LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

TexasScientist said:

---

Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.

---

I will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).

Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.

---

Quote:

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

---

After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....

---

The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.

---

Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?

---

Have you ever considered that God might have wanted it to be that way on its surface, so we can search deeper and find that it really isn't? Those who love Him will do that. Those who don't, won't. For,

"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." - Proverbs 25:2

---

But if TS were god, he'd have done things differently. We'd all witness miracles, god/Christ would be as obvious as the nose on your face and there be no suffering. Therefore, if TS could have done it better, it's not god-like and therefore no god.

I think that about sums up the last several years of TS posting

---

It's about what is logical, and the fact that the ambiguity and required belief (faith) without evidence is what makes it the same as any other primitive beliefs, just a little more elaborate. The evidence of reality is where Christianity and all other superstitious and supernatural myths are exposed.

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TS, you've been beating the wind for years now. I don't think you've won a round yet.

---

It's not a matter of winning and losing. It's just pointing out that if you can put aside years of indoctrination, and begin to look objectively at the question of all religion, including Christianity, objectivity tells us religious claims are simply myths of men. To borrow a phrase, the arc of objective textual criticism, historicity, science and reason, bends toward this conclusion.

---

---

Do you really want me to perorate on the psychology of his pursuit down the religious rabbit hole he has entered?

---

you don't have to be honest with me, only yourself.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

TexasScientist said:

---

Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.

---

I will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).

Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.

---

Quote:

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

---

After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....

---

The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.

---

Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?

---

Have you ever considered that God might have wanted it to be that way on its surface, so we can search deeper and find that it really isn't, that beneath the apparent ambiguity and confusion there is coherent truth? Those who love Him will do that. Those who don't, won't. For,

"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." - Proverbs 25:2

---

Yes. That consideration has led me to my previous statement.

---

Completely nonsensical. Something that answers a question does not lead to the question it answered.

You are only trying to sound clever at this point to cover up your failed argument, and you've failed at being clever too. Please, just give it up.

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

TexasScientist said:

---

Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.

---

I will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).

Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.

---

Quote:

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

---

After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....

---

The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.

---

Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?

---

Have you ever considered that God might have wanted it to be that way on its surface, so we can search deeper and find that it really isn't? Those who love Him will do that. Those who don't, won't. For,

"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." - Proverbs 25:2

---

But if TS were god, he'd have done things differently. We'd all witness miracles, god/Christ would be as obvious as the nose on your face and there be no suffering. Therefore, if TS could have done it better, it's not god-like and therefore no god.

I think that about sums up the last several years of TS posting

---

It's about what is logical, and the fact that the ambiguity and required belief (faith) without evidence is what makes it the same as any other primitive beliefs, just a little more elaborate. The evidence of reality is where Christianity and all other superstitious and supernatural myths are exposed.

---

Given that your "logic" has failed so many times, I'm not sure this method is a reliable one.

And you've repeatedly made the argument that "evidence of reality" disproves Christianity, yet you have not once been able to show this, after a countless number of posts.

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

TexasScientist said:

---

Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.

---

I will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).

Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.

---

Quote:

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

---

After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....

---

The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.

---

Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?

---

Have you ever considered that God might have wanted it to be that way on its surface, so we can search deeper and find that it really isn't? Those who love Him will do that. Those who don't, won't. For,

"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." - Proverbs 25:2

---

But if TS were god, he'd have done things differently. We'd all witness miracles, god/Christ would be as obvious as the nose on your face and there be no suffering. Therefore, if TS could have done it better, it's not god-like and therefore no god.

I think that about sums up the last several years of TS posting

---

It's about what is logical, and the fact that the ambiguity and required belief (faith) without evidence is what makes it the same as any other primitive beliefs, just a little more elaborate. The evidence of reality is where Christianity and all other superstitious and supernatural myths are exposed.

---

yes because it is logical that everything came from nothing

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

TexasScientist said:

---

Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.

---

I will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).

Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.

---

Quote:

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

---

After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....

---

The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.

---

Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?

---

Have you ever considered that God might have wanted it to be that way on its surface, so we can search deeper and find that it really isn't? Those who love Him will do that. Those who don't, won't. For,

"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." - Proverbs 25:2

---

But if TS were god, he'd have done things differently. We'd all witness miracles, god/Christ would be as obvious as the nose on your face and there be no suffering. Therefore, if TS could have done it better, it's not god-like and therefore no god.

I think that about sums up the last several years of TS posting

---

It's about what is logical, and the fact that the ambiguity and required belief (faith) without evidence is what makes it the same as any other primitive beliefs, just a little more elaborate. The evidence of reality is where Christianity and all other superstitious and supernatural myths are exposed.

---

yes because it is logical that everything came from nothing

---

Yes, because of quantum theory, together with what we understand about general relativity.

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

TexasScientist said:

---

Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.

---

I will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).

Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.

---

Quote:

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

---

After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....

---

The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.

---

Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?

---

Have you ever considered that God might have wanted it to be that way on its surface, so we can search deeper and find that it really isn't? Those who love Him will do that. Those who don't, won't. For,

"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." - Proverbs 25:2

---

But if TS were god, he'd have done things differently. We'd all witness miracles, god/Christ would be as obvious as the nose on your face and there be no suffering. Therefore, if TS could have done it better, it's not god-like and therefore no god.

I think that about sums up the last several years of TS posting

---

It's about what is logical, and the fact that the ambiguity and required belief (faith) without evidence is what makes it the same as any other primitive beliefs, just a little more elaborate. The evidence of reality is where Christianity and all other superstitious and supernatural myths are exposed.

---

yes because it is logical that everything came from nothing

---

Yes, because of quantum theory, together with what we understand about general relativity.

---

After several years of promoting your same message …..to fundamentally the same handful of individuals……….

why are you still at it ?

Over and over ; year after year .

Certainly there must be at least one other topic that interests you .

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

TexasScientist said:

---

Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.

---

I will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).

Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.

---

Quote:

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

---

After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....

---

The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.

---

Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?

---

Have you ever considered that God might have wanted it to be that way on its surface, so we can search deeper and find that it really isn't? Those who love Him will do that. Those who don't, won't. For,

"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." - Proverbs 25:2

---

But if TS were god, he'd have done things differently. We'd all witness miracles, god/Christ would be as obvious as the nose on your face and there be no suffering. Therefore, if TS could have done it better, it's not god-like and therefore no god.

I think that about sums up the last several years of TS posting

---

It's about what is logical, and the fact that the ambiguity and required belief (faith) without evidence is what makes it the same as any other primitive beliefs, just a little more elaborate. The evidence of reality is where Christianity and all other superstitious and supernatural myths are exposed.

---

yes because it is logical that everything came from nothing

---

Yes, because of quantum theory, together with what we understand about general relativity.

---

After several years of promoting your same message …..to fundamentally the same handful of individuals……….

why are you still at it ?

Over and over ; year after year .

Certainly there must be at least one other topic that interests you .

---

Just doing my part to prevent a theocracy. Seriously, I want people to examine what and why they believe what they believe. I think it is a serious issue that spills over into politics and legislation. In the final analysis, you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I have the right (so far) to point out why that belief is in a false reality. Don't engage if you're not interested. There are plenty of other posts I make on other non-religious subjects. Check them out. I have several in the last couple of days. You and I agree on quite a number of political views, some we disagree on. I personally like you and respect your opinions, eventhough you may think I don't. Happy Holidays!

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

TexasScientist said:

---

Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.

---

I will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).

Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.

---

Quote:

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

---

After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....

---

The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.

---

Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?

---

Have you ever considered that God might have wanted it to be that way on its surface, so we can search deeper and find that it really isn't? Those who love Him will do that. Those who don't, won't. For,

"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." - Proverbs 25:2

---

But if TS were god, he'd have done things differently. We'd all witness miracles, god/Christ would be as obvious as the nose on your face and there be no suffering. Therefore, if TS could have done it better, it's not god-like and therefore no god.

I think that about sums up the last several years of TS posting

---

It's about what is logical, and the fact that the ambiguity and required belief (faith) without evidence is what makes it the same as any other primitive beliefs, just a little more elaborate. The evidence of reality is where Christianity and all other superstitious and supernatural myths are exposed.

---

yes because it is logical that everything came from nothing

---

Yes, because of quantum theory, together with what we understand about general relativity.

---

After several years of promoting your same message …..to fundamentally the same handful of individuals……….

why are you still at it ?

Over and over ; year after year .

Certainly there must be at least one other topic that interests you .

---

Just doing my part to prevent a theocracy. Seriously, I want people to examine what and why they believe what they believe. I think it is a serious issue that spills over into politics and legislation. In the final analysis, you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I have the right (so far) to point out why that belief is in a false reality. Don't engage if you're not interested. There are plenty of other posts I make on other non-religious subjects. Check them out. I have several in the last couple of days. You and I agree on quite a number of political views, some we disagree on. I personally like you and respect your opinions, eventhough you may think I don't. Happy Holidays!

---

Thank you for the kind words....however you start more threads on religion in a couple of months than I have ever originated on any subject total during my entire time on this message board.

And that includes BFANS as well.

And for whom......the same 12-24 usual readers ?

By the way...over 22 Catholic Churches have been attacked / vandalized in Colorado alone during the last year......some repeatedly .

If there is any inherent threat in our country ...its is certainly not against atheists....or the threat of a 'theocracy' .....that is patiently absurd.

So how about a little honesty in that regard ?

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

TexasScientist said:

---

Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.

---

I will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).

Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.

---

Quote:

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

---

After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....

---

The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.

---

Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?

---

Have you ever considered that God might have wanted it to be that way on its surface, so we can search deeper and find that it really isn't? Those who love Him will do that. Those who don't, won't. For,

"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." - Proverbs 25:2

---

But if TS were god, he'd have done things differently. We'd all witness miracles, god/Christ would be as obvious as the nose on your face and there be no suffering. Therefore, if TS could have done it better, it's not god-like and therefore no god.

I think that about sums up the last several years of TS posting

---

It's about what is logical, and the fact that the ambiguity and required belief (faith) without evidence is what makes it the same as any other primitive beliefs, just a little more elaborate. The evidence of reality is where Christianity and all other superstitious and supernatural myths are exposed.

---

yes because it is logical that everything came from nothing

---

Yes, because of quantum theory, together with what we understand about general relativity.

---

After several years of promoting your same message …..to fundamentally the same handful of individuals……….

why are you still at it ?

Over and over ; year after year .

Certainly there must be at least one other topic that interests you .

---

Just doing my part to prevent a theocracy. Seriously, I want people to examine what and why they believe what they believe. I think it is a serious issue that spills over into politics and legislation. In the final analysis, you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I have the right (so far) to point out why that belief is in a false reality. Don't engage if you're not interested. There are plenty of other posts I make on other non-religious subjects. Check them out. I have several in the last couple of days. You and I agree on quite a number of political views, some we disagree on. I personally like you and respect your opinions, eventhough you may think I don't. Happy Holidays!

---

Thank you for the kind words....however you start more threads on religion in a couple of months than I have ever originated on any subject total during my entire time on this message board.

And that includes BFANS as well.

And for whom......the same 12-24 usual readers ?

By the way...over 22 Catholic Churches have been attacked / vandalized in Colorado alone during the last year......some repeatedly .

If there is any inherent threat in our country ...its is certainly not against atheists....or the threat of a 'theocracy' .....that is patiently absurd.

So how about a little honesty in that regard ?

---

Well, I'm just trying to stay within Treszoks three categories, politics, religion, and etc. Compared to politics, the religion category seems a little underrepresented.

It's a shame the Colorado churches were vandalized, and whoever did that should be procecuted. I doubt atheists did that, but like anything else it is possible. I bet it was for reasons other than religion. But, if you're a believer, you have to question why God would allow that, especially since many Christians claim he allowed Katrina to hit NOLA for their lifestyle.

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

TexasScientist said:

---

Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.

---

I will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).

Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.

---

Quote:

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

---

After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....

---

The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.

---

Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?

---

Have you ever considered that God might have wanted it to be that way on its surface, so we can search deeper and find that it really isn't? Those who love Him will do that. Those who don't, won't. For,

"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." - Proverbs 25:2

---

But if TS were god, he'd have done things differently. We'd all witness miracles, god/Christ would be as obvious as the nose on your face and there be no suffering. Therefore, if TS could have done it better, it's not god-like and therefore no god.

I think that about sums up the last several years of TS posting

---

It's about what is logical, and the fact that the ambiguity and required belief (faith) without evidence is what makes it the same as any other primitive beliefs, just a little more elaborate. The evidence of reality is where Christianity and all other superstitious and supernatural myths are exposed.

---

yes because it is logical that everything came from nothing

---

Yes, because of quantum theory, together with what we understand about general relativity.

---

After several years of promoting your same message …..to fundamentally the same handful of individuals……….

why are you still at it ?

Over and over ; year after year .

Certainly there must be at least one other topic that interests you .

---

Just doing my part to prevent a theocracy. Seriously, I want people to examine what and why they believe what they believe. I think it is a serious issue that spills over into politics and legislation. In the final analysis, you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I have the right (so far) to point out why that belief is in a false reality. Don't engage if you're not interested. There are plenty of other posts I make on other non-religious subjects. Check them out. I have several in the last couple of days. You and I agree on quite a number of political views, some we disagree on. I personally like you and respect your opinions, eventhough you may think I don't. Happy Holidays!

---

Thank you for the kind words....however you start more threads on religion in a couple of months than I have ever originated on any subject total during my entire time on this message board.

And that includes BFANS as well.

And for whom......the same 12-24 usual readers ?

By the way...over 22 Catholic Churches have been attacked / vandalized in Colorado alone during the last year......some repeatedly .

If there is any inherent threat in our country ...its is certainly not against atheists....or the threat of a 'theocracy' .....that is patiently absurd.

So how about a little honesty in that regard ?

---

Well, I'm just trying to stay within Treszoks three categories, politics, religion, and etc. Compared to politics, the religion category seems a little underrepresented.

It's a shame the Colorado churches were vandalized, and whoever did that should be procecuted. I doubt atheists did that, but like anything else it is possible. I bet it was for reasons other than religion. But, if you're a believer, you have to question why God would allow that, especially since many Christians claim he allowed Katrina to hit NOLA for their lifestyle.

---

Maybe believers know that God never promised anyone a life free of troubles - quite the opposite in fact.

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

TexasScientist said:

---

Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.

---

I will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).

Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.

---

Quote:

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

---

After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....

---

The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.

---

Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?

---

Have you ever considered that God might have wanted it to be that way on its surface, so we can search deeper and find that it really isn't? Those who love Him will do that. Those who don't, won't. For,

"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." - Proverbs 25:2

---

But if TS were god, he'd have done things differently. We'd all witness miracles, god/Christ would be as obvious as the nose on your face and there be no suffering. Therefore, if TS could have done it better, it's not god-like and therefore no god.

I think that about sums up the last several years of TS posting

---

It's about what is logical, and the fact that the ambiguity and required belief (faith) without evidence is what makes it the same as any other primitive beliefs, just a little more elaborate. The evidence of reality is where Christianity and all other superstitious and supernatural myths are exposed.

---

yes because it is logical that everything came from nothing

---

Yes, because of quantum theory, together with what we understand about general relativity.

---

After several years of promoting your same message …..to fundamentally the same handful of individuals……….

why are you still at it ?

Over and over ; year after year .

Certainly there must be at least one other topic that interests you .

---

Just doing my part to prevent a theocracy. Seriously, I want people to examine what and why they believe what they believe. I think it is a serious issue that spills over into politics and legislation. In the final analysis, you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I have the right (so far) to point out why that belief is in a false reality. Don't engage if you're not interested. There are plenty of other posts I make on other non-religious subjects. Check them out. I have several in the last couple of days. You and I agree on quite a number of political views, some we disagree on. I personally like you and respect your opinions, eventhough you may think I don't. Happy Holidays!

---

Thank you for the kind words....however you start more threads on religion in a couple of months than I have ever originated on any subject total during my entire time on this message board.

And that includes BFANS as well.

And for whom......the same 12-24 usual readers ?

By the way...over 22 Catholic Churches have been attacked / vandalized in Colorado alone during the last year......some repeatedly .

If there is any inherent threat in our country ...its is certainly not against atheists....or the threat of a 'theocracy' .....that is patiently absurd.

So how about a little honesty in that regard ?

---

Well, I'm just trying to stay within Treszoks three categories, politics, religion, and etc. Compared to politics, the religion category seems a little underrepresented.

It's a shame the Colorado churches were vandalized, and whoever did that should be procecuted. I doubt atheists did that, but like anything else it is possible. I bet it was for reasons other than religion. But, if you're a believer, you have to question why God would allow that, especially since many Christians claim he allowed Katrina to hit NOLA for their lifestyle.

---

Maybe believers know that God never promised anyone a life free of troubles - quite the opposite in fact.

---

So a loving god creates a world which imposes pain, suffering and tribulation, promising troubles, all for his pleasure? Why would he do that when he doesn't have to, unless he is not a loving god?

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

You guys are all saddling up to play high horses, but please. Read the Bible if you think God ever thought there were just some people so bad, they should be denied the opportunity to meet with God.

Before you giddy-up next time, use that good ole Baylor education addled brain of yours.

---

Perhaps take in an abortionist as an exchange student Mrs. jR?

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

I thought you were Methodist? Why care about the ***** and the Catholics?

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

After several years of promoting your same message …..to fundamentally the same handful of individuals……….

why are you still at it ?

Over and over ; year after year .

Certainly there must be at least one other topic that interests you .

---

Just doing my part to prevent a theocracy. Seriously, I want people to examine what and why they believe what they believe. I think it is a serious issue that spills over into politics and legislation. In the final analysis, you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I have the right (so far) to point out why that belief is in a false reality. Don't engage if you're not interested. There are plenty of other posts I make on other non-religious subjects. Check them out. I have several in the last couple of days. You and I agree on quite a number of political views, some we disagree on. I personally like you and respect your opinions, eventhough you may think I don't. Happy Holidays!

---

Thank you for the kind words....however you start more threads on religion in a couple of months than I have ever originated on any subject total during my entire time on this message board.

And that includes BFANS as well.

And for whom......the same 12-24 usual readers ?

By the way...over 22 Catholic Churches have been attacked / vandalized in Colorado alone during the last year......some repeatedly .

If there is any inherent threat in our country ...its is certainly not against atheists....or the threat of a 'theocracy' .....that is patiently absurd.

So how about a little honesty in that regard ?

---

Well, I'm just trying to stay within Treszoks three categories, politics, religion, and etc. Compared to politics, the religion category seems a little underrepresented.

It's a shame the Colorado churches were vandalized, and whoever did that should be procecuted. I doubt atheists did that, but like anything else it is possible. I bet it was for reasons other than religion. But, if you're a believer, you have to question why God would allow that, especially since many Christians claim he allowed Katrina to hit NOLA for their lifestyle.

---

Maybe believers know that God never promised anyone a life free of troubles - quite the opposite in fact.

---

So a loving god creates a world which imposes pain, suffering and tribulation, promising troubles, all for his pleasure? Why would he do that when he doesn't have to, unless he is not a loving god?

---

A loving God would want us to know and experience everything that is good. Without evil, pain, and suffering, we would not know and experience the good of God's justice, mercy, grace, forgiveness, and restoration. Also, we would not be able to know the good of empathy, love, and forgiveness of each other. Our faith could never be tested as true faith without tribulation. Good character is only built through hardship. And the experience of joy, pleasure, and happiness later in heaven and heaven on earth will be forever expanded because we knew pain and suffering first.

If, for example, a billionaire who only knew luxury his entire life, and a beggar on the street who barely eats enough to survive both were given a billion dollars - which would experience more joy? And which would love the giver of the money more? And which would have a deeper understanding of the pain and suffering in others?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

After several years of promoting your same message …..to fundamentally the same handful of individuals……….

why are you still at it ?

Over and over ; year after year .

Certainly there must be at least one other topic that interests you .

---

Just doing my part to prevent a theocracy. Seriously, I want people to examine what and why they believe what they believe. I think it is a serious issue that spills over into politics and legislation. In the final analysis, you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I have the right (so far) to point out why that belief is in a false reality. Don't engage if you're not interested. There are plenty of other posts I make on other non-religious subjects. Check them out. I have several in the last couple of days. You and I agree on quite a number of political views, some we disagree on. I personally like you and respect your opinions, eventhough you may think I don't. Happy Holidays!

---

Thank you for the kind words....however you start more threads on religion in a couple of months than I have ever originated on any subject total during my entire time on this message board.

And that includes BFANS as well.

And for whom......the same 12-24 usual readers ?

By the way...over 22 Catholic Churches have been attacked / vandalized in Colorado alone during the last year......some repeatedly .

If there is any inherent threat in our country ...its is certainly not against atheists....or the threat of a 'theocracy' .....that is patiently absurd.

So how about a little honesty in that regard ?

---

Well, I'm just trying to stay within Treszoks three categories, politics, religion, and etc. Compared to politics, the religion category seems a little underrepresented.

It's a shame the Colorado churches were vandalized, and whoever did that should be procecuted. I doubt atheists did that, but like anything else it is possible. I bet it was for reasons other than religion. But, if you're a believer, you have to question why God would allow that, especially since many Christians claim he allowed Katrina to hit NOLA for their lifestyle.

---

Maybe believers know that God never promised anyone a life free of troubles - quite the opposite in fact.

---

So a loving god creates a world which imposes pain, suffering and tribulation, promising troubles, all for his pleasure? Why would he do that when he doesn't have to, unless he is not a loving god?

---

A loving God would want us to know and experience everything that is good. Without evil, pain, and suffering, we would not know and experience the good of God's justice, mercy, grace, forgiveness, and restoration. Also, we would not be able to know the good of empathy, love, and forgiveness of each other. Our faith could never be tested as true faith without tribulation. Good character is only built through hardship. And the experience of joy, pleasure, and happiness later in heaven and heaven on earth will be forever expanded because we knew pain and suffering first.

If, for example, a billionaire who only knew luxury his entire life, and a beggar on the street who barely eats enough to survive both were given a billion dollars - which would experience more joy? And which would love the giver of the money more? And which would have a deeper understanding of the pain and suffering in others?

---

So your god is so weak he couldn't create people, who would have that understanding, without having to suffer? Isn't the goal to experience heaven (even though that is a pagan concept that worked its way into late Judaism and early Christianity)? Why wouldn't he create heaven, create people the way he wants them, and skip all the pain and suffering? And, why would he sentence some to eternal hell (another non traditional Jewish belief) if he truly loves them? Supposedly the crucifixion was enough to cover everyone? What about all those other people around the world to whom he didn't 'reveal' himself to? And what about his 'chosen' people, be they Jews or Muslims? The problem is the whole concept of Christianity in its various conflicting forms evolves out of the writings of Iron Age primitive people who's only frame of reference is from explanation of the world and the human condition through religious beliefs. Christianity in any form, nor any other religion, does not hold up under modern scrutiny.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

After several years of promoting your same message …..to fundamentally the same handful of individuals……….

why are you still at it ?

Over and over ; year after year .

Certainly there must be at least one other topic that interests you .

---

Just doing my part to prevent a theocracy. Seriously, I want people to examine what and why they believe what they believe. I think it is a serious issue that spills over into politics and legislation. In the final analysis, you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I have the right (so far) to point out why that belief is in a false reality. Don't engage if you're not interested. There are plenty of other posts I make on other non-religious subjects. Check them out. I have several in the last couple of days. You and I agree on quite a number of political views, some we disagree on. I personally like you and respect your opinions, eventhough you may think I don't. Happy Holidays!

---

Thank you for the kind words....however you start more threads on religion in a couple of months than I have ever originated on any subject total during my entire time on this message board.

And that includes BFANS as well.

And for whom......the same 12-24 usual readers ?

By the way...over 22 Catholic Churches have been attacked / vandalized in Colorado alone during the last year......some repeatedly .

If there is any inherent threat in our country ...its is certainly not against atheists....or the threat of a 'theocracy' .....that is patiently absurd.

So how about a little honesty in that regard ?

---

Well, I'm just trying to stay within Treszoks three categories, politics, religion, and etc. Compared to politics, the religion category seems a little underrepresented.

It's a shame the Colorado churches were vandalized, and whoever did that should be procecuted. I doubt atheists did that, but like anything else it is possible. I bet it was for reasons other than religion. But, if you're a believer, you have to question why God would allow that, especially since many Christians claim he allowed Katrina to hit NOLA for their lifestyle.

---

Maybe believers know that God never promised anyone a life free of troubles - quite the opposite in fact.

---

So a loving god creates a world which imposes pain, suffering and tribulation, promising troubles, all for his pleasure? Why would he do that when he doesn't have to, unless he is not a loving god?

---

A loving God would want us to know and experience everything that is good. Without evil, pain, and suffering, we would not know and experience the good of God's justice, mercy, grace, forgiveness, and restoration. Also, we would not be able to know the good of empathy, love, and forgiveness of each other. Our faith could never be tested as true faith without tribulation. Good character is only built through hardship. And the experience of joy, pleasure, and happiness later in heaven and heaven on earth will be forever expanded because we knew pain and suffering first.

If, for example, a billionaire who only knew luxury his entire life, and a beggar on the street who barely eats enough to survive both were given a billion dollars - which would experience more joy? And which would love the giver of the money more? And which would have a deeper understanding of the pain and suffering in others?

---

So your god is so weak he couldn't create people, who would have that understanding, without having to suffer?

---

If God were to create people with an instant understanding of all that, then the knowledge of suffering would also be instantaneous. You won't be removing the absolute value of the suffering, you'd just be shortening the time frame. Because suffering is an integral part of the understanding. You can't have the understanding without it. You can't give a nickel to someone without giving them both sides. To say that God should just give the understanding without the suffering is saying He shouldn't give them the understanding at all.

To say that God should be powerful enough to make it so that you can have the understanding without the suffering would be paradoxical. God's omnipotence doesn't mean he can create paradoxes, i.e. He can't simultaneously destroy Himself and continue to exist. Neither does His omnipotence mean He can go against His nature, i.e. He doesn't have the power to sin. You have a poor understanding of the meaning of God's omnpotence.

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

TexasScientist said:

---

Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.

---

I will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).

Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.

---

Quote:

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

---

After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....

---

The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.

---

Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?

---

Have you ever considered that God might have wanted it to be that way on its surface, so we can search deeper and find that it really isn't? Those who love Him will do that. Those who don't, won't. For,

"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." - Proverbs 25:2

---

But if TS were god, he'd have done things differently. We'd all witness miracles, god/Christ would be as obvious as the nose on your face and there be no suffering. Therefore, if TS could have done it better, it's not god-like and therefore no god.

I think that about sums up the last several years of TS posting

---

It's about what is logical, and the fact that the ambiguity and required belief (faith) without evidence is what makes it the same as any other primitive beliefs, just a little more elaborate. The evidence of reality is where Christianity and all other superstitious and supernatural myths are exposed.

---

yes because it is logical that everything came from nothing

---

Yes, because of quantum theory, together with what we understand about general relativity.

---

After several years of promoting your same message …..to fundamentally the same handful of individuals……….

why are you still at it ?

Over and over ; year after year .

Certainly there must be at least one other topic that interests you .

---

Just doing my part to prevent a theocracy. Seriously, I want people to examine what and why they believe what they believe. I think it is a serious issue that spills over into politics and legislation. In the final analysis, you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I have the right (so far) to point out why that belief is in a false reality. Don't engage if you're not interested. There are plenty of other posts I make on other non-religious subjects. Check them out. I have several in the last couple of days. You and I agree on quite a number of political views, some we disagree on. I personally like you and respect your opinions, eventhough you may think I don't. Happy Holidays!

---

Thank you for the kind words....however you start more threads on religion in a couple of months than I have ever originated on any subject total during my entire time on this message board.

And that includes BFANS as well.

And for whom......the same 12-24 usual readers ?

By the way...over 22 Catholic Churches have been attacked / vandalized in Colorado alone during the last year......some repeatedly .

If there is any inherent threat in our country ...its is certainly not against atheists....or the threat of a 'theocracy' .....that is patiently absurd.

So how about a little honesty in that regard ?

---

Well, I'm just trying to stay within Treszoks three categories, politics, religion, and etc. Compared to politics, the religion category seems a little underrepresented.

It's a shame the Colorado churches were vandalized, and whoever did that should be procecuted. I doubt atheists did that, but like anything else it is possible. I bet it was for reasons other than religion. But, if you're a believer, you have to question why God would allow that, especially since many Christians claim he allowed Katrina to hit NOLA for their lifestyle.

---

Maybe believers know that God never promised anyone a life free of troubles - quite the opposite in fact.

---

So a loving god creates a world which imposes pain, suffering and tribulation, promising troubles, all for his pleasure? Why would he do that when he doesn't have to, unless he is not a loving god?

---

Because - as has been explained to you repeatedly - the alternative is to have marionettes lacking in free will. People have the power to make choices, including bad ones. It would hardly be "loving" to create puppets to dance on a string.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

After several years of promoting your same message …..to fundamentally the same handful of individuals……….

why are you still at it ?

Over and over ; year after year .

Certainly there must be at least one other topic that interests you .

---

Just doing my part to prevent a theocracy. Seriously, I want people to examine what and why they believe what they believe. I think it is a serious issue that spills over into politics and legislation. In the final analysis, you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I have the right (so far) to point out why that belief is in a false reality. Don't engage if you're not interested. There are plenty of other posts I make on other non-religious subjects. Check them out. I have several in the last couple of days. You and I agree on quite a number of political views, some we disagree on. I personally like you and respect your opinions, eventhough you may think I don't. Happy Holidays!

---

Thank you for the kind words....however you start more threads on religion in a couple of months than I have ever originated on any subject total during my entire time on this message board.

And that includes BFANS as well.

And for whom......the same 12-24 usual readers ?

By the way...over 22 Catholic Churches have been attacked / vandalized in Colorado alone during the last year......some repeatedly .

If there is any inherent threat in our country ...its is certainly not against atheists....or the threat of a 'theocracy' .....that is patiently absurd.

So how about a little honesty in that regard ?

---

Well, I'm just trying to stay within Treszoks three categories, politics, religion, and etc. Compared to politics, the religion category seems a little underrepresented.

It's a shame the Colorado churches were vandalized, and whoever did that should be procecuted. I doubt atheists did that, but like anything else it is possible. I bet it was for reasons other than religion. But, if you're a believer, you have to question why God would allow that, especially since many Christians claim he allowed Katrina to hit NOLA for their lifestyle.

---

Maybe believers know that God never promised anyone a life free of troubles - quite the opposite in fact.

---

So a loving god creates a world which imposes pain, suffering and tribulation, promising troubles, all for his pleasure? Why would he do that when he doesn't have to, unless he is not a loving god?

---

A loving God would want us to know and experience everything that is good. Without evil, pain, and suffering, we would not know and experience the good of God's justice, mercy, grace, forgiveness, and restoration. Also, we would not be able to know the good of empathy, love, and forgiveness of each other. Our faith could never be tested as true faith without tribulation. Good character is only built through hardship. And the experience of joy, pleasure, and happiness later in heaven and heaven on earth will be forever expanded because we knew pain and suffering first.

If, for example, a billionaire who only knew luxury his entire life, and a beggar on the street who barely eats enough to survive both were given a billion dollars - which would experience more joy? And which would love the giver of the money more? And which would have a deeper understanding of the pain and suffering in others?

---

So your god is so weak he couldn't create people, who would have that understanding, without having to suffer?

---

If God were to create people with an instant understanding of all that, then the knowledge of suffering would also be instantaneous. You won't be removing the absolute value of the suffering, you'd just be shortening the time frame. Because suffering is an integral part of the understanding. You can't have the understanding without it. You can't give a nickel to someone without giving them both sides. To say that God should just give the understanding without the suffering is saying He shouldn't give them the understanding at all.

To say that God should be powerful enough to make it so that you can have the understanding without the suffering would be paradoxical. God's omnipotence doesn't mean he can create paradoxes, i.e. He can't simultaneously destroy Himself and continue to exist. Neither does His omnipotence mean He can go against His nature, i.e. He doesn't have the power to sin. You have a poor understanding of the meaning of God's omnpotence.

---

What you have described is not logical. Why do you think it's necessary for people and other living things to experience suffering, when if they had an all loving omnipotent god? Why is it necessary to understanding? You understand that being burned at the stake for someone's idea of heresy is horrible, without having to experience it. Clearly such a being would have a choice. That choice reflects his character. If you judge him by his NT/OT standards he does have the power to sin. His own actions and admonitions to carry out atrocities is evidence.

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

TexasScientist said:

---

Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.

---

I will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).

Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.

---

Quote:

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

---

After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....

---

The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.

---

Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?

---

Have you ever considered that God might have wanted it to be that way on its surface, so we can search deeper and find that it really isn't? Those who love Him will do that. Those who don't, won't. For,

"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." - Proverbs 25:2

---

But if TS were god, he'd have done things differently. We'd all witness miracles, god/Christ would be as obvious as the nose on your face and there be no suffering. Therefore, if TS could have done it better, it's not god-like and therefore no god.

I think that about sums up the last several years of TS posting

---

It's about what is logical, and the fact that the ambiguity and required belief (faith) without evidence is what makes it the same as any other primitive beliefs, just a little more elaborate. The evidence of reality is where Christianity and all other superstitious and supernatural myths are exposed.

---

yes because it is logical that everything came from nothing

---

Yes, because of quantum theory, together with what we understand about general relativity.

---

After several years of promoting your same message …..to fundamentally the same handful of individuals……….

why are you still at it ?

Over and over ; year after year .

Certainly there must be at least one other topic that interests you .

---

Just doing my part to prevent a theocracy. Seriously, I want people to examine what and why they believe what they believe. I think it is a serious issue that spills over into politics and legislation. In the final analysis, you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I have the right (so far) to point out why that belief is in a false reality. Don't engage if you're not interested. There are plenty of other posts I make on other non-religious subjects. Check them out. I have several in the last couple of days. You and I agree on quite a number of political views, some we disagree on. I personally like you and respect your opinions, eventhough you may think I don't. Happy Holidays!

---

Thank you for the kind words....however you start more threads on religion in a couple of months than I have ever originated on any subject total during my entire time on this message board.

And that includes BFANS as well.

And for whom......the same 12-24 usual readers ?

By the way...over 22 Catholic Churches have been attacked / vandalized in Colorado alone during the last year......some repeatedly .

If there is any inherent threat in our country ...its is certainly not against atheists....or the threat of a 'theocracy' .....that is patiently absurd.

So how about a little honesty in that regard ?

---

Well, I'm just trying to stay within Treszoks three categories, politics, religion, and etc. Compared to politics, the religion category seems a little underrepresented.

It's a shame the Colorado churches were vandalized, and whoever did that should be procecuted. I doubt atheists did that, but like anything else it is possible. I bet it was for reasons other than religion. But, if you're a believer, you have to question why God would allow that, especially since many Christians claim he allowed Katrina to hit NOLA for their lifestyle.

---

Maybe believers know that God never promised anyone a life free of troubles - quite the opposite in fact.

---

So a loving god creates a world which imposes pain, suffering and tribulation, promising troubles, all for his pleasure? Why would he do that when he doesn't have to, unless he is not a loving god?

---

Because - as has been explained to you repeatedly - the alternative is to have marionettes lacking in free will. People have the power to make choices, including bad ones. It would hardly be "loving" to create puppets to dance on a string.

---

Ok, tell me why you won't be a marionette in heaven. Will you be able to sin or have freewill in heaven? Will you be able to make choices there, or will you be dancing on a string? If you have the capacity to sin there, then your understanding of the purpose of the human condition is pointless. If you can't sin there, likewise the human condition is pointless.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

After several years of promoting your same message …..to fundamentally the same handful of individuals……….

why are you still at it ?

Over and over ; year after year .

Certainly there must be at least one other topic that interests you .

---

Just doing my part to prevent a theocracy. Seriously, I want people to examine what and why they believe what they believe. I think it is a serious issue that spills over into politics and legislation. In the final analysis, you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I have the right (so far) to point out why that belief is in a false reality. Don't engage if you're not interested. There are plenty of other posts I make on other non-religious subjects. Check them out. I have several in the last couple of days. You and I agree on quite a number of political views, some we disagree on. I personally like you and respect your opinions, eventhough you may think I don't. Happy Holidays!

---

Thank you for the kind words....however you start more threads on religion in a couple of months than I have ever originated on any subject total during my entire time on this message board.

And that includes BFANS as well.

And for whom......the same 12-24 usual readers ?

By the way...over 22 Catholic Churches have been attacked / vandalized in Colorado alone during the last year......some repeatedly .

If there is any inherent threat in our country ...its is certainly not against atheists....or the threat of a 'theocracy' .....that is patiently absurd.

So how about a little honesty in that regard ?

---

Well, I'm just trying to stay within Treszoks three categories, politics, religion, and etc. Compared to politics, the religion category seems a little underrepresented.

It's a shame the Colorado churches were vandalized, and whoever did that should be procecuted. I doubt atheists did that, but like anything else it is possible. I bet it was for reasons other than religion. But, if you're a believer, you have to question why God would allow that, especially since many Christians claim he allowed Katrina to hit NOLA for their lifestyle.

---

Maybe believers know that God never promised anyone a life free of troubles - quite the opposite in fact.

---

So a loving god creates a world which imposes pain, suffering and tribulation, promising troubles, all for his pleasure? Why would he do that when he doesn't have to, unless he is not a loving god?

---

A loving God would want us to know and experience everything that is good. Without evil, pain, and suffering, we would not know and experience the good of God's justice, mercy, grace, forgiveness, and restoration. Also, we would not be able to know the good of empathy, love, and forgiveness of each other. Our faith could never be tested as true faith without tribulation. Good character is only built through hardship. And the experience of joy, pleasure, and happiness later in heaven and heaven on earth will be forever expanded because we knew pain and suffering first.

If, for example, a billionaire who only knew luxury his entire life, and a beggar on the street who barely eats enough to survive both were given a billion dollars - which would experience more joy? And which would love the giver of the money more? And which would have a deeper understanding of the pain and suffering in others?

---

So your god is so weak he couldn't create people, who would have that understanding, without having to suffer?

---

If God were to create people with an instant understanding of all that, then the knowledge of suffering would also be instantaneous. You won't be removing the absolute value of the suffering, you'd just be shortening the time frame. Because suffering is an integral part of the understanding. You can't have the understanding without it. You can't give a nickel to someone without giving them both sides. To say that God should just give the understanding without the suffering is saying He shouldn't give them the understanding at all.

To say that God should be powerful enough to make it so that you can have the understanding without the suffering would be paradoxical. God's omnipotence doesn't mean he can create paradoxes, i.e. He can't simultaneously destroy Himself and continue to exist. Neither does His omnipotence mean He can go against His nature, i.e. He doesn't have the power to sin. You have a poor understanding of the meaning of God's omnpotence.

---

You understand that being burned at the stake for someone's idea of heresy is horrible, without having to experience it.

---

To know that it is horrible requires a knowledge of suffering.

TS: "because of quantum theory"

Now that's funny. Because I have read enough on Quantum Theory to know that even among physicists there is a sense that QT is to some degree unknowable ... Heisenberg says hi ... because of the documented behavior of quantum particles.

Using QT as if you understand the basics, let alone can claim mastery of it to the point that you can claim to be some kind of expert, is absurd on the level of pretending you have commercial muti-engine certification and 20,000 flight hours on a selected airframe just because you have seen aircraft and took an occasional ride as a passenger.

The key point here, from what I see, is whether you are willing to accept the Gospel as Christ taught it, and by that I mean the written accounts of what Christ did and said in the Scriptural accounts.

I mean, when we hear ministers quote Christ's command to 'take up your cross and follow me', we are used to sermons about moral responsibility and personal courage, but think about the fact that Christ said this, then was actually scourged with whips and hung upon a cross until he died. Think about the fact that - except for John - all of Christ's disciples died violent deaths. When we look at the hard reality, it's scary to be a Christian.

We like to live in a world where Christians are protected from persecution, where being Christian is to have beliefs and practices which are mainstream and therefore receive no threats or trouble. But to live as a follower of Christ means to take a stand which sometimes has great personal cost, and that's made clear throughout Scripture. The prophets of the Old Testament, for example, were commonly mocked and ignored by the people, some like Jeremiah were literally thrown into wells or even killed, others were ignored unless the people and Kings happened to like what the prophet said. People who live by faith have commonly been cut out from social castes and mocked as backward and resisting progress. Even here in the United States those who live by strict Christian principles are considered weird and maybe a bit stupid, like the Quakers or the Amish.

I have tried to be a good man, a good husband and father and citizen, but on reflection I worry that too often I do what pleases my sense of right and good, rather than serving God's glory and will. Part of the purpose to the Church is to provide a moral lodestone, faithful to Scripture, so men can check their bearings and find their way.

Mocking anchors leads to shipwreck.

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Maybe believers know that God never promised anyone a life free of troubles - quite the opposite in fact.

---

So a loving god creates a world which imposes pain, suffering and tribulation, promising troubles, all for his pleasure? Why would he do that when he doesn't have to, unless he is not a loving god?

---

Because - as has been explained to you repeatedly - the alternative is to have marionettes lacking in free will. People have the power to make choices, including bad ones. It would hardly be "loving" to create puppets to dance on a string.

---

Ok, tell me why you won't be a marionette in heaven. Will you be able to sin or have freewill in heaven? Will you be able to make choices there, or will you be dancing on a string? If you have the capacity to sin there, then your understanding of the purpose of the human condition is pointless. If you can't sin there, likewise the human condition is pointless.

---

We will have a new nature with new desires. The desire to sin will be no more. It doesn't mean our free will is taken away.

Right now you have the free will to eat a plate of dog poo, but you just don't have any desire to and you're completely disgusted by it (at least I hope). Its just not in your nature to want it. There's so many other things so much better to eat that you can choose from. That's what sin will be like to us with our new nature in heaven.

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

TexasScientist said:

---

Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.

---

I will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).

Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.

---

Quote:

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

---

After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....

---

The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.

---

Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?

---

Have you ever considered that God might have wanted it to be that way on its surface, so we can search deeper and find that it really isn't? Those who love Him will do that. Those who don't, won't. For,

"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." - Proverbs 25:2

---

But if TS were god, he'd have done things differently. We'd all witness miracles, god/Christ would be as obvious as the nose on your face and there be no suffering. Therefore, if TS could have done it better, it's not god-like and therefore no god.

I think that about sums up the last several years of TS posting

---

It's about what is logical, and the fact that the ambiguity and required belief (faith) without evidence is what makes it the same as any other primitive beliefs, just a little more elaborate. The evidence of reality is where Christianity and all other superstitious and supernatural myths are exposed.

---

yes because it is logical that everything came from nothing

---

Yes, because of quantum theory, together with what we understand about general relativity.

---

After several years of promoting your same message …..to fundamentally the same handful of individuals……….

why are you still at it ?

Over and over ; year after year .

Certainly there must be at least one other topic that interests you .

---

Just doing my part to prevent a theocracy. Seriously, I want people to examine what and why they believe what they believe. I think it is a serious issue that spills over into politics and legislation. In the final analysis, you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I have the right (so far) to point out why that belief is in a false reality. Don't engage if you're not interested. There are plenty of other posts I make on other non-religious subjects. Check them out. I have several in the last couple of days. You and I agree on quite a number of political views, some we disagree on. I personally like you and respect your opinions, eventhough you may think I don't. Happy Holidays!

---

Thank you for the kind words....however you start more threads on religion in a couple of months than I have ever originated on any subject total during my entire time on this message board.

And that includes BFANS as well.

And for whom......the same 12-24 usual readers ?

By the way...over 22 Catholic Churches have been attacked / vandalized in Colorado alone during the last year......some repeatedly .

If there is any inherent threat in our country ...its is certainly not against atheists....or the threat of a 'theocracy' .....that is patiently absurd.

So how about a little honesty in that regard ?

---

Well, I'm just trying to stay within Treszoks three categories, politics, religion, and etc. Compared to politics, the religion category seems a little underrepresented.

It's a shame the Colorado churches were vandalized, and whoever did that should be procecuted. I doubt atheists did that, but like anything else it is possible. I bet it was for reasons other than religion. But, if you're a believer, you have to question why God would allow that, especially since many Christians claim he allowed Katrina to hit NOLA for their lifestyle.

---

Maybe believers know that God never promised anyone a life free of troubles - quite the opposite in fact.

---

So a loving god creates a world which imposes pain, suffering and tribulation, promising troubles, all for his pleasure? Why would he do that when he doesn't have to, unless he is not a loving god?

---

Because - as has been explained to you repeatedly - the alternative is to have marionettes lacking in free will. People have the power to make choices, including bad ones. It would hardly be "loving" to create puppets to dance on a string.

---

Ok, tell me why you won't be a marionette in heaven. Will you be able to sin or have freewill in heaven? Will you be able to make choices there, or will you be dancing on a string? If you have the capacity to sin there, then your understanding of the purpose of the human condition is pointless. If you can't sin there, likewise the human condition is pointless.

---

Capacity and desire are two different things.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

After several years of promoting your same message …..to fundamentally the same handful of individuals……….

why are you still at it ?

Over and over ; year after year .

Certainly there must be at least one other topic that interests you .

---

Just doing my part to prevent a theocracy. Seriously, I want people to examine what and why they believe what they believe. I think it is a serious issue that spills over into politics and legislation. In the final analysis, you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I have the right (so far) to point out why that belief is in a false reality. Don't engage if you're not interested. There are plenty of other posts I make on other non-religious subjects. Check them out. I have several in the last couple of days. You and I agree on quite a number of political views, some we disagree on. I personally like you and respect your opinions, eventhough you may think I don't. Happy Holidays!

---

Thank you for the kind words....however you start more threads on religion in a couple of months than I have ever originated on any subject total during my entire time on this message board.

And that includes BFANS as well.

And for whom......the same 12-24 usual readers ?

By the way...over 22 Catholic Churches have been attacked / vandalized in Colorado alone during the last year......some repeatedly .

If there is any inherent threat in our country ...its is certainly not against atheists....or the threat of a 'theocracy' .....that is patiently absurd.

So how about a little honesty in that regard ?

---

Well, I'm just trying to stay within Treszoks three categories, politics, religion, and etc. Compared to politics, the religion category seems a little underrepresented.

It's a shame the Colorado churches were vandalized, and whoever did that should be procecuted. I doubt atheists did that, but like anything else it is possible. I bet it was for reasons other than religion. But, if you're a believer, you have to question why God would allow that, especially since many Christians claim he allowed Katrina to hit NOLA for their lifestyle.

---

Maybe believers know that God never promised anyone a life free of troubles - quite the opposite in fact.

---

So a loving god creates a world which imposes pain, suffering and tribulation, promising troubles, all for his pleasure? Why would he do that when he doesn't have to, unless he is not a loving god?

---

A loving God would want us to know and experience everything that is good. Without evil, pain, and suffering, we would not know and experience the good of God's justice, mercy, grace, forgiveness, and restoration. Also, we would not be able to know the good of empathy, love, and forgiveness of each other. Our faith could never be tested as true faith without tribulation. Good character is only built through hardship. And the experience of joy, pleasure, and happiness later in heaven and heaven on earth will be forever expanded because we knew pain and suffering first.

If, for example, a billionaire who only knew luxury his entire life, and a beggar on the street who barely eats enough to survive both were given a billion dollars - which would experience more joy? And which would love the giver of the money more? And which would have a deeper understanding of the pain and suffering in others?

---

So your god is so weak he couldn't create people, who would have that understanding, without having to suffer?

---

If God were to create people with an instant understanding of all that, then the knowledge of suffering would also be instantaneous. You won't be removing the absolute value of the suffering, you'd just be shortening the time frame. Because suffering is an integral part of the understanding. You can't have the understanding without it. You can't give a nickel to someone without giving them both sides. To say that God should just give the understanding without the suffering is saying He shouldn't give them the understanding at all.

To say that God should be powerful enough to make it so that you can have the understanding without the suffering would be paradoxical. God's omnipotence doesn't mean he can create paradoxes, i.e. He can't simultaneously destroy Himself and continue to exist. Neither does His omnipotence mean He can go against His nature, i.e. He doesn't have the power to sin. You have a poor understanding of the meaning of God's omnpotence.

---

You understand that being burned at the stake for someone's idea of heresy is horrible, without having to experience it.

---

To know that it is horrible requires a knowledge of suffering.

---

Is that why Yahweh thought it was ok to order children to be slaughtered? He doesn't know suffering? Suffering is a condition of experiencing life. Why does anyone need to suffer or understand suffering? Isn't heaven free from suffering?

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "because of quantum theory"

Now that's funny. Because I have read enough on Quantum Theory to know that even among physicists there is a sense that QT is to some degree unknowable ... Heisenberg says hi ... because of the documented behavior of quantum particles.

Using QT as if you understand the basics, let alone can claim mastery of it to the point that you can claim to be some kind of expert, is absurd on the level of pretending you have commercial muti-engine certification and 20,000 flight hours on a selected airframe just because you have seen aircraft and took an occasional ride as a passenger.

---

So ignorance is your excuse.

How do you know whether I have a multi-engine rating, a commercial license, or an ATP rating? You don't have to have 20,000 hours in order to safely fly a multi-engine aircraft. You do need a multi-engine rating, possibly an ATP rating, and a check ride to safely fly a specific aircraft or class of aircraft. But, all you need to understand the basics of flight and of how any aircraft works is some flight time, and knowledge of aerodynamics.

Guth, Hawking, Weinberg, Feynman, Bohr, Broglie, Laplace, Schrodinger, Bethe, Thorne, Kroemer, Franck, Bell, et al say hi back to ya. You don't have to understand everything about gravity to know that things fall when dropped.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The key point here, from what I see, is whether you are willing to accept the Gospel as Christ taught it, and by that I mean the written accounts of what Christ did and said in the Scriptural accounts.

I mean, when we hear ministers quote Christ's command to 'take up your cross and follow me', we are used to sermons about moral responsibility and personal courage, but think about the fact that Christ said this, then was actually scourged with whips and hung upon a cross until he died. Think about the fact that - except for John - all of Christ's disciples died violent deaths. When we look at the hard reality, it's scary to be a Christian.

We like to live in a world where Christians are protected from persecution, where being Christian is to have beliefs and practices which are mainstream and therefore receive no threats or trouble. But to live as a follower of Christ means to take a stand which sometimes has great personal cost, and that's made clear throughout Scripture. The prophets of the Old Testament, for example, were commonly mocked and ignored by the people, some like Jeremiah were literally thrown into wells or even killed, others were ignored unless the people and Kings happened to like what the prophet said. People who live by faith have commonly been cut out from social castes and mocked as backward and resisting progress. Even here in the United States those who live by strict Christian principles are considered weird and maybe a bit stupid, like the Quakers or the Amish.

I have tried to be a good man, a good husband and father and citizen, but on reflection I worry that too often I do what pleases my sense of right and good, rather than serving God's glory and will. Part of the purpose to the Church is to provide a moral lodestone, faithful to Scripture, so men can check their bearings and find their way.

Mocking anchors leads to shipwreck.

---

I rationalized faith that way once. The problem is we don't really know what Jesus said or did, or what actually happened to his disciples. What is written is taken from circulating oral accounts that were preserved to some degree or other. Some accounts were not preserved or completely preserved. The problem is they conflict with each other, and none are written by an eye witness, and the teachings in the early church depend upon where and who you are following. The stories conflict with each other, and many things were added later to the writings, and probably were omitted to some degree also, depending upon the writer's theology. Christianity grew from the frame of reference of the people who embraced it and wrote about it. The nature of the NT god is inconsistent with the OT god; they are not one and the same, despite attempts to portray them as the same. Your sense of right and good, and serving God's glory and will is not necessarily the same as the next man's, who is trying to follow god. That's a huge problem. The Church isn't consistent in its belief, but it is a moral lodestone, in the sense that a lodestone in the presence of a compass can produce a false direction for magnetic north, which is already in error with true north.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Maybe believers know that God never promised anyone a life free of troubles - quite the opposite in fact.

---

So a loving god creates a world which imposes pain, suffering and tribulation, promising troubles, all for his pleasure? Why would he do that when he doesn't have to, unless he is not a loving god?

---

Because - as has been explained to you repeatedly - the alternative is to have marionettes lacking in free will. People have the power to make choices, including bad ones. It would hardly be "loving" to create puppets to dance on a string.

---

Ok, tell me why you won't be a marionette in heaven. Will you be able to sin or have freewill in heaven? Will you be able to make choices there, or will you be dancing on a string? If you have the capacity to sin there, then your understanding of the purpose of the human condition is pointless. If you can't sin there, likewise the human condition is pointless.

---

We will have a new nature with new desires. The desire to sin will be no more. It doesn't mean our free will is taken away.

Right now you have the free will to eat a plate of dog poo, but you just don't have any desire to and you're completely disgusted by it (at least I hope). Its just not in your nature to want it. There's so many other things so much better to eat that you can choose from. That's what sin will be like to us with our new nature in heaven.

---

Ok, so why not be created in heaven with that nature to begin with, if there is a loving omnipotent god? It's not consistent with logic.

The whole idea of any religion is not consistent with what we know about the universe.

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

TexasScientist said:

---

Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.

---

I will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).

Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.

---

Quote:

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

---

After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....

---

The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.

---

Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?

---

Have you ever considered that God might have wanted it to be that way on its surface, so we can search deeper and find that it really isn't? Those who love Him will do that. Those who don't, won't. For,

"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." - Proverbs 25:2

---

But if TS were god, he'd have done things differently. We'd all witness miracles, god/Christ would be as obvious as the nose on your face and there be no suffering. Therefore, if TS could have done it better, it's not god-like and therefore no god.

I think that about sums up the last several years of TS posting

---

It's about what is logical, and the fact that the ambiguity and required belief (faith) without evidence is what makes it the same as any other primitive beliefs, just a little more elaborate. The evidence of reality is where Christianity and all other superstitious and supernatural myths are exposed.

---

yes because it is logical that everything came from nothing

---

Yes, because of quantum theory, together with what we understand about general relativity.

---

After several years of promoting your same message …..to fundamentally the same handful of individuals……….

why are you still at it ?

Over and over ; year after year .

Certainly there must be at least one other topic that interests you .

---

Just doing my part to prevent a theocracy. Seriously, I want people to examine what and why they believe what they believe. I think it is a serious issue that spills over into politics and legislation. In the final analysis, you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I have the right (so far) to point out why that belief is in a false reality. Don't engage if you're not interested. There are plenty of other posts I make on other non-religious subjects. Check them out. I have several in the last couple of days. You and I agree on quite a number of political views, some we disagree on. I personally like you and respect your opinions, eventhough you may think I don't. Happy Holidays!

---

Thank you for the kind words....however you start more threads on religion in a couple of months than I have ever originated on any subject total during my entire time on this message board.

And that includes BFANS as well.

And for whom......the same 12-24 usual readers ?

By the way...over 22 Catholic Churches have been attacked / vandalized in Colorado alone during the last year......some repeatedly .

If there is any inherent threat in our country ...its is certainly not against atheists....or the threat of a 'theocracy' .....that is patiently absurd.

So how about a little honesty in that regard ?

---

Well, I'm just trying to stay within Treszoks three categories, politics, religion, and etc. Compared to politics, the religion category seems a little underrepresented.

It's a shame the Colorado churches were vandalized, and whoever did that should be procecuted. I doubt atheists did that, but like anything else it is possible. I bet it was for reasons other than religion. But, if you're a believer, you have to question why God would allow that, especially since many Christians claim he allowed Katrina to hit NOLA for their lifestyle.

---

Maybe believers know that God never promised anyone a life free of troubles - quite the opposite in fact.

---

So a loving god creates a world which imposes pain, suffering and tribulation, promising troubles, all for his pleasure? Why would he do that when he doesn't have to, unless he is not a loving god?

---

Because - as has been explained to you repeatedly - the alternative is to have marionettes lacking in free will. People have the power to make choices, including bad ones. It would hardly be "loving" to create puppets to dance on a string.

---

Ok, tell me why you won't be a marionette in heaven. Will you be able to sin or have freewill in heaven? Will you be able to make choices there, or will you be dancing on a string? If you have the capacity to sin there, then your understanding of the purpose of the human condition is pointless. If you can't sin there, likewise the human condition is pointless.

---

Capacity and desire are two different things.

---

Right. Desire can be sin. If you can desire, then you have capacity. If you can't desire, then you don't have capacity. The concepts are not needed if you can't desire or have capcity to sin in heaven.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "because of quantum theory"

Now that's funny. Because I have read enough on Quantum Theory to know that even among physicists there is a sense that QT is to some degree unknowable ... Heisenberg says hi ... because of the documented behavior of quantum particles.

Using QT as if you understand the basics, let alone can claim mastery of it to the point that you can claim to be some kind of expert, is absurd on the level of pretending you have commercial muti-engine certification and 20,000 flight hours on a selected airframe just because you have seen aircraft and took an occasional ride as a passenger.

---

So ignorance is your excuse.

How do you know whether I have a multi-engine rating, a commercial license, or an ATP rating? You don't have to have 20,000 hours in order to safely fly a multi-engine aircraft. You do need a multi-engine rating, possibly an ATP rating, and a check ride to safely fly a specific aircraft or class of aircraft. But, all you need to understand the basics of flight and of how any aircraft works is some flight time, and knowledge of aerodynamics.

Guth, Hawking, Weinberg, Feynman, Bohr, Broglie, Laplace, Schrodinger, Bethe, Thorne, Kroemer, Franck, Bell, et al say hi back to ya. You don't have to understand everything about gravity to know that things fall when dropped.

---

You say those names as if dropping them replaces a valid argument.

And no son, it's not my understanding of Science which determines if you know what you are talking about, it's what you can establish, and frankly you do a piss-poor job of supporting your claims.

Demonstrate how Quantum Mechanics does what you say it does, if you want to pretend you can use it for your argument. Right now you come off as bloviating.

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

TexasScientist said:

---

Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.

---

I will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).

Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.

---

Quote:

---

Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?

The Genealogies of Christ

---

After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....

---

The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.

---

Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?

---

Have you ever considered that God might have wanted it to be that way on its surface, so we can search deeper and find that it really isn't? Those who love Him will do that. Those who don't, won't. For,

"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." - Proverbs 25:2

---

But if TS were god, he'd have done things differently. We'd all witness miracles, god/Christ would be as obvious as the nose on your face and there be no suffering. Therefore, if TS could have done it better, it's not god-like and therefore no god.

I think that about sums up the last several years of TS posting

---

It's about what is logical, and the fact that the ambiguity and required belief (faith) without evidence is what makes it the same as any other primitive beliefs, just a little more elaborate. The evidence of reality is where Christianity and all other superstitious and supernatural myths are exposed.

---

yes because it is logical that everything came from nothing

---

Yes, because of quantum theory, together with what we understand about general relativity.

---

After several years of promoting your same message …..to fundamentally the same handful of individuals……….

why are you still at it ?

Over and over ; year after year .

Certainly there must be at least one other topic that interests you .

---

Just doing my part to prevent a theocracy. Seriously, I want people to examine what and why they believe what they believe. I think it is a serious issue that spills over into politics and legislation. In the final analysis, you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I have the right (so far) to point out why that belief is in a false reality. Don't engage if you're not interested. There are plenty of other posts I make on other non-religious subjects. Check them out. I have several in the last couple of days. You and I agree on quite a number of political views, some we disagree on. I personally like you and respect your opinions, eventhough you may think I don't. Happy Holidays!

---

Thank you for the kind words....however you start more threads on religion in a couple of months than I have ever originated on any subject total during my entire time on this message board.

And that includes BFANS as well.

And for whom......the same 12-24 usual readers ?

By the way...over 22 Catholic Churches have been attacked / vandalized in Colorado alone during the last year......some repeatedly .

If there is any inherent threat in our country ...its is certainly not against atheists....or the threat of a 'theocracy' .....that is patiently absurd.

So how about a little honesty in that regard ?

---

Well, I'm just trying to stay within Treszoks three categories, politics, religion, and etc. Compared to politics, the religion category seems a little underrepresented.

It's a shame the Colorado churches were vandalized, and whoever did that should be procecuted. I doubt atheists did that, but like anything else it is possible. I bet it was for reasons other than religion. But, if you're a believer, you have to question why God would allow that, especially since many Christians claim he allowed Katrina to hit NOLA for their lifestyle.

---

Maybe believers know that God never promised anyone a life free of troubles - quite the opposite in fact.

---

So a loving god creates a world which imposes pain, suffering and tribulation, promising troubles, all for his pleasure? Why would he do that when he doesn't have to, unless he is not a loving god?

---

Because - as has been explained to you repeatedly - the alternative is to have marionettes lacking in free will. People have the power to make choices, including bad ones. It would hardly be "loving" to create puppets to dance on a string.

---

Ok, tell me why you won't be a marionette in heaven. Will you be able to sin or have freewill in heaven? Will you be able to make choices there, or will you be dancing on a string? If you have the capacity to sin there, then your understanding of the purpose of the human condition is pointless. If you can't sin there, likewise the human condition is pointless.

---

Capacity and desire are two different things.

---

Right. Desire can be sin. If you can desire, then you have capacity. If you can't desire, then you don't have capacity. The concepts are not needed if you can't desire or have capcity to sin in heaven.

---

Because as TarpDuster explained, you can have the capacity but not the desire. The general atmosphere of Heaven removes the desire.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The key point here, from what I see, is whether you are willing to accept the Gospel as Christ taught it, and by that I mean the written accounts of what Christ did and said in the Scriptural accounts.

I mean, when we hear ministers quote Christ's command to 'take up your cross and follow me', we are used to sermons about moral responsibility and personal courage, but think about the fact that Christ said this, then was actually scourged with whips and hung upon a cross until he died. Think about the fact that - except for John - all of Christ's disciples died violent deaths. When we look at the hard reality, it's scary to be a Christian.

We like to live in a world where Christians are protected from persecution, where being Christian is to have beliefs and practices which are mainstream and therefore receive no threats or trouble. But to live as a follower of Christ means to take a stand which sometimes has great personal cost, and that's made clear throughout Scripture. The prophets of the Old Testament, for example, were commonly mocked and ignored by the people, some like Jeremiah were literally thrown into wells or even killed, others were ignored unless the people and Kings happened to like what the prophet said. People who live by faith have commonly been cut out from social castes and mocked as backward and resisting progress. Even here in the United States those who live by strict Christian principles are considered weird and maybe a bit stupid, like the Quakers or the Amish.

I have tried to be a good man, a good husband and father and citizen, but on reflection I worry that too often I do what pleases my sense of right and good, rather than serving God's glory and will. Part of the purpose to the Church is to provide a moral lodestone, faithful to Scripture, so men can check their bearings and find their way.

Mocking anchors leads to shipwreck.

---

I rationalized faith that way once. The problem is we don't really know what Jesus said or did, or what actually happened to his disciples. What is written is taken from circulating oral accounts that were preserved to some degree or other. Some accounts were not preserved or completely preserved. The problem is they conflict with each other, and none are written by an eye witness, and the teachings in the early church depend upon where and who you are following. The stories conflict with each other, and many things were added later to the writings, and probably were omitted to some degree also, depending upon the writer's theology. Christianity grew from the frame of reference of the people who embraced it and wrote about it. The nature of the NT god is inconsistent with the OT god; they are not one and the same, despite attempts to portray them as the same. Your sense of right and good, and serving God's glory and will is not necessarily the same as the next man's, who is trying to follow god. That's a huge problem. The Church isn't consistent in its belief, but it is a moral lodestone, in the sense that a lodestone in the presence of a compass can produce a false direction for magnetic north, which is already in error with true north.

---

Lots of assumptions here. First: you're assuming that the accounts weren't preserved accurately, despite the importance which the Jewish culture placed on (a) oral history and (b) preservation of what they considered holy. Not to mention - the disciples were still around during this presumed period of oral transmission, so they were likely the ones doing the telling.

And second: here is a book which may interest you.

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906

Synopsis:

Jesus and the Eyewitness' argues that the four Gospels are closely based on the eyewitness testimony of those who knew Jesus. The author challenges the assumption that the accounts of Jesus circulated as 'anonymous community traditions', asserting instead that they were transmitted in the name of the original eyewitnesses. To drive home this controversial point, Bauckham draws on internal literary evidence, the use of personal names in first-century Jewish Palestine, and recent developments in the understanding of oral tradition. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses also taps into the rich resources of modern study of memory, especially in cognitive psychology, refuting the conclusions of the form critics and calling New Testament scholarship to make a clean break with this long-dominant tradition. Finally, Bauckham challenges readers to end the classic division between the 'historical Jesus' and the'Christ of faith', proposing instead the 'Jesus of testimony' as presented by the Gospels. Sure to ignite heated debate on the precise character of the testimony about Jesus, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is a groundbreaking work that will be valued by scholars, students, and all who seek to understand the origins of the Gospels.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The key point here, from what I see, is whether you are willing to accept the Gospel as Christ taught it, and by that I mean the written accounts of what Christ did and said in the Scriptural accounts.

I mean, when we hear ministers quote Christ's command to 'take up your cross and follow me', we are used to sermons about moral responsibility and personal courage, but think about the fact that Christ said this, then was actually scourged with whips and hung upon a cross until he died. Think about the fact that - except for John - all of Christ's disciples died violent deaths. When we look at the hard reality, it's scary to be a Christian.

We like to live in a world where Christians are protected from persecution, where being Christian is to have beliefs and practices which are mainstream and therefore receive no threats or trouble. But to live as a follower of Christ means to take a stand which sometimes has great personal cost, and that's made clear throughout Scripture. The prophets of the Old Testament, for example, were commonly mocked and ignored by the people, some like Jeremiah were literally thrown into wells or even killed, others were ignored unless the people and Kings happened to like what the prophet said. People who live by faith have commonly been cut out from social castes and mocked as backward and resisting progress. Even here in the United States those who live by strict Christian principles are considered weird and maybe a bit stupid, like the Quakers or the Amish.

I have tried to be a good man, a good husband and father and citizen, but on reflection I worry that too often I do what pleases my sense of right and good, rather than serving God's glory and will. Part of the purpose to the Church is to provide a moral lodestone, faithful to Scripture, so men can check their bearings and find their way.

Mocking anchors leads to shipwreck.

---

I rationalized faith that way once. The problem is we don't really know what Jesus said or did, or what actually happened to his disciples.

---

That seems to be an epistemological problem rather than a problem with the claims of Jesus as such. What kind of documentation, consistent with the practices of the time, would convince you of what Jesus said or did?

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

After several years of promoting your same message …..to fundamentally the same handful of individuals……….

why are you still at it ?

Over and over ; year after year .

Certainly there must be at least one other topic that interests you .

---

Just doing my part to prevent a theocracy. Seriously, I want people to examine what and why they believe what they believe. I think it is a serious issue that spills over into politics and legislation. In the final analysis, you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I have the right (so far) to point out why that belief is in a false reality. Don't engage if you're not interested. There are plenty of other posts I make on other non-religious subjects. Check them out. I have several in the last couple of days. You and I agree on quite a number of political views, some we disagree on. I personally like you and respect your opinions, eventhough you may think I don't. Happy Holidays!

---

Thank you for the kind words....however you start more threads on religion in a couple of months than I have ever originated on any subject total during my entire time on this message board.

And that includes BFANS as well.

And for whom......the same 12-24 usual readers ?

By the way...over 22 Catholic Churches have been attacked / vandalized in Colorado alone during the last year......some repeatedly .

If there is any inherent threat in our country ...its is certainly not against atheists....or the threat of a 'theocracy' .....that is patiently absurd.

So how about a little honesty in that regard ?

---

Well, I'm just trying to stay within Treszoks three categories, politics, religion, and etc. Compared to politics, the religion category seems a little underrepresented.

It's a shame the Colorado churches were vandalized, and whoever did that should be procecuted. I doubt atheists did that, but like anything else it is possible. I bet it was for reasons other than religion. But, if you're a believer, you have to question why God would allow that, especially since many Christians claim he allowed Katrina to hit NOLA for their lifestyle.

---

Maybe believers know that God never promised anyone a life free of troubles - quite the opposite in fact.

---

So a loving god creates a world which imposes pain, suffering and tribulation, promising troubles, all for his pleasure? Why would he do that when he doesn't have to, unless he is not a loving god?

---

A loving God would want us to know and experience everything that is good. Without evil, pain, and suffering, we would not know and experience the good of God's justice, mercy, grace, forgiveness, and restoration. Also, we would not be able to know the good of empathy, love, and forgiveness of each other. Our faith could never be tested as true faith without tribulation. Good character is only built through hardship. And the experience of joy, pleasure, and happiness later in heaven and heaven on earth will be forever expanded because we knew pain and suffering first.

If, for example, a billionaire who only knew luxury his entire life, and a beggar on the street who barely eats enough to survive both were given a billion dollars - which would experience more joy? And which would love the giver of the money more? And which would have a deeper understanding of the pain and suffering in others?

---

So your god is so weak he couldn't create people, who would have that understanding, without having to suffer?

---

If God were to create people with an instant understanding of all that, then the knowledge of suffering would also be instantaneous. You won't be removing the absolute value of the suffering, you'd just be shortening the time frame. Because suffering is an integral part of the understanding. You can't have the understanding without it. You can't give a nickel to someone without giving them both sides. To say that God should just give the understanding without the suffering is saying He shouldn't give them the understanding at all.

To say that God should be powerful enough to make it so that you can have the understanding without the suffering would be paradoxical. God's omnipotence doesn't mean he can create paradoxes, i.e. He can't simultaneously destroy Himself and continue to exist. Neither does His omnipotence mean He can go against His nature, i.e. He doesn't have the power to sin. You have a poor understanding of the meaning of God's omnpotence.

---

You understand that being burned at the stake for someone's idea of heresy is horrible, without having to experience it.

---

To know that it is horrible requires a knowledge of suffering.

---

Is that why Yahweh thought it was ok to order children to be slaughtered? He doesn't know suffering? Suffering is a condition of experiencing life. Why does anyone need to suffer or understand suffering? Isn't heaven free from suffering?

---

God's knowledge of suffering was precisely why He ordered it, in order to carry out a grand plan to ultimately defeat suffering.

And as I already explained, there are good things that would not be possible to know unless we know suffering. Instead of arguing in circles, try to read the answers that people already gave before you recycle your talking points that have already been defeated.