105 replies to this topic

[Maloo]

Xwee, on 17 May 2011 - 05:00 PM, said:

if it's an addition to the seven wonders.. shouldn't they be renamed to the eight wonders?

(lol)

Nope.
Read this

[frostz]

punkrockbigmouth, on 11 May 2011 - 08:38 PM, said:

I think you lost me somewhere.
You said...
Yeah, but sadly some people doesn't realize this (in response to "Jesus was a Jew") and puts him on a pedestal as a god or the son of a god..
Why shouldn't they do that? Most people who believe in Christ (Christians) understand perfectly well that he was Jewish. Were you saying that he shouldn't be on that pedestal because he was Jewish?
According to Christian faith, Jesus IS the son of God, and he is also God Himself. That's why he's on the pedestal. He's on a super huge one on some mountain in Brazil.

Sure hope His healing power can cure vertigo.

According to mainstream christian faith, Jesus is part of the "trinity" which means he is god, god is jesus etc. However the trinity is never mentioned in the scripture and this idea in my opinion was invented to perpetuate the idea of monotheism (see my debate topic). Honestly i believe that jesus is more like a demigod while Jehovah is his superior, and the holy spirit is just that a spirit. I believe that this idea of the trinity was created at the council of Nicea in an attempt to create Religious unity between the different churches

[Sweeney]

frostz, on 18 May 2011 - 02:13 PM, said:

However the trinity is never mentioned in the scripture

Wrong. Although it is only mentioned once.

Quote

and this idea in my opinion was invented to perpetuate the idea of monotheism (see my debate topic). Honestly i believe that jesus is more like a demigod while Jehovah is his superior, and the holy spirit is just that a spirit. I believe that this idea of the trinity was created at the council of Nicea in an attempt to create Religious unity between the different churches

The idea that the Nicaean Council edited and altered the biblical text to consolidate many different systems of belief, and to subsume others, is well accepted.
Your revelation is about five hundred years late.

[frostz]

Sweeney, on 19 May 2011 - 07:11 AM, said:

Wrong. Although it is only mentioned once.


The idea that the Nicaean Council edited and altered the biblical text to consolidate many different systems of belief, and to subsume others, is well accepted.
Your revelation is about five hundred years late.

Do you have evidence from the scripture? the only passage that i can even think of that may deal with it is when jesus said I and the father are one in John 10:30.

However this wording is obviously very vague and can mean anything.

If jesus is refering that he and the father are the same being why would he go on to say

³²Jesus answered them: Many good works I have shewed you from my Father; for which of these works do you stone me?

It is better translated as a union in purpose rather than a union in body.

[Sweeney]

frostz, on 19 May 2011 - 08:00 AM, said:

Do you have evidence from the scripture? the only passage that i can even think of that may deal with it is when jesus said I and the father are one in John 10:30.

However this wording is obviously very vague and can mean anything.

If jesus is refering that he and the father are the same being why would he go on to say

³²Jesus answered them: Many good works I have shewed you from my Father; for which of these works do you stone me?

It is better translated as a union in purpose rather than a union in body.

I was referring to John 5:7-8.

[frostz]

Sweeney, on 19 May 2011 - 01:44 PM, said:

I was referring to John 5:7-8.

John chapter 5 verse 7-8

Quote

⁷ “Sir,” the invalid replied, “I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me.”

⁸ Then Jesus said to him, “Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.”

Where in this was anything in reference to the trinity mentioned..

[Sweeney]

Apologies, I meant 1 John 5:7-8

[frostz]

Sweeney, on 20 May 2011 - 07:05 AM, said:

Apologies, I meant 1 John 5:7-8

Quote

<a id="7" class="verse" name="7">7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

I argue against this with another verse from the scripture

John 17 verse 1-3
¹These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

²As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

³And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Essentially
“For this is life eternal, that they may know thee (the Father the only true god), and Jesus Christ (the only true god?) whom Thou hast sent.”

Also Malachi 3:6
⁶ “I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. ⁷ Ever since the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you,” says the LORD Almighty.

If the lord does not change then we cannot argue that he became Jesus Christ to spread the word of redemption.

[Sweeney]

That is a clear example of the Trinity in scripture. I care not a jot whether you refute it with more scripture (a hopelessly pointless exercise), it still proves your assertion that the Trinity is not mentioned in scripture utterly wrong. As I said.

[frostz]

Sweeney, on 20 May 2011 - 08:26 AM, said:

That is a clear example of the Trinity in scripture. I care not a jot whether you refute it with more scripture (a hopelessly pointless exercise), it still proves your assertion that the Trinity is not mentioned in scripture utterly wrong. As I said.

it doesnt prove it just because it says these three are one. It does not say one in what?

If three countries ally in a war work as one for a purpose, do you say that these countries are the same country?

The fact that the trinity is refuted in various places outside of this extremely vague verse, supports my argument.

Edited by frostz, 20 May 2011 - 08:36 AM.

[Sweeney]

frostz, on 20 May 2011 - 08:34 AM, said:

it doesnt prove it just because it says these three are one. It does not say one in what?

If three countries ally in a war work as one for a purpose, do you say that these countries are the same country?

The fact that the trinity is refuted in various places outside of this extremely vague verse, supports my argument.

That's a pathetically semantic argument. It says "these three are one", and in a context that suggests it means just that.
Your analogy is flawed. Working as one is not the same as "being one".

[frostz]

Sweeney, on 20 May 2011 - 08:38 AM, said:

That's a pathetically semantic argument. It says "these three are one", and in a context that suggests it means just that.
Your analogy is flawed. Working as one is not the same as "being one".

⁹ We accept human testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. ¹⁰ Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. ¹¹ And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. ¹² Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

these are the verses following 5-7.

If we are talking about context, then why is it that the rest of it talks about God and the Son as two different beings?

[Sweeney]

frostz, on 20 May 2011 - 08:41 AM, said:

⁹ We accept human testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. ¹⁰ Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. ¹¹ And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. ¹² Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

these are the verses following 5-7.

If we are talking about context, then why is it that the rest of it talks about God and the Son as two different beings?

Because the trinity is an entity separate and of one being simultaneously.
Cognitive dissonance strikes again.

[frostz]

Sweeney, on 20 May 2011 - 08:44 AM, said:

Because the trinity is an entity separate and of one being simultaneously.
Cognitive dissonance strikes again.

Except how can you come to this conclusion, if only one vague verse in the scripture seem to support the idea of a unity of body, whereas there are a whole lot of verses otherwise that contradict the idea of the trinity.

Quote

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Again refer to my analogy with the countries.

If there were other verses that either clearly states and/or supported the idea that they are both separate and one simultaneously then i would concede your point but there isn't.

The single verse you referenced is too vague to come to a hard conclusion of the concept of trinity

Edited by frostz, 20 May 2011 - 08:57 AM.

[Volition]

Christianity is bullshiit,
we shouldn't use condoms, but their priests should get away with touching children,
no birth control, no abortion.

sure christianity was the basis for a lot of our laws, but who's to say that these laws are not flawed? who's to say that we could have done better without christian influence. Hell if it was up to the christians we'd still have the sun revolving around the earth.

the bible freaking preaches violence,
Samuel 15:3
Chronicles 15:13
Deuteronomy 13:6-10

[Sweeney]

frostz, on 20 May 2011 - 08:54 AM, said:

Except how can you come to this conclusion, if only one vague verse in the scripture seem to support the idea of a unity of body, whereas there are a whole lot of verses otherwise that contradict the idea of the trinity.

Again refer to my analogy with the countries.

If there were other verses that either clearly states and/or supported the idea that they are both separate and one simultaneously then i would concede your point but there isn't.

The single verse you referenced is too vague to come to a hard conclusion of the concept of trinity

The bible is infallible. One verse is plenty.

[frostz]

Volition, on 20 May 2011 - 09:09 AM, said:

Christianity is bullshiit,
we shouldn't use condoms, but their priests should get away with touching children,
no birth control, no abortion.

sure christianity was the basis for a lot of our laws, but who's to say that these laws are not flawed? who's to say that we could have done better without christian influence. Hell if it was up to the christians we'd still have the sun revolving around the earth.

the bible freaking preaches violence,
Samuel 15:3
Chronicles 15:13
Deuteronomy 13:6-10

I am like fairly certain that there is no evidence from the scriptures that are in support of priests touching children, unless one of you can prove otherwise.

the contraception think is also only vaguely mentioned in the bible
Genesis 38

⁷And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.
⁸And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

⁹And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

¹⁰And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.





The thing here is that Judah told Onan to marry his brother's wife and bear children for his brother, an order which he defied. An act that displeased the lord so the lord killed him.

[Volition]

frostz, on 20 May 2011 - 09:23 AM, said:

I am like fairly certain that there is no evidence from the scriptures that are in support of priests touching children, unless one of you can prove otherwise.

the contraception think is also only vaguely mentioned in the bible
Genesis 38

⁷And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.
⁸And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

⁹And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

¹⁰And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.





The thing here is that Judah told Onan to marry his brother's wife and bear children for his brother, an order which he defied. An act that displeased the lord so the lord killed him.

I wasn't talking about the Bible in that part, i was referring to the actions/ideals of the Vatican.

[Madcowz]

Volition, on 20 May 2011 - 09:09 AM, said:

Christianity is bullshiit,
we shouldn't use condoms, but their priests should get away with touching children,
no birth control, no abortion.

sure christianity was the basis for a lot of our laws, but who's to say that these laws are not flawed? who's to say that we could have done better without christian influence. Hell if it was up to the christians we'd still have the sun revolving around the earth.

the bible freaking preaches violence,
Samuel 15:3
Chronicles 15:13
Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Naw man Christianity is totally real. Just ignore the fact that the whole book they base it off us contradicts itself countless times and has stories that include talking animals, a man living inside of a whale, and two of every species getting onto a boat during a flood. My parents told me it was real and we went to church!! So it must be real. Plus it makes me feel good inside to know Jesus is always watching me (even when i take shits) and he loves everyone!!! (Unless you deny him, then burn bitch)

[frostz]

Volition, on 20 May 2011 - 09:09 AM, said:

the bible freaking preaches violence,
Samuel 15:3
Chronicles 15:13
Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Well the Old testament does teach violence, at least against non believers, but what do you expect, Jehovah was a "regional god" whose power base was centered around the Israelites, and the region in which they lived. He was basically in competition with other gods for power like Baal, Asherah and etc.

[Sweeney]

Baal. Now there's a bitchin' god.

[Volition]

frostz, on 21 May 2011 - 12:44 AM, said:

Well the Old testament does teach violence, at least against non believers, but what do you expect, Jehovah was a "regional god" whose power base was centered around the Israelites, and the region in which they lived. He was basically in competition with other gods for power like Baal, Asherah and etc.

So you do agree that the Bible teaches people to be violent (atleast to non-believers). Well now I can start blaming violence on Christians

Sweeney, on 21 May 2011 - 03:11 AM, said:

Baal. Now there's a bitchin' god.

Yeah man, he totally messed up the worldstone

[frostz]

Volition, on 21 May 2011 - 09:22 AM, said:

So you do agree that the Bible teaches people to be violent (atleast to non-believers). Well now I can start blaming violence on Christians

well you can't really do that because Christians would claim that Jesus preaches against violence, and honestly jesus is a more important figure than Jehovah for christians anyway.

[jungle]

I'm a Christian but im coming in here to say: what the fuck is this world ending shit. make us look even worse then we already do, will you?

[frostz]

jungle, on 21 May 2011 - 09:32 AM, said:

I'm a Christian but im coming in here to say: what the fuck is this world ending shit. make us look even worse then we already do, will you?

end of the world "shit" is rapture day. Someone predicted that it was supposed to happen today even though there is no proof from the scriptures in support of this event.