It takes a big pair to make the claim of atheism.

a reply to: whereislogic

Because you have a problem (obviously) with God being three parts, the Father the Son and Holy Spirit makes one, your going to go around in circles, you made that clear in your first post. Your looking for problems, I can`t make you understand something you refuse to.

Do you also see a problem with God when He views male and female in marriage, he views them as one flesh?.

What about a motor vehicle, thousands of parts but only one car?

A body, many organs, billions of cells, one brain one soul one human?.

originally posted by: gps777
a reply to: whereislogic
Your looking for problems, I can`t make you understand something you refuse to.

I'm not looking for problems and I don't refuse to understand anything being made up of multiple parts. But my questions were about who sacrificed himself in relation to your statement about that which demonstrates an effort to understand why you think you can make claims about that subject that contradict what God's word teaches about it which clearly states that it was the "mediator between God and men" who we know as Jesus Christ that provided the sacrifice, from which I obviously conclude that it wasn't God himself who did that since I'm not unaware of the reminder of Galatians 3:20 and neither am I blind to the clear statement the "mediator between God and men", not God (otherwise the word mediator is used wrongly or the whole statement becomes contradictory if one wants to claim that this mediator is God).

It's kinda hard to gain any understanding about that way of thinking about it (that the mediator between God and men is God himself) if no one ever wants to answer any questions about it though. Sometimes not even when they are very simple and noncontroversial (or can be answered in that way without addressing any of my concerns with arguing that the mediator between God and men is God himself, or that it somehow doesn't count when Jesus is talking about his God by saying "my God", that sort of stuff as a sidepoint, or that God cannot die which is another reason to accept the bible's teaching that it wasn't God that sacrificed Himself, but his only begotten Son, the mediator between God and men).

Colossians 2:4

I am saying this so that no one may delude you with persuasive arguments.

Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! Awake!—2000

Ask questions: As we have seen, there are many today who would like to ‘delude us with persuasive arguments.’ (Colossians 2:4) Therefore, when we are presented with persuasive arguments, we should ask questions.

First, examine whether there is bias. What is the motive for the message? If the message is rife with name-calling and loaded words, why is that? Loaded language aside, what are the merits of the message itself? Also, if possible, try to check the track record of those speaking. Are they known to speak the truth? If “authorities” are used, who or what are they? Why should you regard this person—or organization or publication—as having expert knowledge or trustworthy information on the subject in question? If you sense some appeal to emotions, ask yourself, ‘When viewed dispassionately, what are the merits of the message?’

Too bad that article doesn't have any advice on how to get direct answers to one's questions, or at least something that makes sense in relation to it (more directly).

originally posted by: whereislogic

It's kinda hard to gain any understanding about that way of thinking about it (that the mediator between God and men is God himself) if no one ever wants to answer any questions about it though.

Apologies if I`m sounding short with you, I think your genuinely trying to understand it, but it is simple, God made it simple for us Yeshua is sitting at the right hand of Yahweh who makes intersession on our behalf, God cannot be in the presence of sin because He is perfect, Its why Lucifer was thrown out because of his pride and rebellion/sin , upon judgement of each and everyone of us Yeshua steps in when a Christian that has followed and has believed in Him, who is covered by His blood.

If I can say, don`t make it too difficult for yourself or limit what is possible for God to achieve that allowed our salvation through His Sons blood that covers us.

Romans 8:34King James Version (KJV)

34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
www.biblegateway.com...

John 14:6King James Version (KJV)

6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
www.biblegateway.com...

God made flesh who sacrificed Himself, innocent blameless sacrificial lamb, that was foretold in early Genesis, Its beyond amazing that God loved us that much, in this wicked evil mans nature that we all struggle with, though its an amazingly beautiful place and are living miracles that we take for granted.

How is Jesus our mediator?

When we pray etc we say it in Yeshua`s name, He makes intersession and is a mediator on our behalf.

How can one God be three persons? the Trinity was mentioned in the OT before Yeshua came. As I link before He is also called the Word of God, which was with God and the Word was God in the beginning.

Hopefully it helps you to understand it better, it looks complicated but its simple, not much different than the car analogy.

a reply to: gps777

I am not getting hung up on the title of the video. I know it well.

Complexity is not proof of deity (singular or plural). we've had a thread on this. Irreducible complexity is a load of dingoes kidneys.

So I ask you. IF something created life, what created it?

a reply to: Noinden

a) I never said you had to let anyone into your heart.

b) Reading and studying are not the same thing. Causal reading the Bible (no matter what version) will not open you eyes to much.

c) Partial proof of my errors are not 100% proof

I know of all the so called committees. I don't touch on things that matter little when it comes to God preserving his words as he said he would. And no man wrote that verse to control any other man. Because if they did they failed since 100AD

I never did think you would take the challenge to try and prove my points wrong. I know of very few of the hundreds I have asked to do so. A few of those who did, never completed it and never contact me again. And fewer yet did it and found my points correct. And a few didn't really do it with a right heart, and only wanted to argue more and more about how there is no preserved words of God and how you have to go back to the "originals" and la di da di da. I kid you not they said "originals" and everyone with even half a brain knows there are no such animal in existence. Every partial script we have in Hebrew or Greek are all copies and incomplete ones at that.

Well have a nice evening.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Neighbour

You edited that post. After I replied and accused you of Proselytizing. I'm not the only one who saw that. Do not play that game.

Indeed reading and studying are not the same. However I study religions. You however have admitted to obsessively read versions of the bible, which leans more to an obsessive compulsive problem than scholarship. So don't lecture me on studying. I actually perform research for a living. Reading is part of studying. You've demonstrated that you are ignorant of the history of your faith.

Proof is proof is proof neighbour.

a reply to: Noinden

yeah I added some more points in my last reply. But no where in any previous post did I say You had to let anyone into your heart. I only asked you did it with a pure heart, meaning a heart that was truly seeking truth.

So I wasn't fast enough for you.

Good night

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You changed the context neighbour. You do this often. Like I said, I am not the only one who has noticed this. When you are being rolled, you edit.

But back on topic.

Prove your bible is the preserved word of your Deity.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Since you edited again (learn to no hit reply that fast)
We don't have anything but copies of a lot of texts older than a few 100 years, because .... paper (even vellum) degrades.

That does not mean your Preserved Word of God is what you call it.


You've no proof it is from god.

It could be from:

Satan
Bob
The Flying Spaghetti Monster
or most likely
The words of man

The bible is a heavily edited book, that was compiled by a series of committees.

This makes it the word of man.

I did not take your challenge the way you wanted. Because you never engaged an actually challenge

a reply to: Noinden

if you only have copies of copies then how can you verify what was really said in the original? The answer is simple you can't.

You are no polytheist as you claim. It is quite clear by all your posts in every thread you are a monotheist.

You believe you are god and have infinite knowledge of all religions and things spiritual. And that you know my heart and reason for my asking you to prove the 7 points I laid out as true.

There are few reason I add to my post. generally you also edit your post and add additional info after the first read then I am forced to go back to by reply and edit it to answer your additional comments.

I did challenge you to the points in at least three threads now and not once have you accepted it.

And I asked you politely in another thread to use English, I don't speak the language you want to engage in with your supposed religious texts (the last one was poem not a religious text). All of it is translated into English and has been for many years. Seeing English is the chosen language of ATS let's agree to stick to it. You have never seen me post anything you could not easily understand.

have a n ice Day

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You don't understand how information is transmitted. That is clear.

Your "AV Bible" was not written down from scratch. Nor was it copied from an original. It was edited down from the Catholic Bibles of the day. To fit the Protestant mindset if nothing else.

English is NOT the language the original Christians spoke (it was not even a language then). As I said. The bible (like all holy texts) ended up being created by committee. This started with the first Council of Nicaea, and continues ever onward. By the very definition it is the word of man. Not the word of God. Or if it is the word of your Deity, he has some problems deciding what version is right, and thus makes George Lucas look stubborn about change

As for your ad homenin attack on my faith. You've not idea neighbor. If you knew who I was, you'd be able to find that I'm part of the Polytheist community. But hey. I don't care what you think. You've already shown you are clumsy with the use of words.

Let me clue you in. IF I thought I was "God" that would not make me a monotheist. I'd be a non theist. Theism is about a deity being there, not being said deity. So no I do not see my self as a God. I am well aware of my mortality.

When I edit it is almost always because of an auto-correct error in spelling. IF I add additional information. I add:

EDIT:

So don't try that game. I don't change my argument after the other has replied. You do. Many of us have commented on that. It is bad netiquette neighbor.

Oh and you do not make the rules of what is a religious text or not. Depedending on which one you are talking about. It is either the reconstructed fable of the Horses and the Sheep of the Proto Indo-European peoples sometimes called Schleicher's Fable. OR it was the Prayer a close friend of mine wrote to An Morrigan. A deity we both share.

I am part of a Mystery tradition. You don't understand what that even means.
But here I will show you another one:

"Fo-ceird Cú Chuluinn bedg ina charpat feissin íarum. Naicc ní i nneoch íarum in mnaí nach in carpat nach in n-ech nach in fer nach in mbuin ocus co n-faco-sium íarum ba hén-si dub forsin chroíb ina farrud.
‘Doltach ben atat-chomnaic’, ol Cú Chuluinn.
‘Is Dollud dono bias forsinn greallaig si co bráth’, ol in ben. Grellach Dolluid íarum a hainm ó hoin ille.
‘Ochti ro-feisind bed tú ní samluid no-scarfamais’, ol Cú Chuluinn.
‘Cid donrignis’, olsí, ‘bieith olec de.’
‘Ni chumgai olc dam’, ol Cú Chuluinn.
‘Cumgaim écin’, olsin ven. ‘Is oc do ditin do báis-siu atáu-so ocus bia’, ollsí."

a reply to: Noinden

You win, all religions are the same and all lead tot he same place.

But you my friend are a monotheist, you are god. You are the one who knows all and know better than everyone else.

You are even better than those godless committees and councils.

Good night

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I did not say anything remotely like what you said.

I've never said all religions are the same. Or that they lead to the same place. You should try reading for a change. For example, I'm as far from a monotheist, as you are from a scholar What I am, is someone who cans study and apply critical thinking. Oh and I don't try to inflate myself with false stories about "Alphabet Agencies" either

So try again.

The Council of Nicea is the main reason you can even Rabbit on about your fantasy of the "Preserved word of God" thinking that English of the period is the peak of human language

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Here’s another lesson on English for you.

A monotheist is someone who has a belief their is one god. NOT believing you ARE god.

Noinden believes in MANY gods. That’s makes him a polytheist.

You, on the other hand, are neither, as you’ve shown you don’t really believe in any god or gods. That makes you an atheist.

a reply to: TerryDon79

YEah we had that discussion. Someone who saw themselves AS A God would not technically be a theist either

a reply to: Noinden

I’m not even sure what it would be. Delusions of grandeur? God complex?

Certainly not monotheist, polytheist or atheist lol.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Pretty sure it would be some sort of entry in a certain encyclopedia of mental health problems Much like thinking one was a son of a deity, at least in the modern world.

Point being monotheist is not the term

a reply to: Noinden

We all know that.

Well, MOST of us know that

a reply to: TerryDon79

I'm still confused over how this preserved Word of God that he paid for (taking food from the mouths of his kid (to quote him)) has anything to do in a thread about Atheists having big balls?

a reply to: Noinden

That I don’t know.

Dear Chester came in and derailed the thread by pronouncing that I wasn’t an atheist because I use English words.

And he’s been on a rant ever since.