Discussion for debate with Pawnokeyhole

Originally posted by Darfius
"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: [b]for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.' " Genesis 2:17

"That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we migh ...[text shortened]... ernal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;" Titus 1:2
[/b]

Let's suppose, as the bible asserts at least twice, God can't lie. It still doesn't follow that Adam's disobeying him turns him into a liar, which was my point. Hence, two of your quotations are irrelevant to the point I made.

In addition, note that God doesn't assert in the first quote that he would punish Adam. Rather he asserts that Adam is certain to die if he eats the fruit, with cause of death being left open. So he would not be lying or reneging on a promise if decided not to punish Adam for willful curiosity, which would be rather nice and merciful of Him, in my view.

Also, I noticed something that rather DOES make God into a liar! If God asserts that, "for in the day that thou eatest thereof [the tree of knowledge of good and evil] thou shalt surely die" and Adam does not die on that day, doesn't that make God a liar, or, suspending the assumption of omniscience, at least mistaken? Maybe my memory doesn't serve me, but didn't Adam didn't die on that day, did he? He was just banished from the Garden of Eden.

Hmm.

His punishment for Adam eating the apple was death. He warned Adam of this beforehand, so if the punishment had not happened, God would have been made a liar. We've already seen God tell us that He cannot lie.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day..." (2Peter 3:8,10).

If you'll carefully note in Genesis, Adam never made 1000 years. The closest anyone has ever come was Methuselah at 969 years.

God's word was true.

What you must understand is that the driving force behind everything God does is love. What He wants from us is love. When Adam ate the apple, God punished Him (as He warned He would) because Adam showed he didn't love God as much in return. This is why hell exists. When one goes through their life denying Him, He must send them to hell because they do not love Him as He loves them, and because they died in their sin as a result. Accepting Christ as your Savior is a display of faith and love that is more powerful than any animal sacrifice. It is this love that drives God to forgive those who are "saved."

I know of some proof I can offer you, but I want you to be objective. I will discuss it in the actual debate thread. lol

Originally posted by Darfius
The only way you can return to God is through the one and only Mediator between Him and us: Jesus Christ.

Repent of your sins. Ask God for forgiveness. And call Jesus Lord.

Then you are saved for eternity.

Saved for eternity? What if, five years later, you blaspheme against
the Holy Spirit (the one sin that cannot be forgiven). Don't you
damn yourself by doing so?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Saved for eternity? What if, five years later, you blaspheme against
the Holy Spirit (the one sin that cannot be forgiven). Don't you
damn yourself by doing so?

Nemesio

Ok, in all seriousness, I need to know the following before I leave.

Premise 1.

You are well read in the Bible. Not only do you read/have read the Bible, you've also cross referenced it with greek translations.

Premise 2.

You have shown a trend to asking very elementary questions to the Christian theology.


Conclusion:

A. You've poor comprehension skills, unable to retain or understand that which you read.

B. You're actually testing those beneath you. You know the answer, but instead you want them to provide it for you.

C. Premise1 is false, and your previous claims of being well read in Biblical scriptures are false.

I'd like to believe the answer is B, in fact, had this been a test I'd go with B. I would prefer it not to be A, but it may also be C. Heck, I'll leave it at that ... You tick the boxes.

pc

Well, frankly, that is your opinion that the Bible isn't a history book. I mean, do you have proof backing up that rather brash statement? I believe the Bible quite accurately records history.

One example is scholars have long scoffed that the Jews ever fought with the Edomites, thinking the Edomites existed centuries after them, but recent archeological evidence has shown that, yet again, the Bible is absolutely accurate and indeed must be regarded as the best single book of ancient history in the world.

Again, that is your opinion that the passage should be interpreted any way but literally. At the time of the British empire, there were the French and Spanish who challenged their authority, so were they really world rulers?

Who, at the time of Alexander the Great, could have challenged the Greeks?

Who could have challenged the Babylonians? or the Medo-Persians? or the Romans?

It's not merely a question of how large you are, but a question of whether you have absolute control of the world, or could if you so desired. The British could not. Neither could the Chinese.

And the fact that the four who could controlled Israel speaks volumes, frankly.

Regards,
Darfius


The Bible can be construed as a work of history, but certainly not an infallible one. An example of this outside of religion can be the works of Polybius--specifically, how he writes of the great Carthaginian general Hannibal Barca. Now, although Polybius is considered a respected source for the deeds of Hannibal, can his writing be accepted without doubt? Of course not. That would be rediculous. He was not even an observer of the events at hand and his opinions had to be biased. All of this is easily accepted in a book that has no religious connotations. In the Bible, however, these things that are so obvious in every work of history written before modern times are somehow impossible. Why? Why is the Bible not open to scrutiny? Let faith be faith, and let history be history.

Oh, as for empires that could have controlled the entire world if they wanted to, you guys left out the biggest: the Mongols controlled all the land from Palistine to China and back to Poland.

... --- ...

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
[b]Well, frankly, that is your opinion that the Bible isn't a history book. I mean, do you have proof backing up that rather brash statement? I believe the Bible quite accurately records history.

One example is scholars have long scoffed that the Jews ever fought with the Edomites, thinking the Edomites existed centuries after them, but recent arche ...[text shortened]... e Mongols controlled all the land from Palistine to China and back to Poland.

... --- ...

Can you please show me where archeology has directly conflicted with what the Bible said happened?

Oh, and the Mongols steered clear of Europe. They wanted nothing to do with the Spanish and French.

Originally posted by Darfius
Can you please show me where archeology has directly conflicted with what the Bible said happened?

Oh, and the Mongols steered clear of Europe. They wanted nothing to do with the Spanish and French.

Untrue. The armies stopped short of obliterating the pathetic combined army of Europe because of the death of the Kahn.

And I don't care about archeology. Tell you what, I will continue this argument, for an argument is what it is, if you answer one question truthfully. If evidence is procured, say they did up a pot later today that corntradicts something in the Bible, would you give it due consideration, or would you immediately scramble to see if there was a way, any way, no matter how slim or unlikely, that the Bible can remain true for you? If the latter, how can you hold a faith that is based so much on a book and not on God? If you truly had faith in God, you wouldn't care if the Bible was true or not. Then, if the Bible was not true, then that would simply be part of God's eternal plan.

... --- ...

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Untrue. The armies stopped short of obliterating the pathetic combined army of Europe because of the death of the Kahn.

And I don't care about archeology. Tell you what, I will continue this argument, for an argument is what it is, if you answer one question truthfully. If evidence is procured, say they did up a pot later today that corntradicts ...[text shortened]... the Bible was not true, then that would simply be part of God's eternal plan.

... --- ...

Regardless of WHY the armies didn't do it, it's still in line with prophecy, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

And I know no such thing will be found, but if it is, I would of course consider it, but there would probably be an explanation in Scripture, which is God-breathed.

Now, let me ask you a question, in light of archeology only confirming the Bible, why don't you respect it more?

Now, let me ask you a question, in light of archeology only confirming the Bible, why don't you respect it more?

Because it makes plenty of false claims. I would be interested on when archeology suddenly reversed itself and found evidence that actually supported a mass exodus from egypt. Instead of finding more and more reason to disregard it as myth.

Originally posted by Darfius
Regardless of WHY the armies didn't do it, it's still in line with prophecy, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

And I know no such thing will be found, but if it is, I would of course consider it, but there would probably be an explanation in Scripture, which is God-breathed.

Now, let me ask you a question, in light of archeology only confirming the Bible, why don't you respect it more?

Two things. First, you said "probably," so your faith in the Bible is flawed.

Second, I respect the Bible a great deal. I just do not see it as the one and only unimpeachable Word of God. Rephrase: I cannot see it as such, for it is a creation of a flawed man and is therefore flawed itself. I have much respect for the Bible. I have zero respect for men who use such beautiful stories as tools to gain power of religion, earthly power, and effectively driving away souls that only wish to be shown that God is a forgiving God, and welcomes all prodigal children home with open arms and great feasts. Many people see Christianity as the one real choice for spirituality in the Western world, and when they see that it is run by blind monkeys that care more about the historical validity of a piece of literature than they do about the glory of God they become scared and confused with no idea where to turn. Some sit in the dark, read poetry by candlelight. Others simply drink too much or immerse themselves in work. They are are all sad, and they are that way because of the selfishness of man and man's religion. That is what I have no respect for.

In short, I have no respect for you and people like you who blind yourselves to the truth in the name of faith and church, and continually hurt people in your misguided attempts to help.

... --- ...

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Two things. First, you said "probably," so your faith in the Bible is flawed.

Second, I respect the Bible a great deal. I just do not see it as the one and only unimpeachable Word of God. Rephrase: I cannot see it as such, for it is a creation of a flawed man and is therefore flawed itself. I have much respect for the Bible. I have zero respec ...[text shortened]... faith and church, and continually hurt people in your misguided attempts to help.

... --- ...

Do you have any basis at all for your truth or are you one of those who shapes God into what YOU want Him to be rather than what He is?

Originally posted by Darfius
Do you have any basis at all for your truth or are you one of those who shapes God into what YOU want Him to be rather than what He is?

Now that comment makes no sense whatsoever. None of us has any basis. God is ineffable. That is what faith is for. Sheesh. If you count the Bible as basis, remember that the Bible was written by other humans who, really, has no basis and pretty much, um, how to put it, shaped God into what they wanted him to be. But guess what. God cannot be shaped, at least not by us puny humans. Certainly not by a book full of very vague and biased writing. All we can do is shape our concept of God, which only affects us. Of course, this is a great responsibility and not to be taken lightly, but God is seperate from all of this--God is what and who God is. That is all we can know. Neither you nor your Biblical scholars can change that. All you can do is change yourselves.

... --- ...

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Now that comment makes no sense whatsoever. None of us has any basis. God is ineffable. That is what faith is for. Sheesh. If you count the Bible as basis, remember that the Bible was written by other humans who, really, has no basis and pretty much, um, how to put it, shaped God into what they wanted him to be. But guess what. God cannot be shap ...[text shortened]... nor your Biblical scholars can change that. All you can do is change yourselves.

... --- ...

Yes, I'm sure those Jews wanted to believe rape and thievery was a sin. Oh, and I'm sure they wanted to believe even looking at a woman with lust was a sin. I mean, who wants to masterbate?

Your logic is impeccable.

Originally posted by Darfius
Yes, I'm sure those Jews wanted to believe rape and thievery was a sin. Oh, and I'm sure they wanted to believe even looking at a woman with lust was a sin. I mean, who wants to masterbate?

Your logic is impeccable.

Thank you.

I'm very interested in someone addressing how Daniel the prophet from God knew that the Medo/Persian and Greek empires would arise, and that Alexander the Great's kingdom would subsequently be split into 4 parts. Detailed in the debate.

Thanks! 😉