Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?

[Skywalker]

The reasons why Atheists exist is due to the Christians misinterpreting their religion and

First and foremost, David Wood talking about what Islam thinks, doesn’t answer the question. Forget Islam for the mean time.


The question I asked was, where did Jesus explicitly state that he was God and to worship him.


1. David wood states that Jesus said in revelation – Revelation cannot be used as a source due to the authors being anonymous (Christians don’t even know who the author is) and the text showing up 61 years + after the so-called crucifixion.

2. Seeking forgiveness is NOT being God as David Wood implies (Jesus says son of man can also forgive sin Matthew 9:6)

3. Who is our final judge?


Ø God gives authority not Jesus

John 17:1-4

Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do.

Nobody HAS SEEN THE FATHER John 5:37

37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

God and Jesus different John 20:17

John 20:17

17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

God the source (1 God)

Jesus said: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" (John 17:3)

God the only knower of future (Jesus lacks knowledge)

Mark 13:32 (NASB)
"But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

Matt 24:36 (NASB)

But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.


Can Gods authority be stripped? And Jesus says I have no authority John 5:30

God is one

1 Timothy 2:5 (NASB)
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, ...

Ephesians 4:5-6 (NASB)
one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

God and Jesus are different entities

1 Corinthians 8:4-6

Therefore, concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.


Jesus calling out to God and questioning his decision

Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”)


God the greatest (God is greater than Jesus)

Jesus also said that "my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28) and that "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God" (John 20:17)


Jesus doesn’t give power – Only God gives power according to Jesus
John 19:11

11 Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”


God greater then Jesus
John 14:28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Jesus praying to God

In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus prayed to the Father. To whom was Jesus praying? To himself? To an alter ego?

Does God suffer from multiple personality disorder? In this prayer, Jesus asked: "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one..." (John 17:20-21). Are we to be one in the way that Trinitarians say that the Father and Son are one? That is impossible. So apparently, the oneness that Jesus was talking about was not the oneness that Trinitarians talk about. The only way to explain these scriptural contradictions would be by concluding that the oneness of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is figurative rather than literal.


God is individual and not 3

The reason for believing that God is an individual person is because we, as humans, are each an individual person, and we are made in the image and likeness of God.



God gives the instructions to Jesus (Jesus not all knowing he has to learn)

John 15:15

15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.



Jesus inferior to God

1 Cor 15:27-28

For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.


Jesus hungry Matthew 4:4

‘Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, left the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, 2 where for forty days he was tempted[a] by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was hungry.’


God gives authority

John 17:1-4

Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do.


Jesus clearly telling people only one master can be served

Matthew 6:24

24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon

I agree with you that the Christian faith has been misrepresented, but that has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ and his moral standards. The pastors and the priests are whatever-they are human beings. While we need shepherds, we also need a relationship with God and putting God first, not putting the clergy first. Jesus had a bad experience with religious people too. They were the ones who executed Jesus.

Jesus said that he was the judge of all people. Who Will Be the Judge of Humanity?

Jesus telling the Samaritan woman that he was the Messiah insinuated his divinity. Samaritan woman at the well - Wikipedia

 

[Skywalker]

You seem to be confusing the laws of physics, which are descriptive of how stuff works, with laws as in what is and isn't legal, which are prescriptive as in commandments from one agent to another.

The descriptive nature of things makes them inherently order or confusion, which makes them prescriptive violations of God's laws.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What Christian nation executed homosexuals or kept slaves?

Pretty much all of them at some point. But that's not relevant as the point is not about what "christian nations" did or didn't do, but about what your god thinks as supposedly documented in the bible.

Leviticus:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Exodus 21. The entire chapter is about regulating slavery. ie: allowing the practice and telling you who you can enslave, for how long, how you can beat them, how you can trick them into becoming slaves for life, from whom you can buy slaves, etc. Nowhere does it ever say "don't keep slaves". Ever.

Living together before marriage takes away from the specialness of what it means to be married.

In your religious belief.
I asked you for an actual rational argument. I didn't ask you to just repeat your bear religious assertions.

I've been living together for 14 years now without being married. We own a house together and have 2 beautiful children. Tell me how this is a bad thing. Show me how it would be different if we would be married. Explain in rational, non-religious, terms how it would be moral as opposed to now. Explain in rational, non-religious, terms how what we do now is immoral.

Good luck with that.

 

[Skywalker]

Pretty much all of them at some point. But that's not relevant as the point is not about what "christian nations" did or didn't do, but about what your god thinks as supposedly documented in the bible.

Leviticus:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Exodus 21. The entire chapter is about regulating slavery. ie: allowing the practice and telling you who you can enslave, for how long, how you can beat them, how you can trick them into becoming slaves for life, from whom you can buy slaves, etc. Nowhere does it ever say "don't keep slaves". Ever.




In your religious belief.
I asked you for an actual rational argument. I didn't ask you to just repeat your bear religious assertions.

I've been living together for 14 years now without being married. We own a house together and have 2 beautiful children. Tell me how this is a bad thing. Show me how it would be different if we would be married. Explain in rational, non-religious, terms how it would be moral as opposed to now. Explain in rational, non-religious, terms how what we do now is immoral.

Good luck with that.

Nobody said that people living together before marriage is the worst thing ever, but I also believe that it is contrary to what it means to be married.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Lying and stealing are behaviors that involve taking things that do not belong to you. It's the same reason that lust and gossip are sins.

Gestapo shows at your door and ask if you know where jews are hiding.
You happen to know where jews are hiding.

If you tell the truth, it will inevitably lead to the jews being rounded up and subjected to untold suffering and eventual agonizing death.

Lying, will make the gestapo leave and the jews will live to see another day and not be subjected to untold suffering.


Please explain how lying in this case involves "taking things that do not belong to you". Explain how it is similar to "lust and gossip and sin".



ps: do you know what we (the "good guys" in WW2) did after the war to people who told the truth in such circumstances?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Don't the punishments of all laws, by definition, imply that not everyone can live up to them?

No. A law that that people can't live upto, is a bad law. An unjust law. An unfair law.

Not being rich is not a choice or harmful. Someone robbing a bank is.

Right, but aparantly my analogy went way over your head.

That's like saying lawmakers made laws that are impossible for people to live up to.

Yes, that's the analogy. That's exactly what your god did. This is why he needed to "sacrifice" himself to himself, to find a loophole in a messed up system that he himself is ultimately responsible for. That would actually be a more appropriate understanding of this whole thing... god punishing himself for the mess he created.

A judge would never sacrifice themselves for a criminal because God's ways aren't our ways.

Then why did you give such as an analogy?
Would you have also said this if I hadn't pointed out the absurdity thereof? I doubt it.

Why do you think God didn't become a mortal being, wouldn't want to, or couldn't if he wanted to?

I don't believe there is a god to begin with.
But in context of the story, he clearly didn't become a mortal being.
A mortal being would stay dead.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let there be light is not witchcraft. Witchcraft is people being movers and shakers apart from submitting to God.

Sounds like a very trivial distinction.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The human hand. How do all the joints work together to move it so perfectly? Without one part the entire hand wouldn't function.

People missing fingers, prove you wrong.

And it's called evolution.

 

[Skywalker]

Gestapo shows at your door and ask if you know where jews are hiding.
You happen to know where jews are hiding.

If you tell the truth, it will inevitably lead to the jews being rounded up and subjected to untold suffering and eventual agonizing death.

Lying, will make the gestapo leave and the jews will live to see another day and not be subjected to untold suffering.


Please explain how lying in this case involves "taking things that do not belong to you". Explain how it is similar to "lust and gossip and sin".



ps: do you know what we (the "good guys" in WW2) did after the war to people who told the truth in such circumstances?

Lying in that case is an exception to the rule. Lying is a different sin from taking thing that do not belong to you but it's still behavior that is wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Intermediate doesn't have a strict definition.

It does. That's what we are trying to tell you. But you seem to stubborn to open your mind for just an inch. What are you afraid of? Why do you insist on arguing against a misrepresentation of biology?

What do you hope to accomplish by doing that?
If evolution is indeed so wrong as you so strongly believe, then surely you have no reason to insist on arguing strawman versions thereof.................... right?

Something can be intermediate and mixed, or neither. There are different degrees of intermediate. If my ancestors had intermediates of my organ, eventually it would have to be half of my what my organ is now.

As has been pointed out to you so many times now: no, that is not how it works at all.
Evolution is a GRADUAL process, which works through the accumulation of microchanges over generations.

There's no such thing as "half an anything".

Take the wing of a pinguin for example. Pinguins can't fly.
Is it "half a wing"? No..............

The Caspian Tiger is a close cousin of the siberian tiger but there was no change of kinds with them.

You are all over the place now. The topic is transitionals. Why are you suddenly yapping about the creationist term "kinds", which as no meaning at all in the science of biology?

Both animals are still tigers.

They are also both felines. And mammals. And tetrapods. And vertebrates. And eukaryotes.
What of it?

Other than Tiktaalik I can think of no possible changes of kinds.

How is tiktaalik a change in "kinds"?
It's a vertebrate and eukaryote, just like its fish ancestors.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If I had kids they would still have fully formed organs and not half a heart, and the same would apply to me and my parents.

Still stuck on that misunderstanding ha?

I don't know how many times it must be repeated that it simply doesn't work that way.

A few more of such posts and I'm going to start thinking that you're just a poe trolling.
I find it hard to believe that you are this dense and take you seriously.

Just about every "evolutionist", as you likely like to call us, is telling you here that IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. Take a hint.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Mutations are generally not favorable.

That's not an answer to the question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The fact that people who believe in evolution say that there are no changes in kinds shows that its a hypothesis.

"kinds" is a meaningless term in biology.

So I have no idea what you are talking about.

If by "kind" you mean "clades", then sure, no change in kinds ever happens in evolution. It's actually a law of evolution known as the law of monophy: species can never outgrow their ancestry.

Meaning that eukaryotes will only produce eukaryotes and subspecies of eukaryotes, such as vertebrates.
Vertebrates will only produce more vertebrates and subspecies thereof, such as tetrapods.
Tetrapods will produce more tetrapods, such as mammals.
Mammals will produce more mammals, such as primates.
Primates will produce more primates, such as humans.

Humans remain primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates and eukaryotes.


Again: you might want to read up on evolution and how it actually works, before trying to argue against it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The descriptive nature of things makes them inherently order or confusion, which makes them prescriptive violations of God's laws.

This reads like nonsensical word salad.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

[Skywalker]

It does. That's what we are trying to tell you. But you seem to stubborn to open your mind for just an inch. What are you afraid of? Why do you insist on arguing against a misrepresentation of biology?

What do you hope to accomplish by doing that?
If evolution is indeed so wrong as you so strongly believe, then surely you have no reason to insist on arguing strawman versions thereof.................... right?



As has been pointed out to you so many times now: no, that is not how it works at all.
Evolution is a GRADUAL process, which works through the accumulation of microchanges over generations.

There's no such thing as "half an anything".

Take the wing of a pinguin for example. Pinguins can't fly.
Is it "half a wing"? No..............



You are all over the place now. The topic is transitionals. Why are you suddenly yapping about the creationist term "kinds", which as no meaning at all in the science of biology?



They are also both felines. And mammals. And tetrapods. And vertebrates. And eukaryotes.
What of it?



How is tiktaalik a change in "kinds"?
It's a vertebrate and eukaryote, just like its fish ancestors.

Evolution being gradual means that by definition there are gray areas and intermediates.

Kinds has no meaning at all in the science of biology because changes of kinds are impossible.

They never changed kinds.

The fact that tiktaalik isn't a change of kinds shows that a change of kinds is a self-defeating statement. What existed in between the fish ancestors or the tiktaalik and the tiktaalik? There was nothing in the fossil record because it's not logically possible for a being to have half of any type of organ.

 

[Skywalker]

This reads like nonsensical word salad.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.

God is not against sin because he's like a judge in one society making a rule that applies to that society. God is against sin because sins themselves involve confusion. Gossiping or stealing something is not behavior that is decently and in order.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nobody said that people living together before marriage is the worst thing ever, but I also believe that it is contrary to what it means to be married.

Is this your way of admitting that there is nothing immoral about living together without being married, as you previously claimed?

You called it immoral. Remember?


As for the points about slavery and homophobia in the bible, I guess we're just going to ignore all that then?

 

[Skywalker]

That's not an answer to the question.

Mutations changing to natural selection is unlikely at best.

 

[Skywalker]

Still stuck on that misunderstanding ha?

I don't know how many times it must be repeated that it simply doesn't work that way.

A few more of such posts and I'm going to start thinking that you're just a poe trolling.
I find it hard to believe that you are this dense and take you seriously.

Just about every "evolutionist", as you likely like to call us, is telling you here that IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. Take a hint.

What is your belief about how evolution works? I believe that evolution either works that way, or there is an intelligent designer. There is no other possibility.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Lying in that case is an exception to the rule.

I rest my case.
So when you previously, dogmatically, stated that "lying is wrong, period!", you were actually wrong about that.

So really, you have to acknowledge now that it is indeed as I said: it's contextual. An action that is immoral in scenario A, isn't necessarily immoral in scenario B.

So, the bold dogmatic black and white statement "lying is wrong, period", is false.

Glad we cleared that up.

Lying is a different sin from taking thing that do not belong to you but it's still behavior that is wrong.

Except when it isn't, apparently.

Now.... are you absolutely certain that I can't just as easily come up with a scenario where stealing is the right thing to do?