Whether or not there is God(s)

[OftenWrong]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

No.  "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"  Titus ch3 vs 5 KJV 1611

Once a person becomes a child of God by faith in Jesus as his saviour and Lord, he will never go to hell or be lost to eternal damnation.  It is an impossibility as the Scripture teaches.

I know. Yet, many having reached that lofty pinnacle fell again from grace, because you cannot escape sin. Arrogance is a sin, as is the belief you are now saved.

[blackbird]

6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I know. Yet, many having reached that lofty pinnacle fell again from grace, because you cannot escape sin. Arrogance is a sin, as is the belief you are now saved.

Well, I guess all the prophets and apostles of the New Testament were guilty of arrogance because they all believed they were saved.

But I agree arrogance is not a good thing. 

Edited September 25, 2017 by blackbird

[blackbird]

"But if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know."  1 Corinthians 8:2

[blackbird]

22 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You won't be able to gloat though, if you get to Heaven and I don't, in case God sees you, and kicks you out for being mean.

Yes, sorry if I'm being mean.

[Guest]

Just now, blackbird said:

Yes, sorry if I'm being mean.

Only if you gloat while I burn in fire and brimstone. 

[blackbird]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Only if you gloat while I burn in fire and brimstone. 

I certainly would not gloat or wish such a thing on anyone.  Good grief!

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I certainly would not gloat or wish such a thing on anyone.  Good grief!

No, me neither. 

Well, maybe one or two...

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

No, me neither. 

Well, maybe one or two...

"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." John 3:17 KJV (1611)

[DogOnPorch]

54 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No, me neither. 

Well, maybe one or two...

 

As we learn from Milton, Satan is the far more interesting mythological figure.

[eyeball]

On 9/24/2017 at 5:09 PM, bcsapper said:

Me too.  I figure if I'm decent enough, and follow the golden rule, I'll get to Heaven if there is one.

I was going through some old family papers the other day and found my ticket to ride, an official Christening certificate with my name on it!  I mean, who knew? Nobody ever told me.  With that in hand now I'll be able to continue misbehaving right up until the pipes start calling.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I was going through some old family papers the other day and found my ticket to ride, an official Christening certificate with my name on it!  I mean, who knew? Nobody ever told me.  With that in hand now I'll be able to continue misbehaving right up until the pipes start calling.

Then a quick repentance and you're in!

And there's poor blackbird going to church every week, for the same result. 

[blackbird]

I found a new creation website which answers some difficult questions about science and God.  Science or Cosmology has not been able to give proof or experiencial evidence that the universe began by natural means or without a designer and Creator.  This website explains why:

"On the other hand, the deist or theist says that God designed the universe with just the right laws of physics. Note that neither the multiverse nor the "God hypothesis" is testable. However, the "God hypothesis" is much simpler. The naturalistic explanation requires the presence of a complicated, unproved super universe that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. How does this hypothetical super universe know how to do this? Why would it even want to do this? Ultimately, why should there be any universe at all? None of these questions are logically explained by naturalism. Only an intelligent Being would be motivated and expected to produce any kind of universe such as what we see. If we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon, we would eliminate the super universe/multi-universe explanation in favor of the simpler God-designed universe model.

The evidence for design in the universe and biology is so strong that Antony Flew, a long-time proponent of atheism, renounced his atheism in 2004 and now believes that the existence of a Creator is required to explain the universe and life in it. Likewise, Frank Tipler, Professor of the Department of Mathematics at Tulane University, and a former atheist, not only became a theist, but is now a born-again Christian because of the laws of physics.¹² "

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_god_real.html

[Guest]

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

I found a new creation website which answers some difficult questions about science and God.  Science or Cosmology has not been able to give proof or experiencial evidence that the universe began by natural means or without a designer and Creator.  This website explains why:

 Some form of the  anthropic principle applies, I guess.  The only way we can be here to make any observations of the Universe is if it is compatible with our requirements to be here.  Once that is a given, how it happened is a matter of faith, gradually, over time, being replaced with knowledge.  You can put your faith in God or science and see what happens.  I'll go with science, and when it shows me a God, I'll go with that too.

[Altai]

The point which atheist guys do not understand or do not want to understand is a true religious person do not say that everything is a magic. We say that its impossible for being by coincidences and randomly. 

For example when I said that we like the blue color and it has some beneficial affects on us and we have a blue sky, this cannot be happened by just a coincidence then an atheist guy is appearing with all his/her pragmatism and smuggness and telling me "its because of sunlights are reflected by some particles in the weather",  I am not also telling you that its because of "bluesky magic", I am telling you that these particles in the sky cannot be causing blue rays to reflect just by coincidence. Science is just showing us how complex the way it happens and this complexity pulls down the possiblity of it to happen by coincidence. So while you are trying to disprove my claim, in fact you just strengthening my claim.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Altai

[Antares]

On 25/09/2017 at 3:35 AM, blackbird said:

"But if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know."  1 Corinthians 8:2

 

On 25/09/2017 at 3:49 AM, blackbird said:

"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." John 3:17 KJV (1611)

Why are you using archaic language in a 21st-century forum? Do you want to hinder our understanding?

[Antares]

On 22/09/2017 at 5:18 AM, blackbird said:

An accident cannot produce something as complex and intricate as the created universe.

Where is your evidence (or, failing that, some argument) for this claim? I am not aware of any evidence that complexity and intricacy cannot be created by accident. If you have some, please supply it.

 

On 22/09/2017 at 5:18 AM, blackbird said:

Even the complexity of the conditions to enable life to exist on earth had to have had a designer. 

Again, a claim that's unsupported by argument or evidence. And it's hopeless as an explanation, since it only 'explains' one piece of complexity by invoking another one (the designer) that is, presumably, at least as complex as the piece it designed.

[Antares]

On 21/09/2017 at 3:38 PM, Altai said:

LoL atheists always claim they just have lack of belief

 

On 23/09/2017 at 10:22 PM, Altai said:

Atheists are dishonest persons.

Really? You know all the world's atheists that well? Wouldn't you like to qualify these statements at least a little?

[blackbird]

14 hours ago, Antares said:

 

Why are you using archaic language in a 21st-century forum? Do you want to hinder our understanding?

 

14 hours ago, Antares said:

 

Why are you using archaic language in a 21st-century forum? Do you want to hinder our understanding?

That is an easy question to answer.  The language is the language I quote from the King James Bible (1611).  It is the only version of the Bible in English which is based on the Received Text and is therefore the only inspired Bible.  All other modern versions are based on corrupt manuscripts of Westcott and Hort if you are interested in looking into it.  You could get "New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger or watch some youtube videos defending the KJV.

No I don't want to hinder anyone's understanding.   According to a book I have called "New Age Bible Versions", the King James Bible (1611) a computer analysis method has found the King James Version actually easier to read and understand than some other modern versions.  There are more short words and short phrases in the KJV than some other modern versions.  I have examples of more difficult words which have been put into some modern versions.

Edited December 19, 2017 by blackbird

[blackbird]

13 hours ago, Antares said:

Where is your evidence (or, failing that, some argument) for this claim? I am not aware of any evidence that complexity and intricacy cannot be created by accident. If you have some, please supply it.

 

Again, a claim that's unsupported by argument or evidence. And it's hopeless as an explanation, since it only 'explains' one piece of complexity by invoking another one (the designer) that is, presumably, at least as complex as the piece it designed.

Scientists do not have hard evidence either for or against creation by God as far as I know, other than the fact the universe is extremely complex and the evidence in the creation points to creation in the opinion of those who believe in a creator.  I am speaking about the normal type of scientific evidence where one could point to a series of evidences and see a clear conclusion.  Some claim accidents or chance, but that requires a great leap of faith to believe and I know of one scientist who has debunked evolution on the basis of mathematics laws of probability.  He says it is impossible because of law of random chances processes eliminates the possibility of evolution because the time required is too great according to calculations.

If you support the idea of the universe being created by accident or chance, you still have to find a way to explain how sub atomic particles were formed and where the laws of physics came from that govern how the particles operate.  It is hard to imagine how that came about by chance.  There is no rational explanation for that as far as I know, apart from a Creator and designer.  Even energy, magnetic fields, and gravity itself would be very difficult to explain apart from a Creator.  Where could those things possibly come from?

But some scientists who have gone into this in great depth have come to the conclusion there had to have been a creator.  The alternatives to a creator are only theories.  None of it explains how something could come into existence from nothing.  Nothing does not cause something to exist.   Some might argue that the universe always existed, but that still doesn't explain how all the complex laws of physics and sub atomic particles and where it all came from.   This is not blind faith as some suppose.  This is pure logic that there had to have been a Creator or God to design it all and bring it into existence by supernatural power.   That's the key word,  Supernatural.

If you are interested in reading a bit about this you can look at creation.org    There are countless links to articles on this subject there as well as books and DVDs one can buy.

Edited December 19, 2017 by blackbird

[Guest]

11 hours ago, blackbird said:

If you support the idea of the universe being created by accident or chance, you still have to find a way to explain how sub atomic particles were formed and where the laws of physics came from that govern how the particles operate.

It's an ongoing project. 

[Antares]

On 19/12/2017 at 3:45 AM, blackbird said:

I quote from the King James Bible (1611).  It is the only version of the Bible in English which is based on the Received Text and is therefore the only inspired Bible.  All other modern versions are based on corrupt manuscripts

So you seem to be saying that other versions are less authentic. I can see how that would be of concern to the faithful, but not how it's relevant to people who are looking for good material for discussion (and don't care where it comes from).

 

On 19/12/2017 at 3:45 AM, blackbird said:

a computer analysis method has found the King James Version actually easier to read and understand than some other modern versions.

Personally, I wouldn't consider a computer analysis more reliable than that of an intelligent human reader.

 

On 19/12/2017 at 3:45 AM, blackbird said:

There are more short words and short phrases in the KJV than some other modern versions.

But it's a mistake to think that shortness of word or phrase is what matters most. There are serious difficulties of understanding (seen in the two quotes of yours that I re-quoted) that have nothing to do with choice of vocabulary or length of phrase. But this opens up a whole area of discussion that doesn't belong in this forum. Let me sum up by saying that, however comfortable you might feel with 400-year-old language, I think you'd communicate more effectively with me (and other non-believers) if you avoided it in that communication. The use of obscure language by religious believers gives me an uncomfortable suspicion that they profit in some way from not making their ideas clear.

[Antares]

On 19/12/2017 at 3:54 AM, blackbird said:

It is hard to imagine how that came about by chance.

Are you seriously proposing that we dismiss an idea because it's difficult to imagine?

 

On 19/12/2017 at 3:54 AM, blackbird said:

Even energy, magnetic fields, and gravity itself would be very difficult to explain apart from a Creator.  Where could those things possibly come from?

And where could this creator possibly come from?

 

On 19/12/2017 at 3:54 AM, blackbird said:

The alternatives to a creator are only theories.

And what's wrong with theories? In the realm of science, they're the best things we can have.

[blackbird]

9 hours ago, Antares said:

So you seem to be saying that other versions are less authentic. I can see how that would be of concern to the faithful, but not how it's relevant to people who are looking for good material for discussion (and don't care where it comes from).

 

Personally, I wouldn't consider a computer analysis more reliable than that of an intelligent human reader.

 

But it's a mistake to think that shortness of word or phrase is what matters most. There are serious difficulties of understanding (seen in the two quotes of yours that I re-quoted) that have nothing to do with choice of vocabulary or length of phrase. But this opens up a whole area of discussion that doesn't belong in this forum. Let me sum up by saying that, however comfortable you might feel with 400-year-old language, I think you'd communicate more effectively with me (and other non-believers) if you avoided it in that communication. The use of obscure language by religious believers gives me an uncomfortable suspicion that they profit in some way from not making their ideas clear.

You are making an assumption that being obscure is advantageous, which is false reasoning.  The simple fact is the King James Bible is the only inspired Bible in the English language and is therefore the only reliable source of God's word to quote from.  If one has difficulty understanding it, it may be because of unfamiliarity with the language used.  It resolves itself if a person desires to investigate with the aid of reliable bible commentaries and a sincere desire to find out what a phrase or sentence means.  The internet is a vast resource of information so one can find out what any word or phrase means very quickly just by looking up a bible commentary or doing a search.  There are also other verses that often can be used as cross reference to help get the idea.

Edited December 21, 2017 by blackbird

[Goddess]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The simple fact is the King James Bible is the only inspired Bible in the English language and is therefore the only reliable source of God's word to quote from.

Is the KJ version not also a "translation"?  Therefore subject to the same translating errors and deliberate spurious additions as any other translation?

[Goddess]

Also, just curious, Blackbird, if you have ever investigated the history of which books were chosen for the Bible (and why) and why certain other ones, like the Nag Hamadi and other gnostic texts were left out?