Deep Sight:

@ Mantraa, please refer to my earlier post above on the fact that even if physical laws change (which i do not believe), they cannot change with respect to the zero element. That's what is at issue here.

This proves that the zero element is nothing, and must always remain zero! This proves that 0 + 0 = 0! Everywhere! This proves, like i said in my last post, that the world could not have come out of the zero element, and something had to cause it.

Deep Sight:

@ Tudor, Mazaje - Very good!

We are now breaking out of the first level of the discussion. Let me just add for emphasis before going forward that the reason it was important to accept that 0 + 0 = 0 in all circumstances is so that we appreciate that once we have an element ("1" or anything that exists at all in any form., then it could not have come out of the zero quatity. There must be the intervention of a substantive element to move from zero to something ("1".

Therefore: 0 + 1 = 1. Agreed?

If you accept the above equation, you accept that the world, universe, existence, whatever you call it - came not from the zero element, but from something. There needed to be an intervention in the zero element by 1 (That is to say: 0 + 1 = 1).

Thus the premise is; something caused the universe. Agreed?

petres_007:

Huxley,

Here’s the entire passage for Mark 4:25 (verses 1-34) in Montgomery’s NT version. I think the verses you quoted are similar and I’ll just address the issue using this one verse. Please take your time. I implore you to please read the entire passage to get the full gist. My comments come after it. I’ve also emboldened verse 25.

1 Afterwards Jesus began to teach by the seaside, and a vast multitude of people gathered about him, so that he went on board a boat on the sea, and sat there, while all the people stayed on shore, at the water's edge.

2 Then he began teaching them in parables many things. In his teaching he said to them:

3 "Listen! the Sower once went out to sow,

4 and as he sowed, it happened that some seed fell on the road, and birds came and picked it up;

5 some other seed fell on stony soil, where it had not much earth; and it sprang up quickly because it had no depth of soil,

6 but when the sun rose it was scorched and withered away because it had no root.

7 Other seed fell among the thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked it, so that it yielded no crop.

8 But some seed fell into good soil and yielded a crop that sprang up and increased, yielding thirty, sixty, or a hundredfold.

9 "Any one who has ears to hear," he added, "let him listen to this."

10 When he was alone his followers and the Twelve began asking about the parables.

11 He went on to say to them: "The secret truth concerning the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to those outside everything is told in parables,

12 so that, /@ "for all their looking they may not see, and for all their hearing, they may not understand, lest perchance they should turn and be pardoned./@

13 "You do not understand this parable," said Jesus. "Then how will you understand the other parables?

14 "What the Sower sows is the Word. There are those 'on the wayside' where the Word is sown.

15 As soon as they hear it, Satan immediately comes and snatches away the Word which has been sown in them.

16 And like the sowing upon 'stony ground' are those who, whenever they hear the Word, at once receive it with joy,

17 but because they have no root in themselves they last for a time; but when suffering or persecution ensues because of the Word, they at once fall away.

18 There are others who are 'sown among thorns.'

19 When they have heard the Word, the anxieties of life and the snares of wealth, and all sorts of other ambitions, come in to choke the Word, so that it proves unfruitful.

20 But those, on the other hand, who were sown on that good soil, are those who listen to the Word, and welcome it, and bear fruit, thirty, sixty, or a hundredfold."

21 He went on to say: "Is the lamp brought in to be put under the bushel or the bed? Is it not rather to be put on the lamp-stand?

22 There is nothing hidden except what is to be disclosed, and nothing concealed except what is to be revealed.

23 If any man has ears to hear, let him hear."

24 And he said to them: "Take heed what you hear: With what measure you measure it will be measured to you, and more will be given to you.

25 For he who holds, to him will more be given, and he who holds not, from him will be taken even what he holds."

26 "It is with the kingdom of God," he continued, "as if a man should have sown seed in the earth;

27 night and day he sleeps and wakes while the seed is sprouting and growing tall, he knows not how.

28 Of its own accord the earth bears its crops; first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear.

29 Then as soon as the crop is ready the man has the sickle put in at once, because harvest-time is come.

30 "To what shall we compare the kingdom of God?" he said again. "In what parable shall we set it forth?

31 It is like a mustard-seed, which, when sown in the soil, is the smallest seed in the world;

32 yet when sown shoots up and becomes larger than any plant, sending out such branches that the wild birds build their nests under its shadow."

33 With many such illustrations Jesus used to tell his message to people as far as they were able to receive it;

34 and to them it was his practice never to speak except in parables. But he used to explain everything in private to his disciples.


My comment:

The very first thing you should notice if you read this passage is that Jesus wasn’t talking about material things/money. He wasn’t talking about making the poor richer or the rich poorer… or anything like that

The comments he made here immediately followed his famous “Parable of the Sower” and should be interpreted in that context. And what was the parable of the sower about? The word of God! The truth of God’s word! So when he talked about “whoever has will be given more… and whoever doesn’t, even that he has will be taken from him” he wasn’t talking about material things/money like you’ve supposed.

When he said “he that hath” he was referring to the person who’s learned or received his word and treasures it, makes effort to grow in it and live by it – that this person will increase, not materially/money-wise, but in the knowledge of the truth. But the “he that hath not” is the person who after receiving the word neglects it, is inattentive, or if I can put it this way, does not make effort to improve on himself/grow, will lose the little he had. A good example of this is given in the parable of the Sower, in verses 4-6 of the passage I quoted above:

4 and as he sowed, it happened that some seed fell on the road, and birds came and picked it up;

5 some other seed fell on stony soil, where it had not much earth; and it sprang up quickly because it had no depth of soil,

6 but when the sun rose it was scorched and withered away because it had no root.

In many other scriptures, believers are strongly urged to make every effort to “grow in grace” or “grow in the knowledge of the gospel”. This passage doesn’t stand alone in this matter.

I’m not very good at writing but really hope I’ve been able to at least disprove your accusation that Jesus was “endorsing making the rich richer and the poor poorer”. Its so absurd to even think that, if you know even just a little of the gospel, which before now, I thought you and the others like Tudor did, judging from the way you guys speak against these con men.

But now I know otherwise. [/b]Having read your accusation in this thread, [b]its obvious you guys don’t know any better than our current crop of “men of gods” who twist the scriptures to preach all sort of crap.

I say this because this is exactly how they do it too – by lifting verses out of their proper context, misreading the text in question, twisting the point the scripture is trying to pass across or a combination of all three.

Come to think of it, I was talking with a popular member of this forum on Sunday and amidst what he was saying mentioned that “…Huxley seems to know the bible”. You just proved him wrong with this thread. This your taking a verse out of context like I said earlier, seems quite “Abuzolaish”.

I think it will be safe to conclude that you guys are not really looking for answers… just out to ridicule Christianity. This thread is too much evidence.

And em… I promise not to crash your party again. I promise! The next time any of you guys starts a thread like this, I think I’ll just ignore it like most other Christians here.

Cheers!

And good luck with your God/Christianity bashing!

JPot:

In context:

Jesus starts a parable about sowing seeds (gospel of God)
He says seeds fall on different soil (different personalities/circumstances)
He says some seeds grow, others are stolen (by infamous Satan via doubt)
He says that some weeds grow up (things that separate us from God's will)
He says that in the end the sower reaps the harvest (God takes up the saved ones)

Jesus was saying that we should be aware of Satan's presence in our lives, and be diligent not to loose our life in Christ with the Holy Spirit. He says that the cares of the world (thorns/weeds) should not blot out our Christianity. He says that those who grow in Spirit and Truth will be given more life, but those who don't will wither away.

Make sense?

JPot:

First context GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. aka TALENTS

Second context HOLY SPIRIT, hold on tight to it.

Huxley you remind me of that one guy who thought that the snake in Genesis never had legs. That guy wrote up 100 or so of these unfounded alleged parodies just like yours on SkepticsBible.com

You guys make me laugh. Lol

petres_007:

Take it easy.

If I know for sure that explaining this will do any good, I'll be more than happy to. But I know you guys are not interested in understanding,  You already have your minds made up, and are clearly out to attack Christianity. That's why I didn't bother responding, because its like a game to you.

So I repeat,  enjoy your little party!  

JPot:

Jesus never killed a man, he only healed people. So no, I think that Peter was being over-zealous at that point. Peter also cut off the ear of the high priest's assistant while in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Some people think that the apostles were perfect people, which they obviously weren't. Peter, just like us, was still maturing in faith.


In any case I'm not one to judge. God judges from above.

JPot:

Make note of the fact that it was Peter not Paul who killed the two persons.

Also make note that [b]Peter and Paul [/b]died in humility not in a comfy gold-covered grave.

The money they made was distributed to widows and people in need. Just in case you didn't know that.

JPot:

I laugh at all of your ramblings.

All of the apostles made note of how Jesus came on the earth, and how he was born. We even read that the wise men came and gave PRESENTS to Jesus on his day of birth. They celebrated His birthday.

So why is it wrong to celebrate birthdays? Personally I don't know why. I think it is a good occasion to come together with friends and family to be happy about life, sing hymns to God, pray to God, and enjoy life like God made life to be enjoyed. God didn't say THOU SHALT NOT ENJOY LIFE. THOU SHALT NOT CELEBRATE. He made exceptions and listed out sins that shouldn't be committed when "enjoying life", but He never said it was wrong. Neither should we.

Think about it.

petres_007:

Huxley,

What sort of crap is this? 

You lift verses out of context just to have something to slight Christ with? Jeez!

You remind me of Abuzola! 

jagunlabi:

Good idea,although i doubt if this will not degenerate into another one of those boring religious mudslingings.

matrim:

[Am just hoping someone will be saved from the likes of Cerullo, Hinn, Oral Roberts, Swaggard etc. And sure enough, I am an advocate for scientific rationalism. I think religion (xianity and all religions) poses a threat to our civilisation

@ therationa you seem to forget that our "civilization"is based on christianity.

There is absolutely no doubt that our current civilizaion has been impacted by Christian thought, but this has been a mixed bag.  On the one hand Christian ideas have impeded progress (like causing multiple wars, crusade, book burning, wicthhunts, persecutions, burning of libraries, etc, etc). On the other hand, Christian scholastic instiutions have created environments for some thinkers and scholars to thrive.

But the major impact to modern civilization come from he enlightenment thinkers and from the advocates of the scientific method, many of whom were lukewarm about christianity.

chukwudi44:

@HUXLEY AND CO

THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD OR HOW ELSE CAN SCIENCE EXPLAIN THIS ?

Saint Bernadette Soubirous - St. Bernadette was the original visionary at Lourdes, France and died in 1879 in Nevers, France. Her body was exhumed 30 years later in 1909 and was discovered completely incorrupt and free of odor. The body was again exhumed a second time ten years later in 1919 and was still incorrupt. Her body is still on display in the Chapel of St. Bernadette in Nevers, France to this day. See photo below

aktheuite:

Would like to know if there are others like me who do not think there is a God

Here’s a concise formulation of the Cosmological Argument (for those who may not bother to do the necessary research):

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The Universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

What this means quite plainly is that the universe along with space, time, matter and energy came into being. The universe is not a necessary entity; it is a contingent entity. It does not have an infinite past. The only necessary being/entities one can think of are  a) numbers b) an unembodied personal mind. This is the conception of God that theists work with—a personal, unembodied, spaceless, infinite, eternal mind. It goes without saying that numbers though necessary, do not have any creative ability. It follows that the cause of the universe is a mind greater than the universe—by which we mean something that is immaterial, boundless, spaceless and eternally pre-existent.

How is it then that when you present the Cosmological argument, an atheist’s response is “What Caused God?” That question simply shows a misunderstanding of the argument. Anyone asking this question should familiarize him/herself with what “necessary” and “contingent” entities are. That question is as laughable as asking “What makes a triangle have three sides whose angles add up to 180 degrees?”, or “Why should a triangle have three sides with angles that add up to 180 degrees?” The answer is as simple as saying “That is what a triangle is DEFINED as”. I have nothing to discuss with anyone who wants to argue with definitions. If you do not like the definition given, go ahead, define yours and see if we may agree or disagree.

Another argument an atheist may make when confronted with the Cosmological Argument is to suggest that “the universe is uncaused” which is a patently false idea given its finitude in the past. An atheist is left with the worst option of declaring that the “universe just popped out of nothing, from nothing and by nothing” and that I suggest is even worse than magic. Nothing pops out of nothing, from nothing, by nothing. To suggest otherwise is to be painfully irrational. Not even radioactive decay; or virtual particles which merely arise and disappear from fluctuations in the quantum vacuum—a veritable ‘sea’ of energy.

To refute the argument, you have to shoot down or falsify the premises. Otherwise, you'll arrive at the painful conclusion whether you want to or not.

Pastor AIO:

Check this out at around 24:20 to 25:37
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00m3z92/The_Big_Questions_Series_2_Episode_29/

Pastor AIO:

I would say that Mind is beyond the categories of existence and non existence. What would you say?

Statements like having a mind of it's own is just an english colloquialism and doesn't mean to be in physical possession of mind. It just means being independent. But I'm sure you know that, what surprises me is that surely you ought to know that I would know that and wouldn't fall for it.

justcool:

From my encounters with the so called atheists, I have noticed that their disbelief is always of a particular god or belief system.

I will give an example: An atheist may spend hours disproving the validity of the bible. At the end of the day he may succeed in proving that some of the stories in the bible are questionable and he will base his atheism on this, But what he forgets is that the fact that some of the stories in the bible are questionable does not mean that God does not exist.

A better conclusion for such a person would be this: "If God does exist, He is definitely not exactly what the bible says He is."
In this conclusion he acknowledges two things; (1) God and bible are not exactly the same. (2) The fact that certain things in the bible fails to live up to the test of reality does not mean that the existence of God is false too.

Prizm:

After reading through the number of posts that have appeared mysteriously back on to this closed thread since I last posted a reply, I have to say that I am not so comfortable with the idea that the thread can be closed arbitrarily or that a single post for example has character limits. Many times, discussions on this issue require a lot more than a few simple sentences to develop an argument and effectively communicate. Besides, I am not a regular participant on these boards. For these reasons, I am tempted to carry my portion of the discussion from this forum away to a blog for those atheists who really want to pursue a line of discussion with me in particular.

The sense in doing this is because it enables me to isolate those sort of arguments coming from the theist or agnostic side of the fence that are really not germane to the discourse or that  I actually do not endorse; or which I feel are not communicating effectively. I assure any atheist or agnostic that is interested in really discussing these issues in an atmosphere devoid of ad-hominem attacks that it will be a really fun and enriching exercise.

To proceed, I’ll post my reply to Wirinet’s question in this personal blog below. If Wirinet feels like continuing the discussion with me over at that blog, he/she will be deeply appreciated. I will also repost the Cosmological Argument as a way of re-introducing the discussion for people like Chris, Huxley and Tudor if they are interested. These gentlemen strike me as reasonably possessed by the topic, so it will be great if we can discuss these issues in an environment devoid of the occasional and unintended ambient chatter or noise. My guarantee to these people is that their objections or skepticism will be graciously received and honestly answered (to the best of my ability); also their opposing but positive cases (arguments) will be diligently considered; and in doing so, we would learn a few things ourselves. This is what intelligent discussions are after all. See you all sometime.

Cheers.

http://anaedo.blog-city.com/on_numbers_a_reply_to_wirinet.htm

http://anaedo.blog-city.com/the_cosmological_argument.htm

Ogaga4Luv:

A person better have some pretty good evidence when making this kind of statement, and we do! The bible itself.

Jesus got so pissed off that he wanted to kill Jezebel's innocent children. Hard to believe but it's true. Revelations 2:20-23 (KJV) shows this:

"20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce my servants to commit fornification, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornification, and she repented not. 22 Behold, I cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. 23 [size=14pt]And I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I give unto everyone according to your works."[/size]

Some Christians want to proclaim that the "children" were her followers and not children. This is proven false in the words Jesus said "my servants". Also in the bible the only time it denotes "children" is as offspring. Such as "God's children of Israel" are God's "children" since he created them. Even the ones that don't follow God are considered his children (creation). It is a given that if she had sex with others and the birth control back then, that she most likely did have children. Whether Jesus was talking about the future children of Jezebel later as a result of the fornication with Jesus' servants or her children at present. It still holds true that Jesus wanted to kill them either way. And even if by a remote chance Jesus was talking about adults he is still threatening to KILL someone. Does this sound like the loving Jesus you can trust with your children and your soul? I think not! And look at the last line of the verse: "and I give unto everyone according to your works". He is now threatening to kill everyone, not just the children of Jezebel, but everyone in "all the churches".
@ Topic: who is Jesus Christ?  

kola oloye:

@ OP
Hmnnn, All i can do for now is to pray for you.
May the Almighty God give you understanding.