Did you hear the one about the disappearing planet?

[dad]

You have the burden of demonstrating from evidence that it was different.

False. I accept the ancient record God gave us. You have a burden to show nature was the same because science uses that foundational premise in all it's models of the past. There is no way out of it.

If your system requires that someone's claim stands until it's disproved (whereas in the real world, someone's claim is not accepted until its correctness is demonstrated) then you have altogether failed to show that Jesus was not a Chinese robot; and under your system, it's your job to disprove it, not my job to prove it.

You conflate the standards of Satan with those of God and sane men. Jesus is the One who showed Himself to us. We no know Him and He lives with us. Science has nothing to do with it or say about it, or any ability to comment intelligently of factually on the matter. No one needs to prove anything to the cult of false science and their false prophets! They have locked themselves away in a dark hell that can let no light in. The scientific method is to keep it pitch black!
There have been many demonstrations of God proving Himself over the ages. One example is when Elijah called down fire to prove the false prophets of his day phonies.

In the real world, the universe is about 13.8 bn years old, and the sun and the earth are about 4.5 bn years old.

That just demonstrates you haver no contact with reality and chose to misuse the word according to your religion.

and life on earth began a bit over 3.5 bn years ago and all life on earth has evolved from a single common ancestor.

IOnce your mouth goes into preaching mode, there seems to be no turning it off!

More proof you have abused the language and meaning of words to try and make them fir your religion. Ho hum.

In the real world, there was no flood, and none of the evidence that would have to be there if there had been a flood is found anywhere.

Your so-called real world is a figment of your imagination, in case you didn't know that. Your real-world is preaching spam that has no basis in fact or truth. You might as well call it 'blu's world'.

In the real world, the NT reads that each of the five versions of Jesus in the NT expressly denies that he's God.

In the real world blasphemy is not cool especially when it id off-topic in a science thread. Have a dose of actual reality.

Now, about your promise of running along...toodaloo.

 

[blü 2]

False. I accept the ancient record God gave us.

Quote me the part that said nature changed.

 

[dad]

Quote me the part that said nature changed.

Quote me the proof from science it didn't? Or at least tell us how a world of water could be deposited and removed in this nature and physics? How could men live 1000 years in today's nature or trees grow in a week?

Let's face it you do not believe the record of Gensisis or even history in key areas of what life was like in ancient times.

 

[blü 2]

Quote me the proof from science it didn't?

That what didn't what, exactly? You've never said.

But thanks for your frank admission that the bible never mentions any such change.

 

[dad]

That what didn't what, exactly? You've never said.

Yes I did, many times. Nature, which includes the natural forces and laws.

But thanks for your frank admission that the bible never mentions any such change.

It mentions the changes. Not sure why you seem to think that sudden astounding changes in the nature of life are not mentioning how the past was different. It tells us how it was and how it changed drastically. But hey, maybe God never spelled it out too clearly so that science could strut in and think it was so clever, and be shown up for the absolute foolishness it is one day!? Ha

Oh and in case there is any bible believing lurkers out there, I think (opinion) God did announce the change. Personally.
Before the flood, God told us that man's days would be 120 years. He would only strive with the wicked world for another 120 years till something big would change. I believe that was about 13-14 years before the flood. I think the big change happened in the days of Peleg, who Jewish tradition says was about 5-6 years old at the time of the tower of Babel incident. Peleg was born 101 years after the flood year. add the 6 years from the time Peleg was born till Babel and we have about 106 years. add the flood year and the 13 years before the flood when the warning was given and we are at 120 years! That would mean it only took about 12-14 years to build the ark.

Gen 6:3 - And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.


One of the traits of the former nature was that spirits were able to live on earth in a way that was more direct and visible. Right after this warning for example, it talks about the sons of God marrying women.

After the change happened this was no longer the case. Another big change was that man would no longer have a life span of over nine centuries to do evil.

 

[blü 2]

Yes I did, many times. Nature, which includes the natural forces and laws.

I don't believe you. You've been asked to be specific again and again and never once have you responded.

Now quote me the part of the bible that says nature changed.

Or like an honest human, admit you can't.

 

[dad]

I don't believe you. You've been asked to be specific again and again and never once have you responded.

Now quote me the part of the bible that says nature changed.

Or like an honest human, admit you can't.

Who says there is such a part?

What we have is a record of the past. That record is incompatible with the current nature and very different. The differences I have cited many times. We can even pinpoint when a major change in human life spans suddenly occurred! If you graph the changes in how long people lived, we see the change is in Peleg's day.
No one listed in Gen 11, that was born after Peleg lived more than 237 years and the life spans fell over several generations to present levels. The people born before Peleg outlived anyone born after Peleg by something like one hundred and fifty years!!!! That shows that the people born before the change (in Peleg's day when the earth was divided) were also affected by this change, but not as much as those who grew up in this present nature! Instead of living something like 960 years they only lived about 400 years after the change (plus however old they were before it). Example: Shem was about 205 when the change happened, and lived to the age of 600 years old.


The few people listed who were born either pre-flood or pre-Peleg lived

You claim the nature of the past was the same for no reason. Science also uses that premise for all models of the past. You have failed to support it in any way.

 

[blü 2]

Who says there is such a part?

So you don't claim the authority of the bible for your allegation. Instead you admit you made that bit up. Well, that's a step in the right direction.

What we have is a record of the past. That record is incompatible with the current nature and very different.

So you examine the evidence, honestly and without bias, you test it by experiment where you can, you corroborate it by (or contrast it with) other sources of information, such as history, archaeology, geology, the fossil record, and if you do this you'll reach the conclusions of science and of historians.

You have no reason to prefer the bible as a source of historical information. Some of it is okay, and some of it is not. We agree, I trust, that the earth is not flat, the sun doesn't go round it, the sky is not a hard dome you can walk on, the stars are not attached to it, and if the stars come loose they won't fall to earth. The bible says (and says only) those things because they were the science of the times and places the bible was written.

No one listed in Gen 11, that was born after Peleg lived more than 237 years and the life spans fell over several generations to present levels.

There are two alternatives relevant here. One is that the bible, despite being contradicted by history, medicine, archaeology, the fossil record, and just about everything else, and already wrong about the flat earth &c, is in this case correct. The other alternative, which fits what we know from the reasoned examination of reality, is that they're folk tale, and that there never was a time when humans lived to be nine hundred, (or in the case of the Mesopotamian king lists, 20,000 or more) and the bible is wrong again, though correctly reflecting the beliefs of its day.

Which of those seems more likely to you, when you wear your impartial observer's hat?

 

[dad]

So you don't claim the authority of the bible for your allegation. Instead you admit you made that bit up. Well, that's a step in the right direction.

Sorry if you can't read.

So you examine the evidence, honestly and without bias, you test it by experiment where you can, you corroborate it by (or contrast it with) other sources of information, such as history, archaeology, geology, the fossil record, and if you do this you'll reach the conclusions of science and of historians.

Foolishness. Science cannot test the past and whether spirits really were in the world as Scripture and history say. Geology is an arm of the same state past religion. It cannot deal with history. The fossil record is misunderstood by so called science because they assume our nature existed so that all creatures would have a chance of fossilizing equally. Man and most animals were not in that record, and neither were most plants! You see if we look for pollen as the evidence plants existed, we are looking for something that may not have been a part of the reality of how plants grew and reproduced in the former nature. In all ways, you use nothing but the same tired old same nature in the past belief. The evo one-trick pony!

You have no reason to prefer the bible as a source of historical information.

I have every reason.

Some of it is okay, and some of it is not.

Says you. Translation: 'some of the bible agrees with my relifion of so called science so some of the bible is good and most of it is bad'.

We agree, I trust, that the earth is not flat, the sun doesn't go round it, the sky is not a hard dome you can walk on, the stars are not attached to it, and if the stars come loose they won't fall to earth.

No we do not agree. I agree that cosmology is wrong and has no real clue what the universe is like or why and etc. As for the silly canard about a flat earth, or some orbits that you think the bible says should exist in this nature, forget about it.

The bible says (and says only) those things because they were the science of the times and places the bible was written.

The bible says nothing of the foolish sort.

There are two alternatives relevant here. One is that the bible, despite being contradicted by history, medicine, archaeology, the fossil record, and just about everything else, and already wrong about the flat earth &c, is in this case correct.

You are wrong in slandering Scripture and God about what it says.

The other alternative, which fits what we know

f
There IS no alternative. God is right, and your religion is wrong. Period.

 

[blü 2]

Sorry if you can't read.

You say the bible doesn't contain a statement that nature changed. Therefore you do not claim biblical authority for your statement that nature changed. You simply made that part up yourself.

Foolishness. Science cannot test the past

Of course it can. Your claim is absurd, and you know it.

and whether spirits really were in the world as Scripture and history say.

But you don't know what real thing (as distinct from wholly imaginary or conceptual thing) the word 'spirit' is intended to denote. There are self-evidently no real spirits, 'spirits' with objective existence; if there were you could show me one.

Geology is an arm of the same state past religion. It cannot deal with history.

So you're dropping your claim that the K-T boundary had anything to do the Genesis flood? Very wise.

The fossil record is misunderstood by so called science because they assume our nature existed so that all creatures would have a chance of fossilizing equally.

No, exactly the opposite. Fossilization can only occur in very precise and very rare situations. Creatures that get eaten, which is to say, a huge proportion of living things, aren't even in the hunt. Otherwise, most living things when they die decompose with time down to nothing. To become a fossil, you need to die and become buried in sediment so you make an imprint; or else decay without exposure to oxygen, which will allow the molecules of the bone (and, rarely, other parts) to be replaced by dissolved minerals ─ petrification. And when that's happened, you also have to survive the geological processes of burying, bending, folding, crushing and so on; and when you've done all that, someone has to find you AND that someone has to recognize what you are.

Man and most animals were not in that record

No, that's altogether wrong. Look carefully at the images of these fossils and you can see the evolution of Homo sapiens. This is what is meant by examinable evidence. It beats unevidenced folktale hollow every time. Don't be afraid of what is true.

if we look for pollen as the evidence plants existed, we are looking for something that may not have been a part of the reality of how plants grew and reproduced in the former nature.

But you have zero evidence that such a thing as a 'former nature' (in the sense you've been using it) ever existed; you admit there's no biblical authority for it, you don't know what the 'former nature' was, or when or why it changed, so seems to me you have nothing in your hand.

I have every reason.

In that case you're a flat-earther, you believe the earth is immovably fixed and that the sun and stars go round it, that the sky is a hard dome you can walk on, that the stars if they come loose from it will fall to earth, and so on.

Says you. Translation: 'some of the bible agrees with my relifion of so called science so some of the bible is good and most of it is bad'.

No, not me, the facts do the talking; truth is the product of reasoned enquiry, honest and transparent argument from examinable evidence; and though that's not a truth you find particularly attractive. it's still the truth.

As for the silly canard about a flat earth, or some orbits that you think the bible says should exist in this nature, forget about it. The bible says nothing of the foolish sort.

Now you're not being honest with yourself, let alone with me. Here's the link ─ again ─ to what the bible actually says.

You are wrong in slandering Scripture and God about what it says.

Any statement in the bible is capable of falsification, and, as with the cosmology, but hardly limited to it, a lot has been falsified outright, and a lot has been thrown into reasonable doubt. If you prefer falsity to truth, that's your problem, not mine.

There IS no alternative. God is right, and your religion is wrong. Period.

If only you knew what real thing you intended to denote when you said 'God', we could test your statement; but we have the bible and it's been tested and found to be a set of books written by different humans at different times and places for different purposes; and where it purports to deal with factual matters, to contain errors.

But if you'd rather tear out your eyes than look at the truth ─ the facts derived from reasoned enquiry into reality ─ then I'd prefer you kept your sight, stayed ignorant, and lived as happily as you can.

 

[dad]

You say the bible doesn't contain a statement that nature changed. Therefore you do not claim biblical authority for your statement that nature changed. You simply made that part up yourself.
Of course it can. Your claim is absurd, and you know it.
But you don't know what real thing (as distinct from wholly imaginary or conceptual thing) the word 'spirit' is intended to denote. There are self-evidently no real spirits, 'spirits' with objective existence; if there were you could show me one.

What are you on about now?
If spirits exist I could show you one?? Seriously? Do you think that really helps the failed defense of your cosmological claims!?

So you're dropping your claim that the K-T boundary had anything to do the Genesis flood? Very wise.

Not sure what you twisted of contorted or dreamed up to cook up that falsehood. I do suspect that the KT layer was around the time of the flood.

No, exactly the opposite. Fossilization can only occur in very precise and very rare situations.

Try to focus. No one asked about what 'can occur' in this nature!

No, that's altogether wrong. Look carefully at the images of these fossils and you can see the evolution of Homo sapiens. This is what is meant by examinable evidence. It beats unevidenced folktale hollow every time. Don't be afraid of what is true.

Newsflash: putting a bunch of monkey/apey creatures in a line up with remains of human skulls is foolishness. The exercise in frivolity is further complicated by the fact that you envision any evolving to have been slow and in the present nature! There were humans who lived in the former nature you know. That means they would likely have some differences from modern present state man skulls! What you may think is 'early man' may just be some people that were adapting to this new world and later this new nature! There was over a century in the former nature after the flood ended. Then there are the animal skulls they toss in the mix pretending they were some sort or ancestors to man. Preposterous beliefs based on nothing.

In that case you're a flat-earther, you believe the earth is immovably fixed and that the sun and stars go round it, that the sky is a hard dome you can walk on, that the stars if they come loose from it will fall to earth, and so on. No, not me, the facts do the talking; truth is the product of reasoned enquiry, honest and transparent argument from examinable evidence; and though that's not a truth you find particularly attractive. it's still the truth.

Not at all. I am one who realizes that people so biased and twisted as to pretend or think that the bible says such things are demented.

Now you're not being honest with yourself, let alone with me. Here's the link ─ again ─ to what the bible actually says.

I know what it says and what it means. You have only half of that going for you!

Any statement in the bible is capable of falsification, and, as with the cosmology, but hardly limited to it, a lot has been falsified outright, and a lot has been thrown into reasonable doubt. If you prefer falsity to truth, that's your problem, not mine.

Rambling insane false nonsense. You are in no position to dream about making the bible false. You have demonstrated you do not understand it, and do not even so much as accept that anything spiritual exists. So how would you show spirits false (or true)?? You ain't got the wherewithal.

If only you knew what real thing you intended to denote when you said 'God', we could test your statement; but we have the bible and it's been tested and found to be a set of books written by different humans at different times and places for different purposes; and where it purports to deal with factual matters, to contain errors.

Not sure if you believe that rambling insanity.

 

[blü 2]

What are you on about now?

Trying in vain to interest you in what is true.

If spirits exist I could show you one?? Seriously?

Yes, seriously. If spirits are real then they exist independently of your imagination, which means they exist in reality, which means you can show them to me. And the corollary is true ─ if you can't demonstrate their reality, then there's nothing they can be but imaginary. The same would be true of God, but God has no definition appropriate to a being with objective existence, such that if we found a suspect we could tell whether it were God or not.

But you know that, because you couldn't provide such a definition when I previously pointed this out.

I do suspect that the KT layer was around the time of the flood.

That's because you don't like to deal in facts. I don't know what definition of truth you use, but if you have one, it's not the same as mine (which you'll recall is that truth is a quality of statements and that a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality).

Newsflash: putting a bunch of monkey/apey creatures in a line up with remains of human skulls is foolishness.

But you don't mean 'foolishness' ─ you mean 'like nearly all facts of this kind, inconvenient to my way of thinking'. You have no wish to learn, only to defend what you can't defend unless you depart from the paths of honesty.

Not at all. I am one who realizes that people so biased and twisted as to pretend or think that the bible says such things are demented.

The various authors of the relevant books of the bible say those things ─ I understand that you don't know that, because you don't read the bible, but I'm giving you their words, not mine. Check it by all means.

I know what it says and what it means.

What does it mean if not what it says? What you want it to mean instead?

Rambling insane false nonsense. You are in no position to dream about making the bible false.

The bible was written by humans. What they wrote can be tested to see whether it's true or false. But you'd rather fulminate indignantly than enquire into truth or falsity ─ falsity suits you fine if it's what you prefer to think, so Do Not Disturb.

 

[dad]

Yes, seriously. If spirits are real then they exist independently of your imagination, which means they exist in reality, which means you can show them to me.

Spirits are a big part of both the bible and history and I did not invent them actually. Gong!

And the corollary is true ─ if you can't demonstrate their reality, then there's nothing they can be but imaginary.

You do not get to wave away history and the record of Scripture as well as the experiences of billions of people of all ages including today people just because they all do not show up in your bedroom with an angel on their shoulder! Stop acting like an ostrich.

The same would be true of God, but God has no definition appropriate to a being with objective existence, such that if we found a suspect we could tell whether it were God or not.

We get it. 'Bring God to a BarBQ on my porch or there is nor God'. Clever reasoning.

But you don't mean 'foolishness' ─ you mean 'like nearly all facts of this kind, inconvenient to my way of thinking'.

Facts of....what kind exactly? Try and remember to post them. We do not all live inside your head.

You have no wish to learn, only to defend what you can't defend unless you depart from the paths of honesty.

Your posts help us learn a lot, mainly that you have no real argument or facts.

The various authors of the relevant books of the bible say those things ─ I understand that you don't know that, because you don't read the bible, but I'm giving you their words, not mine. Check it by all means.

Your biased and ignorant opinion of what Scripture means is of no value in this thread. Not sure why you spent so much time spamming old wive's tales and bible PRATTS.

What does it mean if not what it says? What you want it to mean instead?

You do not understand what it says, and the reason for that seems to be on your end.

The bible was written by humans.

Scripture is God-breathed and inspired. Humans were about as useful as pens. Most of the stories of people in the bible show us what not to do!

What they wrote can be tested to see whether it's true or false.

Jesus rose from the dead to prove it true. We also see most bible prophesy is now history. The results have been in a loooong time now.

 

[blü 2]

Spirits are a big part of both the bible and history and I did not invent them actually. Gong!

Spirits are found in all cultures, which suggests they're artifacts of some aspect of our evolved ways of thinking. They are in each case imaginary, which is why the angel Gabriel is only found in Judeo-Christian cultures, Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism, and so on through Africa, India, Asia, North America, South America, the Caribbean, New Zealand and Polynesia, Fiji and Micronesia, Australia, Madagascar, on and on. Endless thousands of gods, endless thousands of spirits, all different, but having in common that every single one of them is imaginary.

Which is why you can't bring any of them into the lab either.

Prove me wrong. Bring a real spirit into the lab.

Facts of....what kind exactly?

The particular example was the array of skulls showing the evolution of H Sap Sap, which you declined to look at, let alone try to understand. You made no attempt to mount a reasoned case against them as evidence of evolution ─ which is fair enough because you can't ─ so all you have is dismissive words, rejection of facts.

Your biased and ignorant opinion of what Scripture means is of no value in this thread.

Scripture says it, I don't. It says the earth is flat and immovably fixed and the sun and stars go round it and the sky is a hard dome you can walk on and the stars are affixed to it and if they come loose they'll fall to earth.

Incidentally, I asked you why you'd expect the bible to reflect the science of the 21st century instead of the understanding of its books' authors, which accord to the times and places where they lived. You, like every other fundy I've asked, ducked the question.

And a related question, which is, If you think the bible doesn't reflect the science of its authors' times and places, why do you say it would instead reflect the science of the 21st century, and not the 18th century or the 24th century?

Scripture is God-breathed and inspired.

Scripture was written by humans typical of their times and places, for a variety of reasons, not least but not only politics.

But according to you, God brought the universe into being with [his] own hand, not through intermediaries.

It follows, does it not, that the study of reality is far closer to God's unmediated truth than the study of books written in the millennium preceding 100 CE, with all the tribal politics, and changing theologies, and incompatible Christologies, they describe?

Jesus rose from the dead to prove it true.

You're free to believe what you want. However, the resurrection story, as well as being innately incredible, is attested by about the least credible assembly of evidence imaginable ─ no contemporary account of it, no eyewitness account of it, no independent account of it, no account of it by anyone who'd ever met an historical Jesus, and instead the first mention of it with Paul 51- 57 CE, ie 20 years after the purported event, then Mark 45 years after the event, and the rest simply copying and elaborating on Mark until there are six independent accounts in the NT, each contradicting the other five in major ways.

It appears one can believe in the resurrection through faith. One certainly can't do so through history or the NT.

We also see most bible prophesy is now history.

You lovable old darling, you! Magic, and spirits, and wizards staring into their crystal balls ...

 

[dad]

Spirits are found in all cultures, which suggests they're artifacts of some aspect of our evolved ways of thinking.

Trees are found in all cultures, and children, and houses..etc. Being found in a historical record does not make something a product of less evolved imagination! You have a snobbish religion.

They are in each case imaginary, which is why the angel Gabriel is only found in Judeo-Christian cultures,

If God used a special nation to reveal Himself, His special angel would be involved in that, rather than vacationing on a love boat with pagans, one imagines.

Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism, and so on through Africa, India, Asia, North America, South America, the Caribbean, New Zealand and Polynesia, Fiji and Micronesia, Australia, Madagascar, on and on. Endless thousands of gods, endless thousands of spirits, all different, but having in common that every single one of them is imaginary.

Spiti beings not of God would also be found in other religions. No news there.

Which is why you can't bring any of them into the lab either.

Wrong. The reason you can't bring spirits into a lab is that you can't dictate when a spirit will appear, and even if you could, good luck grabbing it and bringing it to a lab! Ridiculous.

.

The particular example was the array of skulls showing the evolution of H Sap Sap, which you declined to look at, let alone try to understand.

Putting pics together does not mean one thing in a pic evolved from the other thing in another pic. Try again. What it means is that you have a belief system that somehow associates those pics in your mind.

You made no attempt to mount a reasoned case against them as evidence of evolution ─

Similar skulls does not mean evolution. Even if it did in some cases (such as post-flood man changing fast and adapting a different skull) you would not know where to start or stop. Just because you add a lot of pics like a bangee with a polaroid, does not mean a thing. You would need to provide evidence as to why the pics were related. You have not done so. If you tried it would just be another same state past belief based excersise in imagination and preaching.

Scripture says it, I don't. It says the earth is flat and immovably fixed and the sun and stars go round it and the sky is a hard dome you can walk on and the stars are affixed to it and if they come loose they'll fall to earth.

The earth never being moved refers to how God will keep it forever, not to some fool notion about there being no movement physically involved ever! Obviously. Just as the bible says we will not be moved! That does not mean we can't walk.

Incidentally, I asked you why you'd expect the bible to reflect the science of the 21st century instead of the understanding of its books' authors, which accord to the times and places where they lived. You, like every other fundy I've asked, ducked the question.

God is the Author and has infinite understanding, unlike so-called science disciples today.

And a related question, which is, If you think the bible doesn't reflect the science of its authors' times and places, why do you say it would instead reflect the science of the 21st century, and not the 18th century or the 24th century?
Scripture was written by humans typical of their times and places, for a variety of reasons, not least but not only politics.

Scripture is not limited to any century. God knows about them all.

But according to you, God brought the universe into being with [his] own hand, not through intermediaries.

It follows, does it not, that the study of reality is far closer to God's unmediated truth than the study of books written in the millennium preceding 100 CE, with all the tribal politics, and changing theologies, and incompatible Christologies, they describe?

No. The realities of the present time are not reflective of all times! They are just a small part of the picture.

You're free to believe what you want. However, the resurrection story...

Believers know Him who rose from the dead, and we touched and handled and spoke to and saw Him.

 

[blü 2]

Wrong. The reason you can't bring spirits into a lab is that you can't dictate when a spirit will appear, and even if you could, good luck grabbing it and bringing it to a lab! Ridiculous.

The explanation that you can't bring them into the lab because they're imaginary is vastly more economical and accords exactly with the facts.

Putting pics together does not mean one thing in a pic evolved from the other thing in another pic.

Smarter people than you and me think it does. It's certain more credible than magic.

The earth never being moved refers to how God will keep it forever, not to some fool notion about there being no movement physically involved ever!

That isn't what it says. You're inventing excuses like an apologist, a $5 defense attorney.

God is the Author and has infinite understanding, unlike so-called science disciples today.

Funny that God never noticed the earth wasn't flat, wasn't immovably fixed, wasn't orbited by the sun and stars, wasn't covered by a hard dome you could walk on, or that if the stars got detached from the dome they wouldn't fall to earth.

Funny that God would order invasive war, massacres, mass rapes, human sacrifices, suppression of women, ripping pregnant women open, religious intolerance, slavery, and even crucify his own son to achieve what [he] could have achieved regardless with one snap of those omnipotent fingers, no?

Funny that it never occurred to God to get [his] message across to everyone in the world rather than limit it to a tiny number in Jerusalem.

Funny that God wrote five different and incompatible versions of Jesus and six different and incompatible versions of the resurrection.

Funny that [his] views have never caught on in so many other countries; and even in those that it did, it most often happened by invasion and colonization, not by persuasion.

Believers know Him who rose from the dead, and we touched and handled and spoke to and saw Him.

The story itself isn't credible. The evidence claimed to support it is of the very lowest quality, as I pointed out.

But you have your faith.

You forgot to explain to me why studying reality, created, you say, by God, doesn't tell you more about God than the bible, written by humans, does.

 

[dad]

The explanation that you can't bring them into the lab because they're imaginary is vastly more economical and accords exactly with the facts.

Claiming anything you can't drag into a lab is imaginary is a weak position.

Smarter people than you and me think it does. It's certain more credible than magic.

False. People who think they are smarter than you or I may think that.

Funny that God never noticed the earth wasn't flat, wasn't immovably fixed, wasn't orbited by the sun and stars, wasn't covered by a hard dome you could walk on, or that if the stars got detached from the dome they wouldn't fall to earth.

Why? No one else ever noticed such things either. Relax.

Funny that God would order invasive war, massacres, mass rapes, human sacrifices, suppression of women, ripping pregnant women open, religious intolerance, slavery, and even crucify his own son to achieve what [he] could have achieved regardless with one snap of those omnipotent fingers, no?

Thanks for the gripe list. However, if there was no need to pay a price to set man free and give us eternal life, He would not have done so. As for ripping women, that was a quote for people so wicked that God had just allowed their enemies to take them away as slaves to teach them some things. As for the suppression of women, I do not feel that not allowing them to whack their babies is a suppression of a bad sort. As for ancient wars, there was a time in barbaric history when He needed His nation to learn to trust Him for protection. Even iff they went out with a bunch of jars and squawked like pirates, He would do the rest and defeat the wicked for them. Sorry if you thought the good should have rolled over for evil. As for human sacrifices, unless you renounce abortion here and now, you are part of the human sacrifice of billions of children a year. God was against sacrificing children.

Funny that it never occurred to God to get [his] message across to everyone in the world rather than limit it to a tiny number in Jerusalem.

Not at all, because He was to come down to earth and start to get His message out somewhere.

Funny that God wrote five different and incompatible versions of Jesus and six different and incompatible versions of the resurrection.

Incompatible to those who have rejected truth and God and His spirit, so that they cannot understand what they read.

Funny that [his] views have never caught on in so many other countries; and even in those that it did, it most often happened by invasion and colonization, not by persuasion.

He never told anyone to invade so you should clue in that barbarians invading in His name do so for their own benefit, not on orders from God.

You forgot to explain to me why studying reality, created, you say, by God, doesn't tell you more about God than the bible, written by humans, does.

No. You forgot to pay attention. But to spare lurkers from having to wade through too much of your agonizing posts, here is the scoop on that. The reality we see now is not the reality for all eternity or all history. The way you look at what is real is also darkened by the heaping supply of beliefs you pile on to what you see.

 

[blü 2]

Claiming anything you can't drag into a lab is imaginary is a weak position.

On the contrary ─ if spirits have objective existence then you can demonstrate their reality. If not, the only other thing they can be is, imaginary.

And you forgot to tell me what in reality changed as a result of Jesus' death.

And what a violent death could accomplish that the almighty powers of God could not.

And whether God has ever after that been sending his Chosen People the Jews to hell or wherever for not embracing Christianity.

What's the story?

 

[dad]

On the contrary ─ if spirits have objective existence then you can demonstrate their reality. If not, the only other thing they can be is, imaginary.

And you forgot to tell me what in reality changed as a result of Jesus' death.

And what a violent death could accomplish that the almighty powers of God could not.

And whether God has ever after that been sending his Chosen People the Jews to hell or wherever for not embracing Christianity.

What's the story?

All Israel will be saved one day. (those left alive and not killed by the wicked king they followed, or the judgments of God in the end)

 

[blü 2]

All Israel will be saved one day. (those left alive and not killed by the wicked king they followed, or the judgments of God in the end)

Do you mean that meanwhile all those of the Jewish faith suffer divine punishment after death but one day it'll end? If not, what?

And you forgot to tell me what in reality changed as a result of Jesus' death.

And what a violent death could accomplish that the almighty powers of God could not.