New ALabama governor openly asks for non-Christians to convert

[Sheepo]

Why exactly have you changed the names? If you actually thought you had strong arguments then surely you wouldn't need to try and discredit the name of God, and the fact that you haven't payed any respect to my arguments means I shall pay you the same courtesy and simply ignore your entire reply because my gut instinct is telling me that it simply isn't worth reading. Shame you couldn't be adult about it really, and shame you wasted all that time trying to be funny or whatever the hell it was you were trying to achieve...

This may be the funniest post I've ever read.

 

[Shift]

Are you actually a total idiot?
You must be.

I told you why I did it in the first few lines, because your arguments are ****ing stupid, and they aren't devalued by changing anything. It's a wonderful way of pointing it out.

Oh wow that is actually hilarious. So instead of addressing the arguments how they were and proving how '****ing stupid' they are, you need to change the name of the person I was talking about into a whole manner of colorful names to prove it? I think that is essentially what you were trying to do so that is definitely a new one for me. If I gave a lecture on the rise of Hitler and started talking about how Megatron brainwashed the population using his evil side-kick Jeezeebeezuz and his propaganda machine I think everyone would think I'm insane and would point and laugh, and that's on a historical event that happened only 80 years ago, so again, what exactly was the point? You can make anything sound ridiculous by making a few edits to it.

You don't deserve any respect, get the silly little notion out your mind, nothing you say deserves any more respect than the views of any dingbat conspiracy theorist or general horse shit pedaller.
Oh, of COURSE you won't read them, because you KNOW deep down you were ridiculus.

Urm no actually I know deep down what I was saying was perfectly rational. The problem is you are so closed to the idea of God and the Bible that even the mere mention of it probably sends you off into a fit. You know Absinthe said something very true earlier about how there needs to be a level playing field in these types of debates but there are Christians who won't even hear the arguments from the other side because they are assured that nothing can break their faith.

Its actually you and people like you who actually fall victim to this, that's why its impossible to debate with you, because whenever the arguments for God come out your brain's automatic response is 'hurrr dat iz s000 stooopidddd, y u s00 stoopidddd'. If the only constructive things you can do is edit original posts, call me stupid or as you said yourself, be a dick, then just leave the thread.

This entire thread is basically you standing up and telling us you can't think like a rational human being, and throwing temper tantrums when you're called out on it.

Haha temper tantrums? With manner of your reply I would say it was you who were coming across as in a temper because I decided not to read your stupid replies, so you had to result in calling me an idiot and saying I deserved no respect, and that I can't think like a rational human being. All the classics, makes me laugh.

No Limit: I skimmed over the link he posted, and 90% seems to be gospel things, then a few stray comments from various people saying that they can't understand how the story could be correct unless the gospels are right, therefore the gospels are right.

And yet again proving how pointless it is for you to be in this debate, skim reading other sources I post. If you actually read it, you will come to discover that historians have a specific method in testing the historical accuracy of documents that make an historical claim, like the Bible. The link talks about how the Bible can examined from the text itself, in correlation with other documents outside the Bible, and with actual geographic knowledge at the time, and how many historians (Christian and non-Christian) have analyzed it and found it to be very accurate historically. Or what, do you know better than expert historians now? Why don't use your superior intellect and go and prove them all wrong!

 

[Shift]

Yes, I'm absolutely serious. I asked you for specific evidance that Jesus existed time and time again and you haven't given it to me, let alone that he performed miracles. So I'm not sure why you finally decided to ask if I was serious...

But I have given it to you, a link that talks about it in brief but it still ferries on the main points. I asked if you were serious I thought it common knowledge to know that Jesus definitely existed, obviously not...

I will actually read all that if you promise me that the evidence used in that link doesn't strictly come from the Gospel, that it has other independent sources. The Gospel is not historical proof of Jesus's existence. As you know the gospel is not first hand accounts. It was written decades after Jesus died in a time where most stories were passed down orally, not written down. Actual proof would be roman records that Jesus was crucified for example. Do you have any such examples? And if the link you posted does then like I said, I will happily read it. I just don't want to go through all that to find you used the Gospels as pure evidence that he existed.

Okay first of all I think I gave you wrong link, try this one instead:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html

However the one I did give looks quite interesting too so I will read that shortly.

The Gospels are what are making the historical claim so they are being tested on whether they are valid from an historical point of view. The time between the life of Jesus and the writting of his life was far too short for them to be dismissed as mere legends, not to mention the Jews and Greeks at the time were brought up being taught the specific skill of being able to remember and write down all teachings they receive perfectly and accurately, it was an art form for the time period, plus they did have writing materials back then, I'm sure notes would have been taken. Plus the New Testament itself contains an entire section that was written by Luke who was an historian at the time investigating the credibility of the story of Jesus. Its all touched on in that article, but there are also entire books written about it that go into a lot more detail.

You know what a good rule of thumb is? When you think it is likely people will question your claims then you should be more specific. So when you say for example "I think without attributing [the universe] to a creator you find inconsistency after inconsistency" you should probably explain what specific inconsistencies you have that don't also apply to your version of a god.

If I did that we would be going around in circles, why must I make a specific point on a completely different tangent, thus starting up an entirely different debate, when I am trying to keep the point relevant to the specific area I am arguing?

 

[Eejit]

The abilities of Buddha are not considered miracles by those who understand them and they fall within the ability of any person who trains his mind through meditation and mental concentration to very high levels, or so true Buddhists believe. They weren’t considered abilities directly passed down from God, not to mention levitation and mind reading doesn’t hold up to the weight of raising the dead and calming storms with the power of word.

Pretty sure walking on water was considered a miracle when Jebus did it. But you acknowledge that since there is a similar amount of evidence of Buddha's existence to Jesus' the miracles attributed to him also happened? Even if they weren't 'as badass' as Jesus'.

What a ludicrous position. You're basically saying that as long as some parts of a story are based on fact then all of it must be - even those which contradict the laws of physics...

As for Muhammad, read this:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Azmy/mhd_miracles.htm
It’s still beside the point as neither of the claims holds as much historical weight as that of Jesus and his actions.

What about the miracles performed by god's angels while hanging out with Muhammad? Since it's clear Muhammad was an historical figure did they happen or not? The most popular story of his life claims they did.

 

[No Limit]

But I have given it to you, a link that talks about it in brief but it still ferries on the main points. I asked if you were serious I thought it common knowledge to know that Jesus definitely existed, obviously not...

You didn't give it to me until that post when I asked you for this many times before. And you gave me the wrong link. But anyway its not important, I'm glad you finally addressed this.

Okay first of all I think I gave you wrong link, try this one instead:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html

Again, if there is other evidance outside of gospels let me know and I will read it. If it simply concentrates on gospels being evidance then there is no point in me reading it since I think I already understand the argument...

The Gospels are what are making the historical claim so they are being tested on whether they are valid from an historical point of view. The time between the life of Jesus and the writting of his life was far too short for them to be dismissed as mere legends, not to mention the Jews and Greeks at the time were brought up being taught the specific skill of being able to remember and write down all teachings they receive perfectly and accurately, it was an art form for the time period, plus they did have writing materials back then, I'm sure notes would have been taken. Plus the New Testament itself contains an entire section that was written by Luke who was an historian at the time investigating the credibility of the story of Jesus. Its all touched on in that article, but there are also entire books written about it that go into a lot more detail.

Wow, the jews and the greeks were teaching people to perfectly and accurately write down all of their teachings? That's very impressive for human beings even today, but again, the gospels are not first hand accounts. They were written decades after the fact. Does that mean they must be myth? No, but it means you should probably be expecting other independent evidance to verify the accounts.

But okay, you don't want to do that and you instead insist the gospels need no more independent evidence of Jesus's existence and his miracles. They are a historical set of documents and that is good enough. But I asked you a very specific question in this regard which you didn't answer. Yet it is a very important question. If the gospels are all indeed valid historical evidence as you claim for Jesus and his miracles then you must agree that whether we look at the accounts of Matthew, or Luke, or Paul or any other accounts in the gospels those accounts must all be consistent. If there are any inconsistencies that you can't reconcile then you would agree with me that the gospels can not be used as historical evidence for the events that they describe. Since that would be proof that the gospels are not infallible. Correct? I obviously have various examples of this, I just want to make sure you agree with this before we waste time arguing those.

If I did that we would be going around in circles, why must I make a specific point on a completely different tangent, thus starting up an entirely different debate, when I am trying to keep the point relevant to the specific area I am arguing?

I call bullshit, this is a debate. If you make a claim it is your duty to prove it. Saying something then backing away from it with the excuse "we'll just go around in circles" isn't valid. What inconsistencies do you have in the universe if a God didn't make it that don't also apply to your vision of a God?

Finally, I would just like to emphasise the point Eejit made about Buddha since again you didn't seem to answer the question I asked you in that regard. Do you believe that Buddha existed and that the Buddhist teachings of what he did are accurate? For example, many accounts from that time report that when Buddha was a young prince it was prophesied he would be a holy man if he ever got out of the castle walls, which according to the texts is exactly what happened (I dont know about you but I think just that prophecy alone is pretty impressive as a miracle). You agree those prophecies were accurate I assume since your argument is that as long as there are many historic texts that mention something then those texts are valid historic documents. And in the case of Buddhists you have far more ancient texts than Christianity ever did that match on this and many other points.

 

[CptStern]

It’s an historical fact that Jesus existed, and denying his miracles and his resurrection would also be an act of complete ignorance of the historical evidence.

lol please cite "historical evidence" of his resurrection and his miracles. this is a big statement that should be supported by evidence. honestly I think you threw that in there hoping no one would notice what an inescapable statement you made. I require proof of his resurrection with historical evidence beyond hearsay from people who wrote about it 50 years after the fact.

As a Jew, if you aren’t following the fundamental rules depicted by your religion, then what’s is the point of being a Jew?

so you follow the rules in the bible exactly as written? no shellfish, kill your offspring if they talk out of turn? arent you picking and choosing which rules you want to follow by completely disregarding the old testament? oh I'm sure you'll say something to the effect that the true word of god is contained within the New testament and I'd fire back that you're interpreting the bible as you see fit; picking and choosing which parts to follow because it suits you. in other words by your logic you're not a christian. what's the point of being a christian if you're not going to follow the rules?

So you are saying there are laid back Jews or something?

you mean half assed jews just like there are half assed christians who pick and choose what they want to believe and omit the stupid parts they're too embarrassed to believe. reform jews are not laid back jews they're exactly liek you; taking the fundamental teachings of judaism and molding it to something that's more platable to their "modern" sensibilities. the very fact that you are unable to see how hypocritical you're being is a testament to just how far down the rabbit hole you are

They might as well be Christian then, after all Jesus was the one urging all Jews to come away from all the laws of Pharisees and come to accept that all they needed was to accept him as their messiah.

they might as be christians because they've modernized their religion? that's exactly what you've done. perhaps you should convert to judaism

I accept that there are different types of Jews, in that case I was being ignorant, but what I will say is that I really fail to see the point.

then you're being intellectually dishonest or obtuse on purpose because you clearly painted jews with a single ignorant brush; self-segregated from the rest of society which clearly isnt the case even though you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that you're completely incorrect

Yet you are being ignorant in regards to the gospels, because Paul wasn’t the only one to comment the teachings of Judaism. Matthew was a stern Jew before he came to know Jesus and knew all about their way of life and teachings and thus crafted his entire chapter to appeal to all Jews reading it. Oh yeh, and Jesus himself grew up the Jewish practices and faith…

well no shit sherlock, who didnt know jesus was a jew? is this supposed to be secret? you think we're children

I’m incorrect based on what? What I said was true about the Jewish communities around here, what do you want me to do, grab a bunch of witnesses and get them to testify this on the forums?

but then you'd be proving my point because segregated people dont take part of communities outide their own. which is why we have few amish members. and incorrect based on what? based on the fact that you think that because in your little mind jews are seemingly segregated it must mean all jews segregate themselves. I can conclude all kinds of far fetched ideas using your logic: christians are of low intelligence because in the poorest neighbourhood in toronto the majority are christian (baptist) therefore by your logic all christians are stupid. hey you said it I didnt

As I have explained many times, it isn’t cherry picking at all, to call it so is just being blatantly ignorant of what Jesus himself, the person the entire faith is based on, taught.

I was raised catholic. I've had a lifetime of religious instruction. just because you ignore everything that preceded jebus doesnt mean that you're not cherry picking; that's pretty much the definition of cherry picking

Just snatched up from the Internet was that? If you actually knew what you were doing, you would come to understand that Jesus was here quoting a law directly from the Old Testament while debating with Pharisees, showing that no matter how well they claimed to follow the law, they will always slip up

and? the laws are still the laws. jesus is pointing out that they're cherry picking the laws they want to follow.
kinda like how you do with christiani

 

[Acepilotf14]

This has gotten way out of hand.

 

[CptStern]

science as faith

 

[Bad^Hat]

Christ, guys. You don't have to be perfectly civil (hell, I'm not), but cut out the schoolyard antagonism, would you? There's really no need for it, unless you're just trying to run Shift out of the thread.

I agree that was rather sloppy by me. To be honest I couldn’t answer the question as to why God exists because it doesn’t really have an answer, I mean its like me asking you why the universe exists without a creator, and the only logical argument would be that it was by chance, which is just another way of saying its here because it is. There is no acceptable answer to that question from either side, we just accept that it is.

But really the main question isn’t why he exists, but does he. All I know is that he most certainly does exist because there is indeed a universe around us and I think without attributing it to a creator you find inconsistency after inconsistency. And no its not just as simple as a God of the Gaps terminology, its about how I think the core details on this universe and indeed ourselves do in fact point towards God, the historical claim that Jesus walked the Earth and was risen only adds strength to this argument.

I have trouble arguing with points like this because it seems, at most, to be a difference of perspective. You look at the world and see something which must have been created by an intelligence. I look at the world and see something diametrically opposed to that notion (and not entirely in a bad way, I might add). However, if we grant your beliefs are true, it becomes impossible to examine this as a mere difference in opinion, because the implications become infinitely more wonderful and horrific. That is, wonderful for you, horrific for me. So, of course you'd say it's easy to see God's hand in reality - to think otherwise would be to grant credence to the doubter, and surely God wouldn't allow doubt on any reasonable grounds, not with the stakes he places on his subject's belief. Such a God would be either corrupt, incompetent, or both.

So maybe you could say I'm just being obtuse or obfuscating the truth from myself for whatever reason, but I examine my thoughts about this fairly often and it never seems to be anything but completely natural to me. This is just how I am. Am I wrong? Think about it - if you're right, if God exists as you envision him, I couldn't possibly be more wrong, and yet I don't in all good conscience feel an ounce of responsibility for that mistake. So then, does that mean there's something wrong with me, or have I simply failed God's test by even bothering to exist in the first place? Of course, you could use Pascal's Wager to show that belief is practical regardless of my preconceptions, but I would contend that I'm incapable of truly believing with my current world view, and I know plenty of people who feel the same way (some of them are in this thread!). God is not glorious to me, not gracious, not kind, loving, merciful or even competent. To believe any of these things would be to steadfastly ignore everything I've come to think of him, and every (to my mind) reasonable objection I could raise to his existence. To put it more bluntly - to believe as such would be to go against my heart. What kind of God would make salvation contingent on such an irrational belief - something so subject to experience, bias, and pure, random chance as to be essentially meaningless in the grand scheme of things - and call himself just?

Yet there have been many scientists past and present who have used their expertise to try and disprove God…

Sure, but I was talking about science as an ideal, there's not really any way to account for the particular biases and motivations of individual scientists. In any case, attempting to "disprove" him seems like folly with our current understanding, the best you can do is amass evidence against the notion, and science has been doing that without trying for centuries. Of course, all that's needed for the believer to render this evidence moot is to turn around and proclaim, "I know, isn't God great?"

First of all this is playing the error that God is responsible for all evil that happens in the world. The Bible states that the world we are living in now is a fallen world, a broken one, full of evil, war, destruction, injustice and death. Sin runs riot and has completely distorted God originally vision of the world, so yes, bad things do happen, people are put in bad situations, but it is ridiculous for people to put the blame on God when there are other evil powers at work that wish to undermine his authority here.

Two questions: Do you believe God is omnipotent? Do you know the meaning of omnipotence?

Also you seem to be regarding salvation as something ugly, when in fact it's one of the best thing God's given humanity, the fact that that child may not grow up to realise it's Christianity, doesn't mean it isn't saved. There is some debate around this but basically the bible says whoever's name is written in the book of life will be saved.
It is however very important to remember that God is just, in fact no one knows of pure justice better than he. He also knows the hearts and minds of everyone, better than people know themselves, and he knows the entire outcome of everyone’s life, even if that life is cut very short by death in reality. So if there are those who he knows never had the chance to hear the message and had they not died they would have led a good, peaceful life, or maybe even eventually heard the message of Christ, then ask yourself would God really consider it justice, to send that person to Hell?

Salvation is the single greatest problem I have with Christianity. It preaches the absurd notion that anyone's life can be condensed down to a single distinction: saved or unsaved. Of course you don't think of it that way, as you've already pointed out, but my argument is that you should. For heaven and hell to be true would be for all joy and suffering in this world to utterly pale in comparison. An eternity of pleasure or an eternity of torment. Can you actually comprehend just how absolute those terms are? Can you name one human, living or dead, literally anyone at any point throughout history who could actually be said to deserve either of these extremes? I'll even make it easy for you and let you pick Hitler. Does Hitler deserve to spend the rest of forever in the pit of fire? Seems like a rather easy question, but again I'd ask you to consider just how unfathomable the concept of infinity is, and how impossible it is to find any earthly deed that even scarcely approaches the glory or horror supposedly at stake. This, to me, is the most irrational and transparent thing about religions who claim salvation from damnation. Only a human, and a supremely twisted one at that, would conceive of such an absurd dichotomy of reward and punishment.

As for unsaved infants, that was a pretty extreme example, but I was trying to use it to prove a point. In fact, the vast majority of people in hell would probably have just believed in the wrong God, or found the whole idea rather silly. Do you think your God is any more sympathetic towards them, knowing their hearts and minds even better than they do?

You’re avoiding the question, how are other people capable of judging, why in our controlled, evolutionary process was it necessary for us to develop a sense of justice if all we had was one life and a bunch of instincts driving us to survive and reproduce. Why does it feel bad? If there is a God who will judge us then a complex morality system would obviously be essential, we need to have that basic understanding of what is good and bad, without there being someone to judge us then the reasons for our moral system go out the window, they are just there for some reason.

So... judging people is meaningless unless there's also a higher authority judging them? I can't even begin to wrap my head around that one.

It evolved for the same reason any evolution takes place: it's useful to us. Anything beyond that has been engineered purely by human means. Sure, this leaves them subjective, open to change and reinterpretation, but there is a point where we can say that certain things are as close to being objectively good or bad as we can reckon based on our own observations. For example, certain things cause unnecessary suffering, or restrict people's freedom to exercise their free will, or create some kind of undesirable consequence. The moral codes that arise from these things may not be completely rigid, but they're based on observable facts about the human condition, and that's about the best we can do.

What difference does any of it make, in the grand scheme of things? Essentially none - except to ourselves, each other, our co-habitant species and of course the planet itself. But who cares about any of that shit, right?

Well if you had just fallen in love with someone and you would surely die for that person, and then someone came along and said, oh that feeling is just a side effect of your evolutionary instinct to have children. You wouldn’t you feel at least disheartened?

As with morals, I don't feel the need for a supreme authority or a divine creator to inform the fact that I can do good and feel love. Why should I?

The problem with the Deistic approach is that you still believe in the personal God. To believe in the personal God and not follow his word i.e. the Bible, is illogical because then you will know nothing of the God you believe in.

I don't think you really understand their position. To have a deistic belief in God, it isn't really required to understand him. They believe he doesn't intervene with reality and that he hasn't revealed himself through scripture.

Because if you do read the word of God you will come to understand that God did in fact create everything, from the origin of the universe itself right up to Earth and indeed us.

They do believe this, apparently for the same primary reason as you - it's evident in the majesty of the universe.

You will also learn that God actively engages in this world, he has done in the Old Testament and continues to do so today.

Citation needed.

Belief in God but not his word simply doesn’t work, its like trying to drive a car without first learning how to drive.

Depends which manual you learned from.

The Old Testament is important because it is God’s word and it had relevance at the time, but more importantly the coming of Jesus is mentioned as a constant theme all the way through it until he did eventually arrive.

Can you be more specific in how you feel it had relevance? If it's God's word, does that mean it was a moral code worth following at the time? Do you agree with this?

Also, I love how the old testament had a teaser campaign for the new one. What magnificent comfort to those people who knew of Christ's coming hundreds of years beforehand. I'm sure that provided a great deal of consolation while they were being stoned to death for adultery with hell's hungry maw awaiting them.

Okay first of all I think I gave you wrong link, try this one instead:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html

Ah, good old Bill. As usual he's using a weaselly argument to try and smuggle in a conclusion which has far greater implications than he's willing to let on. "If they weren't telling the truth, they must have been craaaazy!" Okay. Which is more likely, from an objective point of view: that everything in the Bible is true, or that a bunch of people in an age where superstition ran rampant were deceived into believing the extraordinary claims of a self-proclaimed prophet? I can buy that. I can't buy claims of miracles and resurrection stories simply because they're written down and happen to align with certain historical facts - and neither would you, if I put it to you from any other source.

The burden of proof for fantastical claims such as this is far heavier than Bill would like to believe, and the way he tries to shift that burden based on textual accounts alone does nothing but expose his bias. This sentence alone is testament enough to that: "The only reason left for denying that Jesus performed literal miracles is the presupposition of anti-supernaturalism, which is simply unjustified."

The presupposition of anti-supernaturalism. This is such a load of shit. I'd bet you any sum of cash that he doesn't use the same logic to define his belief in ghosts, regardless of how many accounts (textual and otherwise) there are for those throughout history. Guess he just has a presupposition of anti-supernaturalism!

Gosh, that was far too many words. Here's a funny video what I found.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4AXOmPZ6fo