10 questions every intelligent Christian must answer

[high as hell]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zDHJ4ztnldQ"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zDHJ4ztnldQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[stneod]

Good video man. I felt a little like I was being brainwashed, but it was informative. If I were a christian I would be Deist, believe that christian god exists but he doesnt perform miracles, basically.

[Rasta_Man]

1. God hates amputees (why not? he hates a ton of other people)
2. God hates starving people (if you can't feed yourself then your not worthy to worship the lord)
3. because god hates things, this isn't anything new. He likes snuff films.
4. because Science is the work of the devil. God wants us to live like the Amish and deny facts
5. God likes slavery because it promotes capitalism, which is good.
6. Because good people are brown noses and concieve themselves without sin and need to be smited. God loves a good smiting.
7. Because evidence is the work of the devil. He wants us to be faithful, duh.
8. Jesus is a busy man, he doesn't have time for you.
9. Jesus is a cannibal and masochist. He takes after his father and also enjoys snuff films
10. Marriage is the work of the devil.

There, I've validated God.

[IGotTheCottons]

Funny... I was able to answer those questions without having to make up "gross rationalizations" or without even having to feel uncomfortable. All those answers are actually contained in Scripture for anyone who actually LOOKS...

So here's my 10 answers for those 10 questions...

Answer #01.) Amputees = not terminal patients. In Scripture - God heals TERMINAL patients, and not all of them.

Answer #02.) Not all prayers are answered. There are many instances in Scripture where the answer to prayer is NO. Also, those starving nations can up and move if they so choose. They can move on to lands where the ground is fertile and can support life. They don't HAVE to stay in the desert and starve.

Answer #03.) These people aren't "innocent". While we may view these things as no big deal, God doesn't. IF God was the creator over everything and all that, then it's HIS rules that we'd have to obey, now isn't it? Like when you're growing up and you have to follow your parents' rules -- even though some of them may seem "ridiculous".

Answer #04.) Seeing as how NONE of those claims can actually be PROVEN, and also how the video gave NOTHING backing up those claims, I'll just move on ahead...

Answer #05.) Really? Slavery was HUGE in the older cultures - and INTELLIGENT people DID own slaves. Different times and cultures back then as opposed to now.

Answer #06.) Bad things happen to ALL people. Get over it.

Answer #07.) They did. Written evidence of thier happenings. It's not like Jesus knocked down mountains or anything. Mostly just healings, exorcisms, and that kind of stuff. You know - things that don't leave physical evidence after the fact...

Answer #08.) Doesn't have to. The revelation is complete. There is no need for direct communication/appearance at this point/time. There's a lot of time periods throughout scripture where God didn't appear to anyone. Some of which were quite lengthy.

Answer #09.) He doesn't. This is a gross misinterpretation by the Catholic church. The communion REPRESENTS Christs' body/blood - it's not literally transformed into his body/blood. It's done out of remembrance for what Christ did on the cross. The bread/juice represents the breaking of Christs' body, and his blood that was shed for us. Only the Catholics interpret this as a literal transformation -- and they do so incorrectly.

Answer #10.) Because they're human. Just like non-Christians.

EDIT: I started posting my post before anyone else got to it... Ya'll were just quicker getting your responses out, lmao

[Rasta_Man]

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

Answer #01.) Amputees = not terminal patients. In Scripture - God heals TERMINAL patients, and not all of them.

But God cures blindness and can make people walk. Neither of those are terminal.

Also, I'd like to add this:

Matthew 9:35
And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

Answer #02.) Not all prayers are answered. There are many instances in Scripture where the answer to prayer is NO. Also, those starving nations can up and move if they so choose. They can move on to lands where the ground is fertile and can support life. They don't HAVE to stay in the desert and starve.

....You're joking right? With what resources are these people going to go up and explore the world? Which country is going to harbor all these refugees? Transport and feed them?

We're talking about hundreds of millions of people, dude.

These places are hardly capable of support a population with resources at their disposal, how can they be expected to wander around looking for some kind of amnesty?

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

Answer #03.) These people aren't "innocent". While we may view these things as no big deal, God doesn't. IF God was the creator over everything and all that, then it's HIS rules that we'd have to obey, now isn't it? Like when you're growing up and you have to follow your parents' rules -- even though some of them may seem "ridiculous".

What!? So this omnipotent god creates these infidels and homosexuals and disobedient people so we can kill them? Even though murder is a mortal sin and otherwise promotes peace between all people?

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

Answer #04.) Seeing as how NONE of those claims can actually be PROVEN, and also how the video gave NOTHING backing up those claims, I'll just move on ahead...

Much of it can actually, we have much knowledge of how planets and solar systems form. We have loves of evidence that things did not happen that way.

The narrators points that in order for you to actually address the issue, you have to invoke an excuse to rationalize it.

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

Answer #05.) Really? Slavery was HUGE in the older cultures - and INTELLIGENT people DID own slaves. Different times and cultures back then as opposed to now.

Yes, so what was God just going along with the crowd?

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

Answer #06.) Bad things happen to ALL people. Get over it.

Why though? Shouldn't God protect his believers and worshipers? He IS Omnipotent.

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

Answer #07.) They did. Written evidence of thier happenings. It's not like Jesus knocked down mountains or anything. Mostly just healings, exorcisms, and that kind of stuff. You know - things that don't leave physical evidence after the fact...

And we all know how accurate the Bible is. But that aside, I agree that this question is flawed.

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

Answer #08.) Doesn't have to. The revelation is complete. There is no need for direct communication/appearance at this point/time. There's a lot of time periods throughout scripture where God didn't appear to anyone. Some of which were quite lengthy.

Well with THAT logic, than maybe you should become a Muslim. They're the most recent incarnation of the Old Testament. They've had the most recent prophet.

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

Answer #09.) He doesn't. This is a gross misinterpretation by the Catholic church. The communion REPRESENTS Christs' body/blood - it's not literally transformed into his body/blood. It's done out of remembrance for what Christ did on the cross. The bread/juice represents the breaking of Christs' body, and his blood that was shed for us. Only the Catholics interpret this as a literal transformation -- and they do so incorrectly.

Even analogously? I think the author is trying to tie it to pagan symbolizing, but I'm not really familiar with the topic.

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

Answer #10.) Because they're human. Just like non-Christians.

So a union founded on the relationship of God is really pointless? See, that's a big component of the American religious right with the gay marriage argument.

You could be right, but it would have some implications concerning the religious validity of marriage.

[Retroshark]

i enjoyed that very much, i wish my stepdad was here to watch it, hed try to shoot me for watching that!

all true though, i wish more people would see it too.

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

But God cures blindness and can make people walk. Neither of those are terminal.

Also, I'd like to add this:

Matthew 9:35
And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people

LOL... Forgot about that... I dunno then. You got me. The Apostle Paul asked for healing of sorts, and God never granted it to him... God allowed cripples to walk, and the blind to see... That's happened in modern times. There are cases where doctors told people they'd never walk, and they can run, jump, and do anything else a normal person can. Can the blind see? Yes. I had a friend who had his eye shot out with a froze paint ball. I mean his eye literally exploded. The docs said it'd be a miracle even if they could save the eye... Today, he has 20/20 vision in said eye. So I'd say there's some things today that could be considered miracles to some.

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

....You're joking right? With what resources are these people going to go up and explore the world? Which country is going to harbor all these refugees? Transport and feed them?

We're talking about hundreds of millions of people, dude.

What stopped the Hebrews from doing it when they fled Egypt? They upped and left with nothing but what they could carry with them. They found refuge where they could.

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

These places are hardly capable of support a population with resources at their disposal, how can they be expected to wander around looking for some kind of amnesty?

Don't know. But this doesn't mean that every bad thing is God's fault. Why would he have to intervene on something the human race can do themselves? We as a species are perfectly capable of providing for the poor -- But we don't. We're too worried about other things.

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

What!? So this omnipotent god creates these infidels and homosexuals and disobedient people so we can kill them? Even though murder is a mortal sin and otherwise promotes peace between all people?

People have the choice as to whether or not they're going to do these things. Sorry man, but everyone makes their own decisions (with the exceptions being the severely mentally handicapped obviously).

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

Much of it can actually, we have much knowledge of how planets and solar systems form. We have loves of evidence that things did not happen that way.

We have lots of assumptions based of the thought of evolution/uniformitarianism being correct. Can't trust rock dating - as it's flawed, and itself is based on assumptions. Can't really know what the world looked like back then as all those people are now dead and didn't leave the best records. So really... How can it be proven? There's things in the geologic strata that are better explained by a huge flood of sorts than a uniformitarian POV... There's lots of evidence that can be used equally well in arguing both sides, and there's not really any way to tell for sure which is correct...

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

The narrators points that in order for you to actually address the issue, you have to invoke an excuse to rationalize it.

Not really, though. Most of the questions are answerable by scripture... It's not like I have to plug in some holes that the Bible left out or anything.

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

Yes, so what was God just going along with the crowd?

If you actually <i>read</i> the scriptures, God doesn't really promote slavery. He does promote servants who are paying off a debt of sorts, though. He tells those who own "slaves" to treat the "slave" as a respected member of the family. Slave works, but gets to live rent-free, food-free, etc... So it's not really SLAVERY - more like servant-hood... A form of compensation so to speak. PEOPLE didn't always abide by this, though - but that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing what <i>scripture</i> said, not what people did.

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

Why though? Shouldn't God protect his believers and worshipers? He IS Omnipotent.

That doesn't mean he has to answer their every whim. People have to go through bad times in order to have an appreciation for the good things. There's a word for people who don't have bad things happen to them, and they get their way all the time -- It's called SPOILED...

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

And we all know how accurate the Bible is. But that aside, I agree that this question is flawed.

Historically, it's actually pretty dead on. It's when the Scripture gets into the spiritual aspect that it's accuracy can be debated.

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

Well with THAT logic, than maybe you should become a Muslim. They're the most recent incarnation of the Old Testament. They've had the most recent prophet.

What logic? That I believe that God doesn't have to audibly talk to, or visually appear to people for him to exist? I'm having trouble following you.

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

Even analogously? I think the author is trying to tie it to pagan symbolizing, but I'm not really familiar with the topic.

The Catholic church believes that during the communion the wafer and wine LITERALLY transform into the body/blood of Christ. They believe this so deeply, that if a person vomits up the wafer and wine during the "sacrament" the high priest has to eat said wafer/wine... This is shown to be false, though, when you take the scriptures used into the Greek. The communion is a mere representation. It is done out of remembrance (sort of like when you tip some beer out of your bottle for your fallen friends). It's a way of showing the testimony of Jesus Christ without using words. The broken bread and the juice (most protestants don't use wine) are representative of Christs' broken body and his shed blood.

The narrator was talking about the Catholic belief of "transsubstantiation" where it is a literal transformation, and said person literally drinks Christs' blood and eats Christs' flesh -- thus why they were talking about cannibalism and whatnot.

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

So a union founded on the relationship of God is really pointless? See, that's a big component of the American religious right with the gay marriage argument.

It's not pointless, but you gotta realize that Christians are first and foremost - HUMAN... They have short-comings and flaws, just like everyone else. No one's perfect.

[Rasta_Man]

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

LOL... Forgot about that... I dunno then. You got me. The Apostle Paul asked for healing of sorts, and God never granted it to him... God allowed cripples to walk, and the blind to see... That's happened in modern times. There are cases where doctors told people they'd never walk, and they can run, jump, and do anything else a normal person can. Can the blind see? Yes. I had a friend who had his eye shot out with a froze paint ball. I mean his eye literally exploded. The docs said it'd be a miracle even if they could save the eye... Today, he has 20/20 vision in said eye. So I'd say there's some things today that could be considered miracles to some.

Cool

What stopped the Hebrews from doing it when they fled Egypt? They upped and left with nothing but what they could carry with them. They found refuge where they could.

Yes, that worked out great.

But really, that was ancient Egypt. That's a time before countries even had clearly define boarders and were rather groups of settlements.

It's all nice and righteous to put it in biblical contexts, but it horrible impractical. What you're suggesting is essentially a death march of the poor into the vast expanse of an uninhabited continent and hope they'll find a more suitable environment.

But we're off-topic.

Don't know. But this doesn't mean that every bad thing is God's fault. Why would he have to intervene on something the human race can do themselves? We as a species are perfectly capable of providing for the poor -- But we don't. We're too worried about other things.

Of course it's God's fault. God is OMNIPOTENT. God creates these issues.

If you're arguing that God is NOT omnipotent, then I would have to revise all my statements.

People have the choice as to whether or not they're going to do these things. Sorry man, but everyone makes their own decisions (with the exceptions being the severely mentally handicapped obviously).

You're not following me; there is an inherent hypocrisy in this logic. You can't not murder and enforce capital punishment. Those are two totally different messages.

Again, on the principle of Omnipotence, God knows damn well what he is doing and crafted these individuals that way, and weather or not they have a choice, it is totally dependent on God's influence directly and indirectly.

We have lots of assumptions based of the thought of evolution/uniformitarianism being correct. Can't trust rock dating - as it's flawed, and itself is based on assumptions.

Whoa now!

First off, I assume you're referring to relative geological dating. You're totally right, it is a method in which geologists use the principles of causality to determine the formation of a particular geological circumstance.

A geologist can look at the combined information from a site and safely say, based on causality, which geological event took place, relative to another geological event. Example: based one the rule of cross-cutting, we know that a sill is relatively younger than the surrounding strata which contains it.

Now, in conjunction with relative dating, geologists use a method called absolute dating; using radiometric dating to determine the composition of samples. Using these as benchmarks (the K-T Extinction event is a great example), geologists can date findings and geological events.

It's really interesting, I just pulled that all from memory, it's a subject I find very interesting.

It's based on the assumption that there is not some unexplainable, intangible force acting on it -- Just like all scientific hypothesis.

Can't really know what the world looked like back then as all those people are now dead and didn't leave the best records.

Nature left all the records we need.

So really... How can it be proven?

With science

There's things in the geologic strata that are better explained by a huge flood of sorts than a uniformitarian POV... There's lots of evidence that can be used equally well in arguing both sides, and there's not really any way to tell for sure which is correct...

Mmm, no. I'm not a professional geologist, but I know some. I can safely say that I know of absolute no evidence indicating a biblical flood. The evidence we see is very rock hard (pardon the pun). It reflects billions of years of sedimentation, erosion, metamorphosis.

I would be very interested to see your sources if your want to post them.

Not really, though. Most of the questions are answerable by scripture... It's not like I have to plug in some holes that the Bible left out or anything.

If you actually read the scriptures, God doesn't really promote slavery. He does promote servants who are paying off a debt of sorts, though. He tells those who own "slaves" to treat the "slave" as a respected member of the family. Slave works, but gets to live rent-free, food-free, etc... So it's not really SLAVERY - more like servant-hood... A form of compensation so to speak. PEOPLE didn't always abide by this, though - but that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing what scripture said, not what people did.

Ohhh I get it, it's only forced labor and imprisonment in exchange for food and room. I'm sorry, for some reason, I associated that concept with slavery! My bad!

Oh and I think this is worth of some bible study!

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

So apparently you were wrong. God doesn't mind you buying and keeping slaves -- hell even hand them down to your kids if they're still workable!

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

So basically, if you have a Hebrew slave, you can keep his sons, daughters and wife ransom and force him to become your slave forever. Very fair of our loving lord and savior.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

God doesn't care if you beat your slaves to death, as long as they manage to survive a day or two


There is more, but I think I've made my point.

That doesn't mean he has to answer their every whim. People have to go through bad times in order to have an appreciation for the good things. There's a word for people who don't have bad things happen to them, and they get their way all the time -- It's called SPOILED...

Okay, so the omnipotent God made people to be susceptible to ungratefulness. And then to prevent them from filling that capacity, he invokes terrible human atrocities?

Okay, my bad, I just didn't understand that.

Historically, it's actually pretty dead on. It's when the Scripture gets into the spiritual aspect that it's accuracy can be debated.

That happens a lot.

I'm not going to argue the historical accuracy of the bible, it's meaningless in this argument.

What logic? That I believe that God doesn't have to audibly talk to, or visually appear to people for him to exist? I'm having trouble following you.

The logic that:

There's a lot of time periods throughout scripture where God didn't appear to anyone. Some of which were quite lengthy.

So therefore, since Mohammed of Islam is the most recent prophet of the God of Abraham, you should follow him instead of the outdated Jesus.

The narrator was talking about the Catholic belief of "transsubstantiation" where it is a literal transformation, and said person literally drinks Christs' blood and eats Christs' flesh -- thus why they were talking about cannibalism and whatnot.

I think know that, and that is pretty fucked. To be blunt.

It's not pointless, but you gotta realize that Christians are first and foremost - HUMAN... They have short-comings and flaws, just like everyone else. No one's perfect.

Sorry, I was under the impression the the whole religious ceremony had some divine implications. My bad.

[Heinous Anus]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MeSSwKffj9o"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MeSSwKffj9o" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

What you're suggesting is essentially a death march of the poor into the vast expanse of an uninhabited continent and hope they'll find a more suitable environment.

That is merely one option. The other would be for the human race to pull together and help those who are less fortunate. You need no divine intervention for something the person can very well do themselves.

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

Of course it's God's fault. God is OMNIPOTENT. God creates these issues.

Omnipotence simply means that nothing is beyond God's power... Not that he's sitting there pulling every string for everything that's ever happened since the dawn of time. God gives us free will, and allows us to make our own decisions.

If you go through scripture, you'll find that God doesn't intervene very much in the day-to-day affairs of people. Hell, the Hebrews were in a shit-hole state for a good 400 years before having to tread through the desert for another 80 years... Then to top it off they get taken into captivity TWICE after that... Did God intervene? In some ways, but not all the time for all big matters. God's not ALL love. His primary overriding characteristic is Holiness ("Holy, Holy, Holy is the LORD" - said the cherubims as they flew over God)... And a holy God is and a just God cannot leave sin unpunished (this would make God a hypocrite).

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

If you're arguing that God is NOT omnipotent, then I would have to revise all my statements.

I'm arguing that God gives us free will. Omnipotence means that nothing is beyond His power, or that He <i>can</i> do all things...

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

You're not following me; there is an inherent hypocrisy in this logic. You can't not murder and enforce capital punishment. Those are two totally different messages.

Wanna bet? Murder would imply that you're killing someone for no good reason. Scripture very clearly shows that God instituted government to carry out capital punishment for those convicted of certain crimes.

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

Again, on the principle of Omnipotence, God knows damn well what he is doing and crafted these individuals that way, and weather or not they have a choice, it is totally dependent on God's influence directly and indirectly.

God crafts your personality type, but that doesn't mean he MAKES you gay. Most people who are gay (who I know personally, anyway) have all had deeply traumatic events that have happened to them in order to lessen their trust of the opposite sex. I'm not saying that's the sole reason why people are gay, but for many, it's a big player. I firmly believe homosexuality is a choice.

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

Now, in conjunction with relative dating, geologists use a method called absolute dating; using radiometric dating to determine the composition of samples. Using these as benchmarks (the K-T Extinction event is a great example), geologists can date findings and geological events.

It's these radiometric dating techniques that I'm claiming are flawed. You have to make assumptions on what you're measuring in order to even perform these tests. You have to assume firstly, that the isotope you're testing has decayed at a constant rate over the years... Only things in a closed system will decay at a constant rate... Decay rates in open systems are subject to change, as there are several things in nature which can alter decay rates... You also have to assume there was X amount of the isotope to begin with. In the case of carbon dating, the levels of the measurable carbon have fluctuated over the years, and thus living things will have variable amounts depending on the time period they lived in. There are others as well, but I'm too lazy at the moment.

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

It's really interesting, I just pulled that all from memory, it's a subject I find very interesting.

Me too... I find it interesting how people can look at the same evidence and come to 2 completely different conclusions...

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

It's based on the assumption that there is not some unexplainable, intangible force acting on it -- Just like all scientific hypothesis.

It's based on assumptions on how much radioactive material was in said sample to begin with. It's based on assumptions on how rapidly said isotope decayed, as well as the assumption that it decayed at a steady, uninterrupted rate...

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

Nature left all the records we need.

Yeah, but all we have is fossils, and flawed measuring techniques. You can walk in a room with a candle burning, and a large amount of wax underneath, and have plenty of records -- that doesn't mean you're going to interpret them correctly... That doesn't mean you'll be able to say <i>for sure</i> how long said candle was burning. All you can say <i>for sure</i> is that it's burning.

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

Mmm, no. I'm not a professional geologist, but I know some. I can safely say that I know of absolute no evidence indicating a biblical flood. The evidence we see is very rock hard (pardon the pun). It reflects billions of years of sedimentation, erosion, metamorphosis.

What about evaporates? Why is there no organic material found in them? If they formed over many years from dried out lake-beds, there'd be organic material -- but there's none.

There's also HUGE sedimentary deposits that cover the globe? These deposits are typically found in large river deltas -- not over areas bigger than some continents. And why are they not being formed on such a large scale today - if a uniformitarian POV is, indeed, the correct one? These are all things that can be better explained by a flood than by current means.

There's also whole, upside-down trees in coal veins, big trees that transcend multiple layers of the geologic strata, the fact that most fossils are found in LARGE groups, aquatic fossils being found in areas that supposedly never under the ocean, and other such occurrences...

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

I would be very interested to see your sources if your want to post them.

When I get some time, I see no reason why not.

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

Ohhh I get it, it's only forced labor and imprisonment in exchange for food and room. I'm sorry, for some reason, I associated that concept with slavery! My bad!

Not forced, agreed upon...

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

Oh and I think this is worth of some bible study!

So apparently you were wrong. God doesn't mind you buying and keeping slaves -- hell even hand them down to your kids if they're still workable!So basically, if you have a Hebrew slave, you can keep his sons, daughters and wife ransom and force him to become your slave forever. Very fair of our loving lord and savior.
God doesn't care if you beat your slaves to death, as long as they manage to survive a day or two


There is more, but I think I've made my point.

Take same verses - from KJV, and get back to me... I doubt they're worded the same way (And they may be, even... Those were different times. Things that were acceptable then are not acceptable now.

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

Okay, so the omnipotent God made people to be susceptible to ungratefulness. And then to prevent them from filling that capacity, he invokes terrible human atrocities?

Or He gave us the choice a while back, and we chose to have the terrible atrocities... He told Adam and Eve that DEATH would be the result of disobedience. It's more like people are given a choice, and God will not hinder this choice -- no matter how atrocious we are to each other.

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

The logic that:


So therefore, since Mohammed of Islam is the most recent prophet of the God of Abraham, you should follow him instead of the outdated Jesus.

The question in the video was simply Why doesn't God reveal Himself to people today, like He did in Biblical times... I answered said question. I never said whoever had the most recent revelation was the correct one. Hell, scripture even states that if you're given ANY other gospel, even if delivered by an angel, that the person delivering said 'other gospel' is to be accursed.

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

I think know that, and that is pretty fucked. To be blunt.

The Catholic church is pretty fucked up. All of their major doctrine (ALL of it) directly contradicts Scripture in one way or another.

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

Sorry, I was under the impression the the whole religious ceremony had some divine implications. My bad.

It's supposed to, but imperfect people do imperfect things - even if it's supposed to be a pact, or something sacred. No one's perfect, but everyone's human.

[Rasta_Man]

I'm not even interested in debating this. It's totally fucking hopeless

You're right, I'm wrong.

[Smigs]

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

You're right, I'm wrong.

Admits defeat. Lets chalk that one down shall we ? IGotTheCottons your the man!

[IGotTheCottons]

I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything really... Simply trying to show how things that make statements like this video did are completely bogus. They're made (mostly) by people who have barely any knowledge of Scripture whatsoever - or what being a Christian is really about.

If they (or anyone for that matter) are going to make such claims, they should be well founded. If they're going to say that you have to rationalize things in Scripture for them to make sense when thought about critically, they should give examples of where you really do HAVE to rationalize... Not examples where all you have to do is find a passage of Scripture that they missed, where said passage explains the question... Or have some common sense...

A lot of times people argue against things in the Bible, by arguing as if one part of the Bible were true, but they forget that if they do such, they have to (for argument's sake) assume the rest of Scripture is true as well... It's either all true, or it's none true, really. You can't pick and choose which portions are the Word and which ones aren't... So if you're going to say something like: "If God....Then....", speaking of a certain passage of Scripture, then you also have to take into consideration all the other Scriptures as well... Shit I hope this makes sense....

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

I'm not even interested in debating this. It's totally fucking hopeless

You're right, I'm wrong.

I'm not saying I'm right about all this crap being true or anything... Nor was I saying you were wrong. I was actually rather enjoying the discussion as it was quite thought provoking.

I was simply trying to answer the questions that the video asked. I was then asked about my response, so I further defended my POV. It's not like I was totally disregarding the things you were saying, though, and I hope you didn't take it that way.

I try to learn as much as possible about as much as possible... Even if something I learn now goes against something I've learned before... I'm not as close-minded as some people may think I am (not saying you think I'm close-minded - just saying is all)...

[Rasta_Man]

I have one small comment:

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

It's these radiometric dating techniques that I'm claiming are flawed. You have to make assumptions on what you're measuring in order to even perform these tests. You have to assume firstly, that the isotope you're testing has decayed at a constant rate over the years... Only things in a closed system will decay at a constant rate... Decay rates in open systems are subject to change, as there are several things in nature which can alter decay rates... You also have to assume there was X amount of the isotope to begin with.

Well I'd like to directly source this excerpt from Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger Wiens.

Some doubters have tried to dismiss geologic dating with a sleight of hand by saying that no rocks are completely closed systems (that is, that no rocks are so isolated from their surroundings that they have not lost or gained some of the isotopes used for dating). Speaking from an extreme technical viewpoint this might be true--perhaps 1 atom out of 1,000,000,000,000 of a certain isotope has leaked out of nearly all rocks, but such a change would make an immeasurably small change in the result. The real question to ask is, "is the rock sufficiently close to a closed system that the results will be same as a really closed system?" Since the early 1960s many books have been written on this subject. These books detail experiments showing, for a given dating system, which minerals work all of the time, which minerals work under some certain conditions, and which minerals are likely to lose atoms and give incorrect results. Understanding these conditions is part of the science of geology. Geologists are careful to use the most reliable methods whenever possible, and as discussed above, to test for agreement between different methods.

Here is another great resource

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

In the case of carbon dating, the levels of the measurable carbon have fluctuated over the years, and thus living things will have variable amounts depending on the time period they lived in. There are others as well, but I'm too lazy at the moment.

I have no clue if that is true or not, but it's irrelevant as far a geology is concerned. Carbon dating only works as far back as 60,000 years which is a drop in the ocean of geologic time. Carbon dating is often used in anthropology and archeology.

[What'sThatSmell]

Why do people care what other people believe in?