T1B

Posted: **Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:02 pm**

DC Smackmaster wrote:Oh, thought you were. You sure you aren't?

Don't let him fool you. He's a right wing stooge.

Posted: **Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:02 pm**

Chip, I find it interesting that pop disputed each of your points, one by one, and all you can come back with is, "You deserve to be mocked." That's pretty bad.

Posted: **Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:46 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:
I'll defend his right to believe in such things

No you won't. Not even close.

Posted: **Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:34 pm**

Sudden Sam wrote:
Jsc810 wrote: Satanists
Freakin' idiots.

The truly clever people are those who refer to Wiccans and other non-Christian religious types as Satanists.

That one always cracks me up.

Posted: **Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:01 pm**

Van wrote:
Sudden Sam wrote:
Jsc810 wrote: Satanists
Freakin' idiots.
The truly clever people are those who refer to Wiccans and other non-Christian religious types as Satanists.

That one always cracks me up.

Or when the right-to-lifers refer to pro-choice advocates as pro-abortion. That’s fucking hilarious.

Posted: **Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:20 pm**

poptart wrote:If I was wrong in something I posted in refuting the first 5 bogus claims Jsc made about Bible contradictions, I would think one of you would be ALL OVER IT.

But none of you have anything to come back with - because what I posted is accurate and it shot down his false claim.
So you instead crank up the "You're crazy and the Bible is crazy" rhetoric even louder.

pop, with all due respect, why should anybody believe you? Practically everything in the bible is open to interpretation. This is something most Christians admit to. Your answer to a question posed by a non-believer could be completely different from somebody else who also claims to understand the bible. Just admit your "takes" are based on personal opinion/interpretation, not based on facts. And why would they be based on facts? The entire premise of your religion is based on faith, not based on anything provable.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:14 am**

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:And why would they be based on facts? The entire premise of your religion is based on faith, not based on anything provable.

not being facetious, but that's a fact.

and I don't speak for pop, but to somebody baptized in the Holy Spirit, that faith is as factual, as real, as feeling the heat from the sun on your face.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:28 am**

Jsc wrote:Clearly, there is a conflict there. The light of day is provided by the sun. So was the sun created on day 1 or day 4?

But pop says there is no conflict

There is no conflict.
It says the sun was created on day 4 and that's when it was created.

The light in v.3 is Christ, who IS Light.

God didn't need the light of the sun to begin His creation, but Christ (Light) was God's method of chasing the darkness of v.2 away.

Revelation 21:23
And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for
the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb (Christ) is the light thereof.

Jsc wrote:He's trying to say that the light in the third verse is Christ?? What? Where does that come from? There is absolutely no basis in Genesis 1:3 to conclude such a thing, none whatsoever. And then pop claims satan already existed on earth on day one? Where does that come from? There is no basis in Scripture for that, it simply does not exist. We're talking about The Beginning, and satan clearly is not mentioned.

If I posted a list of all the Scripture showing us that Christ is Light, it would be the length of... well, a typical Van post.

LONG list, my friend.

Yes, Christ is Light.

And likewise, satan is the darkness.

If one disputes this, they have not looked into the Bible much at all.

Yes, the darkness in v.2 is satan, who was cast out of heaven and down to earth with his flock of demons.

Revelation 12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and
Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and
his angels were cast out with him.

Light (Christ) was brought in on day 1, and the lights (sun and moon) were made on day 4.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:31 am**

Mgo wrote:he entire premise of your religion is based on faith, not based on anything provable.

Yes, it is surely based on faith.

This is how God wants it.

He wants our faith, wants us to believe - and when we do, tremendous blessings arise.

I am witness to it and that's why I speak of it to y'all.

Take it as you will.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:34 am**

Wags wrote:to somebody baptized in the Holy Spirit, that faith is as factual, as real, as feeling the heat from the sun on your face.

No, it isn't. They may wish it to be, they may claim it to be, they may even feel it to be, but they still know one while merely having faith in the other.

That is, unless they're either six years old or insane. There's no sunblock for faith.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:45 am**

poptart wrote:I have no idea why it gnaws at you so much that I don't believe in evolution and believe (although admit that it's possible I'm wrong) man is less than 10,000 years old.
My views on those two things are really not uncommon.

I just don't find any motivation to get into a back-and-forth on those points.
They are not essential to salvation and either way you come down on those issues, it doesn't change the overall spiritual message the Bible is meant to relay to us.

Those kinds of things are absolutely essential. If certain things in The Bible that are meant to be taken literally, such as the age of man, can be very easily disproved by science, then you must question the credibility of EVERYTHING else written in The Bible, including every last blurb about salvation, and including every single "bottom line" aspect that you believe to be important.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:58 am**

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:...If certain things in The Bible that are meant to be taken literally, such as the age of man, can be very easily disproved by science, then you must question the credibility of EVERYTHING else written in The Bible, including every last blurb about salvation, and including every single "bottom line" aspect that you believe to be important.

You mean like anthropomorphic global warming? Skepticism brings hysterical cries of heresy from the likes of L-TARD and bitterfelice. At least pops is comfortable in his convictions, and calmly stands his ground.

Why? Well, for one, pops KNOWS you're going to hell, unless you repent. And you really can't prove him wrong. Carry on.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:24 am**

And again, no, pop KNOWS no such thing. He merely believes it.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:26 am**

From a matter of science, global warming is a topic of debate...though I do not personally believe in it. The age of man is not.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:26 am**

poptart wrote:He wants our faith, wants us to believe - and when we do, tremendous blessings arise.

I don't think it's quite as simple as that.

As the verse goes: faith without works is dead.

or in other words, it doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is how you behave.

Van busted me on this concept earlier in the thread, saying I didn't have the courage of my convictions. And I admit that he's right about that, left me speechless, it did.

He also said I was a coward. I'd like to think I'm not but from his perspective I guess it might appear that way. That was pretty harsh. I'm not owning up to that one.

I am witness to it and that's why I speak of it to y'all.

I get that, have for over 10 years.

You take a lot of grief from some very intelligent people. But as the verse also says: blessed are those who are persecuted for my namesake.

Van said you had to be 6 years old to believe such nonsense and again, the verse says: Ye must become like children...

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:33 am**

War Wagon wrote: Ye must become like children...

"Praise him!"

Sincerely,

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:36 am**

War Wagon wrote:
poptart wrote:He wants our faith, wants us to believe - and when we do, tremendous blessings arise.
I don't think it's quite as simple as that.

As the verse goes: faith without works is dead.

or in other words, it doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is how you behave.

Wrong. Goddamn, but you can be so incredibly wrong. Jesus clearly states that man's only path to salvation is through a belief in Him, not through any number of good works. Man is inherently imperfect. He can't earn his way to heaven.

That whole deathbed conversion thing ring any bells?

Van said you had to be 6 years old to believe such nonsense and again, the verse says: Ye must become like children...

Nope, I said you have to be six years old or insane to think you know to a certainty about spiritual matters in the same way you know the sun warms your face. Believing is one thing. Knowing is entirely another, and only the willfully stupid or incurably arrogant would ever lay claim to knowing about God, His plans, the afterlife, or anything else of that stripe.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:01 am**

Wags, I hate to get all deep and shit, but if God truly existed, would he really allow for the existence of the following things: Neon Trees, Chris Christie, How I Met Your Mother, bradhusker, Alabama, 13 minute guitar solos, Subway.

honorable mention: cancer

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:02 am**

Goober McTuber wrote:
DC Smackmaster wrote:Oh, thought you were. You sure you aren't?
Don't let him fool you. He's a right wing stooge.

I'm a political conservative, yes.
These days the republican party is not that.
Look at the nominee.

I saw a Romney interview yesterday.
He said that he was going to be revealing more of his economic palns in coming weeks, but that it was his intention to put us on a path to have a balanced budget in... 8-10 years.

ummm....

WHAT??

This is the fiscally responsible choice?

This is the guy conservatives are supposed to be rallying around?

LMAO!!

No sale.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:05 am**

Some good questions and points brought up the last couple of hours.

Those who care, you might peek in the Theology Forum in the next few days.

I might give my own comments on some of them... for what it's worth.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:07 am**

Van wrote:And again, no, pop KNOWS no such thing. He merely believes it.

Oh, sure, you can suggest he believes it all day...

Because he DOES believe it. And because he KNOWS it. Such are his convictions. That's why you and every other skeptic on this board haven't a prayer (pun intended) of winning this debate. Per any evangelical: You've been run.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:30 am**

So since he, Wags or any Believer knows it they certainly ought to be able to prove it, the way any scientist worth a shit can prove that the sun's rays warm our faces.

Right?

Oh, wait. No, Believers (baptized or not) can't do that. All they can do is tell you what they ~~believe~~ "know."

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:34 am**

Van wrote:Nope, I said you have to be six years old or insane to think you know to a certainty about spiritual matters in the same way you know the sun warms your face. Believing is one thing. Knowing is entirely another, and only the willfully stupid or incurably arrogant would ever lay claim to knowing about God, His plans, the afterlife, or anything else of that stripe.

I said, in referring to faith, ye must become like children

but you don't understand faith, not realizing that having faith and knowing are essentially the same thing.

one thing you do understand is the incurable arrogance.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:38 am**

Van wrote:Oh, wait. No, baptized Believers can't do that. All they can do is tell you what they ~~believe~~ "know."

Duh.

Science and faith are completely different constructs. They might be looking at similar questions, but only an idiot would attempt understand faith using science or vice versa.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:43 am**

You're not following this, Van. And I have no way of making you understand...

You could translate authentic Dead Sea scrolls denying the existence of God:

- "Hey! We made it up! Sucks to be you!" -

And it wouldn't make a lick of difference. pops knows what he knows, and your keystrokes to suggest otherwise is a vain effort in futility.

You have a better chance of making a case against the penalties leveled at Southern Cal in the wake of PSU.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:23 am**

War Wagon wrote:but you don't understand faith, not realizing that having faith and knowing are essentially the same thing.

Where, once again, Wags proves that he simply does not know the meanings of the words he uses.

This is getting to be far too regular of an occurence with you.

one thing you do understand is the incurable arrogance.

It comes with being right, which comes with knowing, and I happen to know that Believers only have faith in their beliefs. They do not know.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:25 am**

mvscal wrote:
Van wrote:Oh, wait. No, baptized Believers can't do that. All they can do is tell you what they ~~believe~~ "know."
Duh.

You were saying?

Wags wrote:but you don't understand faith, not realizing that having faith and knowing are essentially the same thing.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:28 am**

when the goin' gets tough, poptart wrote:Take it to the theology forum.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:33 am**

Truman wrote:pops knows what he knows

This is true. Unfortunately the existence of God, the truth of Jesus's divinity, and anything whatsoever having to do with the spiritual world are not included among those things. All he knows are the circumstances and events that led him to his faith.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:36 am**

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
when the goin' gets tough, poptart wrote:Take it to the theology forum.

And why not? It's just like praying. In the theology forum he can talk to himself without anyone listening.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:37 am**

Van wrote:...They do not know.

You keep saying that, and they're laughing at you.

Of course they know. You are struggling with coming to terms as to how they know.

If you were as firm in your convictions as they are in theirs, then we wouldn't be five pages deep with you still demanding proof. You would accept it, respectfully agree to disagree, and move on. I'm sure pops would be happy to entertain your doubts at length over in Theology....

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:43 am**

Truman wrote:If you were as firm in your convictions as they are in theirs, then we wouldn't be five pages deep with you still demanding proof. You would accept it, respectfully agree to disagree, and move on.

What fun would that be?

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:43 am**

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
when the goin' gets tough, poptart wrote:Take it to the theology forum.

Oh, I can answer your point...

Those kinds of things are absolutely essential. If certain things in The Bible that are meant to be taken literally, such as the age of man, can be very easily disproved by science, then you must question the credibility of EVERYTHING else written in The Bible, including every last blurb about salvation, and including every single "bottom line" aspect that you believe to be important.

- Mgo

... in this thread.

I was going to post about it over there - only because things were getting a little clogged in here with various issues and I actually have respect for the point you make.
It deserves a thoughtful response.

Here or there?

Your choice.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:56 am**

Here.

In all that time you just spent clacking out that nonsense, you could have posted your take.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:15 am**

Mgo wrote:Those kinds of things are absolutely essential. If certain things in The Bible that are meant to be taken literally, such as the age of man, can be very easily disproved by science, then you must question the credibility of EVERYTHING else written in The Bible, including every last blurb about salvation, and including every single "bottom line" aspect that you believe to be important.

First, it is not a universal view among Christians that the creation account given in Genesis is intended to be taken literally.

That is poptart's (and many others') view, but it is hardly universal.

So I would submit that it is NOT essential to believe that it is a literal 6 day creation spoken of in Genesis.

But the reality that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and proved Himself to be the Christ is not up for debate in the Christian community.
That IS a universal view and it is tangible.
There is recorded evidence that it happened - and we (Christians) all agree on it.

If you want to believe in Jesus Christ (which you surely should), then you have a few options.

1. Chalk Genesis 1 and 2 up to allegory. There are many in the community that do so. I don't agree with them, but I know where they are coming from.

2. The reason some Bible believers like me are of the view that humans are only 6,000-or-so years old is because we can trace back the lineage given and add the approximate ages to come to that number.
But I hold that it is POSSIBLE that God has only told us what He has told us... and that the lineages are incomplete.
Maybe man is actually older.
You could take that view if you wanted.

3. Question the veracity of the claim that humans are more than 10,000 years old.
I'm surely not going to open this can of worms, but trust me, I could easily put into question the commonly accepted assumption that man is hundreds of thousands of years old.
But there is no need to go there.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:18 am**

But you couldn't put it into a compelling question, since no one with a lick of common sense doubts the answer.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:49 am**

Wagon wrote:As the verse goes: faith without works is dead.

or in other words, it doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is how you behave.

Faith without works thoughts.

http://www.theoneboard.com/board/viewto ... 35&t=41354

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:40 pm**

Truman wrote:
Van wrote:...They do not know.
You keep saying that, and they're laughing at you.

Of course they know. You are struggling with coming to terms as to how they know.

If you were as firm in your convictions as they are in theirs, then we wouldn't be five pages deep with you still demanding proof. You would accept it, respectfully agree to disagree, and move on.

This.

Is total bullshit.

For someone who seems to fancy himself as quite the wordsmith, you really are failing in this argument. For people like Popetart, it comes down to faith. And as such, it will have no proof. They don’t know, they believe.

They might even believe they know, but that’s also just a belief, not a fact.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:49 pm**

Is it bullshit?
Are you sure?

Here is something to consider, Goobs.

God (of the Bible) either exists or He doesn't exist, right?

For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that He does exist.

The believer seeks God out (receives Christ), and God, just as promised, makes Himself known to the believer because He answers the believer. See Hebrews 11:6.

At that point, the believer who has been answered by the living God knows that this God, who DOES exist, really DOES exist.

It's factual to the believer at that point.

Posted: **Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:07 am**

poptart wrote:Is it bullshit?
Are you sure?

Here is something to consider, Goobs.

God (of the Bible) either exists or He doesn't exist, right?

For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that He does exist.

The believer seeks God out (receives Christ), and God, just as promised, makes Himself known to the believer because He answers the believer. See Hebrews 11:6.

At that point, the believer who has been answered by the living God knows that this God, who DOES exist, really DOES exist.

It's factual to the believer at that point.

that's a bunch of nonsense talk

T1B

Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church

Re: Mitt donated 10% to his church