Split from: DV Christians Unite! (Christian Only Thread)

[Darkmatters]

You really seem as though you have no idea what your talking about. Look at the quote, it is only making a comparison. There is NO evidence in a comparison, stop trying to tell me there is. It is a simple comparison which also declares something more. I can say "Dr. Pepper is good" and theres no evidence for it other than my taste and my opinion and yet its true. Your argument against it is pointless. Please gaze at the quote for a few minutes and then realize that what you are saying makes no sense. There is no such thing as an empty statement, any statement is a statement because is states something, your claim was not well thought on it being an "empty statement". I don't like Dr. Pepper - therefore your statement is false. The true statement would be "it is my opinion that Dr. Pepper is good". (of course it would be you making that statement, not me). The same applies to your earlier statement - it's just somebody's opinion.

[OneUp]

Who came up with the idea of sacrificing animals? A. The infinitely intelligent creator of the universe B. Some dumb ass primitive humans Hmmm, that's a hard one. Scientists also believe we come from apes, you can label them dumbasses too. There was a reason for the sacrifices, it was to create good morality. Like i said before, if you do something wrong and dont get punished, you will continue doing it and not care because there are no consequences. God wanted man to change for the good on his choice, but he also helped get man off on the right foot a bit. There are no limits to an infinitely intelligent creator, obviously you dont understand the meaning of "infinite". There is always a reason for what God does, and its sad how people like you doubt Him because you do not understand. And with your ignorance also comes arrogance, as seen in your post. once again "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." Who are you to question an infinite being completly beyond yourself? No one, and neither am I. "Every logical position will eventually lead you into trouble, and heresy, and chaos. Every logical position is consistent, but it is logic which is in the human mind, not God's logic. The human mind is finite and cannot grasp eternity, and therefore the finite mind sees the infinite as not graspable coherently. If we could grasp it all coherently, without contradiction, we would be God. The person who insists on being logical to the end winds up in a mess. I am not saying that we should not be rational. I am not anti-intellectual. I am saying that the intellect by itself is helpless to arrive at total truth." ~Kenneth Pike I don't like Dr. Pepper - therefore your statement is false. The true statement would be "it is my opinion that Dr. Pepper is good". (of course it would be you making that statement, not me). The same applies to your earlier statement - it's just somebody's opinion. If you read my statement carefully youll realize I said that it was based on MY opinion, so it is not false. Please take the time to read through it slowly. I dont think many people seem to understand what a comparison is. The quote I posted earlier is logical, but of course its not fact because its a comparison and the objects in the comparison (like the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop) never occured.

[Descensus]

Thats why Jesus came, to end all of the sacrifices. Its sad seeing people with certain mindsets comlpetly doubting something just because they dont understand it. A finite mind can only barely understand the infinite. In the Old testament if God just forgave with no punishment, literally no one would learn, likewise for todays society pertaining to jail. Then in the new testament Jesus came to end all the killing of animals and punishments. Jesus wasnt sacrificed? In the Bible Jesus states that he knows why he has come to earth and his whole purpose. Why do you think he preached and did everything that he did? God sending Jesus to end animals sacrifices doesn't answer why God needed the sacrifices to dole out forgiveness in the first place. Indeed the appearance of Jesus only moves the goal posts; Jesus himself ended up being sacrifice. Why was it necessary? He seemed to be operating under a very sick system of vicarious redemption. Moving away from that system was a step in the right direction, though it shows us that the Christian conception of God isn't one where he is perfect, unchanging, omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent.

[OneUp]

God sending Jesus to end animals sacrifices doesn't answer why God needed the sacrifices to dole out forgiveness in the first place. Indeed the appearance of Jesus only moves the goal posts; Jesus himself ended up being sacrifice. Why was it necessary? He seemed to be operating under a very sick system of vicarious redemption. Moving away from that system was a step in the right direction, though it shows us that the Christian conception of God isn't one where he is perfect, unchanging, omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent. Good lord, I just said it was for punishment so people would change and stop sinning. The people will keep on doing their bad acts if there is no punishment or consequences against them doing it. The sacrifices showed that the people were willing to change, and give up something of theirs to show their obedience. In this way, everytime they did something wrong they would have to give up an animal and they would ultimately lose profit from losing it, so they would learn that way. Jesus came to be the "sacrifice of all sacrifices" he ended all the other sacrifices and opened a door for everyone to be able to be saved in a sense, a less gory way. It never changed God's characteristics, He cared for all humans then, now, and will in the future. But humans deeds will still be accounted for. How good is a person if they let evil persist and say "go ahead theres nothing stopping you" and they let no punishment take place. Would you like a murder to keep on murdering? because he will if he has no punishment. People like murderers, theifs, rapists, etc. will keep on doing their acts if they know there are no consequences. However, in todays society, people still rape, steal, and kill even though they know there is punishment. Those people are sick.

[Universal Mind]

Scientists also believe we come from apes, you can label them dumbasses too. There was a reason for the sacrifices, it was to create good morality. Like i said before, if you do something wrong and dont get punished, you will continue doing it and not care because there are no consequences. God wanted man to change for the good on his choice, but he also helped get man off on the right foot a bit. There are no limits to an infinitely intelligent creator, obviously you dont understand the meaning of "infinite". There is always a reason for what God does, and its sad how people like you doubt Him because you do not understand. And with your ignorance also comes arrogance, as seen in your post. once again "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." Who are you to question an infinite being completly beyond yourself? No one, and neither am I. "Every logical position will eventually lead you into trouble, and heresy, and chaos. Every logical position is consistent, but it is logic which is in the human mind, not God's logic. The human mind is finite and cannot grasp eternity, and therefore the finite mind sees the infinite as not graspable coherently. If we could grasp it all coherently, without contradiction, we would be God. The person who insists on being logical to the end winds up in a mess. I am not saying that we should not be rational. I am not anti-intellectual. I am saying that the intellect by itself is helpless to arrive at total truth." ~Kenneth Pike God needed animal sacrifices to punish people? There are no other ways? You described rules of reality that God has to follow, such as the rule that man is immoral without consequences. Who created these rules of reality? Could the infinitely intelligent and powerful being have created reality a different way? If he couldn't, then he is not infinitely powerful. You described a limited god. The chances of life as we know it appearing in a single instant would be like an unabridged dictionary suddenly appearing because of a printing shop explosion, but evolution is a process of gradual changes, based on previous changes, that takes a great deal of time. That is very different from a sudden creation of something extremely complex and organized. The theory of evolution is not that lightning struck the primordial soup and suddenly there were brain surgeons and Nobel Prize winning physicists. The theory is that slight changes happen over time and advantageous characteristics survive better than less advantageous characteristics. The result is large systems of advantageous characteristics. That is not like an instantaneous appearance of a dictionary. Your analogy, which is one of the many versions of one of the anthems of creationism, is very flawed. Your claim that I am an atheist because I can't understand God is no more substantive than a claim that you don't believe in the invisible talking door knob because you can't understand him. If you make a wild claim, the burden of proof is on you. Saying that people just can't understand it is without substance. If humans are so unable to understand God, then how do you even know we are unable to understand him? You could use the same argument for any off the wall claim about things that are not part of reality as we know it. Until you can prove that God exists, he is just a wild guess.

[Descensus]

Good lord, I just said it was for punishment so people would change and stop sinning. The people will keep on doing their bad acts if there is no punishment or consequences against them doing it. The sacrifices showed that the people were willing to change, and give up something of theirs to show their obedience. In this way, everytime they did something wrong they would have to give up an animal and they would ultimately lose profit from losing it, so they would learn that way. Jesus came to be the "sacrifice of all sacrifices" he ended all the other sacrifices and opened a door for everyone to be able to be saved in a sense, a less gory way. It never changed God's characteristics, He cared for all humans then, now, and will in the future. But humans deeds will still be accounted for. How good is a person if they let evil persist and say "go ahead theres nothing stopping you" and they let no punishment take place. Would you like a murder to keep on murdering? because he will if he has no punishment. People like murderers, theifs, rapists, etc. will keep on doing their acts if they know there are no consequences. However, in todays society, people still rape, steal, and kill even though they know there is punishment. Those people are sick. I understand the argument that he required people to do SOMETHING to attain his forgiveness. I'm asking why he specifically requested animal sacrifices. I'm also asking why he later decided to end the practice of animal sacrifices in favor of a single crucifixion. The move from animal sacrifices to a single crucifixion does indeed change God's characteristics. It shows that he favored one system, then favored another. Such a change is not compatible with the concept of a perfect being.

[DarkKiky0]

God is a lot nicer now because he FINALLY went to rehab and got help with his meth addiction. That guy lost his mind for a while there. I suspected that something wasn't right when he drowned the world, but I didn't really start coming out of denial until he sacrificed himself to himself. That was a red flag. That is an insult, borderline blasphemy, but not quite. Who came up with the idea of sacrificing animals? A. The infinitely intelligent creator of the universe B. Some dumb ass primitive humans Hmmm, that's a hard one. That is a different opinion, I don't find that insulting just because it's different from mine, I'm not a child. Here's what I really don't get about Christianity: why doesn't God just forgive? Why does he need death to forgive? You seriously believe that God requirement for forgiveness was killing livestock? "Hey, you did a bad thing, but if you kill a goat, I'll forgive you." That is a question, I don't find that insulting. The bible says that God can forgive insults to him, so there is hope for those who choose to insult him, but it makes me uncomfortable to read insults about him, not different opinions. If you had read my previous posts you would know that. I just feel I have been here long enough. The bible also says that you should inform people, but if they don't want to listen and go about their ways then you can't force them. Most Christians now a days forget this part and back lash people with heated insults and claim them as ignorant when that's not what God wants. I have said my piece here, I feel like I have gone far enough, so therefore I am stopping. If that means I'm not Christianly then that's your opinion, and it honestly doesn't change who I am. By the way, I never said I was a Christian, I was raised that way, but later found the religion that best describes my beliefs. It's close to Christianity though, I believe in one God and Jesus and all his teachings, I just worship differently. I felt I needed to say that before going so people wouldn't have false assumptions on me. Have a nice day all .

[TheSilverWolf]

You seem kinda like me in some ways. I am Christian in my beliefs, but I have some opinions that the "established church" might not necessarily agree with. It's always been my view though, that if you believe in God, you believe Jesus was the son of God, and that he will come back to triumph over the evil in this world, you are a Christian--even if your beliefs don't match up with a specific denomination. To be honest, I think there is far too much division in Christianity anyway. ~SilverWolf~

[Ashikael]

I've always been under the impression that the Old Testament is less "the word" of Christianity and more of a history of Christianity. Christians, being "like Christ" should follow nothing but the New Testament since there was no Christ in the OT and therefore nothing Christ-like. However, He did make mention to many things in the OT, meaning those specific things should be followed. This causes a lot of the misconception where people will say "Well, how can you hold this specific belief, which is in the Pentateuch, but not believe in THIS specific belief, which is also in the Pentateuch?" The answer is that the former was re-iterated in the NT, while the latter was not. That is why, for instance, Christians don't care about whether or not they wear clothes of two different types of thread. That was not re-iterated in the NT. I often think there'd be less disdain against Christianity if it just left the OT to Judaism and adopted the NT as its source of belief, as the OT mentions quite a few times (like, hundreds of times) that the laws there were specifically for the nation of Israel. Jesus came, and pretty much founded a brand new religion based on some beliefs that Judaism held. And instead of just writing down this whole new Testament when He died, His followers decided to write that Testament and then just add it to the old one as an addendum of changes, which I don't think was the right way to go.

[Xei]

You really seem as though you have no idea what your talking about. Look at the quote, it is only making a comparison. There is NO evidence in a comparison, stop trying to tell me there is. It is a simple comparison which also declares something more. I can say "Dr. Pepper is good" and theres no evidence for it other than my taste and my opinion and yet its true. Your argument against it is pointless. Please gaze at the quote for a few minutes and then realize that what you are saying makes no sense. There is no such thing as an empty statement, any statement is a statement because is states something, your claim was not well thought on it being an "empty statement". Nope, you're still prevaricating, and it's becoming more and more incoherent. Of course comparisons can require evidence. "The odds of winning the lottery are similar to the odds of getting a head in a coin toss" is a comparison. It is not a "matter of opinion". It does require evidence. And in fact in this case, it is false. "France is of a similar size to Germany" is another comparison. It requires evidence. In this case, it is true. How was "Dr. Pepper is good" supposed to support your point? "Dr. Pepper is good" isn't even a comparison for goodness sakes, it is a statement of personal taste, which is not remotely the same thing. "Dr. Pepper is good" is a statement of a subjective opinion. It can vary from person to person. "Life emerging by random processes is extremely unlikely" is a statement of an objective proposition. It is not an opinion. Its truth does not vary from person to person. It is either true or it is false. It requires evidence. It is quite bizarre that you are so intent on denying something so manifestly obvious. If instead I had said, "the probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of a dictionary being found in a book shop", are you seriously telling me that you wouldn't object to this statement? If I then told you, "the quote I posted is true and simple, it doesn't need anything to back it up", you're telling me you'd have just said, "oh okay then, I guess I can't argue, your quote is true and doesn't need proving"? Don't talk nonsense, of course you wouldn't. It's a statement that needs evidence, like any other, and without evidence it is just a baseless claim.

[TimeDragon97]

Scientists also believe we come from apes, you can label them dumbasses too. ... There is always a reason for what God does, and its sad how people like you doubt Him because you do not understand. And with your ignorance also comes arrogance, as seen in your post. once again "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." Who are you to question an infinite being completly beyond yourself? No one, and neither am I. "Every logical position will eventually lead you into trouble, and heresy, and chaos. Every logical position is consistent, but it is logic which is in the human mind, not God's logic. The human mind is finite and cannot grasp eternity, and therefore the finite mind sees the infinite as not graspable coherently. If we could grasp it all coherently, without contradiction, we would be God. The person who insists on being logical to the end winds up in a mess. I am not saying that we should not be rational. I am not anti-intellectual. I am saying that the intellect by itself is helpless to arrive at total truth." ~Kenneth Pike Actually, humans are apes and we evolved from other apes. We have genetic, fossil, and phenotypical evidence to prove that. And posting quotes that I disagree with doesn't prove anything. I doubt the existence of a god because it is a non-falsifiable hypothesis with no evidence to support it. I have no reason to believe.

[Sageous]

Also, OneUpBoy71, scientists know we evolved from ape-like ancestors; they don't just believe it. Evolution stopped being a theory a long time ago, as clear empirical proof of the original theory has abounded for over a century. Indeed, the word "theory" only reappeared a few years ago after ceationists began their fight to teach it as such in American classrooms. Also, why couldn't God have created a world with evolution?

[OneUp]

I understand the argument that he required people to do SOMETHING to attain his forgiveness. I'm asking why he specifically requested animal sacrifices. I'm also asking why he later decided to end the practice of animal sacrifices in favor of a single crucifixion. The move from animal sacrifices to a single crucifixion does indeed change God's characteristics. It shows that he favored one system, then favored another. Such a change is not compatible with the concept of a perfect being. Who are you to question what he wanted as a sacrifice? Would you rather it be humans sacrificed? God wouldnt sacrifice humans though anyways. Honestly I think He chose animals then because it was a main source of profit for the average person back that long ago. I could be wrong though. He ended the sacrifice of animals later rather than earlier because He wanted Jesus to come on His timing, also fufilling the prophecies in the old testament. It doesnt change God's characteristics at all as much as you want it to. Your missing the whole point-He still loves everyone. He did then, now and always will. People just dont want to see it that way because they are fine with their own comfortable lives with no relationship with their creator. Such a change is not compatible with the concept of a perfect being? So his descision to help humanity out further and give them more grace and easier forgiveness represents nothing to you? I told you, He always does things on His timing, not yours, not mine, not anyones. What you call a "change" is merely the end of a specific time where God wanted to get certain things done and set in man a certain mind-set. I can still be nice and then be even more nice than before and be considered nice, but in your mind you consider this "such a change" rendering me angry and hateful even though I made myself better and in turn also helped out others. But the whole nice thing is just an example.

[Descensus]

Who are you to question what he wanted as a sacrifice? An inquisitive human trying to deconstruct the characteristics of one of mankind's many deities. Would you rather it be humans sacrificed? God wouldnt sacrifice humans though anyways. Jesus was a human. Honestly I think He chose animals then because it was a main source of profit for the average person back that long ago. I could be wrong though. He ended the sacrifice of animals later rather than earlier because He wanted Jesus to come on His timing, also fufilling the prophecies in the old testament. It doesnt change God's characteristics at all as much as you want it to. Your missing the whole point-He still loves everyone. He did then, now and always will. People just dont want to see it that way because they are fine with their own comfortable lives with no relationship with their creator. Such a change is not compatible with the concept of a perfect being? So his descision to help humanity out further and give them more grace and easier forgiveness represents nothing to you? I told you, He always does things on His timing, not yours, not mine, not anyones. What you call a "change" is merely the end of a specific time where God wanted to get certain things done and set in man a certain mind-set. I can still be nice and then be even more nice than before and be considered nice, but in your mind you consider this "such a change" rendering me angry and hateful even though I made myself better and in turn also helped out others. But the whole nice thing is just an example. Perfect beings should have no need for changing their wants. That's what you're not understanding. It doesn't matter how small the change is, or if he was "nice" before, but now he's even more "nice." That's still a change. If he's truly perfect, he should not change at all. If he does, he's not perfect. The logic is very clear.

[OneUp]

Actually, humans are apes and we evolved from other apes. We have genetic, fossil, and phenotypical evidence to prove that. And posting quotes that I disagree with doesn't prove anything. I doubt the existence of a god because it is a non-falsifiable hypothesis with no evidence to support it. I have no reason to believe. Scientists also believe we have a conscious universe, are you going to believe that too? Its so easy for scientists please a secular crowd because they will believe anything told to them. Its rather sad. Go ahead please state your fossils, genetics and all your other evidence showing we came from apes. And in case you didnt know, we are more genetically identical to pigs than we are to apes, and yet we look nothing like pigs. For a person who believes in evolution you seem you dont know much. Let me set down a list of all your fossil evidence of our "evolution" from apes which by the way were all proven to be hoaxes. 1. The Piltdown Man-hoax: Scientists said that this skull was estimated to be 300,00 years old to 1 million years old and represented our evolution from apes. The skull of the fossil belonged to a 600 year old woman, and the jaw of the skull belonged to a 500 year old orangutan from the East Indies. Scientists lied on the time it came from and the truth of the fossil parts. 2. Nebraska Man- hoax- a "fossil" built by one tooth from an extinct pig, rendering the whole finding false. 3. Java Man-hoax: a "fossil" found in the early 20th century, which too was aimed to represent our evolution from apes. In truth this "finding" was nothing more than a piece of a random skull, a fragment of a random thigh bone, and three random molar teeth. The rest of this "fossil" was created by imaginations of plaster of paris workers. All these examples, that scientists said was fossil evidence of our evolution, were all proved to be a hoax. Theres your genetical and phenotypical evidence thrown down the drain. And dont worry ive got many more examples, please just ask for me to show you them and I will gladly do it. Keep relying on your lying scientists, and they will keep lying in peoples faces and the people will just believe them because of their title of a scientist. Go ahead be their guinea pigs, their sheep: or whatever you consider yourself. An inquisitive human trying to deconstruct the characteristics of one of mankind's many deities. Jesus was a human. Perfect beings should have no need for changing their wants. That's what you're not understanding. It doesn't matter how small the change is, or if he was "nice" before, but now he's even more "nice." That's still a change. If he's truly perfect, he should not change at all. If he does, he's not perfect. The logic is very clear. Actually Jesus was God's son put into a human body, so in a way He really wasnt. He was put into a human body to accomplish what he did, so yea in truth he wasnt. Haha, I guess you must not like changes for the better, and thats pretty sad. Let me tell you this time- You are no one to question God's doings. But dont take it harshly because not even I am, no one is. I also told you He advanced to one crucifixtion because He works on His timing and He wanted to get man in a certain mindset before it and after. I keep repeating myself and yet you still dont get that it doesnt matter what you think about God, it doesnt change him. God advances, he doesnt change.

[Universal Mind]

Who are you to question what he wanted as a sacrifice? Would you rather it be humans sacrificed? God wouldnt sacrifice humans though anyways. Honestly I think He chose animals then because it was a main source of profit for the average person back that long ago. I could be wrong though. He ended the sacrifice of animals later rather than earlier because He wanted Jesus to come on His timing, also fufilling the prophecies in the old testament. It doesnt change God's characteristics at all as much as you want it to. Your missing the whole point-He still loves everyone. He did then, now and always will. People just dont want to see it that way because they are fine with their own comfortable lives with no relationship with their creator. Such a change is not compatible with the concept of a perfect being? So his descision to help humanity out further and give them more grace and easier forgiveness represents nothing to you? I told you, He always does things on His timing, not yours, not mine, not anyones. What you call a "change" is merely the end of a specific time where God wanted to get certain things done and set in man a certain mind-set. I can still be nice and then be even more nice than before and be considered nice, but in your mind you consider this "such a change" rendering me angry and hateful even though I made myself better and in turn also helped out others. But the whole nice thing is just an example. You've really pissed me off in this thread. However, I will forgive you if you go kill some farm animals. In a few thousand years, you won't have to worry about that because I am going to kill myself for myself and come back to life.

[OneUp]

Nope, you're still prevaricating, and it's becoming more and more incoherent. Of course comparisons can require evidence. "The odds of winning the lottery are similar to the odds of getting a head in a coin toss" is a comparison. It is not a "matter of opinion". It does require evidence. And in fact in this case, it is false. "France is of a similar size to Germany" is another comparison. It requires evidence. In this case, it is true. How was "Dr. Pepper is good" supposed to support your point? "Dr. Pepper is good" isn't even a comparison for goodness sakes, it is a statement of personal taste, which is not remotely the same thing. "Dr. Pepper is good" is a statement of a subjective opinion. It can vary from person to person. "Life emerging by random processes is extremely unlikely" is a statement of an objective proposition. It is not an opinion. Its truth does not vary from person to person. It is either true or it is false. It requires evidence. It is quite bizarre that you are so intent on denying something so manifestly obvious. If instead I had said, "the probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of a dictionary being found in a book shop", are you seriously telling me that you wouldn't object to this statement? If I then told you, "the quote I posted is true and simple, it doesn't need anything to back it up", you're telling me you'd have just said, "oh okay then, I guess I can't argue, your quote is true and doesn't need proving"? Don't talk nonsense, of course you wouldn't. It's a statement that needs evidence, like any other, and without evidence it is just a baseless claim. Ok, let me put it out plain and simple with a question, do you see any unabridged dictionaries resulting from an explosion in a printing shop? Didnt think so. I thought you were more intellectual, I thought wrong. Next question, Do you see life originating from an accident? If you believe in the "Big Bang" then you do. Now that you know you havent seen any unabridged dictionaries resulting from an explosion in a printing shop, and you believe in life originating from an accident(if you do believe in the Big bang) you can now see that the statement "The probability of life originating from an accident is comparable to the probability of an unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop" makes sense and has evidence because you KNOW that it is impossible for an unbridged dictionary to result from a printing shop explosion. Thats why in the quote it was compared to Life originating from an accident because you dont simply get life in general, trees, systems such as photosynthesis, fruits, the human body, etc. out of an explosion. Its simple logic and only required a little bit of thinking. I thought youd figure that out by now, but once again I guessed wrong. You can tell me my insults mean nothing, and thats good that they dont, but I wont care at all. But please feel free to reply to my actual reply instead of my insults. You've really pissed me off in this thread. However, I will forgive you if you go kill some farm animals. In a few thousand years, you won't have to worry about that because I am going to kill myself for myself and come back to life. Awh, did i really piss you off? Thats too bad seeing that this is a Christian only thread, and seeing the you arent christian i couldnt careless that you are pissed. It means nothing to me. By the title of this thread containing "Christians Only" that means you were never invited. Sadly, atheists all the time, come in spark arguments and then say we christians are bad and harsh when they themselves come in and start the arguments.

[Descensus]

Actually Jesus was God's son put into a human body, so in a way He really wasnt. He was put into a human body to accomplish what he did, so yea in truth he wasnt. A conscious human body was put to death. There's no denying that. Haha, I guess you must not like changes for the better, and thats pretty sad. Your projections are unwarranted, I've not talked about whether the changes were better or worse whatsoever. Let me tell you this time- You are no one to question God's doings. But dont take it harshly because not even I am, no one is. This strange adherence to not questioning the actions of the deity you so revere is in line with the actions of one who wishes to be a slave, and see nothing wrong with being one. I also told you He advanced to one crucifixtion because He works on His timing and He wanted to get man in a certain mindset before it and after. I keep repeating myself and yet you still dont get that it doesnt matter what you think about God, it doesnt change him. God advances, he doesnt change. Again, you're not understanding the point. Perfect beings, by definition, do not change. You try to deflect the point by saying he advances. An advance is a change from the previous status quo.

[OneUp]

A conscious human body was put to death. There's no denying that. Your projections are unwarranted, I've not talked about whether the changes were better or worse whatsoever. This strange adherence to not questioning the actions of the deity you so revere is in line with the actions of one who wishes to be a slave, and see nothing wrong with being one. Again, you're not understanding the point. Perfect beings, by definition, do not change. You try to deflect the point by saying he advances. An advance is a change from the previous status quo. That conscious body also came back to life in three days. Youve failed to understand that. And im not for being a slave, its called humility, and really I could careless what you think about my views, your opinion of me doesnt phase me at all. You created the definition for perfect beings. There is no definition for a perfect being, stop acting like you are the Merriam Webster dictionary. God did His works in certain times because man had a different mind set back 3000 years ago. then, when the New Testament took place, God decided to help Man out and change some things of Man. He decided to end all the animal sacrifices because Man had changed and The Time for Jesus to end it all was right. So at Gods timing, Jesus came and ended it all, so in a way God didnt change but Jesus gave His life which changed things for man. A little confusing i know.

[Universal Mind]

Awh, did i really piss you off? Thats too bad seeing that this is a Christian only thread, and seeing the you arent christian i couldnt careless that you are pissed. It means nothing to me. By the title of this thread containing "Christians Only" that means you were never invited. Sadly, atheists all the time, come in spark arguments and then say we christians are bad and harsh when they themselves come in and start the arguments. Good grief. Seriously? sat·ire [sat-ahyuhr] noun 1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc. 2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule. 3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.

[Descensus]

That conscious body also came back to life in three days. Youve failed to understand that. Whether it rose again is irrelevant. It was still sacrificed. And im not for being a slave, its called humility, and really I could careless what you think about my views, your opinion of me doesnt phase me at all. Humility is one thing, proudly disposing of your critical faculties is another. You created the definition for perfect beings. There is no definition for a perfect being, stop acting like you are the Merriam Webster dictionary. God did His works in certain times because man had a different mind set back 3000 years ago. then, when the New Testament took place, God decided to help Man out and change some things of Man. He decided to end all the animal sacrifices because Man had changed and The Time for Jesus to end it all was right. So at Gods timing, Jesus came and ended it all, so in a way God didnt change but Jesus gave His life which changed things for man. A little confusing i know. There is no definition for a perfect being? Your understanding of your own religion is awfully superficial. The characteristic of immutability is persistently prescribed to your deity.

[Xei]

Ok, let me put it out plain and simple with a question, do you see any unabridged dictionaries resulting from an explosion in a printing shop? Didnt think so. I thought you were more intellectual, I thought wrong. Next question, Do you see life originating from an accident? If you believe in the "Big Bang" then you do. Now that you know you havent seen any unabridged dictionaries resulting from an explosion in a printing shop, and you believe in life originating from an accident(if you do believe in the Big bang) you can now see that the statement "The probability of life originating from an accident is comparable to the probability of an unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop" makes sense and has evidence because you KNOW that it is impossible for an unbridged dictionary to result from a printing shop explosion. Is anybody else following this?

[TheSilverWolf]

Alright, I was going to step away, but I have to ask you one thing, Blue. Why does someone changing their mind about something imply imperfection? Why is it imperfect, if God decided he wanted to change from having animal sacrifice as penance for sin, to allowing us to simply ask for forgiveness as long as we are truly remorseful? You are saying change is bad, then, if you attribute change to an imperfect being, and change isn't necessarily bad or necessarily good. It depends on the change. It doesn't mean God is imperfect, it simply meant that, for whatever reason, he decided to change the way he did things. He's GOD, he is an immortal, omnipotent, and yes, God is a perfect being. Just because we don't understand his reasoning doesn't make it HIS fault. ~SilverWolf~

[Xei]

Because if there are objective moral values then these values are independent of time, and as God is omniscient he knows and has always known exactly what they are, thus he has always advocated the same course of action. God can never change his mind, because God is omniscient and thus never learns anything new. No event can ever cause God to change his mind, because God is omniscient and thus always knew that that event was going to happen. Pretty simple in my opinion... I could see what BlueLine meant right away. You can believe in a God who is omniscient, and you can believe in a God who changes the way he does things, but you can't believe in both at the same time.

[Descensus]

Alright, I was going to step away, but I have to ask you one thing, Blue. Why does someone changing their mind about something imply imperfection? Why is it imperfect, if God decided he wanted to change from having animal sacrifice as penance for sin, to allowing us to simply ask for forgiveness as long as we are truly remorseful? You are saying change is bad, then, if you attribute change to an imperfect being, and change isn't necessarily bad or necessarily good. It depends on the change. It doesn't mean God is imperfect, it simply meant that, for whatever reason, he decided to change the way he did things. He's GOD, he is an immortal, omnipotent, and yes, God is a perfect being. Just because we don't understand his reasoning doesn't make it HIS fault. ~SilverWolf~ Xei nailed it, so I'll let his post be a response to this. But note that I'm not even commenting on whether the change was good or bad, only that it is incompatible with a perfect being.