CAMPBELL34 VS. LIBERTINE :The War To Settle The Score...

You need to get with the times. More research has been done and discoveries made that you conviently ignore:

http://www.amonline.net.au/factsheets/platypus.htm

All your arguments are old. Christian speakers have been recycling the same old arguments since the 70's but what they don't realize is that science and archeology has really discovered a lot in the past quarter century, your creationist argument's can't keep up.

 

The old "platypus" argument... ha ha... OK.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html

Aren't we starting to notice a TREND here?

The old "appeal to ignorance" trend.

"If I can't explain it or if it is a mystery, thus it's God (if it's good) or Satan (if it's bad!)"

Even though history has shown that year after year, decade after decade, century after century, science has displaced these gaps filled with "faith" with FACTS.

No, thunder is NOT the "voice of gods".
No, there are NO "volcano gods".
No, the SUN does NOT revolve around the earth.
No, the Earth is NOT flat.
No, the Earth is NOT 10,000 years old.
No, there is no Man in the Sky (tower of Babel vs. SPACE SHUTTLE!! Ha ha)

Keep filling the void with faith. But, sooner or later, FACT will come along and unseat it --again and again.

 

And do not mix these fallcies with something that the Bible has said.

 

I have a question for all of you: Would you believe and follow the Bible if you knew (no doubt in your mind) that it was 100% true?

 

Way to ignore the point.

 

I'll be honest, I do not know the platypus argument very well. Just something that seemed intriging and I wanted to know how you guys would refute it.

 

Would you believe and follow the Koran if you knew that it was 100% true?

For the Bible to be 100% true, I would have to first find out which "interpretation" was the true one. This could take more than one lifetime.

 

Okay, if you found that the original texts of the Bible were 100% true (even though that what was written back then has the same meaning in todays Bibles) but that is beside the fact... would you believe and follow the Bible?

 

You mean follow all the rules and stuff? Try to get into heaven?

You bet your ass if there was some sort of heaven after life I would wanna be there. Hehe

I don't really like your god too much though, I have no respect for a god that creates a race of people just to send most of them to suffer eternally in hell. If I created a species I wouldn't be so cruel. Get baptized or go to hell? Who is that much of ass, really, and why would you respect someone like that?

Good thing it isn't real...the whole concept is flawed - and all this dogma and rules and restrictions are obviously a creation of the human mind.

 

This is a major assumption here. But, I'll bite.

If I KNEW (100% certain), I would have no other choice, but to see it that way since I govern on reason.

There are many things we can't KNOW, but we can make the most reasonable assessment using our reasoning skills and watching out for fallacies.

Would you reject the Bible if you found out that it was NOT 100% accurate? You shouldn't. There are some truths in there. But, what if someone could prove to you that it couldn't stand up to facts and reason? What then? Would you still hang on to "faith"?

 

Amazing how something concocted so many thousands of years ago is still controlling a society.

 

True. It's quite remarkable!

 

I believe the Bible not because I was born into a Christian home and not on blind faith but faith that is backed up with the foundation of evidence. The Bible is the biggest evidence (especially prophecy) of my faith. That is why I always say discredit the Bible/discredit the prophecies and you prove Christianity wrong.

For example, I occassionally tell people that if they were to walk through the Eastern Gate in Jerusalem I would reject the Bible and no longer believe in Jesus.

Therefore, the answer to your question is: Yes, If I found that the Bible was not valid I would not believe and follow it nor follow Jesus.

 

I would say I admire such ardent faith, but... I don't.

The Bible can be manipulated and Christian apologetics (I know) can suck ANYTHING into it's filter and Christianize it.

Christianity has EVOLVED whether it believes in EVOLUTION or not. History is clear. Not only has it evolved, but newer subspecies of Christianity have branched out.

 

Jesus said His words would never be forgotten
Bible passage: Luke 21:33
Written: about 30 AD
Fulfilled: At this very moment
In Luke 21:33, Jesus said that regardless of what happens to the world, His words will never be forgotten. Here we are 2000 years later and the words of Jesus are all around us: Christianity has spread to people around the world and the Bible is the world's most circulated book. Of all the people who have ever lived, can you think of a single person who could have made this claim more effectively than Jesus - that his words would never be forgotten?
- Copyright AboutBibleProphecy.com and 100prophecies.org
Luke 21:33
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

 

That is a true statement

 

Watch The Eastern Sky, people!!

It's a bird, it's a plane, no it's SKY DADDY!

 

Perhaps if you were God you would have created people with no will of their own... but instead robots that followed you.

The God of the Bible wanted us to choose to trully love him... Our generation is all about choosing... right?

 

Jews believe their Messiah willl come through the Eastern gate. They will be looking for the dominate Lion not knowing that the Lamb (which they rejected) and the Lion are the same.

Look, he is coming with the clouds,
and every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him;
and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him.


Revelation 1:7

 

"God" is all-powerful and all-knowing...there is no true "free will", it's "consequential choice".

As the riddle of Epicurus stated: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then, whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” So, here we have yet another paradox of this nature of God. If God is all knowing and all-powerful, why not just create humans to know better and do good without ‘free will’, is not all things possible with "God"?

It is the choice to love "God" and follow Him or to suffer eternal torment in the ‘afterlife’. Where is the freedom in this choice? Is it truly giving someone freedom to threaten someone to love and obey you? The "free will" to choose between a pleasure/pain principle isn't much a choice. Love me or die?

Can you think of a more sadistic, horrible, monstrous, diabolical idea than creating a huge, fiery lake, or pit of molten sulphur, and then torturing people in all eternity in such excruciating pain without the mercy of allowing death to end it all? Could you LOVE a monster who would create such a horrible place of torture and create billions of creatures to put into it?

Couldn't "God" foresee what he was doing? Couldn't he have done it different?

The concept of man having a ‘free will’ is in a direct conflict with the idea that God controls everything. Either ‘free will’ is out of God's control or it isn't free. If it is in God's control, then it isn't free and we can't be held responsible. If God isn't in control, why does the Bible say “not a hair falls from our head, or a sparrow from the roof, but he wills it.”?

The truth is the ‘Omniscience’ of God and ‘Free Will’ of Man are not compatible and already we not that the ‘Free Will’ has now been exposed as ‘Choice’, although not free, but consequential. It is a life or death choice, which proves that man has no freedom and that God is in control playing with us like pawns in a chess game--which is contradictory to his all-goodness, his Bible definition-- “God is love”. With love like that, who needs hate?

Let me give you a little example of God's "Free Will"...

Suppose a father left his child (who didn’t know what ‘wrong’ was) in a room with three boxes on a table and told the lad that he could open any box, but the middle one (shiny and glimmering).

Next, Dad left the room and hid outside watching in the window while he allowed a convicted criminal in the house. The criminal convinced the child to open the box in the middle, which had a poisonous rattlesnake in it. The snake bit the child, the child then recovered and the father of the boy punished him for the rest of his life with misery and hard labor.

What would be the reasonable assessment of the father? What if his excuse during trial was that he was merely testing the boy’s ‘free will’? Any father like this would be considered ‘sick and disturbed’ and it would be an injustice to humanity for him to get away with such treatment of his child.

First of all, the child was innocent of the knowledge of good and evil. Second, the father allowed a known-criminal in the house. Third, the father watched the whole thing go on. Fourth, the father didn’t stop the child from opening the box and getting bitten. Fifth, the father punished the child and took no responsibility.

This is a no-brainer for even the novice thinker. But, essentially this is what we get from the ‘Fall of Man’. The difference is that God created and can control, at his whim, anything and anyone...a human father cannot.