Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[transcendent]

while at the same time ignoring the counter arguments

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Anyways,
"What are you talking about you arrogant little piece of shit? You come into this"
actually he has provided some logical arguments

Number one, quote everything that I said. My point is that he comes into our discussion, he may have presented an acceptable argument, but then he doesn't even acknowledge the (imo) better counter-arguments and goes as far as to claim his argument is beyond those whom made the counter-argument (which it would appear by their counter-arguments, it was not).

 

[garbagedump]

Number 2,
no one quotes everything...thats common sense...use bias to ur advantage

 

[davin]

the reason, i think they try to find ways to incorporate buddhism in like that is because then they make seem like if you oppose them, you're opposing not just their beliefs, but the related ones as well

 

[stalk_if_u_dare]

Because they meditate and shit? It's the same as prayer :/

except alot more quiet...thank God

 

[stalk_if_u_dare]

Not-that-bright, meditation is different from prayers...that's why they are two totally different things.

actually alot Chrisitans also meditate...its pretty much the same thing just the only difference is wot the person is meditating about

 

[StGeorgeDragons]

just a point i was thinking about. i think the fact that there are 4 different versions of the gospel shows something about its truth, and the way it is written in the bible adds truth. Maybe you could put it as just a story if some guy just wrote it and we didnt know the author, but its written by 4 people who witnessed the events and by them writing it sends further meaning to the message in their gospels.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Number 2,
no one quotes everything...thats common sense...use bias to ur advantage

Ok but you were seeming to use the quote to perpetuate a load of BS.

 

[gerhard]

just a point i was thinking about. i think the fact that there are 4 different versions of the gospel shows something about its truth, and the way it is written in the bible adds truth. Maybe you could put it as just a story if some guy just wrote it and we didnt know the author, but its written by 4 people who witnessed the events and by them writing it sends further meaning to the message in their gospels.

except they werent all written at the same time (ie some of the gospels are based off other of the gospels and sources lost to us), and they were all written at least 40 years after the event

 

[Not-That-Bright]

the EARLIEST of them is written 40 years after the event, and that's if the date for the event we're given is even accurate.

 

[stalk_if_u_dare]

just a point i was thinking about. i think the fact that there are 4 different versions of the gospel shows something about its truth, and the way it is written in the bible adds truth. Maybe you could put it as just a story if some guy just wrote it and we didnt know the author, but its written by 4 people who witnessed the events and by them writing it sends further meaning to the message in their gospels.

(quoted from a bible that i have)

Each Gospel is told from a different point of view;

Matthew: The importance of "doing what is right" & obedience to God are important themes in Matthew.

Mark: provides a good overview of Jesus' ministry. According to Mark, the most powerful miracle of Jesus is his suffering, death & resurrection. (& this book starts at the baptiam of Christ)

Luke: Two things stand out in Luke's version of the Gospel - God cares deeply for the poor & marginalized & the Holy Spirit is God's great gift to anyone who asks. Luke covers much of the same material as Mark & Matthew, but it also has stories (called parables) that can be found in no other Gospel, like The Good Samaritan.

John: The Gospel according to John stands apart from the other three Gospels. It opens with a Prologue in which Jesus is described as the Word of Life. The remainder of the book is organised around seven sighs (miracles) that point to Jesus as the Son of God. This Gospel also reproduces a number of long conversations Jesus had with people in which revealed who he was & what God had sent him to do.

 

[Analyst]

I would only quote an argument, or reply to it if I deem it to be important/strong or of any consequence....not just for the sake of replying it. So everyone who expects to be acknowledged has to be good enough.

As far as Buddhism goes, I very much understand it, that is why I know even the Muslims (my friends) who grew up with me in Nepal say how spiritual and "Godly" it is. Actually the Sri Lankan school of Buddhism is more convincing to me thatn the Tibetan because of the Politics surrounding the Dalai Lama and his re-incarnation.

About the question about Muhammad, the Muslims believe that he was the last prophet, but they also believe that Jesus was a prophet of God. They love both and respect both. Its natural for them to deny Jesus being "Son of God" because they have a very strict "Monothiestic" belief, as in "No one shares any attributes of God". But I have come across thousands of Muslims and every time I discuss Jesus with them, they are respectful to a very very high degree, where so many of us in Australia , Christians and Others lack so much. I love Jesus and I find it hard to tolerate when ppl use His name as a swearword.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I would only quote an argument, or reply to it if I deem it to be important/strong or of any consequence....not just for the sake of replying it. So everyone who expects to be acknowledged has to be good enough.

You keep claiming these arguments are flawed/weak.... SHOW IT! It shouldn't take too long. I'm not going to bother replying to you, until you bother to show the same level of respect to me.

 

[Analyst]

I respect everyone, unless they disrespect me. I did not use any swear words, or any other kind of remarks to suggest you were unintelligent, unless you were.

Opinions are different though, I mean I respect ur right to have an opinion, and there is nothing to get worked up about. I say again take it easy, its just the internet.

 

[ihavenothing]

I respect everyone, unless they disrespect me. I did not use any swear words, or any other kind of remarks to suggest you were unintelligent, unless you were.

Opinions are different though, I mean I respect ur right to have an opinion, and there is nothing to get worked up about. I say again take it easy, its just the internet.

What if scrolls such as those found recently that changed the perception that Judas was not a traitor and conflicted with the Bible, would you change your beliefs if further evidence was found to suggest that the Bible was 100% artificial and Jesus fictitious.

 

[stalk_if_u_dare]

anyway....


HAPPY EASTER!!!!!!
Christ is risen (haha to u non-believers, lolz)


*going to go nail bunnies to crosses

 

[Analyst]

What if scrolls such as those found recently that changed the perception that Judas was not a traitor and conflicted with the Bible, would you change your beliefs if further evidence was found to suggest that the Bible was 100% artificial and Jesus fictitious.

Yes obviously, if proven to be true.... also I find that the current story of Jesus is quite flawed historically anyway, not to say that He was there and di so many things that are mentioned.

 

[Analyst]

What if scrolls such as those found recently that changed the perception that Judas was not a traitor and conflicted with the Bible, would you change your beliefs if further evidence was found to suggest that the Bible was 100% artificial and Jesus fictitious.

The recently discovered scrolls, if found to be genuine may prove Judas to be a different person than he was earlier perceived, but in no way can prove Jesus fictitious, or the Bible wrong. See what I mean? Actually, to find the discrepancies in Jesus's story, please also refer to other religious texts, such as the Quran and the Bhagavatgita.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

What if scrolls such as those found recently that changed the perception that Judas was not a traitor and conflicted with the Bible, would you change your beliefs if further evidence was found to suggest that the Bible was 100% artificial and Jesus fictitious.

lolz

About the question about Muhammad, the Muslims believe that he was the last prophet, but they also believe that Jesus was a prophet of God. They love both and respect both. Its natural for them to deny Jesus being "Son of God" because they have a very strict "Monothiestic" belief, as in "No one shares any attributes of God". But I have come across thousands of Muslims and every time I discuss Jesus with them, they are respectful to a very very high degree, where so many of us in Australia , Christians and Others lack so much. I love Jesus and I find it hard to tolerate when ppl use His name as a swearword.

Muhammed was a mentally ill, disturbed man with a very poor working knowledge of the Old and New Testaments, and especially of the history of the early Church. Muslims don't respect Jesus, they believe a ridiculously fictionalised version of him, eg. he was Moses' nephew, was born in Mecca, etc. The argument of Biblical Corruption is valid when disputing the finer points of interpreting the Bible, but not to the extent Muhammedans take it.

Even if you reject historical claims we make about Jesus (chiefly the Resurrection and other miracles) there's no historical possibility that the character "Isa" was Jesus.

 

[HotShot]

Muhammed was a mentally ill, disturbed man with a very poor working knowledge of the Old and New Testaments, and especially of the history of the early Church. Muslims don't respect Jesus, they believe a ridiculously fictionalised version of him, eg. he was Moses' nephew, was born in Mecca, etc. The argument of Biblical Corruption is valid when disputing the finer points of interpreting the Bible, but not to the extent Muhammedans take it.

Even if you reject historical claims we make about Jesus (chiefly the Resurrection and other miracles) there's no historical possibility that the character "Isa" was Jesus.

thats a load BS. there is every ince of possibility that the 'character' isa was jesus. muhammed was not mentally ill -i dont how you claim someone as mentally ill 500 odd years ago especially if you dont even know muhammed's last name?

do you even know jesus's last name? wow u know a lot.