Pataky Pal does exist

[speciale]

Re: God does exist

I starting to think that beanz was less offensive than CDJ

[cowardly dj]

Re: God does exist

took you long enough to join in jenks

[rubyraks]

Re: God does exist

And as we know the story Adam and Eve were decieved by Satan and ate of the tree. Adam disobeyed God and through his disobedience sin entered the world forever.

cdj, are you not also guilty of eating from the tree of knowledge?


and as for your discussion here, once again you have cloaked any "proof" that you may have in your presumptions of "fact". You never prove the facts, you just keep assuming them and proving that the bible is true (which, in and of itself, is questionable). You can't use the bible to prove itself.

[Corven]

Re: God does exist

if everything in the bible is 'fact' so does that make everything that is written in the necronomicon 'facts' too??

[toasty]

Re: God does exist

I hope this has cleared things up.

Yessirreeeeeebob. Makes much more sense now.

Here are the things that I am basing my answer on. All of these statements are in strict accordance with the true teachings of the Bible, not anyone's opinion.
1) The truth can be determined on anything.
2) God exists.
3) The Bible is the infallable inerrant word of God.
4) God created man and everything we see.
5) Jesus is the son of God and was sent to the earth as God in the form of man.
6) everyone has the right to chose to do good or evil, to believe or not to believe (free will or free moral agency)
7) God is the only true and living god and all other gods are false gods.
These are the facts that I will base this on.

You cannot possibly hope to prove that God exists when one of the "facts" underlying your argument is that "God exists." Moreover, you cannot prove that the Bible is accurate based upon the idea that "The Bible is the infallable inerrant word of God." I can't believe that someone has to point out the fallacy of this so-obviously-circular argument. It just leaves me dumbfounded.

The irony is that the results of the "Does God exist" poll seems to suggest that a majority on this board actually agree with the ultimate point you're trying to make, yet your posts seem to engender such a vitriolic reaction from the community as a whole -- presumably including people that do believe that God exists. It is that quality that makes this thread so hard to just ignore -- even people who agree with you are up in arms about the way you reach the conclusion.

I want to invite you out to join me for dinner. My treat, anywhere you like. I'll meet you anywhere in the continental US -- no, make that the world -- because I am convinced by this post that you are nothing but a character created by a bored forum member to whip all of us up into a froth. We have truly reached the pinnacle of absurdity.

[cowardly dj]

Re: God does exist

You cannot possibly hope to prove that God exists when one of the "facts" underlying your argument is that "God exists." Moreover, you cannot prove that the Bible is accurate based upon the idea that "The Bible is the infallable inerrant word of God." I can't believe that someone has to point out the fallacy of this so-obviously-circular argument. It just leaves me dumbfounded.

The irony is that the results of the "Does God exist" poll seems to suggest that a majority on this board actually agree with the ultimate point you're trying to make, yet your posts seem to engender such a vitriolic reaction from the community as a whole -- presumably including people that do believe that God exists. It is that quality that makes this thread so hard to just ignore -- even people who agree with you are up in arms about the way you reach the conclusion.

I want to invite you out to join me for dinner. My treat, anywhere you like. I'll meet you anywhere in the continental US -- no, make that the world -- because I am convinced by this post that you are nothing but a character created by a bored forum member to whip all of us up into a froth. We have truly reached the pinnacle of absurdity.

In order to answer this question I am going to have to establish some things first. Bear with me as I know that some do not agree with some of the things that I am about to list but they are essential to the understanding of the answer. Keep in mind that these are the things that I find to be fact in my studies. It is my intention to simply answer the questoin but in order to do that I have to answer it the only way I know how and that is using God and the Bible as a basis or a platform if you will. That must be as the question revolves around God anyway.

I think you missed the point of that post. That was in order to answer the question that bsully put forth not to ust that as proof of anything.
That was the sole purpose of that post. Do not read into it more than is there. That was the reason I put the "disclaimer" at the beginning of the post.

As far as the poll is concerned that is all good but it is now to the point that if those of you who think God exists seem to be wondering how the Bible can prove itself. So perhaps I should take my conversation to the next step since step one has been established.

[sammwalk]

Re: God does exist

BSULLY 828

I am aware that the entire argument here is not centered around the existence of God. However there are some here who do not think He exists.

In order to understand why God is the only true and living God you have to understand the entire picture from creation to the coming judgement. If God exists then did He do what the Bible says He did? What about the other gods who claim to exist and be "the" god? Well to answer that you have to take what the Bible claims God did and then what the other god claims was done and weed out the facts form false claims.

Other religious books contain theories of the sky above that were prevalent in the times they were written

I will give an example. Lets put Gods claim of the sun and moon next to the Hindus claim, using the Vedas, sacred Hindu texts.

Hindu:

"the moon is approximately 150,000 miles higher than the sun and shines with its own light...the earth is flat and triangular...earthquakes are caused by elephants shaking themselves under it"
We know that the moon is not higher than the sun, it does not shine with its own light, the earth is neither flat nor triangular and I would like someone to tell the relatives of the thousands of victims who died in the tsunami that elephants shaking themselves caused the earthquake that in turn caused the tsunami.

God:

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:
Gen 1:15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

One can not deny these are factual staements. We know that the stars are used for signs, days, and years. The "lights in the firmament of heaven" do give light upon the earth. The greater light (the sun) does rule the day, and the lesser light (the moon) does rule the night. These statements are self evident.

I ask you how many mistakes it takes to disprove a claim? One? Two? Five? Ten? If a text claims to be from a god then it should not contain any false teachings. Is that an agreeable statement?

Does this prove that Gos exists? To many it does not but it does give you a comparison and an example of how to prove or disprove a claim. Just use facts.

i was reading through this thread and was contemplating taking it seriously, but you're quoting out of the bible. the bible is just a book, written by people. it doesn't (truly) have any more justification than the Da Vinci code, however many people may attribute significance to it.

here's the great thing about science: anyone can figure it out. using logic and observation and a lot of thought, people will inevitably be led to the same conclusions about nature- as opposed to god, which only some people will think up based on speculation, arrogance, and fear of nature. and if we merely accept god as nature, etc., then we haven't really proven anything except that we don't know what nature is either.

stop believing in fairy tales. the universe must not make sense to us in order for it to exist, nor must it be ultimately decipherable by scientists. it sure as hell isn't going to fit nicely into some neat picture of being based on a central being. if you don't know something, simply reserve judgement. don't go making claims about ghosts, gods,
unicorns, leprechauns, and other imaginary creatures.

if we're ever going to advance socially, we need to put these childish ideas behind us.

[Kobe]

Re: God does exist

which rewrite of the bible are we supposed to be going by anyway? I'm assuming the one King James made up when he needed some new pussy. Correct me if I'm wrong...

[cowardly dj]

Re: God does exist

which rewrite of the bible are we supposed to be going by anyway? I'm assuming the one King James made up when he needed some new pussy. Correct me if I'm wrong...

if you define rewritten as the fact that there are different versions then by all means there are only two versions that were translated strictly from one language to the other.. The King James (KJV) and The American Standard of 1901 (ASV)


I will use the New International Version for this example.

When that board came together they translated the text and then added into the scripture what they thought (the key word here) it was suppose to mean. Basically I am saying that they went into it with the preconceived idea of the content and added that to the translation instead of just going from one language to the other.

The most classic example is John 3:16

The KJVand the ASV say that whoever believes in the name of Jesus should not perish

The NIV says that whoever believes in Jesus shall not perish

There is a huge difference in should not and shall not one being optional (should) and the other being a static never changing state (shall)

If you take the entire context of the Bible you understand that one chooses to obey and after baptism you can still be lost of you leave the path God laid out.

A quick example is this:

The Baptist doctrine is based on the idea that when God says believe on the name of Jesus and you will be saved and that baptism is not essential to see heaven and that after you accept Jesus into your life you will go to heaven no matter what. You can never leave the saved state.

This however poses a problem in light if the entire teaching if the Bible. Basically it says that if you accept Jesus you are saved so if you go out on a mass-murdering spree you will still see heaven because you have mentally accepted Jesus as your savior.

So when one takes the context and changes it during translation to suit their preconceived ideas then it in not a translation.

The KJV and the ASV were simply taken from one language and translated to the other.

Since the KJV and ASV many Bible Scholars, including some who are of the Hebrews heritage who received the original Old Testament and some Greeks which is what most of the New Testament was written in have poured over the original texts and made comparisons and the KJV and ASV stand the test of being nothing more than a translation from one language to the other

So if you want to know what Bible is not tampered with then these are the only two that have been proven to be a true translation from the original texts.

[speciale]

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

@ the title of the thread

[hulkhuss]

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

Hey CDJ mabey change your discussion to "Does Hell exist? (A Godless eternity)"

that would be intresting to see the responses.

[speciale]

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

everytime CDJ starts a new thread, God kills a kitten

[Kobe]

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

Hey CDJ mabey change your discussion to "Does Hell exist? (A Godless eternity)"

that would be intresting to see the responses.

My concept of Hell: eternal theological discussion

[KinKyJ]

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

LMAO @ thread name change

[Huggie Smiles]

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

LMAO @ thread name change

BRILLIANT!!