
What is your reasons for disagreeing with Dawkins? As an evolutionist, can Dawkins actually make moral judgments in his articles?

That is not the reason why I donít think he is buried there, it is because there is little to no evidence for his existence at all.
If you wonít believe eye witness accounts about the life of Jesus then why should you believe the eye witness accounts about any event that has happened in history?
Quote: And only Jesus can solve our
problem of sin.


Prove it!

William can you solve your problem of sin without God?


Last edited by on Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:49 pm; edited 28 times in total

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:58 pm

That is not the reason why I donít think he is buried there, it is because there is little to no evidence for his existence at all.
No you see there is evidence. You choose to reject that evidence.

Your wrong here. Lets examine it further using Ockhams Razor:

1. A man died, and after 3 days rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. And only four men in history thought it prudent to record this event. One of which also saw many other deceased people rise from the grave.

2. A man died, and his comrades stole his body, in order to create a cult.

3. A story was told, and passed on for generations, until it was accepted as fact.

As we go through this short list, we see that as we progress, the events listed become more likely. What do you think is more likely:

1. The laws of biology were suspended, so that a child could be born of a virgin. Or...

2. A young Jewish girl lied?

I believe the virgin birth took place. A few things to note. For a start more than 4 people saw Jesus after He rose from the dead. The disciples couldnít have stolen the body because they would have had to have gotten past the Roman guards and avoided being arrested by the authorities. Also if the disciples had stolen the body, then the Roman guards wouldnít have had to lie about that happening. Also a dead body would have been useless to the disciples.
Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't account for anything. Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed.
Paul Manata
The simpler the solution the more unanswered questions there are. With number 3 in your list it doesn't explain why the disciples would die for Christianity. William if you made up a story would you give your life for that story? The September 11th attackers died for a cause which they thought was true. If the disciples had made up the story then they would have known it was a lie and would not have given their life for it. If it was a made up story, then when the disciples where persecuted they would relise that their made up story was a waste of time and would have given up on it and gone back to their previous lives of being fishermen etc. Because Jesus was real, was alive and Christianity was The Truth the disciples where prepared to give their all for it, including their lives.

William can you show me anybody in history who gave their life for a cause which they knew before their death was 100% a lie and not true? Remember the September 11th attackers died for what they thought was true.

God is above the laws of biology because He is God. If God was bound by the laws of biology then it would have been impossible for God to create the universe. God would have been bound in the same way that humans can't make a star and place it in space. When God created the universe He demonstrated that He was above all laws of science because He was God.
PSALMS 19
1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
The virgin birth was an act of God that demonstrated God's ability to be above the laws of biology. If God was bound by the laws of science then the virgin birth would also have been impossible.
You do not accept the Gospel of Thomas as ĎGospelí so even if he did mention it, you would not believe it. Am I right?
I was making the point that at least one disciple actually went to India.
Quote: William, you donít know the origins
of life. You also donít know if there is a God or not. A person would have to
be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say from their own knowledge with
100% certainty that there is no God.
True. But neither do you!
Then you cannot write off the possibility that Christianity could in fact be true and that God could in fact exist. William you cannot write off belief in God until you have proved outside of the Bible that God does not exist. Can you do that? Without reference to the Bible can you prove that God does not exist? And you cannot say because its not rational. There have been many terrible crimes throughout history that didnít seem rational. Does that mean that they didnít happen?

Faith: Loosely, holding something as true without proof that it is. Many people would extend this definition to include not only "belief without evidence" but also "belief despite evidence to the contrary." Proof, in this context, must be understood as objective, scientific evidence/proof. ... www.jashan.net/sites/satanism/dict-common.php
Your link there doesnít work.

Objective, scientific evidence? Yeh I do respect science but it canít answer the questions about how my sin can be dealt with or where Iím going after I die.

Quote: Which takes more faith - to believe
God created life or, like one of the crackerís of DNA, Francis Crick's view -
"Among Crickís writings was ďLife Itself: Its Origin and Nature,Ē a book
suggesting that the Earth began when microorganisms were dropped by a spaceship
from a higher civilization."


Is there a point to that question?
Yes there is a point. Which of those 2 scenarios is more likely to be true? If you reject Christianity and the existence of God then I want you to provide me with another explanation for life and why we are here that you believe to be more reliable and truthful than Christianity and God. Otherwise your just disagreeing with Christianity for disagreements sake. Atheists may say they do not believe in the existence of God, but that just means they are left with questions unresolved. William are you debating on this forum because you like debating or are you debating here because you want answers to your unresolved questions?

Quote: I will admit some parts, especially
in the Old Testament are harder to accept because of the impact they have on my
life.

Which parts?
The bits about following God no matter what the costs. Thatís difficult. Thatís why Christians need Godís grace to strengthen and help them.

It would make it a slightly more reliable account. Ever since that Easter day in the middle-east, has anyone else rose form the dead?
Yep, the boy who fell out of the window. He was dead.

ACTS 20
7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
8 And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.
9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.
10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.

Enough evidence? It doesnít have any!
There is plenty of evidence for the Bible, Jesus and God. Your just refusing to believe the evidence.

Then who are you to judge what is right and what is wrong?

Thatís why my ultimate aim is to point people towards Jesus.

Quote: Sin is a reality which you cannot
deny.

Prove it!
How do you explain the fact that you feel guilty when you do things that are wrong? If sin didnít exist, would you ever feel guilty? What makes you feel guilty?

Can you prove it exists? How can science answer a question regarding something that does not exist? And lets not forget, science does not go off in a tangent and venture in places it does not belong, i.e. the supernatural.
Well if science does not deal with the supernatural, then you cannot rule out supernatural events that occurred in the Bible. A scientist will investigate something and based on experiments will draw conclusions. If youíre saying that science has not investigated the supernatural then it cannot provide conclusions on the supernatural.

Science may never answer all of the questions posed, but that does not mean that religion can.
Then how do you deal with unresolved questions?

When did I, or any scientist say that science answers everything? I want a reference!
I was just pointing out that science does not have all the answers.

So William you say science may not have all the answers. You also say that religion may not have all the answers. So on what grounds do you base your claims that Jesus didnít exist and that God doesnít exist? Just because the Bible doesnít seem possible to you does not mean it is impossible. You need faith to be a Christian because it requires you going beyond what science can describe and explain. Science is limited in its scope in the same way that humans are. How could humans, through science, explain the workings of every planet in the universe until they have actually visited every planet?

A. W. Tozer touched on this issue in his book The Pursuit Of God:
This universal voice has ever sounded, and it has often troubled men even when they did not understand the source of their fears. Could it be that this voice distilling like a living mist upon the hearts of men has been the undiscovered cause of the troubled conscience and the longing for immortality confessed by millions since the dawn of recorded history? We need not fear to face up to this. The speaking voice is a fact. How men have reacted to it is for any observer to note.
When God spoke out of heaven to our Lord, self-centred men who heard it explained it by natural causes, saying ďIt thundered.Ē This habit of explaining the voice by appeals to natural law is at the very root of modern science. In the living, breathing cosmos there is a mysterious Something, too wonderful, too awful for any mind to understand. The believing man does not claim to understand. He falls to his knees and whispers, ďGod.Ē The man of the earth kneels also, but not to worship. He kneels to examine, to search, to find the cause and the how of things. Just now we happen to be living in a secular age. Our thought habits are those of the scientist, not those of the worshipper. We are more likely to explain than to adore. ďIt thundered,Ē we exclaim, and go our earthly way. But still the voice sounds and searches. The order and life of the world depend upon that voice, but men are mostly too busy or too stubborn to give attention.
Every one of us has had experiences which we have not been able to explain Ė a sudden sense of loneliness, or a feeling of wonder or awe in the face of the universal vastness. Or we have had a fleeting visitation of light like an illumination from some other sun, giving us in a quick flash an assurance that we are from another world, that our origins are divine. What we saw there, or felt, or heard, may have been contrary to all that we had been taught in the schools and at wide variance with all our former beliefs and opinions. We were forced to suspend our acquired doubts while, for a moment, the clouds were rolled back and we saw and heard for ourselves. Explain such things as we will, I think we have not been fair to the facts until we at least allow the possibility that such experiences may arise from the presence of God in the world and His persistent effort to communicate with mankind. Let us not dismiss such a hypothesis too flippantly.
Iím afraid William, but ignoring sin and writing if off as something that doesnít exist is a Ďget-out of jail freeí card youíre not allowed to use.

By rejecting God a person is left with unresolved questions;
Why are we here?
Whatís our purpose life?
Where did we come from? What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

William, can you answer those questions without God?
God exist whether or not men may choose to believe in Him. The reason why many people do not believe in God is not so much that it is intellectually impossible to believe in God, but because belief in God forces that thoughtful person to face the fact that he is accountable to such a God.
Robert A. Laidlaw

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Fri Nov 09, 2007 11:55 pm

Can you show me those examples?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/shadowlands4/start
And for more information check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperemesis_gravidarum

You canít complain about babies dying in the Old Testament and then turn a blind eye to the millions of unborn babies that die every year because of abortion. Your not being consistent.
How am I not being consistent? I donít believe the events described in the OT really happened. I do not turn a Ďblind eyeí to abortions, but at the same time I do not force my opinions on pregnant women.

Are you going to tell me there has never been an abortion anywhere in the world that was performed after the nervous system of the unborn child had developed?
Why would I do that?

What about the pregnant women that died in the September 11th attacks and the Omagh bombing? Did those unborn babies deserve to live or die?
Who am I to decide who lives or dies? By the way donít be so retarded as to compare murder to abortion!

Yes I would. But only if the mother really didnít want the baby. And if the mother was considering giving the child up for adoption because she couldnít afford to raise the child, then I would consider giving financial support before considering adopting the child and taking it away from the mother.
Then do it! Why not, at this very moment try and adopt a baby? Or if that is not feasible, rather than give 10% of your money to your church, give it to local mothers! Will you do that?

Your forgetting about sin. There are consequences to our actions when we sin. God cannot ignore humanityís sin.

William do you want to be able to sin and not be held accountable to God for your actions? When parents set guidelines for their children, does that mean that the children no longer have freewill?
Prove to me that Ďsiní exists!

That could only be a true statement if you could prove to me that when murder takes place it isnít a sinful act.
Euthanasia and suicide are not murder. Both of those actions require consent, murder is involuntary.

We can assume that when God met Moses in the burning bush that God had forgiven Moses. Mosesí murdering of the Egyptian was wrong, but God had forgiven Moses and was still prepared to use Moses.
No! We cannot assume! Prove it!!

If you disobeyed your parents, would you have any right to complain if they decided to punish you?
So God has the same morals as a 22 year old form Belfast?

God warned Adam and Eve about the consequences there would be if they ate from the tree in the Garden of Eden they werenít supposed to eat from. Do you think God should have gone back on what He said in the warning and been more lenient on mankind after Adam and Eve sinned in the garden? Should mankind have been punished for going against God considering God created mankind? This is an interesting article on this issue
Prove that Adam and Eve even existed!

And why does this matter?
Because if you claim the bible is flawless, then the fact that Davidís Kingdom was small proves the bible was wrong regarding the size of his Kingdom.

Being descendants of Adam and Eve means that we are all like Adam and Eve, in that we are made in Godís image, but also that we have inherited the sin problem that Adam and Eve had because of their disobedience towards God. The Jews, well they were chosen by God to be His special race.
But if we all descend from Adam and Eve, then even the Ishmaelites and Amalicites were descendants from Adam and eve, so at what point in history did the Jews mean more to God that the other tribes? And if you say that the others sinned, then you make the assumption that the Jews never sinned. But you admit that they sin and have sinned, but God does not give the same punishment. He is not consistent!

Because neither you or me are God. Only God is allowed to decide who lives or dies.
Then keep out of other peoples business!

What about when God warned the Pharaoh to let the Jews leave Egypt? The Egyptians had been warned.
When did God warn the Pharaoh? According to the bible, it was Moses! Exodus 10:20 it says:
ĎBut the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.í
So God wanted the pharaoh to not release the slaves, so that he could kill the babies! And, if you can, tell me this, where in the bible does God warn the children of Egypt what is going to happen?

Maybe, before you continue with this debate, you actually READ the bible!

Yeh but if it did tell us the exact age then you would probably point out people who are mentally handicapped and canít think for themselves, as examples of people who havenít reached the age of understanding by that age.
Iím not claiming the bible to be the perfect word of God. But if it claims that babies go straight to heaven, then why not tell us when that free pass expires?

If the Bible did give us answers to everything, would you not just say humans added that to the Bible as they discovered the answer to that question? The Bible is a closed book.
Again, you are the one making extraordinary claims, not me! I know why the bible doesnít have all the answers, you unfortunately donít.

Thatís one of the issues with sin. When you sin it can cause suffering in other people. A child doesnít need to ask forgiveness for the sins of itís parents. A child will be judged individually on its own sin.
According to the bible your wrong:
Exodus 20:5
Exodus 34:6-7
Deuteronomy 5:9

And are you suggesting that in John 9:3 - 'Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.' That there was a Human who was without sin?

No Iím not. The bomber is. Thatís like saying the airline pilots of the planes on September 11th are responsible for all the people who died in the Twin Towers because they failed to stop the hijacking of their planes.
Yes you are, and if the pilots decided not to try and stop the hijackers because of their belief then yes they were responsible too. For example, Iím sure, that given the chance, one of those pilots would have killed the hijacker. If you had the opportunity to stop the hijacker by killing him, WOULD YOU DO IT? If not, then it is YOU who is the immoral one.

And why is this a problem? At present in the world, countries with a strong Christian ethos are the countries that provide the most freedom for people to live their lives the way they want.
America, at the moment, is trying to restrict the rights of its citizens. Gays and lesbians, who are not allowed to get married, that is not freedom. Women, who may die as a result of child birth are not allowed abortions (in certain states), that is not freedom. American citizens are having their phones tapped by their own government. The American government have, installed murderous dictators in various parts of the world, namely Chile and Iraq. This is the most Christian country in the world. A country where your freedom is determined by religious nut bars, like you.

In response, Iíll leave Sam Harris you answer why religion is a hindrance to society:
ĎAccording the United Nations Human Development Report (2005), the most atheistic societies--countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are actually the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate and infant mortality. Conversely, the 50 nations now ranked lowest by the U.N. in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious. Of course, correlation data of this sort do not resolve questions of causality belief in God may lead to societal dysfunction; societal dysfunction may foster a belief in God; each factor may enable the other; or both may spring from some deeper source of mischief. Leaving aside the issue of cause and effect, these facts prove that atheism is perfectly compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society; they also prove, conclusively, that religious faith does nothing to ensure a societies health.

If religion really provided the only conceivable, objective basis for morality, it should be impossible to posit a non-theistic, objective basis for morality. But it is not impossible; it is rather easyí

And in regards to religiosity and Intelligence:

ĎSeveral research studies have been published on the statistical relationship between religiosity and educational level, or religiosity and IQ. Michael Shermer, in How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science, describes a large survey of randomly chosen Americans that he and his colleague Frank Sulloway carried out. [...] Religiosity is indeed negatively correlated with education (more highly educated people are less likely to be religious). Religiosity is also negatively correlated with interest in science. [...]

[Paul Bell in Mensa Magazine, 2002, reviewed all studies taken of religion and IQ. He concluded:]

"Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one's intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold "beliefs" of any kind."Ď

If you lived in an Islamic country you wouldnít be allowed to drink alcohol, you would get your handed chopped off if you were caught stealing and women have to cover themselves from head to toe when out in public. As for Christian America you can actually get abortions on demand, though I donít agree with that.
The reason why these laws are in place is because they believe their holy book was written by the creator of the universe, and that it is inherently perfect. Sound familiar?

We have to provide all sides of the origin of life debate.
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life you moron!

Evolution leaves far too many unanswered questions, which is why schools should teach creationism.
What are those questions? Tell me this, if man walked with dinosaurs, why has there NEVER been a human fossil found alongside, or even in the same strata, as a dinosaur? (And donít be a retard and mention the Paluxy river, Texas).

I think creationism is better than ID because ID kind of leaves God out of the picture by saying that the whole world looks designed but not pointing specifically to God of the Bible as the creator.
Prove that God created the universe!

If a school only taught evolution how would you propose that school deal with children who raise questions and doubts about evolution?
Answer the question! Schools should not teach children WHAT to think, but HOW to think! Would you send your child to a school where they were taught that man was formed from a clot of blood?

In a free society children deserve to know about all the possible solutions, so that the children themselves can make their own minds up about what they believe.

First of all, creationism is not a solution, itís a belief, with NO evidence to back it up. Second, children are not taught to Ďbelieveí in evolution, there is nothing to believe. Evolution has, is and continues to occur weather you Ďbelieveí or not.

There is no freedom for children to choose if a school teaches only one side of the origin of life debate.
No school teaches anything about the origin of life! As we do not have conclusive evidence.

You forget the fact that God created the whole world.
Prove it!
Pious men who owned slaves? Like whom?
The Church of England, for a start!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6494243.stm

Jesus, Billy Graham and Ravi Zacharias.
I cannot believe that you compared Graham and Ravi to Jesus, you are a moron (and if Jesus existed, he would be calling you that too).

First of all, does True Christianity consist of Anti-Semitisim? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1850077.stm

As for Ravi Zacharias, in a response to a question asked regarding Mitt Romney, he stated Ď..then run this country with the excellence of that which is recognized in a pluralistic society: the freedom to believe or to disbelieve, and the moral framework with which this was conducted...í
Yet then suggested a war (ideological) with Islam: ĎIíve said to him basically his choice is not going to be between religion and secularism. His choice is going to be between Islam and Christianity.í

And on Secularism: ĎSecularism has no staying power and has proven itself in Europe today. Europe is on the decline and on the demise and itís only a matter of time before Islam would take a foothold there unless the Christian world view reemerges.í

So much for freedom to believe or disbelieve. You see, you cannot make the statement that you are free to believe whatever you want, but you will have Christian rules imposed upon you.
But at least 2 out of the 3 names you gave actually existed.

Thereís good articles in it; you would find it interesting.
Speaking of good articles, before posting anything again, especially regarding evolution, read this: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file021.html

Yeh but without God there is nothing to stop humans destroying themselves in the future.
Even with God, humans can destroy themselves, and each other, just read Exodus, or something non-fiction, War Dogs.

If you reject God then everything and anything could be permissible.
With God everything and anything could be permissible. Is there anything you cannot do with God on your side?

What if in the future sometime you met somebody who said they thought it was morally right to force women to give up their unborn babies so that stem cells could be harvested to cure illnesses?
Do I need to say anything? One persons opinion, does not a law make.

Without God, how would you purpose dealing with that situation?
Perhaps with the line...Prove it!

What if you thought it was wrong but the other person thought it was right?
Then we disagree. Big deal!

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Fri Nov 09, 2007 11:56 pm

Could you convince the other person that it was wrong merely by telling them you thought it was wrong?
If
they are in any way intelligent, then they do not need me, or anyone
else to tell them what to do. Only moron need to be told that murder is
a crime. But in saying that, only a moron would refuse to kill someone
who was threatening their family.

Could you convince someone that something is wrong?


Both you and the other person could give reasons for their views; you
could say its wrong because women suffer, whilst the other person could
say its right because millions of people are cured of illnesses.
Does the woman want the child? Or are you going to adopt it?

Without God and a higher authority it is very difficult to come to a moral agreement.
Dave,
Christians cannot agree on the colour of shit! Iím sure you donít agree
with Trevor Johnston view of theistic evolution, but he believe in the
same God as you. Who are you to say he is wrong? You both have the same
God, as does Rudolph Giuliani, but he is pro-choice. Two men, one God,
and no moral agreement!

If you reject God and a Higher
Authority then what somebody thinks is right could be what somebody
else thinks is wrong. There probably where some Germans in the second
world war that thought they were doing the right thing by murdering the
Jews.
I donít doubt there were. The majority of the Nazi SS
officers were confessing Catholics. What canít you do with God on your
side?

I believe that people who murder shouldnít be killed as two wrongs donít make a right.
What
happened to ĎAn eye for an eye?í But Jesus said: Matt 5:38Ė39 ĎYe have
heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a
tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.í

If we are to follow Jesusí teaching, we should turn the other cheek and let murders go free.

Anybody who sets out to plan and kill another person should be incarcerated for life.
Unless God told them to do it!


Anybody who kills by accident should be sent to prison and released
after serving their sentence; the length of time depends on the
circumstances surrounding what they did.
Unless your name is Moses, and you talk to bushes!


If you introduce capital punishment for every case of murdering, then
people would have to be given the death sentence if they pushed a
burglar down the stairs and he broke his neck and later died.
Ohh,
this takes me back to your (lack of a) point regarding Christian
societies. In America, if you did the action you stated above, you
would not even be sent to prison, because the burglar should not be in
your house in the first place.

What if the family of the person sentenced to death suffered because the person was sentenced to death?
So what? It takes a lot to make me cry!


What are your views on the current debate in America over whether
people suffer too much when they are given lethal injection?
I have a view on it, but itís not for this *cough* debate. Maybe Iíll write it some other time.

What is your reasons for disagreeing with Dawkins?
Because, I believe justice should have, and has, been served.

As an evolutionist, can Dawkins actually make moral judgments in his articles?
Itís an opinion, Dawkins isnít trying to make this an international law.


If you wonít believe eye witness accounts about the life of Jesus then
why should you believe the eye witness accounts about any event that
has happened in history?
There are no eyewitness accounts for the life of Jesus!

William can you solve your problem of sin without God?
Once you prove it exists, Iíll give it a go.

No you see there is evidence. You choose to reject that evidence.
No I donít see it! Please show me it!

For a start more than 4 people saw Jesus after He rose from the dead.
How
do we know that? You only Ďassumeí this because, of the alleged people
who saw Jesusí bodily resurrection, 4 decided to write it down. This is
not empirical evidence.

Also if the disciples had stolen
the body, then the Roman guards wouldnít have had to lie about that
happening. Also a dead body would have been useless to the
disciples.
Nope, but a Ďmissingí body would be useful to them.

With number 3 in your list it doesn't explain why the disciples would die for Christianity.
Why
die for anything? Why die for Islam? Why die for freedom? Why die for
Democracy? Hunger Striker dies for their political beliefs, does that
make their political beliefs the pinnacle of all politics?


William can you show me anybody in history who gave their life for a
cause which they knew before their death was 100% a lie and not true?
Remember the September 11th attackers died for what they thought was
true.
Yep, Sgt. Lui Tumanuvao, 29, of Fagaalu, American
Samoa, died Nov. 7 in Arab Jabour, Iraq, of wounds suffered when he was
struck by an improvised explosive device during combat operations.
He died because of a lie (regarding existing WMDís) however, he was fighting for freedom from a totalitarian regime.


God is above the laws of biology because He is God. If God was bound by
the laws of biology then it would have been impossible for God to
create the universe. God would have been bound in the same way that
humans can't make a star and place it in space. When God created the
universe He demonstrated that He was above all laws of science because
He was God.
Can you prove that?

The virgin
birth was an act of God that demonstrated God's ability to be above the
laws of biology. If God was bound by the laws of science then the
virgin birth would also have been impossible.
Any proof?


Then you cannot write off the possibility that Christianity could in
fact be true and that God could in fact exist.
Your wrong
here. I donít doubt the existence of Christianity. I cannot disprove
God. But you cannot prove everything in between, virgin births, walking
dead, miracles etc. So although Christianity, like Islam, exist, they
are not in fact true.

William you cannot write off
belief in God until you have proved outside of the Bible that God does
not exist. Can you do that?
No I cannot. Without the bible, can you prove God exists? No!


Objective, scientific evidence? Yeh I do respect science but it canít
answer the questions about how my sin can be dealt with or where Iím
going after I die.
First of all, you have yet to prove the
existence of Ďsiní, second, science cannot answer these questions, and
religion only speculates.

Which of those 2 scenarios is more likely to be true?
Your question actually started with, ĎWhich takes more faithí. Is what is the point of this question?


If you reject Christianity and the existence of God then I want you to
provide me with another explanation for life and why we are here that
you believe to be more reliable and truthful than Christianity and
God.
Well, we KNOW that Earth is more then 6,000 years old,
we KNOW that life has, and continues to evolve, we KNOW that humans
evolved from a common ancestor to chimps, we KNOW that the cosmos is
approx 14 Billion years old. There is no ĎWhyí.

Atheists
may say they do not believe in the existence of God, but that just
means they are left with questions unresolved.
Actually,
thats wrong. You are making a baseless assumption, simply because you
have never been an thinking atheist (you are born an atheist). Let me
ask you your question, and see if you can answer it: ĎAthhorists may
say they do not believe in the existence of Thor, but that just means
they are left with questions unresolved.í Does your non-belief in Thor
leave you with unresolved questions?

William are you
debating on this forum because you like debating or are you debating
here because you want answers to your unresolved questions?
On
this forum? Iím debating because I like debating, but for serious
questions and theology, I go to (slightly more) educated people.

Yep, the boy who fell out of the window. He was dead.
I should have been clearer, I meant in Ďreal lifeí!

There is plenty of evidence for the Bible, Jesus and God. Your just refusing to believe the evidence.
Where is this evidence you speak of? Come on Dave, this debate would go much smoother if you just provided some.

Thatís why my ultimate aim is to point people towards Jesus.
That does not answer my question: ĎThen who are you to judge what is right and what is wrong?í


How do you explain the fact that you feel guilty when you do things
that are wrong? If sin didnít exist, would you ever feel guilty? What
makes you feel guilty?
Thats not proof, that is just like me
saying, that Zeus exists because when you need to go to the toilet
really bad your muscles tighten around your bladder and sphincter.


Well if science does not deal with the supernatural, then you cannot
rule out supernatural events that occurred in the Bible. A scientist
will investigate something and based on experiments will draw
conclusions. If youíre saying that science has not investigated the
supernatural then it cannot provide conclusions on the
supernatural.
No, that is not what I meant. Science never
answers a question with a supernatural answer. However, it can disprove
(when tested) supernatural events. The is a prize for anyone who can
perform supernatural tasks in laboratory conditions, as of yet no one
has even tried.

Then how do you deal with unresolved questions?
Keep going!

I was just pointing out that science does not have all the answers.
Thatís not what you said, you claimed that scientists have said that science answers everything. That is a lie and you know it!

So William you say science may not have all the answers.
No. I said they Donít have all the answers.

You also say that religion may not have all the answers.
No. I say religion does not have ANY answers.

So on what grounds do you base your claims that Jesus didnít exist and that God doesnít exist?
A lack of evidence.

Just because the Bible doesnít seem possible to you does not mean it is impossible.
If
that was the case, just because the Qurían, and the Iliad doesnít seem
possible to you does not mean it is impossible. Do you agree?

You need faith to be a Christian because it requires you going beyond what science can describe and explain.
If so, then you should not claim it to be true!


Science is limited in its scope in the same way that humans are. How
could humans, through science, explain the workings of every planet in
the universe until they have actually visited every planet?
By technology! Satellites, telescopes and landing robots etc.


Iím afraid William, but ignoring sin and writing if off as something
that doesnít exist is a Ďget-out of jail freeí card youíre not allowed
to use.
How can I write something that does not exist off?

By rejecting God a person is left with unresolved questions;
Why are we here?
Whatís our purpose life?
Where did we come from? What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

William, can you answer those questions without God?
All but one!

Can you answer those with evidence?

Ok
Dave, first of all, you donít have to keep calling me William, Liam
will do. Secondly, you keep bringing up Ďsiní, ĎGodí, ĎJesusí,
ĎMoralityí etc. I know neither of us can prove, nor disprove God. But
you have yet to prove either the bible as perfect (I have shown it to
be anything but), you have not proved that Ďsiní exists, nor have you
nailed down a solid moral code, because, what you claim to be wrong, is
allowed when Moses is involved.

I would suggest that you refrain
from posting anything regarding evolution, unless you have read up
about it in the past week, as you are not qualified enough (for this
debate anyway) to comment. However, feel free to present evidence for
the biblical Ďcreationí. I am all ears! This would include scientific
proof, not (imperfect) biblical nonsense. Perhaps you could provide
evidence for a worldwide flood? Not just floods in the middle-east,
which are common.

Anyway, sorry for the late reply, like I said
before, I am working. But, I will always respond, no matter how long it
takes. By the way? What happened to Nathan? Did he give up?

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:38 am

If
they are in any way intelligent, then they do not need me, or anyone
else to tell them what to do. Only moron need to be told that murder is
a crime. But in saying that, only a moron would refuse to kill someone
who was threatening their family.

Could you convince someone that something is wrong?

Hitler and Saddam Hussein where both intelligent people. Did they know that murder was wrong when they killed millions? If Hitler and Saddam Hussein both knew that murder was wrong then why did they commit murder? Did they not justify their actions? So even if you thought murder was wrong, it is clear that Hitler and Saddam Hussein didnít. So if you had met Saddam Hussein how could you convince him that his actions which he thinks are right and which he justifies as Ok are in fact wrong? Or do you tell him that itís his choice and that you canít tell him what to do and that itís up to him to choose what he does?
If every intelligent person in the UK knew that murder was wrong then why would the government need a law that punishes people for murdering? Surely people wouldnít commit murder if they knew it was wrong.

Convince? Maybe not, but I could tell them that I believe their actions are wrong. Its then up to that person to decide to agree with me on that point or not.

Does the woman want the child? Or are you going to adopt it?
The women who is forced to give up the unborn child for stem cells probably would want their child and would go through terrib;e suffering.

Dave,
Christians cannot agree on the colour of shit! Iím sure you donít agree
with Trevor Johnston view of theistic evolution, but he believe in the
same God as you. Who are you to say he is wrong? You both have the same
God, as does Rudolph Giuliani, but he is pro-choice. Two men, one God,
and no moral agreement!

For a start you donít need to be a Christian to believe in God. Gandhi believed in God and yet he wasnít a Christian. You need to be an evangelical born again Christian to get your problem of sin dealt with and to get a place in Heaven.

As for theistic evolution; it goes directly against what the Bible has to say. So it is wrong. A harder issue is predestination; some Christians believe it and some do not. As for Giuliani, he is also wrong on the pro-choice issue. Theology taught by Christians has to be in line with what the Bible says and it is a worrying thing when it isnít. The problem is peopleís interpretation of the Bible not the Bible itself.

As for science, Iím pretty sure not all scientists agree on everything.

I donít doubt there were. The majority of the Nazi SS
officers were confessing Catholics. What canít you do with God on your
side?

There is a difference between catholics and evangelical Christians. Some of what catholics believe goes directly against the teachings of the Bible. Can you name me one Nazi SS officer who was a born again evangelical Christian?

With God on my side I shouldnít be sinning.

What
happened to ĎAn eye for an eye?í But Jesus said: Matt 5:38Ė39 ĎYe have
heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a
tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.í

If we are to follow Jesusí teaching, we should turn the other cheek and let murders go free.
How does that passage say we should let murders go free? The passage is talking about submissive meekness. An example of what submissive meekness means:
http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=5&verse=39#Mt5_39
Illustration: Colin Byrne Smith of Australia told of a missionary who called on a tribe of cannibals. Taking his life in his hands, he crossed the inlet in a small boat, and when confronted by the tribe, meekly endured every insult. Long afterwards, when he had succeeded in converting many and establishing a church among them, he asked, "Why did you not eat ME when I came to preach to you?" The old chief, then a Christian, said, "You see, none of us wanted to eat you, because the reason we eat people is to acquire their skills and bravery; but nobody wanted to be like YOU, taking all those insults, and patiently bearing every blow against you!"

Quote: Anybody who sets out to plan and kill another person should be incarcerated for life.

Unless God told them to do it!
So what do you propose God do about humans who disobeyed Him?

Quote:
Anybody who kills by accident should be sent to prison and released
after serving their sentence; the length of time depends on the
circumstances surrounding what they did.

Unless your name is Moses, and you talk to bushes!
When Moses killed it was wrong. But God forgave him.

Quote:
If you introduce capital punishment for every case of murdering, then
people would have to be given the death sentence if they pushed a
burglar down the stairs and he broke his neck and later died.

Ohh,
this takes me back to your (lack of a) point regarding Christian
societies. In America, if you did the action you stated above, you
would not even be sent to prison, because the burglar should not be in
your house in the first place.
What about the case of the man in England who was sent to prison for shooting the person that was on his property?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29
Quote: What if the family of the person sentenced to death suffered because the person was sentenced to death?

So what? It takes a lot to make me cry!
What do you do in a case like capital punishment where you canít prevent suffering no matter what choice you make. Sentence the person to death and their family suffer. Donít sentence them to death and the victims family could suffer.

Quote: As an evolutionist, can Dawkins actually make moral judgments in his articles?

Itís an opinion, Dawkins isnít trying to make this an international law.
Do you think Dawkins would be voicing his ideas if there wasnít big money to made from the stuff he writes?

Quote:
If you wonít believe eye witness accounts about the life of Jesus then
why should you believe the eye witness accounts about any event that
has happened in history?

There are no eyewitness accounts for the life of Jesus!
The Bible clearly details the eyewitness accounts for the life of Jesus. If you really think Jesus never existed then you shouldnít celebrate Christmas and you should refuse to take a holiday at Easter. I donít celebrate Ramadan because I donít believe in what the Muslims believe.

Quote: William can you solve your problem of sin without God?

Once you prove it exists, Iíll give it a go.
William what are your reasons for not believing in the existence of sin? What do you think makes people evil?

Quote: No you see there is evidence. You choose to reject that evidence.

No I donít see it! Please show me it!
The universe demonstrates the handiwork of God.

For a start more than 4 people saw Jesus after He rose from the dead.

How
do we know that? You only Ďassumeí this because, of the alleged people
who saw Jesusí bodily resurrection, 4 decided to write it down. This is
not empirical evidence.
It was no theory. The disciples saw Jesus alive after He rose from the dead.

Quote: With number 3 in your list it doesn't explain why the disciples would die for Christianity.

Why
die for anything? Why die for Islam? Why die for freedom? Why die for
Democracy? Hunger Striker dies for their political beliefs, does that
make their political beliefs the pinnacle of all politics?
For the disciples Christianity meant more to them than life itself.

Quote:
William can you show me anybody in history who gave their life for a
cause which they knew before their death was 100% a lie and not true?
Remember the September 11th attackers died for what they thought was
true.

Yep, Sgt. Lui Tumanuvao, 29, of Fagaalu, American
Samoa, died Nov. 7 in Arab Jabour, Iraq, of wounds suffered when he was
struck by an improvised explosive device during combat operations.
He died because of a lie (regarding existing WMDís) however, he was fighting for freedom from a totalitarian regime.
That was a death during war. Saddam Hussein did have WMDís. They were transported out of Iraq before they could be found. You should have a read of this book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Saddams-Secrets-General-Survived-Hussein/dp/1591455049/ref=sr_1_4/026-9850124-7822807?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194648285&sr=1-4
He states unequivocally that Saddam had chemical weapons in Iraq as late as summer 2002. That those weapons were removed to Syria by 56 Boeing 747 flights and by lorry convoys during that summer, when it became clear that Saddam could no longer stall the visit of UN weapons inspectors to his facilities.
Why is he so sure of this? Because he knows the pilots who flew the planes to Syria under the guise of sending aid to Syria after the bursting of the Zeyzoun dam in June 2002.

The problem with WMDís was that the Americans and the British never found them. It wasnít a lie. By not finding them the Americans and British made themselves a lot of enemies and didnít prove their claims werenít a lie. The Americans and British where right about WMDs but their evidence wasnít good enough to justify invading Iraq. It seems Saddam Hussein was a very clever evil man. What makes very clever people evil? Sin in their life.

Can you give me an example of death where the person choose to die knowing full well that what they were prepared to die for was actually a lie. If you claim the disciples stole the body then they must have known Jesusí resurrection was a lie when they were faced with persecution and would not have given their lives. Are you going to tell me that you donít believe the disciples gave their lives as martyrs and that they all died natural deaths?

Quote:
Then you cannot write off the possibility that Christianity could in
fact be true and that God could in fact exist.

Your wrong
here. I donít doubt the existence of Christianity. I cannot disprove
God. But you cannot prove everything in between, virgin births, walking
dead, miracles etc. So although Christianity, like Islam, exist, they
are not in fact true.
Just like the Americans and British failed to prove the existence of WMDs, just because I canít prove everything the Bible says doesnít mean it isnít true. It means I need more practice at apologetics. What sets Christianity apart from other religions is that Jesus is a Saviour who is alive. If you follow a dead person that dead person can do nothing for you. Thats the problem with non Christian religions. They don't follow somebody who is alive. What can Mohamed do for Muslims if he is dead? Christianity is the truth. Because Jesus is alive people can have a personal and meaningful relationship with Jesus, pray to Him and have their sins forgiven.


Last edited by on Sat Nov 10, 2007 2:52 pm; edited 4 times in total

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:38 am

Quote: William you cannot write off
belief in God until you have proved outside of the Bible that God does
not exist. Can you do that?

No I cannot. Without the bible, can you prove God exists? No!
Have you watched BBC Planet Earth? Any rational person would need to turn off their brain if they where to believe that the whole world came about through evolution. Liam, you have more chance of winning the lottery than evolution leading mankind to where it is now.

Why are humans the dominant species? Can evolution answer that question? As a Christian I can tell you we are the dominant species because we are made in the image of God and God allowed us to rule over all the animals in the world.

Quote:
Objective, scientific evidence? Yeh I do respect science but it canít
answer the questions about how my sin can be dealt with or where Iím
going after I die.

First of all, you have yet to prove the
existence of Ďsiní, second, science cannot answer these questions, and
religion only speculates.
Just look at Saddam Hussein. He embodied sin.

Liam if you cannot disprove the existence of God outside of religion and the Bible then do the intellectually honest thing and admit you donít know whether God exists.

Quote: Which of those 2 scenarios is more likely to be true?

Your question actually started with, ĎWhich takes more faithí. Is what is the point of this question?
My point is that compared to some things that people believe, Christianity and God is very believable.

Well, we KNOW that Earth is more then 6,000 years old,
we KNOW that life has, and continues to evolve, we KNOW that humans
evolved from a common ancestor to chimps, we KNOW that the cosmos is
approx 14 Billion years old. There is no ĎWhyí.
Where is the evidence for all this? Apart from evolution are there any other scientific theories that scientists accept that havenít been properly tested in a lab? If evolution has been properly been tested in a lab do you think there would be any scientists who believed in God?

Actually,
thats wrong. You are making a baseless assumption, simply because you
have never been an thinking atheist (you are born an atheist). Let me
ask you your question, and see if you can answer it: ĎAthhorists may
say they do not believe in the existence of Thor, but that just means
they are left with questions unresolved.í Does your non-belief in Thor
leave you with unresolved questions?
Thor isnít real.

On
this forum? Iím debating because I like debating, but for serious
questions and theology, I go to (slightly more) educated people.
Yeh, try having a listen to Ravi Zacharias.

http://www.rzim.org/
Let me know what you think.

Quote: Yep, the boy who fell out of the window. He was dead.

I should have been clearer, I meant in Ďreal lifeí!
What isnít clear about that event recorded in the Bible? The boy fell from the window and was dead. Paul went and brought the boy back to life. Thereís nothing unclear about that. You might find this article about the resurrection of Jesus interesting:

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2007/2009_Eight_Reasons_Why_I_Believe_That_Jesus_Rose_from_the_Dead/
Quote: There is plenty of evidence for the Bible, Jesus and God. Your just refusing to believe the evidence.

Where is this evidence you speak of? Come on Dave, this debate would go much smoother if you just provided some.
The Bible and creation.

Quote: Thatís why my ultimate aim is to point people towards Jesus.

That does not answer my question: ĎThen who are you to judge what is right and what is wrong?í
Iím not. But I am telling you how to avoid eternity in hell. You raise questions and Iím attempting to answer them. Liam what is your basis for morality?

Quote:
How do you explain the fact that you feel guilty when you do things
that are wrong? If sin didnít exist, would you ever feel guilty? What
makes you feel guilty?

Thats not proof, that is just like me
saying, that Zeus exists because when you need to go to the toilet
really bad your muscles tighten around your bladder and sphincter.

If sin didnít exist then you wouldnít feel guilty. If guilt can exist apart from sin then why didnít Adam and Eve feel guilty about being naked before the fall?

Quote:
Well if science does not deal with the supernatural, then you cannot
rule out supernatural events that occurred in the Bible. A scientist
will investigate something and based on experiments will draw
conclusions. If youíre saying that science has not investigated the
supernatural then it cannot provide conclusions on the
supernatural.

No, that is not what I meant. Science never
answers a question with a supernatural answer. However, it can disprove
(when tested) supernatural events. The is a prize for anyone who can
perform supernatural tasks in laboratory conditions, as of yet no one
has even tried.
What about the tests done into out of body experiences?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6960612.stm
Quote: Then how do you deal with unresolved questions?

Keep going!
But you donít keep going if you propose evolution as an answer to the question about origins of life. You need to stop and consider the unresolved question.

Quote: I was just pointing out that science does not have all the answers.

Thatís not what you said, you claimed that scientists have said that science answers everything. That is a lie and you know it!
A lie? Not sure. Has science disproved God?

Quote: You also say that religion may not have all the answers.

No. I say religion does not have ANY answers.
Are you saying you can get nothing out of the Bible whatsoever?

Quote: So on what grounds do you base your claims that Jesus didnít exist and that God doesnít exist?

A lack of evidence.
Whereís the evidence from science that God doesnít exist?

Quote: Just because the Bible doesnít seem possible to you does not mean it is impossible.

If
that was the case, just because the Qurían, and the Iliad doesnít seem
possible to you does not mean it is impossible. Do you agree?
No I donít agree. You see Christianity is The Truth.

Quote:
Science is limited in its scope in the same way that humans are. How
could humans, through science, explain the workings of every planet in
the universe until they have actually visited every planet?

By technology! Satellites, telescopes and landing robots etc.
And have humans sent satellites and landing robots to every planet in the Universe? Not yet anyhow.

Quote:
Iím afraid William, but ignoring sin and writing if off as something
that doesnít exist is a Ďget-out of jail freeí card youíre not allowed
to use.

How can I write something that does not exist off?
By proving it doesnít exist.

Quote: By rejecting God a person is left with unresolved questions;
Why are we here?
Whatís our purpose life?
Where did we come from? What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

William, can you answer those questions without God?

All but one!
Then what are your answers?

nor have you
nailed down a solid moral code, because, what you claim to be wrong, is
allowed when Moses is involved.
Actually what Moses did when he murdered the Egyptian was wrong. But God forgave him. When parents forgive their children does that mean they allowed the disobedient action of their children?

I would suggest that you refrain
from posting anything regarding evolution, unless you have read up
about it in the past week, as you are not qualified enough (for this
debate anyway) to comment. However, feel free to present evidence for
the biblical Ďcreationí. I am all ears! This would include scientific
proof, not (imperfect) biblical nonsense. Perhaps you could provide
evidence for a worldwide flood? Not just floods in the middle-east,
which are common.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=177
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/scientific-evidence-supporting-creation-faq.htm
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/creation-evidence.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:37 pm

Let me begin by saying that I am not going to dissect you post point by point, because I am trying to cut down the time I spend debating with morons. However I will remark on some of you rebuttals, and show how you blatantly ignore my points.

You have yet to provide any evidence for you point at all. I have proven that the bible is not perfect, and as such it cannot be used as evidence. Yet you continue to use it as an answer to my points, which is retarded, as you and I both know that your wrong. You said:

Anybody who kills by accident should be sent to prison and released after serving their sentence; the length of time depends on the circumstances surrounding what they did.

Well, if Moses didnít get sent to prison, and not even punished, then you cannot say the above statement.

Do you think Dawkins would be voicing his ideas if there wasnít big money to made from the stuff he writes?
Dawkins, like you, can say whatever you want. But what he says makes sense.

If you really think Jesus never existed then you shouldnít celebrate Christmas and you should refuse to take a holiday at Easter.

Christmas and Easter were originally pagan and Roman holidays.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter.htm

William what are your reasons for not believing in the existence of sin?
The lack of evidence that it exists.

The universe demonstrates the handiwork of God.
Really? Then his handy work is shit. Our solar system, is inhabitable for life, and even the Earth is not 100% habitable. Some design!

It was no theory. The disciples saw Jesus alive after He rose from the dead.
Prove it!

Have you watched BBC Planet Earth? Any rational person would need to turn off their brain if they where to believe that the whole world came about through evolution. Liam, you have more chance of winning the lottery than evolution leading mankind to where it is now.
Have you watched it? You donít have a brain to turn off. The Ďwhole worldí did not come about by evolution you moron. Why not find out what evolution is before you make further retarded statements.

Why are humans the dominant species? Can evolution answer that question?
There is no Ďwhyí. That is the way it is. You may as well ask the question, why is our reproductive organs right next to our waste disposal systems?

Liam if you cannot disprove the existence of God outside of religion and the Bible then do the intellectually honest thing and admit you donít know whether God exists.
I am the honest one here. I cannot disprove God, but it is your job to prove he exists, which you cannot do.

Where is the evidence for all this? Apart from evolution are there any other scientific theories that scientists accept that havenít been properly tested in a lab? If evolution has been properly been tested in a lab do you think there would be any scientists who believed in God?
Evolution does not disprove God, it, along with Cosmology, Geology and Physics disprove the biblical creation. The big bang is currently being tested in Fermilab. A theory is not a theory until it is tested.

Thor isnít real.
Prove it!

What about the tests done into out of body experiences?
Is that supernatural? No, itís physocological!

But you donít keep going if you propose evolution as an answer to the question about origins of life.
Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life you retard!

Has science disproved God?
You cannot prove a negative!

Are you saying you can get nothing out of the Bible whatsoever?
Very little!

By proving it doesnít exist.
You cannot prove a negative!

Some points you chose to disregard, were when I suggested that you adopt a child or offer financial support to a single mother, have you done so? If not then donít say you would, as you would be lying.

You seem to think and True Christianity has intolerance and anti-Semitism attached, what is your response to this?

In regards to the murder of the Egyptian children, you said that God warned the Egyptian people. That was a lie, it was Moses who warned the Pharaoh. Who made the Pharaoh stubborn and his heart heard? God! So you see, God wanted to kill the children.

You avoided another of my questions, which was, if the biblical creation was true, then how come there are no dinosaur and human fossils together? And no evidence for a worldwide flood?

Can you prove there was a Jesus of Nazareth with sources OUTSIDE of the bible?

If you cannot answer these three propositions, then please, donít bother posting another reply, and we can call it a day. But if you can answer these questions, then by all means go ahead. And did you read the article I linked?

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:44 pm


Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Sat Nov 10, 2007 4:43 pm

Let me begin by saying that I am not going to dissect you post point by point, because I am trying to cut down the time I spend debating with morons.
I would prefer you didnít swear on this forum and call me retarded. Thatís just nasty and unfair. That just demonstrates you show a hatred towards Christianity and religion in general.

Quote: Anybody who kills by accident should be sent to prison and released after serving their sentence; the length of time depends on the circumstances surrounding what they did.


Well, if Moses didnít get sent to prison, and not even punished, then you cannot say the above statement.
If God wants to forgive Moses then thatís up to God.

Quote: Do you think Dawkins would be voicing his ideas if there wasnít big money to made from the stuff he writes?

Dawkins, like you, can say whatever you want. But what he says makes sense.
Would you tell the Iraqi people that Saddam Hussein killed that what Dawkins says makes sense?

Have you watched it? You donít have a brain to turn off. The Ďwhole worldí did not come about by evolution you moron. Why not find out what evolution is before you make further retarded statements.
Then outside of God and religion please explain the origin of the universe.

Evolution does not disprove God, it, along with Cosmology, Geology and Physics disprove the biblical creation. The big bang is currently being tested in Fermilab. A theory is not a theory until it is tested.
Has evolution been tested and proven true?

You avoided another of my questions, which was, if the biblical creation was true, then how come there are no dinosaur and human fossils together? And no evidence for a worldwide flood?
I gave you a link to an article that shows evidence for the worldwide flood. Did you read that article? I would like to know what you think on it.

Can you prove there was a Jesus of Nazareth with sources OUTSIDE of the bible?
Yes. There are references to Jesus outside of the Bible.

Interesting. I found this on Charles Hodge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hodge

I quote:
Slavery

Hodge supported slavery in the 1830s, and while he condemned the mistreatment of slaves he did not condemn the institution of slavery itself. The background to this attitude, however, was not primarily his understanding of the Bible's teaching on the matter, but rather his churchmanship.

The Presbyterian church was divided along the same lines that would later split it during the American Civil War. Hodge himself was torn between the abolitionists in the North and the conservatives in the South, and he used his considerable influence in an attempt to restore order and find a middle ground between the two factions. In 1846, however, he became convinced that slavery was wrong, reversing his earlier anti-abolitionist stance, and he then publicly denounced slavery and supported both the Abolitionist movement and President Lincoln (Adams, 2003).
John Newton is another example of a person who supported slavery but in latter life changed his stance on it and was against slavery. Newton's conversion to Christianity played a pivotal role in changing his views on slavery. You can't not be amazed at the change in Newton's life from working on slave ships to becoming one of the key people in ending the slave trade and also penning one of the most commonly known hymns; Amazing Grace.


Last edited by on Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:24 pm; edited 3 times in total

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:10 am

Quote: Can you show me those examples?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/shadowlands4/start
And for more information check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperemesis_gravidarum
How many women die because of morning sickness? How many abortions do you know of that where performed because of severe morning sickness? How many women who got ill and terminated their babies would actually have died if they had tried to give birth? Probably very few. Actually being sick during pregnancy is a sign of a healthy baby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_sickness
Studies have shown that women who suffer from morning sickness are less likely to have miscarriages as well as less likely to give birth to a baby with birth defects.

http://www.pregnancy-info.net/nausea_morning_sickness.html
Ironically, morning sickness can help ensure that you are providing your developing fetus with proper nutrition. This is due to the insulin that is released with food intake: insulin increases a motherís metabolism of fat at the expense of her babyís. Therefore, morning sickness will help make sure that your baby gets its nutrients. But does this mean that if you donít have morning sickness, your baby wonít be healthy? Not at all!

How am I not being consistent? I donít believe the events described in the OT really happened. I do not turn a Ďblind eyeí to abortions, but at the same time I do not force my opinions on pregnant women.
But if you knew somebody was going to commit murder would you ignore that person and not tell him your opinions on the morality of murder?

Quote: Are you going to tell me there has never been an abortion anywhere in the world that was performed after the nervous system of the unborn child had developed?

Why would I do that?
To prove that no unborn baby has ever suffered when they where aborted. I would say that even before the development of the nervous system the unborn baby is bound to feel some pain.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life000.html
Quote: What about the pregnant women that died in the September 11th attacks and the Omagh bombing? Did those unborn babies deserve to live or die?

Who am I to decide who lives or dies? By the way donít be so retarded as to compare murder to abortion!
If you abort an unborn child it dies. When you murder somebody they die.

Quote: Yes I would. But only if the mother really didnít want the baby. And if the mother was considering giving the child up for adoption because she couldnít afford to raise the child, then I would consider giving financial support before considering adopting the child and taking it away from the mother.

Then do it! Why not, at this very moment try and adopt a baby? Or if that is not feasible, rather than give 10% of your money to your church, give it to local mothers! Will you do that?
I do give 10% to my church. I was saying what I would do in a situation of a women considering abortion. But so far I havenít been in a situation where Iíve had to do that.

Quote: Your forgetting about sin. There are consequences to our actions when we sin. God cannot ignore humanityís sin.

William do you want to be able to sin and not be held accountable to God for your actions? When parents set guidelines for their children, does that mean that the children no longer have freewill?

Prove to me that Ďsiní exists!
If sin didnít exist then you would never feel guilty when you commit a wrong / evil action.

Quote: That could only be a true statement if you could prove to me that when murder takes place it isnít a sinful act.

Euthanasia and suicide are not murder. Both of those actions require consent, murder is involuntary.
If a person was in a coma how would they have a say whether they live or die? They wouldnít have a say.

Quote: We can assume that when God met Moses in the burning bush that God had forgiven Moses. Mosesí murdering of the Egyptian was wrong, but God had forgiven Moses and was still prepared to use Moses.

No! We cannot assume! Prove it!!
If God hadnít forgiven Moss then God would not have made Moses the leader of the Israelites.

Quote: God warned Adam and Eve about the consequences there would be if they ate from the tree in the Garden of Eden they werenít supposed to eat from. Do you think God should have gone back on what He said in the warning and been more lenient on mankind after Adam and Eve sinned in the garden? Should mankind have been punished for going against God considering God created mankind? This is an interesting article on this issue

Prove that Adam and Eve even existed!
http://www.everystudent.com/forum/adam.html

Quote: And why does this matter?

Because if you claim the bible is flawless, then the fact that Davidís Kingdom was small proves the bible was wrong regarding the size of his Kingdom.
Davidís Kingdom was very significant in history. The actual size doesnít matter that much.

Quote: Being descendants of Adam and Eve means that we are all like Adam and Eve, in that we are made in Godís image, but also that we have inherited the sin problem that Adam and Eve had because of their disobedience towards God. The Jews, well they were chosen by God to be His special race.

But if we all descend from Adam and Eve, then even the Ishmaelites and Amalicites were descendants from Adam and eve, so at what point in history did the Jews mean more to God that the other tribes? And if you say that the others sinned, then you make the assumption that the Jews never sinned. But you admit that they sin and have sinned, but God does not give the same punishment. He is not consistent!
God did punish the Jews. He let them be exiled because they where evil.

Quote: What about when God warned the Pharaoh to let the Jews leave Egypt? The Egyptians had been warned.

When did God warn the Pharaoh? According to the bible, it was Moses! Exodus 10:20 it says:
ĎBut the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.í
So God wanted the pharaoh to not release the slaves, so that he could kill the babies! And, if you can, tell me this, where in the bible does God warn the children of Egypt what is going to happen?

Maybe, before you continue with this debate, you actually READ the bible!
The Egyptian parents would have known about what was going to happen to their children and could have spread blood over their doorframes to save their firstborn children. Here are a couple of articles: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2259
http://www.salvationbygracealone.com/pharaohsheart.html
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/pharaoh.html
Quote: Yeh but if it did tell us the exact age then you would probably point out people who are mentally handicapped and canít think for themselves, as examples of people who havenít reached the age of understanding by that age.

Iím not claiming the bible to be the perfect word of God. But if it claims that babies go straight to heaven, then why not tell us when that free pass expires?
The age of understanding is when humans are aware of right and wrong, their problem of sin and their need for a Savior. The Bible details salvation through Jesus so the details of the exact age of understanding doesnít matter that much.

Quote: If the Bible did give us answers to everything, would you not just say humans added that to the Bible as they discovered the answer to that question? The Bible is a closed book.

Again, you are the one making extraordinary claims, not me! I know why the bible doesnít have all the answers, you unfortunately donít.
The Bible doesnít answer every question a person might ask because itís a closed book.

Quote: Thatís one of the issues with sin. When you sin it can cause suffering in other people. A child doesnít need to ask forgiveness for the sins of itís parents. A child will be judged individually on its own sin.

According to the bible your wrong:
Exodus 20:5
Exodus 34:6-7
Deuteronomy 5:9

And are you suggesting that in John 9:3 - 'Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.' That there was a Human who was without sin?
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/punish_sons.html
That man who got healed of being blind was not sinless.

Quote: No Iím not. The bomber is. Thatís like saying the airline pilots of the planes on September 11th are responsible for all the people who died in the Twin Towers because they failed to stop the hijacking of their planes.

Yes you are, and if the pilots decided not to try and stop the hijackers because of their belief then yes they were responsible too. For example, Iím sure, that given the chance, one of those pilots would have killed the hijacker. If you had the opportunity to stop the hijacker by killing him, WOULD YOU DO IT? If not, then it is YOU who is the immoral one.
How can you say itís wrong for the pilots to not try and stop hijacking but at the same time say itís wrong for us to interfere when women decide to get their unborn children murdered through abortion. You could stop the hijackers by not killing them.

America, at the moment, is trying to restrict the rights of its citizens. Gays and lesbians, who are not allowed to get married, that is not freedom. Women, who may die as a result of child birth are not allowed abortions (in certain states), that is not freedom. American citizens are having their phones tapped by their own government. The American government have, installed murderous dictators in various parts of the world, namely Chile and Iraq. This is the most Christian country in the world. A country where your freedom is determined by religious nut bars, like you.

In response, Iíll leave Sam Harris you answer why religion is a hindrance to society:
ĎAccording the United Nations Human Development Report (2005), the most atheistic societies--countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are actually the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate and infant mortality. Conversely, the 50 nations now ranked lowest by the U.N. in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious. Of course, correlation data of this sort do not resolve questions of causality belief in God may lead to societal dysfunction; societal dysfunction may foster a belief in God; each factor may enable the other; or both may spring from some deeper source of mischief. Leaving aside the issue of cause and effect, these facts prove that atheism is perfectly compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society; they also prove, conclusively, that religious faith does nothing to ensure a societies health.

If religion really provided the only conceivable, objective basis for morality, it should be impossible to posit a non-theistic, objective basis for morality. But it is not impossible; it is rather easyí

And in regards to religiosity and Intelligence:

ĎSeveral research studies have been published on the statistical relationship between religiosity and educational level, or religiosity and IQ. Michael Shermer, in How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science, describes a large survey of randomly chosen Americans that he and his colleague Frank Sulloway carried out. [...] Religiosity is indeed negatively correlated with education (more highly educated people are less likely to be religious). Religiosity is also negatively correlated with interest in science. [...]

[Paul Bell in Mensa Magazine, 2002, reviewed all studies taken of religion and IQ. He concluded:]

"Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one's intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold "beliefs" of any kind."Ď
If somebody makes you suffer in the future would you let that person make their choice about their actions? If somebody said they were going to murder you, would you allow them the freedom to make their own choice on that action? If America prevents people murdering does that mean that would be murderers are denied freedom? Liam on what grounds can you say that people should be allowed freedom to be gay and get married and yet at the same time prevent a would be murderer doing what he likes? If humanity rejects God then any action can be justified. Being gay is wrong. If every human in the world was gay then the human race would die out because it would be impossible for humans to have children.

10 benefits of religion: http://www.articleclick.com/religion-benefits.html
Quote: If you lived in an Islamic country you wouldnít be allowed to drink alcohol, you would get your handed chopped off if you were caught stealing and women have to cover themselves from head to toe when out in public. As for Christian America you can actually get abortions on demand, though I donít agree with that.

The reason why these laws are in place is because they believe their holy book was written by the creator of the universe, and that it is inherently perfect. Sound familiar?
Secular societies attempt to allow freedom for all religions. A lot of Islamic countries enforce religious beliefs by law. America and the UK allow freedom for all religions because they are secular societies. In Turkey thereís been a political conflict between those that want a secular Turkey and those that want an Islamic Turkey.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6615627.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2080607.ece


Last edited by on Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:41 pm; edited 2 times in total

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:10 am

Quote: We have to provide all sides of the origin of life debate.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life you moron!
How does evolution not deal with the origin of life?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/origin.asp

That article details the problems that scientists face when it comes to the origin of life.

I quote:
'Scientists are having a hard time agreeing on when, where andómost importantóhow life first emerged on the earth', the article began. 'The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned', said Stanley Miller, who was generally promoted (to laymen) as having made life in a test tube as long ago as 1953, simply because he had synthesized a mixture of amino acids in a controlled laboratory experiment.
The article looks at some of the recent theories on the origin of life, and discards them one by one. It also points out some problems that a theory must overcome. 'There is a hitch ... proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. To those pondering the origin of life, it is a classic chicken-and-egg problem. Which came first, proteins or DNA?'

http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html

THE BOTTOM LINE
on the origin of life
 During all recorded human history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing.
 As yet, Evolutionism has not produced a scientifically credible explanation for the origin of such immense complexities as DNA, the human brain, and many other complex elements of the cosmos.
 It is highly premature for materialists to claim that all living things evolved into existence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by natural processes.
 There is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life.

Here is an article detailing the loopholes in evolution:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4220.asp
Quote: Evolution leaves far too many unanswered questions, which is why schools should teach creationism.

What are those questions? Tell me this, if man walked with dinosaurs, why has there NEVER been a human fossil found alongside, or even in the same strata, as a dinosaur? (And donít be a retard and mention the Paluxy river, Texas).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0115angkor.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/dinosaurs.asp
Quote: If a school only taught evolution how would you propose that school deal with children who raise questions and doubts about evolution?

Answer the question! Schools should not teach children WHAT to think, but HOW to think! Would you send your child to a school where they were taught that man was formed from a clot of blood?
I would want my child to make up his own mind on what he believes. Evolution leaves a lot of unanswered questions so I would want my child to raise those unanswered questions. Schools should teach children how to think and all possibilities on what to believe.

Quote: Jesus, Billy Graham and Ravi Zacharias.

I cannot believe that you compared Graham and Ravi to Jesus, you are a moron (and if Jesus existed, he would be calling you that too).

First of all, does True Christianity consist of Anti-Semitisim? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1850077.stm

As for Ravi Zacharias, in a response to a question asked regarding Mitt Romney, he stated Ď..then run this country with the excellence of that which is recognized in a pluralistic society: the freedom to believe or to disbelieve, and the moral framework with which this was conducted...í
Yet then suggested a war (ideological) with Islam: ĎIíve said to him basically his choice is not going to be between religion and secularism. His choice is going to be between Islam and Christianity.í

And on Secularism: ĎSecularism has no staying power and has proven itself in Europe today. Europe is on the decline and on the demise and itís only a matter of time before Islam would take a foothold there unless the Christian world view reemerges.í

So much for freedom to believe or disbelieve. You see, you cannot make the statement that you are free to believe whatever you want, but you will have Christian rules imposed upon you.
But at least 2 out of the 3 names you gave actually existed.
True Christianity is not Anti-Semitism. Thatís why Billy Graham apologized for what He said.

3 out of 3 names existed. Jesus is the ultimate example of True Christianity.

Quote: Thereís good articles in it; you would find it interesting.

Speaking of good articles, before posting anything again, especially regarding evolution, read this: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file021.html

8 reasons why people believe in evolution: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/238

Quote: Yeh but without God there is nothing to stop humans destroying themselves in the future.

Even with God, humans can destroy themselves, and each other, just read Exodus, or something non-fiction, War Dogs.
Humans could only kill themselves after the fall because sin had been introduced into the world.

Evidence for creation:
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/evidencefor/evidencefor.html
Early Christian writings:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
Liam if you reject God then whoís to say that what these young kids did was wrong? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7071138.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_Religion_Dangerous%3F
I quote:
In Ch 9. Does religion do more harm than good in personal life? Ward quotes data from David Myers citing surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Centre and the Pew Organisation which conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being "very happy" than the least religiously committed people.[17] He reports an analysis of over 200 social studies that "high religiousness predicts a rather lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with life and a sense of well-being"[18] and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals that "concluded that a large majority of these studies showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem, and lower levels of hypertension, depression and clinical delinquency,[19] and similar results from the Handbook of Religion and Mental Health.[20] He cites surveys suggesting a strong link between faith and altruism.[21] He cites extensive studies to show that there is little or no evidence that religion ever causes mental disorders[22] and that overall religion is a positive contributor to mental health.

He specifically addresses and rebuts the claim that religious belief is a delusion. He quotes the definition in the Oxford Companion to Mind as "a fixed, idiosyncratic belief, unusual in the culture to which the person belongs" suggesting that "most great philosophers have believed in God"[23] and that the many religious people who exhibit a high degree of rational ability ... and who can produce a reasonable and coherent defense of their beliefs" refute the idea that belief in God is a delusion - whether or not it may be mistaken.[24] He also analyses and rejects the idea that Faith is a brain malfunction, quoting Gerald Edelman "The evolutionary assumption [that consciousness conferred fitness].. implies that consciousness is efficacious - that is, it is not an epiphenomenon"[25] and suggests that, if consciousness can apprehend truth and cause action, so can faith.

In Ch 10. What good has religion done? Ward suggests that, although harm has been done in the name of religion, the same is true of politics and science, that religion can "be used to inspire heroic love and commitment. The world would be much poorer without Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Mother Teresa.. Bach ... St Francis, Siddartha Gautama and Jesus"[26]. He cites many positive contributions made by Judaism, Christianity (he cites in particular founding hospitals, hospices, schools and universities, great works of art, the investigation into the world as the creation of one wise and rational God that gave birth to modern science[27], the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the Red Cross) and Islam and suggests that "there is plenty of room for common social action in mercy and hospitality between Christians and Muslims, and it is imperative that such commonalities are promoted"[28]. He concludes by stating that Religion "is the compassionate heart of what might otherwise seem to be a cold and heartless world."

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:38 pm

Ok, Dave!

You avoided all of my questions, which were, if the biblical creation was true, then how come there are no dinosaur and human fossils together? And no evidence for a worldwide flood?

Can you prove there was a Jesus of Nazareth with sources OUTSIDE of the bible?

If you cannot answer these three propositions, then please, donít bother posting another reply, and we can call it a day. But if you can answer these questions, then by all means go ahead. And did you read the article I linked?

Dave, how can you possibly waffle on about, unanswered questions, when you are TOLD what to believe by answersingenesis? http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/

You have neither the patience nor intellect to do the research yourself. It just shows how ignorant you are, that rather than write what you believe and the evidence for it, you simply copy and paste. I guess the term sheep applies you more than anyone else in history.

I would prefer you didnít swear on this forum and call me retarded. Thatís just nasty and unfair. That just demonstrates you show a hatred towards Christianity and religion in general.

Nasty and unfair? Excuse me, but I have (repeatedly) stated that evolution has been observed, and even provided links and evidence, yet you continue to ask:
Has evolution been tested and proven true?

This proves that both you are ignorant and don't bother doing any research, or your are retarded and just cannot grasp this fact? Which is it? And, no, I don't have hatred against Christianity, but I despise and disrespect liars. And that usually means most Christians. There are hundreds of unwanted pregnancies in Northern Ireland, why don't you give your tithe to them? http://www.fpa.org.uk/

If you don't you are either a liar or a hypocrite.

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:48 am

You avoided all of my questions, which were, if the biblical creation was true, then how come there are no dinosaur and human fossils together? And no evidence for a worldwide flood?
I provided articles detailing dinosaur and human fossils together. I also provided an article detailing evidence for a worldwide flood. If you want to discredit this evidence then please read the articles and point out where you think they are wrong.

Can you prove there was a Jesus of Nazareth with sources OUTSIDE of the bible?
I did provide evidence for Jesus outside of the Bible but you didnít accept it. I also proved there were more manuscripts for the Bible than other significant documents of the time. Evidence of Jesus outside of the Bible:

http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/

http://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/existed.php

And did you read the article I linked?
You mean this article: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file021.html
Yeh I had a quick glance at it. It mentions natural selection. There are problems with natural selection:

http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/NaturalSelection.html

I quote:
Why Evolution by Natural Selection Cannot Occur

Some of the reasons why natural selection will never produce (macro)evolution:

* Natural selection ďselectsĒ only pre-existing traits. It cannot produce the new genetic information needed for new organs, species, therefore it cannot lead to the apparition of new species.
* The DNA barrier: The different species are separated by a DNA barrier, because there is much difference in their genetic make-up. Each creature is born like its parents, it inherits their DNA. Reshuffling of the genes can occur to produce variations within a species. To cross the species gap, this naturally occurring reshuffling is not enough, new DNA structures are needed.
* There are some traits that are neutral, that is they give no benefit to their owner. How could they have evolved by natural selection, if they offered no selective advantage?
* Natural selection would actually eliminate evolution. It has been observed that in the wild, animals and plants tend to return to the normal. Natural selection eliminates all extremes, whether they are produced by mutations or accidents. If a creature is born with features that are too far from the norm, it will not be fit, and it will therefore die. Natural selection is therefore a conserving force, assuring the fixity of the species.
* In fact, if evolution were true, we would not expect to find distinct species at all. There should be complete intergradation between all the forms of life. The very existence of species contradicts evolution and points to creation.
* We see purpose and design in everything. A process that is by definition random, could never produce all the intricate structures we see in nature, which all point to an intelligent Designer.
Here is another article dealing with problems with natural selection: http://www.rae.org/natsel.html

Nasty and unfair? Excuse me, but I have (repeatedly) stated that evolution has been observed, and even provided links and evidence, yet you continue to ask:

Quote:Has evolution been tested and proven true?
We may be able to observe limited examples of microevolution but not the full blown evolution required to get us to where we are today. Can you show me 2 species and how one has evolved into the other. Ie. Horses becoming giraffes. Iíve heard of scientists doing tests on mice and making them better at certain things, eg the super mice that could run marathons: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7074831.stm

But Iíve not heard of scientists turning mice into another completely different species; ie turning a mouse into a cat.

How do you explain the fact that humans are the dominant species above all other creatures?

Also what are your views on the Cambrian explosion and the appearing of lots of complex fossils all at once. How would you explain that?

There are hundreds of unwanted pregnancies in Northern Ireland, why don't you give your tithe to them? http://www.fpa.org.uk/

If you don't you are either a liar or a hypocrite.
A tithe is different to giving money to charity. And Christians do undertake charity related activities like The Shoebox Appeal.

Anyhow I was making a point about if I knew personally of a women considering an abortion. I donít personally know any women who are considering an abortion.

I would like to know what you think about these topics:

Saddam Hussein transporting WMDs out of Iraq before they could be found.
Immune rejection and the rejection of stem cells.
Women having more mental problems long term after having an abortion than women who just miscarriage.
Charles Hodge and his anti-slavery views in later life. You can also look into John Newton and how he went from working on the slave ships to being a key person in ending the slave trade.

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:44 pm

Dave, all you are doing is copying and pasting articles. You even admitted only glancing at the article I provided. In order for YOU to fully discredit evolution, you need to know what it is, not what Answersingenesis says it is. If you read that article I posted, then 'your' questions would be answered.

Now either stop posting, or prove, with evidence, your claims, and why YOU accept them? Because all you seem to be doing is copying articles and passages from Christian websites, which were not written by biologists.

Are you going to be a man, and prove what you believe, or are you a sheep, who will believe anything and everything AiG say?

As for the supposed 'evidence' outside the bible, I did not discount them, I proved them wrong. Much like the Egyptian chariot in the Red Seed? Or the so called sources for Jesus outside of the bible, such as Josephus (fake), and the others, which only prove the existence of Christians, not Christ. I believe in Christians, I don't believe in Christ. Can you prove he existed?

By the way this debate is not about Saddam Hussein, if you want a debate about him I suggest you start another thread.

I will be patiently waiting on you proof.

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:36 am

Here is something interesting. Snakes actually have the remnants of legs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_spur
From an evolutionary point of view why would snakes lose their legs? How would that benefit their survival? It wouldnít. It would make it harder for them to survive. There is a Biblical explanation for why snakes lost their legs:
Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Scientists donít like a young earth viewpoint because macroevolution if it works at all is a very slow process. There has been no major evolutionary development in humans in 6000 years. Because macroevolution is such a slow process scientists have to suggest ridiculously large time scales for the age of the earth for evolution to even be considered as a possibility. In the horse to giraffe example, if a horse needs to get to the top most leaves of a tall tree to survive and its neck isnít long enough, well a longer neck isnít going to evolve overnight and so I would expect the horses to die out. So if evolution works at all, I would expect most animals to die out before what they need to survive actually evolves. The odds are stacked against evolution. For me it makes more sense that all animals appeared at the same time fully developed and all created by God.

Your article http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file021.html mentioned the peppered mouth. Well actually thatís not an accurate example of evolution as this article points out: http://www.verticalthought.org/issues/vt14/moths.htm
I quote:
"Proof" full of holes
What are the conclusions today about the supposed proof of the evolution of peppered moths?
ē Both specimens of moths already existed at the time of the experimentsóno new species appeared.
ē Only the population ratio of the dark and light moths changed from the 19th and 20th centuries due to a number of conditions, not all well understood. There was no creation of or evolution into a new species.
ē The photographs of moths on tree trunks were staged according to inaccurate assumptions, and further investigation showed these moths do not normally perch on trunks.
ē The increase of the dark moths and the decrease of the light moths were likely due to various environmental factors, including bird predation, but these examples only show how resilient God's creation is.
ē In the beginning of the 20th century, the dark moths predominated due in part to the darkening of the environment through industrial pollution. When the environment was cleaned up, the lighter moths became the dominant type. But there was no change in color or structure of the mothsóthey both had existed before industrial contamination began.
Are you going to be a man, and prove what you believe, or are you a sheep, who will believe anything and everything AiG say?
I provided articles detailing evidence for dinosaur and human fossils together and evidence for a worldwide flood. Regardless of where these articles came from please read them and show me where they are wrong if you think they are wrong rather than blindly disregarding them.
As for the supposed 'evidence' outside the bible, I did not discount them, I proved them wrong. Much like the Egyptian chariot in the Red Seed? Or the so called sources for Jesus outside of the bible, such as Josephus (fake), and the others, which only prove the existence of Christians, not Christ. I believe in Christians, I don't believe in Christ. Can you prove he existed?
How can you not believe in the existence of Jesus when the non-biblical sources I provided actually mention Jesus? And as for Josephus, its no fake. Have a read of this article: http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm and this article: http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=207

If Jesus didnít exist then there wouldnít be any Christians nowadays. The disciples would never have given their lives for something that was a fake.

You say you believe in Christians. So do you believe the disciples existed? If so do you believe in the supernatural miracles they performed in the name of Jesus. Ie. Peter and John healing the lame man (Acts 3:1-12)?

By the way this debate is not about Saddam Hussein, if you want a debate about him I suggest you start another thread.
It kind of is about Saddam Hussein because you mentioned the issue of WMDs and I made a point about how Saddam Hussein actually did have WMDs and how he transported them out of Iraq before they could be found and I even mentioned a book detailing the evidence for that.

I would like to know what you think about these topics:

Saddam Hussein transporting WMDs out of Iraq before they could be found.
Immune rejection and the rejection of stem cells.
Women having more mental problems long term after having an abortion than women who just miscarriage.
Charles Hodge and his anti-slavery views in later life. You can also look into John Newton and how he went from working on the slave ships to being a key person in ending the slave trade.

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:27 pm

Let me begin by saying that you have yet to provide any evidence for your beliefs. For example you state that macroevolution would take a long time to occur, and claim that evolution is impossible because the Earth is 6000 years old. You have provided absolutely no evidence to support your claim of a young Earth. So in order for you to satisfy the argument you need to prove that macroevolution does not occur, the Earth is 6000 years old and that current dating methods are incorrect i.e. carbon etc. You have yet to do this, so I will continue to wait for you to do so.

You also point to the bible as evidence. I have proved the bible to contain flaws, as far as I know, Moses, the author of Genesis, was not a biologist. If Snakes lost their legs because of the fall, then does the bible also explain why whales have a vestigial hip bone? Or that foetusí are covered in hair in the womb, or even the coccyx?

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 15 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10 ... 15  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum