Didnt you ask for an explanantion, there is your answer. Why do you say it is made up?
If you excercise the optionof reading you will see that I explained why in my prior post.
Upvote
0
Didnt you ask for an explanantion, there is your answer. Why do you say it is made up?
Why do I need to hold myself to a higher standard, then Id be proof of the point atheists make about how Christians are so arogant and think they are higher than us simply because of their religion.
Actually you are again missing the point. In many ways living up to the Christian standard is to treat your opponents with love and respect, especially when they don't behave in the same way toward you.
If you excercise the optionof reading you will see that I explained why in my prior post.
Why are we all so sure of what's out there? All religious people just "know," they know how the world was created, they know this, they know that. I don't know. You don't know something I don't know. Humility. Thats the new "morality."
"I don't really know."
Stay humble my friends.
Did I not the first couple of posts? Anyways, I'm not like that. And if I was, you would of just come up with some other BS thing to be against me.
So what, is that like your demigod or something, your modern version of Jesus Christ? Jk
listen young man, no one has been rude to you so chill out. my points have been to get you to think and do get you to make arguments in which your conclusions are supported by the evidence available, not by wishful thinking or made up unrelated points (two habits that you seem to rely upon excessively). My point has not been to ridicule you but rather to point out that whether you are arguing the scientific or the religious point of view, you should always treat your opposition with respect and courtesy; you should always exercise some humility (others just might know what they're talking about); and mostly you should expect to have to earn the right to an opinion. By that I mean that while everyone has opinions, in an argument, until you become the person that others quote as a reference source, if you wish to have your opinions taken seriously, then you must back them up with verifiable sources that support your opinions or findings.
That, young man, is what you do when arguing a point, and believe it or not, it is what you will be expected to do as an adult, so consider dropping the attitude and start trying to learn.
What have I made up?
see this is what I mean, why must you denigrate others when you don't have a point to make. could it be that the person being quoted had some valid point worth at least looking into?
are you serious? was all that wasted breath? all that and the only thing you picked up on was that you made up something? If you want to know what you made up, don't act the fool and look at some of the replies to many of your posts in this and the liberals thread. If you still can't see it, then I must assume that you are not interested in learning anything and are only here to waste everyone's time.
Clearly you use the term to 'teabag' in a very different context to me!...your gonna teabag him, I mean, if youve gotten this far, theres no reason as to why you should not teabag him...
I think you need to ask yourself that question....Seriously, are you ok?...
I think more of my son than I do of God....If a god told you to kill your son, what makes you think that there isnt a greater reason as to why he wants you to...
I very much doubt thatUhhhh, if I am understanding you clearly...
Indeed, Jesus is the founder of Christianity. If the objectionable material (the personal claims of Jesus) are rejected, the teaching of Jesus that remains in the Gospels, not to mention his deeds, become exceedingly difficult to account for and nearly impossible to understand. All that Jesus founded, Paul and Peter and the others merely expounded. Jesus and Paul both taught about: the atonement, the trinity, the church, salvation by faith, the forgiveness of sins through the shedding of his blood, that Jesus was the bread of life which we had to depend on for salvation, and that Jesus was the good shepherd who laid down his life for us.
What the Paul thing? Take a look at 2 Corinthians 12
You can always ask, "Who founded Christianity, Jesus or Paul", or who founded Islam, "Muhammad or Umar", or who founded Judaism, "Moses or Joshua", or who founded Buddhism, "Buddha or Siddharta?" Yet, why is it always Christianity which is labelled with this question?
It seems so grossly unlikely that a religion which is focused so uniquely on Jesus, could or should be founded by someone else. All adherents would contend that their religion was founded by God. Perhaps it would be more correct to assert that it was Moses who introduced Judaism, and Muhammad who introduced Islam, Confucius who introduced Confucianism, and Jesus who introduced Christianity.
What you miss is the sheer depth of theology in Paul's writings, much of which couldn't have been made up or simply borrowed. For instance, the scriptures speak of the unity of God. Thus, we are monotheists, and we have a complex view of God's monotheism. We believe that God is a triune God; the very word tri-une implies unity. Perhaps you find the doctrine hard to understand; so do most Christians. One would not expect God's essence to be easily explained. But nonetheless it is true, as we see it written all over the pages of scripture.
Consider this, however, if Paul was the founder of Christianity, then certainly he should have diverted from this doctrine. Yet, he doesn't, but continues to say the same thing. "A mediator" he writes in Galatians 3:20 "does not represent just one, but God is one." We find this also in Romans 3, and every Christian believes it.
Indeed, Jesus is the founder of Christianity. If the objectionable material (the personal claims of Jesus) are rejected, the teaching of Jesus that remains in the Gospels, not to mention his deeds, become exceedingly difficult to account for and nearly impossible to understand. All that Jesus founded, Paul and Peter and the others merely expounded. Jesus and Paul both taught about: the atonement, the trinity, the church, salvation by faith, the forgiveness of sins through the shedding of his blood, that Jesus was the bread of life which we had to depend on for salvation, and that Jesus was the good shepherd who laid down his life for us.
Jesus, the founder, laid down his life that you might live. Paul, the expounder, laid down his life that you might hear. Are we willing to lay down our lives that others can hear and live as well?
Again you don't have to believe this, I'm not trying to convert you or anything.
WOW! Thanks mpw. WAdude, here we are trying to have an intelligent discussion and you reply by plagiarizing someone else's work? no wonder the reply sounded coherent. young man, it is obvious now that your interest is solely to troll and that you have no desire to engage in a discussion. You are pathetic.Joe Smith, 1995, scroll down to the conclusion.
If God is omniscient, why did he need to test Abraham's faith?
I don't have the sort of ego problems that lead me to believe that I am "greater" than anyone or anything else. I don't view the universe that way.
And that "wall of scientifical evidence" is something in which I believe.
Not quite. they have all wrestled with their religious beliefs as they compared to the data they uncovered and found it to be contradictory to their beliefs. Einstein was particularly public about this, and even allowed his beliefs to publicly challenge his own findings in his later years. This is not the same as saying that they promoted an intelligent creator, but is rather their own personal issues and beliefs.You do realize that some of the worlds greatest scientist believe, or believed in God? Hawking, Einstein, and many others have said that the only explanation is an intelligent creator.
We've been tracking upcoming products and ranking the best tech since 2007. Thanks for trusting our opinion: we get rewarded through affiliate links that earn us a commission and we invite you to learn more about us.