Need a quick God related question answered

[shernajwine]

well, he brought out the question and several sincere attempts were made to answer it. some were personal thoughts while others quoted from other sources. yet his response was to inslut every person who legitimately tried to answer the question.

there is no burden of proof on either party, merely an attempt at explaining your views. but if you are going to ask a question, then insult everyone who answers, and then not bring one single shred of intelligence to the table to say at least WHY you think these people's answers are so crazy......i think that deserves to be pointed out.

it's like arguing with a child!
 "you stink!" child
 "no i don't" me
"yes you do!' child
"ok well you can say that all you want but i took a shower and so i'm pretty sure i don't stink" me
 "yes you do!" child

why waste your time in an argument like this it's ridiculous?

on top of the fact that explanations were given in the thread but the child/skeptic just crosses their arms and says "your dumb"

no matter what i say or anyone else says, the response is....'your dumb" that's not debating it's retarded.
 i think at some point the original question becomes a joke when the person asking it has that kind of attitude.

[sigmapi1501]

well, he brought out the question and several sincere attempts were made to answer it.

Ummmm NO!  Not one sincere answer. Several "God is all powerful, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", answers. But none sincere.

[shernajwine]

well, he brought out the question and several sincere attempts were made to answer it.

Ummmm NO!  Not one sincere answer. Several "God is all powerful, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", answers. But none sincere.

what is your definition of sincere?

when i say sincere answers where given, i mean that people responded calmly and with an answer that they thought best represented their point on the matter. and i posted a link to a 4 part video which gives lots of good information, i also copied an article which breaks down the question to be answered and in my own words i posted more detail than what you are trying to imply above.

you can disagree with the answers given but you look like a fool when your own response is insults. nobody insulted you in their attempts to answer the question. at least anyone who was "sincerely" responding.

[sigmapi1501]

No one insulted me?  I am thoroughly insulted that you would think I, or anyone in this forum would read the nonsense you posted and except that as any sort of answer. You did not make a SINCERE attempt. You didn't even come close.

it's like if I asked you.. "What is the Capital of Illinois?'

Instead of "Springfield"  You post a link to the history of Illinois and why we have 3 branches of government and what laws are enforced in Illinois but not some other states.  You might post the state bird, famous people from Illinois but never the God Damn capital!

So basically I say this... You're entire religion is wrong. Jesus never rose from he dead and you are not very intelligent if you think he did.

If you can't even take your God shoes off for a second to answer a stupid question about a boulder you are too delusional to have a discussion with. 

And to the woman above me.. See you next Tuesday.

[shernajwine]

answer a stupid question about a boulder

you said it 

it's like if I asked you.. "What is the Capital of Illinois?'

Instead of "Springfield"  You post a link to the history of Illinois and why we have 3 branches of government and what laws are enforced in Illinois but not some other states.  You might post the state bird, famous people from Illinois but never the God Damn capital!

well, i don't think its the same thing but i guess you consider a sincere answer to be direct and with no explanation, but as the article stated the question is actually asking two things so...
1) Is there any limit to the size of stone God could create? NO
2) Is there any limit to the size of stone God could lift? NO

You're entire religion is wrong. Jesus never rose from he dead and you are not very intelligent if you think he did.

there is plenty of evidence of the resurrection of Jesus http://bible.org/article/evidences-resurrection (one source of many). your opinion of my intelligence really doesn't matter to me.

[Falconer02]

OH! A creationist website. This must be rock-solid proof.

[shernajwine]

i didn't use the word proof, i used the word evidence. but i suppose your atheist websites and sources are considered rock solid proof??

[Falconer02]

didn't use the word proof, i used the word evidence. but i suppose your atheist websites and sources are considered rock solid proof??

A non-bias website would suffice. Just keep in mind when you're trying to prove JC existed and performed magic, you're introducing things that can't happen. Therefore your argument is fallible to begin with. Keep in mind you use a source that goes with your argument and tells people to not question otherwise. A good example was made by someone else in another thread earlier questioning this type of close-mindedness-- if you're sticking up for Adolf Hitler and you want to know if he's got the best intentions for everyone, do you read Mein Kampf and nothing else or do you seek other sources that could contradict your leader?

"And this was not just a theological myth which began circulating 20 or 30 years later among the followers of Jesus Christ. It was a message proclaimed immediately beginning with the morning of the third day. It was a message based upon incontrovertible evidence. " (taken from link)

It was just a myth though. Infact there were a ton of other fictional characters throughout history that had similar things happen to them. And for a so-called super important character for our world, I would expect him to be reknowned around the world at that time and not just barely the talk of the town. It sounds like your god character is lazy and he wants you to spread the 'word of Christ'. If it's the word, I'd seriously take into consideration that you could be nothing more than a mindless minion/henchmen for something that most likely did not happen due to the magical aspects of the story. I do believe JC or someone similar existed and I do believe he was a unique individual for his time. But to say he performed magic and was resurrected just damages all credibility to the story. He practiced some good things and...oh wait...

"Others have advocated "you do not need to believe in the resurrection. If this stands in the way of your rationale, just accept Jesus as a great leader and as an example of love, kindness and peace." This kind of thinking is pure non-sense, illogical, and contrary to the facts of the life of Christ."

Nevermind. Whoever wrote this has some ridiculously ugly B+W thinking.

[liljp617]

So basically I say this... You're entire religion is wrong. Jesus never rose from he dead and you are not very intelligent if you think he did.

BIG DAMN DEAL! Get Over It...Smarty Pants.

You do realize you don't contribute a thing to these forums, correct?

[shernajwine]

Just keep in mind when you're trying to prove JC existed and performed magic, you're introducing things that can't happen

If I am approaching the miracles Christ performed from a naturalistic perspective then I would agree, those things couldn't happen naturally. However, because I believe in God (and have evidence to support that belief from purely scientific resources) then I believe in the supernatural. If a supernatural God exists then He is capable of doing supernatural things.

Now there is historical evidence for Jesus outside the bible, so I know Jesus existed without utilizing biased information.

Also the Bible has been proven to be historically accurate and it is confirmed by archeological evidence.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/authenticity.html

Now you may point out that the link I pasted is a creation website and apparently that automatically discredits it....but I will quote from an ATHEISTS website here
"Has archaeology confirmed the historical accuracy of some information in the Bible? Indeed it has,....."http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.htm
Before I get accused of quote-mining, I will point out that the website also says
What biblicists who get so excited over archaeological discoveries like these apparently can't understand is that extrabiblical confirmation of some of the Bible does not constitute confirmation of all of the Bible

However, the skeptic has admitted to the fact that the bible has been confirmed in some areas and to me.....that evidence combined with scientific evidences of a Creator have given me proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Not SOLID proof mind you but proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, now being in a position to trust the bible I can trust the witnesses to Jesus and things He has claimed.  The eyewitnesses of his life and ministry, death and resurrection gave accounts of events of all this. Jesus said in the bible that He is God. I believe Jesus is God in the flesh and therefore able to perform miracles of supernatural proportions.

In summary:
1. Scientific evidence for Creator (supernatural being)
2. Historical and archeological evidence to support the bible (gives the bible credibility)
3. Bible says Jesus is God (supernatural being in flesh who can perform supernatural miracles)

[Falconer02]

If I am approaching the miracles Christ performed from a naturalistic perspective then I would agree, those things couldn't happen naturally. However, because I believe in God (and have evidence to support that belief from purely scientific resources) then I believe in the supernatural. If a supernatural God exists then He is capable of doing supernatural things.

Then everything below these 3 sentences is nonsense if you're allowing the supernatural to stand with the natural. You may say that's the difference between you and I, but one stance is completely delusional and one is not. How can I (and anyone else for that matter) trust your reasoning when you're clinging to magical thinking?

Also the Bible has been proven to be historically accurate and it is confirmed by archeological evidence.

I'm not saying that 100% of the bible is historically inaccurate. I'm focusing on the fantasy parts of it.

[shernajwine]

Your statement that I'm delusional is an opinion stemming from your own perception of logic.

Science is not supernatural, yet there is scientific evidence (and plenty of it) that supports Intelligent Design (i.e. supernatural creator). So it's not delusional to reasonably deduce that based on evidence, one can rationally come to a conclusion of the existence of God.
I am NOT a naturalist...if you equate that with being delusional it's merely your opinion and doesn't make it true.

You don't have to trust my reasoning, I am not claiming to have all the facts. All I am pointing out is that I have found enough evidence from unbiased sources to support my belief. There will always be contradictions to evidence and some of it will be valid and some won't. However, just as in a court of law a jury is expected to look at all the evidence and make a judgment based on what is presented. What evidence brings you to a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt? How strong is the case for both sides? Both sides will both have strong and weak points but as a whole, what holds more weight?

Now, if a person has looked at all the evidence without having a predetermined idea and not cherry picking the evidence to fit the outcome they desire.....then they can come to a logical and rational conclusion.

I have.

[jcribb16]

    Very good and thought-provoking answers sherna!

[jcribb16]

    Since God is truly omnipotent, then that means He is all-powerful and can do anything. You could say that means He can lift any size boulder He chooses to make. Or, you can say that He can make one so big so that He knows He can't lift it. 
(Omnipotent - unlimited power);
"Between people of different faiths, or indeed between people of the same faith, the term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:
1.A deity is able to do anything that is logically possible for it to do[4].
2.A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do[5].
3.A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
4.Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.[6]
5.A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.
6.A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible, i.e., pure agency."  Credit given to Wikipedia (in quotes)

[Falconer02]

Your statement that I'm delusional is an opinion stemming from your own perception of logic.

Opinion? I can prove that the moon swings around the earth through centrepetal force. This is not a mere opinion. I can demonstrate it. Can you prove your great defined and personalized Yahweh exists and he came down and performed magic without your old book written by men? My 'perception of logic' has seen nothing from you that eventually breaks free from creationist nonsense. Again, your foundation of thought is damaged from the get-go because you're allowing for magical thinking to pass as truth even though it is demonstratably fallible.

What evidence brings you to a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt? How strong is the case for both sides? Both sides will both have strong and weak points but as a whole, what holds more weight?Now, if a person has looked at all the evidence without having a predetermined idea and not cherry picking the evidence to fit the outcome they desire.....then they can come to a logical and rational conclusion.

Right. With the obvious fake claims of supernatural occurences (among all protagonist characters of each faith), and the gospels being written decades after the apparent death of JC, the story of Jesus Christ is based on a dozen other stories that came before it. Therefore it is logical and rational to conclude that this characters story is fictional and this character was not a god.

"When we say that JC was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the 'Sons of Jupiter'".  -Justin Martyr, church father