Just wondering

[waR toRn Rebel]

Well melody don't blame me, because you protistants can't even understand your own bible or come to an agrement on what it means. And the passage that I posted was speaking of double reference and showed that the bible does use such a thing.

 

[waR toRn Rebel]

waR toRn Rebel,

[PART QUOTE = WaR tiRn Rebel]................."I did I asked how the people that believed in the christian god handled questions that they couldn't anwser or proved there god "...............[/PART QUOTE]

These are your "Proof" thar our God doesn't exist?



Genesis1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the

Exodus 20.22 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites this: 'You have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven:

Deuteronomy 3:24 "O Sovereign LORD, you have begun to show to your servant your greatness and your strong hand. For what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do the deeds and mighty works you do?

:biglaugh:

No my proof is the many flaws of the bible. You know that book that you base your faith on. That would seem to disprove a religion to me if the book it was founded on was really messed up. And no those were not the flaws I am talking about.

 

[Scott1]

No my proof is the many flaws of the bible. You know that book that you base your faith on. That would seem to disprove a religion to me if the book it was founded on was really messed up.

Ok... super.... what's your point?

Are you trying to convert us to your way of thinking?

 

[Melody]

Well melody don't blame me, because you protistants can't even understand your own bible or come to an agrement on what it means. And the passage that I posted was speaking of double reference and showed that the bible does use such a thing.

And this means what to the current conversation? I've given you a link that shows why Isaiah is not talking about Lucifer. The arguments are far more compelling than from those looking for double entendres.

 

[Melody]

No my proof is the many flaws of the bible. You know that book that you base your faith on. That would seem to disprove a religion to me if the book it was founded on was really messed up. And no those were not the flaws I am talking about.

You see flaws. I see someone who doesn't "hear".

 

[waR toRn Rebel]

Ok... super.... what's your point?

Are you trying to convert us to your way of thinking?

No, and apparently it doesn't apply to you since you said that you don't base your faith off the bible. By the way you never anwsered me when I asked you what you base your faith on. So I was just wondering if you could tell me what you base your faith on.

 

[waR toRn Rebel]

And this means what to the current conversation? I've given you a link that shows why Isaiah is not talking about Lucifer. The arguments are far more compelling than from those looking for double entendres.

And I showed you a passage that said the opposite of what you said, so it is apparent that there is no absolute translation, defination, or meaning.

Also about me not "hearing" what ever it is I'm suppost to be listening for. You have to remember it's all relative.

 

[Melody]

And I showed you a passage that said the opposite of what you said, so it is apparent that there is no absolute translation, defination, or meaning.

True...but I pointed you to an explanation for why yours is probably an error in interpretation but you haven't given me any reason why your version might be more accurate other than "somebody" thinks it's double speak for Lucifer.

 

[painted wolf]

wow.... all I can say right now is wow.... gimmie a sec....

ok...

Now in answer to your origional question.. the truth is that no 'proof' or question perporting to be 'proof' (no matter how clever) can really disprove god. God is the great unfathomable, and no matter what you clame as 'proof' of the lack of god will ever convince everyone.
The nice thing is that people can make up thier own minds on evidence and what it says and doesn't say about the reality or lack there of, of 'God'.

Nit picking scripture, while fun from time to time, is not going to convince someone about the existance or non-existance of god. Such a thing as faith is byond the writting in a mear book for many who have it.

Any human system, faith or otherwise has flaws.... saying that a Religion is falce based on a book that has been hand copied and translated/retranslated for centuries is to me like saying Science is falce because my highschool science book is full of misprints and half-truths (and was sponsored by the local Oil company).

wa:do

 

[Aqualung]

Nit picking scripture, while fun from time to time, is not going to convince someone about the existance or non-existance of god.

Sure, but that's one of the main reasons I come to this forum. Becuase there are people willing to nit pick scripture, which is indeed fun.

 

[Aqualung]

Okay. To answer the question about the two different meanings of heaven. (I'm sorry if someone already answered this, but I don't really have time to look back and see .)
Okay, in the beginning, God and all his spirit children, Satan being one of them, were all living somewhere. I don't know where. You think its "heaven" but it is only called that becuase it isn't earth. It was off in that great expanse, or something. (I don't have my scriptures, so I can't tell you anything too specific, either, for which again I appologize.) This was not the heaven that is perfect without sin or anything. It was not perfect, because God's spirit children weren't at all progressed. We didn't have bodies, we didn't have anything. That's that heaven. Then, in the end, Satan will be destroyed, and we will all be resurected a final time to the other heaven. This is the one that won't have sin etc becuase satan will be destroyed. See? two different meanings for heaven

 

[Fluffy]

No....the story of Lucifer and the revolt is a story told to children but is not found in the Bible.

Told to children? TOLD TO CHILDREN!!!! I can just see John Milton turning in his grave!!

To Rebel: How would you respond to the response, to both your questions "I don't". Your question imply that you may feel that such a reply is somehow inadequate and I was curious as to why?

 

[waR toRn Rebel]

wow.... all I can say right now is wow.... gimmie a sec....

ok...

Now in answer to your origional question.. the truth is that no 'proof' or question perporting to be 'proof' (no matter how clever) can really disprove god. God is the great unfathomable, and no matter what you clame as 'proof' of the lack of god will ever convince everyone.
The nice thing is that people can make up thier own minds on evidence and what it says and doesn't say about the reality or lack there of, of 'God'.

Nit picking scripture, while fun from time to time, is not going to convince someone about the existance or non-existance of god. Such a thing as faith is byond the writting in a mear book for many who have it.

Any human system, faith or otherwise has flaws.... saying that a Religion is falce based on a book that has been hand copied and translated/retranslated for centuries is to me like saying Science is falce because my highschool science book is full of misprints and half-truths (and was sponsored by the local Oil company).

wa:do

As for the whole science book and bible having flaws. The diffrence between the 2 is that your religion has one and only one book that it is based off of. On the other hand science has many many books that it's based off of. Yes, I understand that religion is based off of complete blind faith or lack there of. So I guess the question was misphrased. So the real question is what do you do with the questions that shake your faith?

 

[waR toRn Rebel]

True...but I pointed you to an explanation for why yours is probably an error in interpretation but you haven't given me any reason why your version might be more accurate other than "somebody" thinks it's double speak for Lucifer.

Well it does show that the bible uses the double refrence multiple times.

and that wasn't the whole article here a link. http://www.keithhunt.com/Devlsin2.html

 

[waR toRn Rebel]

Okay. To answer the question about the two different meanings of heaven. (I'm sorry if someone already answered this, but I don't really have time to look back and see .)
Okay, in the beginning, God and all his spirit children, Satan being one of them, were all living somewhere. I don't know where. You think its "heaven" but it is only called that becuase it isn't earth. It was off in that great expanse, or something. (I don't have my scriptures, so I can't tell you anything too specific, either, for which again I appologize.) This was not the heaven that is perfect without sin or anything. It was not perfect, because God's spirit children weren't at all progressed. We didn't have bodies, we didn't have anything. That's that heaven. Then, in the end, Satan will be destroyed, and we will all be resurected a final time to the other heaven. This is the one that won't have sin etc becuase satan will be destroyed. See? two different meanings for heaven

here is a ink that talks about lucifer ruling earth and some other stuff. http://www.keithhunt.com/Devlsin2.html

 

[waR toRn Rebel]

Told to children? TOLD TO CHILDREN!!!! I can just see John Milton turning in his grave!!


To Rebel: How would you respond to the response, to both your questions "I don't". Your question imply that you may feel that such a reply is somehow inadequate and I was curious as to why?

No that is a valid awnser. I was just wondering how they handle it. As when things happen that make me wonder if there is a god. I usually ponder it for several days and research it, but that's just me. So I was wondering how people that believed there was a god handled it.

 

[Melody]

Well it does show that the bible uses the double refrence multiple times.

and that wasn't the whole article here a link. http://www.keithhunt.com/Devlsin2.html

I wish I had more time to devote to take each of this person's "universally accepted" (his words) facts that prove this is about Lucifer and not the King of Babylon, but I just do not have that much personal time right now so will refer you back to the link I gave which disputes these claims and gives numerous scriptural references as to why it can't be Lucifer.

This article didn't convince me and I have no doubt mine did not convince you either, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Aqualung]

here is a ink that talks about lucifer ruling earth and some other stuff. http://www.keithhunt.com/Devlsin2.html

Uhh. Okay. I didn't read the link, just scanned it, because I already know he rules the Earth. What does that have to do with anything?

 

[painted wolf]

well for the record my religion doesn't have a book at all...

Many books or just one, the point remains... you are placing your faith in a book. A book written by human beings.
So why do you place more faith in a science book than a Holy book?

From a general religious standpoint there is more than one book... Bible, BoM, Talmud, Quran, Vedas, writings of countless holy men and women... and so forth. Easily as many if not more works than those of Science... thus the number of books is not a good way to base you rejcetion or acceptance of validity.

wa:do

 

[waR toRn Rebel]

well for the record my religion doesn't have a book at all...

Many books or just one, the point remains... you are placing your faith in a book. A book written by human beings.
So why do you place more faith in a science book than a Holy book?

Are you saying that these "Holy books" are not written by humans?

From a general religious standpoint there is more than one book... Bible, BoM, Talmud, Quran, Vedas, writings of countless holy men and women... and so forth. Easily as many if not more works than those of Science... thus the number of books is not a good way to base you rejcetion or acceptance of validity.

None of those books are about the same religion. So it would be pointless to refer to all of them as "Holy books".