Does God Exist?

[SnailyBoy]

the anti God agenda is being pushed by the world elite and their minions who are full time agents on the internet.

 

yet at the same time the elite are very much into their own satanic / occult practices.

 

This fact has been exposed many many times.

 

You're right, I must remember to sacrifice a goat tonight.

[Islam4me2]

You're right, I must remember to sacrifice a goat tonight.

 

the image of Baphomet and other satanic symbols adorn our daily lives.

[SnailyBoy]

the image of Baphomet and other satanic symbols adorn our daily lives.

 

Really? Please inform us further.

 

P.S I don't believe in Satan either

[Islam4me2]

Really? Please inform us further.

 

P.S I don't believe in Satan either

 

The Ruling elite are well into the occult practices, that's common knowledge .

[PaliRichard]

Ah borderline I see you've returned again now that you haven't been pushed to answer the questions I put to you for a while.

 

I am interested in your vague reference to a misreading of Genesis can you point me to any reference books on this subject[/Quote]

 

I don't need to, I gave you a step by step analysis of it and invited you to respond, you ignored it, a little like the rest of the questions you've been ignoring for a year.

 

I'll let previous insults go over my head except my faith in 100 % and I am not living a lie, very rude of you[/Quote]

 

You claim you have evidence for your beliefs, every time you are given an opportunity to back that evidence up with fact you either dance around it or directly avoid it, a little like you've avoided the questions I have been putting to you for a year. Such avoidance suggests you know you can't answer the questions/justify the claims that you are making and instead of being honest about it simply avoid it. That to me suggests you're living a lie.

 

I have absolutely no problem with anyone saying 'It's my faith, I acknowledge there are difficulties but I still believe it' - what I do have a problem with is people who claim they have evidence and when people want to go into that evidence doing everything they can to excuse doing so. The latter is most definitely an example of your behaviour.

 

I did lend you 2 books which you never read, if you can point me too any books which argues your point on Genesis(i will buy and read ), or if it's just your own interpretation give evidence everyone can understand[/Quote]

 

I am more than happy to give a step by step analysis of the text for everyone to look at (exactly the same analysis I gave to you after which you avoided the subject), I will do so when I get home from work tonight.

 

I am sure on a subject so important there are many books,I am sure this will help me and readers of this post[/Quote]

 

Actually I've not come across any books, I believe this to be because most books on the subject are either written by believers or people who's focus is elsewhere (for example, those who don't believe the Bible and rather than trying to disprove the content as such disprove the content of the book via archaeology). I did see one documentary on the BBC which touched upon the misinterpretation of the Geneisis account presented by a lady archaeologist with a Greek name, I seem to recall you ridiculing her during one of our conversations so I'm guessing her evidence wont be good enough for you.

 

Try and keep on topic[/Quote]

 

I am on topic, you have claimed time and time again to have evidence for Gods existence, I have put some questions to you disputing this evidence, you have avoided answering the points I raised.

 

Your questions on science ,maybe your right[/Quote]

 

It's nothing to do with me being right, it's about you and your organisation making claims that science backs up your religion when it doesn't, I have pointed this out to you - I have given you counter questions to the evidence you claim to have and you have spent a year avoiding answering them.

 

after all if it's on the Internet it must be right[/Quote]

 

I've never made such a claim.

 

I prefer theology, so looking forward to your reply in that vain

 

You prefer a specific kind of Theology that backs up your world view, what about Islamic Theology, or Hindu Theology?

 

I'm guessing you prefer Theology because that gives you an excuse not to answer the questions you've spent a year avoiding which clearly show the evidence you claim proves your position is flawed.

 

Btw, when I put the blow by blow Genesis account up later I'll also put the questions up again for you to answer, any chance of you answering them or are you going to do your best to dance around the issue for a couple of weeks then disappear for a while as is your usually trait when those questions come up?

 

---------- Post added 09-05-2013 at 14:36 ----------

 

The Ruling elite are well into the occult practices, that's common knowledge .

 

And yet you've not actually given us any evidence of these claims.

 

While I'm on a roll do you think there is any evidence for us to look at that God exists? I'd be very interested in having a look at any claims of evidence you propose.

[MrSmith]

There isn't a straight answer, the Christian doctrine collapses if it allows the innocent man to go to heaven, any such allowance would render the sacrifice of Jesus redundant.

 

All other Theistic religions allow for the person to live in accordance with the teachings without actually having heard them and still receive the reward of heaven.

 

The word Kafir in Islam which relates to unbeliever is specific to those who have heard, and rejected the message - those who have not heard the message would still get into heaven by living in line with the teachings.

 

Christianity doesn't have such a specific word for unbeliever - because those who are to be saved have to accept Jesus, not having heard the message is no excuse - it's a massive philosophical difficulty for Christians because to try to argue against this is to argue against the sacrifice Jesus made.

 

The misreading of Genesis is the base for this difficulty, but it's so entrenched in Christianity that to acknowledge this problem is to unravel the very cornerstone of the religion itself.

 

Probably the way round it is to make the claim that no one is without sin, no matter how good you are you will have committed a sin, therefore you can’t go to heaven unless you embrace Jesus.

[PaliRichard]

borderline

 

Look what I've just found

 

Here's a perfect opportunity for you to answer these questions/points, I'll put the blow by blow Genesis stuff up later.

 

1. Your man said that a scientist creates a theory, or an opinion, but a theory is not an opinion, it is a theory only after the hypothesis (idea/opinion) has been repeatedly tested and shown to be the most likely outcome of the available evidence. A theory is a scientific fact (see below), he confounds this more by saying 'It's important to know what can be proved, and what is a theory, that can't be proved'. It makes no sense to say this unless you haven't got one ounce of understanding about science and the scientific method.

 

There are no such things as facts (in the permanent, non changeable sense) in science, a scientific fact is that which best fits the evidence at this present time, ie, a theory. The video is trying to separate them, a theory is scientific fact, even if it is later proved to be wrong, that is because you can only disprove in science.

 

2. Your video also says that red shift can't be proved, that depends on whether you understand science or not. If you think a theory is different to a scientific fact then you will more than likely be unwilling to accept the evidence of red shift. Learn more about red shift here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift, there is plenty of proof to suggest that's what is occurring given the evidence we have, in relation to the theories (that is scientific fact) we have.

 

Another gem which relates to both the above is 'The big bang theory is just a theory (based, they claim, on the red shift being unproved) and can't be looked on as a scientific fact'.

 

Except a theory is scientific fact. And red shift has been proved.

 

3. Your video also asks 'Why do we see well defined species in the fossil records? Why no intermediary species?'

 

Well there are, take a look at this, http://www.livescience.com/3306-foss...in-theory.html, take particular note of the statement 'At least hundreds, possibly thousands, of transitional fossils have been found so far by researchers.' Transitional btw, is the same as intermediary.

 

The video also states the difficulty of Triolobytes suddenly appearing. But if we look at the details the early Cambrian period where the Triolobytes were first discovered was between 549 to 542 million years ago. That's a period of seven million years where they were 'first' discovered in their complete form. Only there weren't just a complete form as your site suggests, there were 17,000 species. The earliest found in the fossil records was fallotaspids and it appears (that's science talk for they did) their features and characteristics changed (that's science talk for they evolved) during that time.

 

4. Your video also claims that in the beginning the Earth was present. I can almost hear you straining to tell me that the materials it was formed of, that is, the atoms were present and that's what it means, but that's not what it says.

 

It says in the beginning the Earth was present, it says day and night existed when the earth was formed (which shows that the Bible means the Earth was literally there, not metaphorically present in its pre existing components)

 

In the beginning the Earth was not there, it's only 4.5 Billion years old, the universe is 13.7.

 

It claims in the beginning there was water, that's contrary to science. The Earth was originally a dry rock, we don't know how water first appeared but a leading theory is that it arrived on comets.

 

It also says life appears in the sea and air before on the ground, it certainly appeared in the sea, but not in the air.

 

That's the first four. I realise they don't look like questions, they are more counter claims. I have asked you, since I first sent you that list of questions to provide counter claims to them. I have asked you, if you cannot provide those counter claims why is the video making them still on your website (and it is, I checked). So I will ask you one last time, can you (or your colleagues) provide counter claims to my disputes. And provide evidence for claims such as 'The Earth was present in the beginning'. Not by using vague Biblical language, these claims are made on a Science video, so I would appreciate it if science was used in providing the evidence.

 

5. The list of prophesies you provided is too long to go into detail here. My question refers to every one you have sent to me, and every one included in your prophesy videos.

 

Why does your website claim that the prophesies in the Bible are clear and precise, and there is no doubt what they mean, yet the verse given to me by you predicting Jesus wasn't clear and precise. It also says 'See the Bible predicted with 100% accuracy'.Not one of the predictions is carried out with 100% accuracy, most of them involve either selective interpretation or interpretation after the fact.

 

So of every single prophesy you have offered me, not one passes the claims of your own website. That being the case why make these claims to begin with?

 

Also, what can you offer to counter my claim that your predictions are no more likely than the ones that Islam takes from the Bible? What specifically makes your predictions more plausible?

 

6. I know this one came under the umbrella of the predictions, but you seemed to give it special attention so I will. You claimed the predictions about the Jewish people have been fulfilled. I made several statements based on your claims that you failed to address, so here they are again. You claimed the Jewish people had fulfilled prophesy by returning to Israel. But that Prophesy has not been fulfilled because many Jewish people still live outside Israel, the Prophesy says 'I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land', which suggests that they will all return. Your video says 'The Bible predicted that they will remain a distinct nation', but there are Jews who have absorbed the culture of those where they went, or even abandoned their culture altogether, so that again has not been fulfilled.

 

You also said that Jews had gone to every nation, but that is nor specific to Jews is it? I asked you specifically to provide evidence that Jews had gone to more nations than other people 'of the book', you have not done so. I asked you to show me specifically where the Jewish people had undergone more suffering than any other religious/ethnic group over the course of their history, you have not done so.

 

7. Just before we leave predictions you said 'Psalm 83 is happening now I believe' to which I replied 'That's your belief and you are entitled to it. Let me ask you though, as you believe it's happening now, what timeframe do you apply to its fulfilment? (there is none in the Psalm), what will you do if God doesn't make them 'perish in disgrace', if God doesn't 'Let them know that you, whose name is the Lord, that you alone are the Most High over all the earth'. Will you make excuses as some others have who have said that Biblical events are unfolding like 'I misinterpreted the time scale' or will you acknowledge that what you believe may be wrong?'

 

Note my final question which you did not answer, I would be interested in the answer 'If the Psalm isn't fulfilled in X amount of time, will you try to glaze over it by saying something like 'I misinterpreted the time scale' or will you acknowledge that what you believe may be wrong?'

 

8. You said righteousness is 'Being right with God'. I responded with 'What exactly do you mean by 'being right with God'? Sin hasn't got anything to do with good and evil (and I agree that most, not just some others wont agree with you). Sin, according to Christian belief, is a flaw in humanity, created by Adam and Eve (or more correctly the man and woman) in Genesis. Technically speaking good and evil are outside that sin. Our nature is sinful, what we do is good and evil, but even if we do good we are still sinful according to the Christian doctrine'.

 

As you failed to answer I will ask you again. What do you mean by 'righteousness is 'Being right with God''?

 

9. I have stressed continuously that I am willing to look further if you give me more 'meat' to look further into. You have said that I will understand if I attend a 'study group'.

 

You have given 'evidence' that people have given their lives and made it their life's work amongst other things to try to prove Christianity is unique, but none of your examples are unique to Christianity, people of all faith's (indeed most ideologies) have done the same, this doesn't make them an authority on 'truth'.

 

My question is what can you give me that is not offered by any other religion that would convince me that yours is the one 'true' religion worth looking into? What, on the surface, before I take the next step, can you offer to suggest that your faith has something that all the others are lacking? I need to know this before I even consider looking further into your beliefs. So far you have offered me no more than Hinduism/Taoism/Islam etc can offer someone who doesn't believe, that is, mere assurances that if you study you will 'know the truth'. You cannot all be right, you need to offer some real evidence before I would even consider studying further.

 

10. Regarding the Garden of Eden. I'm not repeating the whole lot because it's far too long. I condensed my interpretation into a question, which was regarding the man and woman. My question was 'Please show me where their death has anything to do with the events in the garden'. You have yet to answer this question.

 

You also said 'They then try and shift blame and are cast out to die', and I asked you 'Where exactly do they shift the blame?' Once more you failed to answer.

 

You also said 'Sorry if I misused scenario' relating to the Garden account, I asked you what you meant by this, you have yet to reply.

 

11. You said you viewed my religion as 'Idol worship', I asked you 'How can a religion that has no worship of any kind be seen as idol worship?' You have yet to answer this question.

 

12. In response to you saying Christianity works and you weren't brainwashed, and because of this you became angry with other religions I made the comment 'I don't understand why your 100% faith would make you angry with other religions. Most religious people I know (from all religions) have 100% faith but they don't hate other religions because of it'. You didn't respond, so I will ask you again 'Why does your faith make you angry with other religions?'[/Quote]

 

Have fun answering them, try not to take another year dancing around them, after all they're in black in white for you right here.

 

---------- Post added 09-05-2013 at 15:01 ----------

 

Probably the way round it is to make the claim that no one is without sin, no matter how good you are you will have committed a sin, therefore you can’t go to heaven unless you embrace Jesus.

 

That's not a way round it though is it, as you said earlier it means that those who live technically perfect lives cannot be saved, simply through not accepting Jesus.

 

Now move this scenario to people of tribal systems that have yet to come into contact with Christianity - essentially speaking God is condemning them to hell (or eternal sleep - depending on what you believe the Bible teaches) even though they have had no opportunity to repent - it's a massive flaw of the doctrine of original sin - as I said, to accept it you have to acknowledge that many millions/billions of people throughout world history who may have lived lives perfectly in line with the teachings of Jesus will never be saved while the mass murderer who repents (and potentially then goes on to kill again) is guaranteed a seat in heaven.

 

Christianity is the only religion that teaches this (I presume there have been others in the past as the Buddha touched on this very subject in one of the suttas), but all other modern/surviving religions teach personal effort, not grace, as the foundation of salvation.

[jfish1936]

There isn't a straight answer, the Christian doctrine collapses if it allows the innocent man to go to heaven, any such allowance would render the sacrifice of Jesus redundant.

.

 

I found the teachings of Jesus, as handed down to us, a wonderful guide to correct living.

But then I found "Christians" who had erected doctrines of "original sin" and "salvation by the blood of Jesus" and I could not be a Christian if I didn't swallow all that rubbish.

Imagine a terrible moment when Jesus is being judged by Pilate; Annas and Caiaphas confer quietly, and then interrupt Pilate: "Sorry, Sir, He's right! He is the Messiah, the Son of God!"

Pilate is shocked to find that he, too, believes this. Urgent messages to Rome bring Caesar himself, and they all fall down and worship Jesus.

Oops! Mankind's "salvation" has just flown out of the window, as there will now be no crucifixion!

 

But all is not lost! Jesus orders them to crucify him, so that the prophecies can be fulfilled, and then to execute themselves, as penalty for killing God's son (sorry, I thought about Nanki-Poo there!)

 

OK. folks, we're saved again!

 

Bloody ludicrous, isn't it?

 

That's why I say that the Christians persuaded me to become an atheist.

[MrSmith]

 

That's not a way round it though is it, as you said earlier it means that those who live technically perfect lives cannot be saved, simply through not accepting Jesus.

 

Now move this scenario to people of tribal systems that have yet to come into contact with Christianity - essentially speaking God is condemning them to hell (or eternal sleep - depending on what you believe the Bible teaches) even though they have had no opportunity to repent - it's a massive flaw of the doctrine of original sin - as I said, to accept it you have to acknowledge that many millions/billions of people throughout world history who may have lived lives perfectly in line with the teachings of Jesus will never be saved while the mass murderer who repents (and potentially then goes on to kill again) is guaranteed a seat in heaven.

 

Christianity is the only religion that teaches this (I presume there have been others in the past as the Buddha touched on this very subject in one of the suttas), but all other modern/surviving religions teach personal effort, not grace, as the foundation of salvation.

 

Good points.

[PaliRichard]

As promised a breakdown of the context of the misinterpretation of the Genesis account by those who accept the original sin idea as presented by the early Christians and perpetrated by Christian churches ever since.

 

Warning; if you’re not really, really into religion you will find this exceptionally boring. I would also like to apologise for the use of colours, I have done this in order to make the text easier to follow because it is confusing enough without the words all mingling into one. I welcome any criticism (and have the feeling I will get some from certain quarters) for this, I only ask if you want to criticise it you be willing to see the debate through and not avoid any follow up questions to your critique (I don’t have much faith that this will be the case but we can live in hope).

 

Genesis 3

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?

 

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,

 

3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

 

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman.

 

5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

 

Look at this really closely.

 

The serpent asks ‘“Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?, The woman replies ‘”God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

 

So the woman has said that God told her if they ate from the tree (or even touched it) they would die.

 

This implies that God said they would die if they ate the fruit. The woman could have made it up, we don’t know, the Bible doesn’t tell us, but we are told that this is what God said.

 

The serpent replies with ‘”You will not certainly die,” then gives a reason why they wouldn’t die ‘”God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

 

So the serpent tells the woman that she wont die (when she claims God said she would), but she will in fact know good and evil.

 

So at this point we don’t know what will happen. If what the woman claims is true, then if she eats the fruit she will die. If what the serpent says is true, then she wont die, but she will know good and evil.

 

So now we need to see what happened, we know the man and woman ate the fruit, what happened after that?

 

11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

 

So here God is saying, explicitly, that he commanded the woman not to eat from the tree. Notice as well that the man and woman, after eating the tree, have not died. So we know at this point from God himself that at least part of what the serpent said was true, they have eaten the fruit and not died, remember he said ‘”You will not certainly die,” and they didn’t, so the first part is true.

 

Then we have 22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. So God again, in his own words confirmed what the serpent said. Remember the serpent said ‘”God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

 

The serpents prediction; you will be like God, knowing good and evil, Gods words; The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. So in both cases the serpent was telling the truth, but the woman said ‘”God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” Which was wrong. Remember we can say for certain that at least part of what the woman said God confirmed when he said “Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

 

This is a clear, clear implication that God lied, the serpent certainly didn’t, and God himself corroborates at least part of what the woman says.

 

What I really don’t get is that most Christians claim that in the Garden of Eden we were immortal, but after the original sin we were then mortal, and we can once more attain our immortal nature through giving ourselves to Jesus. The usual excuse for this is the Christian saying 'Well where are Adam and Eve now'? implying that when the serpent told them they wouldn't die he was wrong.

 

My reading however, and the context, suggests that the serpent meant that they wouldn't die immediately upon eating (or touching) the fruit - not that they were meant to be immortal as Christians claim.

 

The Christian doctrine isn’t backed up by the Genesis account either, they were never immortal, if they were immortal why did God say ‘He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.’ God didn’t want them to eat the fruit of immortality, it makes no sense whatsoever that he would want someone who was already immortal not to eat a fruit that would make them immortal. Their death had nothing to do with what they did, they were always mortal. To try to wrap their death up in any way with what happened is simply bizarre.

 

So the Christian account says original sin was caused because the serpent deceived, or lied to, the woman in the garden, which is not true. It also says that the man and woman were ejected from the garden because they ate from the tree of knowledge, which is also not true. In fact they were already punished by Eve being told she would have pain in childbirth and Adam being told he would have to toil for his food. They were ejected from the garden so they didn’t eat from the tree of immortality and live forever.