[Christian topic] Greg Laurie - Page 8

On April 18 2007 14:01 Annor[BbG] wrote:


How is it sex slavery? Exodus 21 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and [b]martial rights.

On April 18 2007 14:02 0z wrote:


feeding and fucking someone doesn't mean he isn't your slave

On April 18 2007 13:48 Annor[BbG] wrote:
So when Jesus said that the Old Testament was accurate, he was actually lying?

On April 18 2007 14:07 Annor[BbG] wrote:


Do you want me to even respond in earnest to that?

On April 18 2007 14:02 TheOvermind77 wrote:
You bring up the point Never Post that because that portion is wrong, all of it must face the same scrutiny. Yeah, it is almost impossible if you admit that some parts might have external influences to say that the Bible is believeable at all. I suppose that is where something called "faith" comes in :D

On April 18 2007 14:10 Never Post wrote:


Yes that's the point I'm making.

However I think 'faith' is wrongly interpreted as a virtue. If a child really believes in Santa Claus despite all the adults knowing better, that only creates something imaginary in his own mind. Adults know there is no Santa Claus whether a child believes in him or not, little do they realize many of them face the same situation with their 'faith' in god.

On April 18 2007 14:11 littleboy wrote:
Whole sections of the Bible are taken up with the idea of sacrifices. God told his people in the Old Testament (the early part of the Bible) that they had to bring animal sacrifices, sheep and cows, and kill them in a ritual way in order to be forgiven their sins. The sacrifice reminded the people of the seriousness of their sins. It had consequences for the sinner, who had to pay for the animal he brought - there was cost involved. It cost the animal its life. The animal had to be perfect, without any defect - you could not satisfy God with just any old deformed creature taken from your herd or bought cheaply in the market. It had to be the best.

On April 18 2007 14:16 TheOvermind77 wrote:


Well, the thing is, it is impossible to determine with any sort of proof whether God exists OR doesn't exist...hence the problem. No athiest can prove that God is definitely not in existence, and no Christian can prove to him that God does, in fact, exist. If there were such indisputable proof, more people would certainly be one or the other.

Sure, hypothetically a person could even create a religion about Santa Claus. He could twist it and turn it so that it is impossible to prove wrong. If you are interested in that, please see the Scientology thread.

The difference between that and Christianity is its length of existence, its amount of supporting documents (relating to the faith over a LARGE period of time), and its number of believers. Religion is faith. You can't prove it either way.

So that is what I mean when I say it comes down to faith...no one can prove me wrong! Go ahead, try to prove to me God doesn't exist! Then again, if you ask me to prove that he exists, I am in a similar predicament.

Ah, I love deep discussions like this.

On April 18 2007 14:24 Never Post wrote:


I like how you retreat behind your 'faith' barrier, it reminds me of a primary school child covering their ears and shouting "I'm not listening LALALALALA!" No wait - I don't like it at all, it's cowardly.

Supporting documents were written by people. Believers are people. So people created god? Shouldn't it be the other way round?

Also, just because a lot of people have thought one thing for a long time doesn't mean you shouldn't argue against it. It wouldn't be of much use to us if we all still believed the Earth was flat.

I don't want to get into does god exist or not because eventually you'll just redefine god as something abstract enough to avoid logical arguments.

On April 18 2007 14:24 Never Post wrote:


I like how you retreat behind your 'faith' barrier, it reminds me of a primary school child covering their ears and shouting "I'm not listening LALALALALA!" No wait - I don't like it at all, it's cowardly.

Supporting documents were written by people. Believers are people. So people created god? Shouldn't it be the other way round?

Also, just because a lot of people have thought one thing for a long time doesn't mean you shouldn't argue against it. It wouldn't be of much use to us if we all still believed the Earth was flat.

I don't want to get into does god exist or not because eventually you'll just redefine god as something abstract enough to avoid logical arguments.

On April 18 2007 14:33 TheOvermind77 wrote:


Cowardly? I really wasn't trying to invoke such a cruel response...I was more interested in a thought-provoking one.

The problem is that you say humans created God. I say that God created humans. You know we won't get very far in arguing this.

I'm not trying to convince you that a God exists. I'm not trying to attack your beliefs. I'm just saying that any person who has seen this whole thread of arguments before will know that it will end with no one proving anything.

The problem is, you can't create a LOGICAL argument to argue against OR for God. As I said before, if there was such argument, there would be quite a bit of news on it.

I mean, here is an example:
Me: God exists.
You: No he doesn't. I can't see him. I have no proof.
Me: Well he is so powerful and stuff that you can't see him.
You: But maybe he doesn't exist then. If it isn't observable or quantifiable...why should I believe it? You have no proof.
Me: Well he could exist but you just can't tell because of human limitations.
You: You're wrong.
Me: You're wrong. I know where you live.
You: Let's take it outside.
Me: I'll beat you down, sucka.
You: I got my brass knuckles so don't even think it.
Me: Your mom had brass knuckles.
You: That was lame.
Me: That's what she said.

And this continues ONTO INFINITY!

So how about we do this instead:

Me: I believe God exists.
You: I believe that there is no God.
Me: Well, you are free to believe what you will, I have no way of proving to you otherwise.
You: Same for your beliefs. Let's go to White Castle and get a Crave Case.
Me: Sweet.

I like that ending much better :D

On April 18 2007 14:36 Annor[BbG] wrote:
Atheists show a different cowardice than Christians but it still can be served to the same end. Anytime a Christian asks you to prove God doesn't exist, you hurl the question right back in the opposite way asking us to prove he does.

Although the Bible was written by the hand of man, it doesn't even remotely indicate that people created God.

I love with Atheists use the 'world is flat' example, lol it shows how determined they are to stick to what they think and not what is proven. The Bible said the world was round long before any European confirmed it.

You want to debate logically? I think the only way you can make us unable to logically prove God's existence is by dwindling logic down so far that it is too abstract for US to prove it.

On April 18 2007 14:43 Never Post wrote:


I would have no problem with that were it not with the problem that belief in god limits one person's thinking. No longer will you want to explain the mysteries of the universe or the origins of ourselves, since it's a one word answer: god.

They teach you simpler models of the way electrons work at secondary school, then tell you it's all wrong at sixth form and was just taught to hide the real complexities. This seems exactly like religion, a simple explanation when you don't really understand much.

However if one were to simply accept the 'god' explanations they would never unveil the truth, or even want to. In this way I believe that faith is limitting and not helping humanity advance.