1+1+1 = 1 ?
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
I'm just not convinced that if we dun believe in Christ we shall all go to hell when we die....to me, this sentence is too heavy....
This statement indicates eternal condemnation for non believers.Thank goodness there are other religions for people to choose from!
-
Originally posted by winsomeea:
What you ask for is very valid, I believe many are interested to know! 
easy because it exists in the bible or genesis or whatever, just like superman exists in DC comics and movies
-
Originally posted by Servant:
Pls point us to these 'original records of Julius Caesar's life'.
Yes, there are original records of eyewitnesses, but were you the original eyewitness? How do you know the historian wasn't making it up?
Julius Caesar, emperor Qin Shi Huang were more real than god
how do you know the person who wrote bible or genesis didnt invented concept of god?
-
There is no end to the debate about Christianity. The contradictions remain.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
sgdiehard,
1. You have not authenticate the miracles and accounts in the bible and yet now you tell me to authenticate lame stuff.
2. The different trinities in different religions are all beautiful, including the christian trinity! Why not you pick up some books or do some simple googling?
Tcmc,
I didn't ask you to believe in miracles and accounts in the bible.
I din't quote or use Trinity in Hinduism, or Taoism, or Buddhism, you did, now you ask me to google to authenticate what you said...hehehe...get out of your cave and have some light.
so your accusation about name calling is lame....
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
1. As far as the Bible is concerned, anyone who denies that Jesus is God in the flesh is the anti-Christ. So tell me how can such be considered Christian? Calling oneself "Christian" is easy. And nonbelievers like you easily label anyone who profess belief in Jesus or the Bible a Christian without due regards to the actual Bible teachings.
anti christ, come on? why have to be anti? cant it be neutral? this is so irrational and incoherent the word anti christ.........so if dun believe is call anti omg
your religion is damn difficult to understand from a rational point of view. I am trying my very best to understand the senseless of this word. -
Originally posted by Rooney_07:
anti christ, come on? why have to be anti? cant it be neutral? this is so irrational and incoherent the word anti christ.........so if dun believe is call anti omg
your religion is damn difficult to understand
from a rational point of view. I am trying my very best to
understand the senseless of this word.LOL!
-
Originally posted by Servant:
Do you realise your contradiction? If you don't have to see to know that something is true, then what is your problem with the Bible? There are little or almost no surviving original texts, drawings, photos, video recordings blah blah of many ancient events that have happened (I've already quoted the eg of Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon River, or the existence of the Carthaginian empire amongst others), but they are widely believed to have happened according to the professional research of historians.
Why do you apply different standards to the Bible just because of what it claims?
You say it's different because the Bible 'has supernatural events'. I'm sorry, but your method is hardly scientific, logical, professional or accepted by mainstream science and archaeology.
And I'm still waiting for your answer to that article I posted which will save everyone here a lot of time because it answers most of the questions about the Bible's authenticity. Here, let me post it for you again:
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/are-the-gospels-myth
Servant
Lol.
Big claims need big evidence. Again I stress the difference. Qin Shi Huang, Julius Caesar or any historical figure did not claim that they are divine or that they flew up into the skies. Neither did their followers and loyalties wrote books to tell people that they rose from dead, walked on water or flew into space.
You see the big difference?
It makes sense, there are original records, eye witnesses accounts, then it's all ok.
But when it doesn't make sense....and NO original records (like the bible).......then it is only as good as a religious/faith scripture.
WOULD YOU believe a book that is 4000 years old, no records and say that Santa Claus flew to the moon or Chang Er flew to the moon with her rabbit?
-
Originally posted by Rooney_07:
Julius Caesar, emperor Qin Shi Huang were more real than godhow do you know the person who wrote bible or genesis didnt invented concept of god?
Seems that this discussion is beyond you, suggest you reread and think about the earlier posts first.
-
The bible can never be "wrong". God is "perfect". Christianity is the "only way to heaven".
-
First of all, your bigges claim of all - God exists.
You cant even freaking prove that God exists, empirically.
To prove empirically, you need to be able to see, touch, feel, hear, measure and detect and be able to compare.
There's nothing. Nothing there to prove empirically. How can you use a book to "detect" a God or invisible being??
-
Originally posted by winsomeea:
The bible can never be "wrong". God is "perfect". Christianity is the "only way to heaven".
And when cornered, they say "well god works mysteriously"
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
First of all, your bigges claim of all - God exists.
You cant even freaking prove that God exists, empirically.
To prove empirically, you need to be able to see, touch, feel, hear, measure and detect and be able to compare.
There's nothing. Nothing there to prove empirically. How can you use a book to "detect" a God or invisible being??
aiya just told you nia, god exists in bible the way superman exists in DC comics and movies. if xtian say its a fact and evidence, so be it. they can say whatever they like, but we can disagree and reject their claim, dun we
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
And when cornered, they say "well god works mysteriously"
you have to wonder, is it god reply or their reply?
you see, even refutation needs a human retorting, where got see god reply back to your question one
so in essense, god was invented by man is irrefutable fact. unless the bible was written by god lor. even the preaching also needed to be preached by human, where got see god go preach one right.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
And when cornered, they say "well god works mysteriously"
Add on "everything works for those who love him..... blah blah blah" and "nothing is impossible with God" and "leave it to God, God will judge on judgement day"
Many times, reality and theory don't match.
-
Originally posted by winsomeea:
Add on "everything works for those who love him..... blah blah blah" and "nothing is impossible with God" and "leave it to God, God will judge on judgement day"
Many times, reality and theory don't match.
of course. it exists only in the bible, of course theory, story and reality doesnt match up. it doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand this -
Originally posted by Tcmc:
1. Sure I will. I am using the bible as "evidence" for your sake, because you are christian.
In Mark 24, the bible says jesus isn't all-knowing because he doesnt know the end time. Now, a logical person would ask, "If the christian god is all-knowing, then how can jesus be 100% god and 100% man?" It doesnt make sense.
In Mat 19, jesus denies being good and attributes goodness to god only.
Non-trinity Christians use these verses and other verses to justify that jesus isn't god. You also use some verses to justify that jesus is god right? Show me some?
2. General revelation and Natural theology are all pseudo-science, not accepted by any universities, scientists or academic institutions. Again , you assume a complex university must be created. Not necessarily.
3. You claim your god is the only true one using scripture. I dont see how that makes your religion any different from other religions since every one of them uses scripture to "prove" too.
4. No you have not refuted me yet regarding bible teaching trinity. I have shown you some verses above that show that jesus isnt god.
5. You havent answered my 5th point. Do you agree all the trinities are beautiful and unique in their own way?
Tcmc,
Let's see how well you fare using the Bible, shall we?
1. I already said that the doctrine of the incarnation explained the part about Jesus not knowing about the time of His Second Coming. You are clearly out of touch with what this doctrine is all about. Jesus limited the use of His divine powers but that is a self-imposed limitation, it in no way diminishes His divine nature. Which part of your Bible in Matt 19 has Jesus denying His goodness? Please produce the relevant portion, if you can. Denying means that Jesus said, "I am not good, only God is." or "Don't call me good, I'm not good at all." None of the above verses prove anything remotely close to Jesus not being God. I have given you one clear verse from John 10 and you have not even addressed that.
2. You are committing the fallacy of irrelevant thesis. Just because something is not taught in secular universities today means you disregard it? Had you been living in Europe a few centuries ago you would be learning about it in universities when such universities were started by Christians. Anyway that is besides the point really. Calling it pseudo-science is merely being dismissive. You brag about being scientific but hardly showed yourself to be so. Science tries to uncover causes and effects. This universe has a beginning and thus begs a cause. Agree or not? Either this universe made itself (a logical impossibility) or it was created by a Being that is wholly other and not part of this universe. I challenge you to show how my conclusion is illogical or impossible.
3. I have provided one relevant verse that proved that Jesus claimed to be God, and this was admitted by His enemies. I wait for you to rebutt that. As for your so-called verses, I have already rebutted them as not proving the case.
4. Your fifth point is totally irrelevant which is why I ignored it. What kind of beauty are you talking about? It is in the eye of the beholder. You say it is beautiful, so be it. Beauty is not a determinant of truth.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BroInChrist,
Yes of course we certainly did start from one male and one female ... haha..but like you admitted you cannot prove that their names were adam and eve in a magical garden with a magical fruit and with a talking snake. You can only say "it's true because the bible says so".
Please dont use julius caesar to support your case because there are original records of julius caesar's life and original records of eyewitnesses. There are no originals of the bible. Also, records of julius caesar's life did not make supernatural claims unlike the bible.
You cant prove or reproduce the talking donkey because it's not real. Its just a story to teach, not a real account. So I shall dismiss your claim because you cant provide evidence.
Tcmc,
I have no need to prove to you that their names were Adam and Eve. You either choose to believe it or not. For me it is sufficient that you conceded the point about them being the first human couple.
Concerning the records of Julius Caesar you are again showing your ignorance. Where are the so-called original records? Yes, the Bible has no original records. Even if we have them, any skeptic can still refuse to believe they are the original and stick to their guns. But I suppose you have never heard the term "textual criticism"? Whether Julius Caesar make supernatural claims or not is besides the point.
There is no obligation or onus on me to produce a talking donkey to you. If you are already close-minded to the supernatural you will dismiss any claim of the supernatural without even bothering to take a second look. You are clearly operating on prejudice here. The arrogance and haughtiness you demonstrate exposes the lie that you are truth seeker. A truth seeker demonstrates humility and teachability, qualities that are completely lacking in you.
So are you trolling here or what?
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
We must be reminded that this thread is within the Christians' forum...why dun Christians come to Buddhists forum ? Just curious....
Demon Bane,
Each person decides for himself whether to appear in the Buddhist forum or some other forum. But my observation is that few Christians go into Buddhist forums because they are not welcome there at all. They will just be accused of trying to flame or troll and be shoo-ed away. But the reverse is seldom true. I always see nonbelievers coming into Christian forums knowing full well that by and large the Bible require Christians to adopt a loving position and a gentle stance and turn the other cheek. Many unbelievers then use this to their advantage and unleash all kinds of stuff knowing that they will usually get away with it. True?
-
Originally posted by Rooney_07:
anti christ, come on? why have to be anti? cant it be neutral? this is so irrational and incoherent the word anti christ.........so if dun believe is call anti omg
your religion is damn difficult to understand from a rational point of view. I am trying my very best to understand the senseless of this word.Rooney,
In what way are you neutral with respect to Christianity? Please be honest with yourself at least. Yours is not just not believing, yours in REFUSING to believe, and still attempt to bash the faith. This is completely different. How is Christianity difficult to understand? Apparently you seem to think it is so easy to understand that you can easily have a go at bashing it. Or are you admitting that you have rejected something that you did not understand in the first place? And you call this being rational? Something is simply not right. That does not put you in good stead at all.
-
hem ah hem .. . . . .. . the miserable minority of Christians who appear in the Buddhism forum are well behaved, the rest are trolls out to attack and bash buddhism, to this group of course they are not welcomed.
It is so difficult to find nice Christians . Sigh!
-
Originally posted by winsomeea:
hem ah hem .. . . . .. . the miserable minority of Christians who appear in the Buddhism forum are well behaved, the rest are trolls out to attack and bash buddhism, to this group of course they are not welcomed.
It is so difficult to find nice Christians . Sigh!
winsomeea,
Do you think you are being a nice atheist here?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Rooney,
In what way are you neutral with respect to Christianity? Please be honest with yourself at least. Yours is not just not believing, yours in REFUSING to believe, and still attempt to bash the faith. This is completely different. How is Christianity difficult to understand? Apparently you seem to think it is so easy to understand that you can easily have a go at bashing it. Or are you admitting that you have rejected something that you did not understand in the first place? And you call this being rational? Something is simply not right. That does not put you in good stead at all.
even if one refuse to accept or reject, there is no need to call them anti christ isnt it.
-
Originally posted by Rooney_07:
even if one refuse to accept or reject, there is no need to call them anti christ isnt it.
Rooney,
Fact is, there are people who are anti-Christians, and I don't know if you count yourself among them. Jesus said that there is no neutral position when it comes to Him. He said that those who are not against Him are FOR Him. But I see a double standard being used here. Christians are called all sorts of names for simply sharing the faith (extremists, fundamentalists etc) but you are now offended if you take a hard stance against Christianity and are being labelled by the Bible as an anti-Christ?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
winsomeea,
Do you think you are being a nice atheist here?
Must have inadvertently touched the raw flesh, now comes the question from BrolnChrist. You don't even know my background and called me an atheist here. hahahahahhaha! Hahahahahahahahahhaha! dodododododood!!!