I was scooping up(shorting) the May10Puts @ .95 yesterday. I will gather as many as I can on any further weakness. Worse case, I own FSC @ 9.05. What's not to like...?
Follow @ DocReits:c:o:m
"The fact that I need something doesn't prove its existence. That is pure sophistry."
Want to think that one over again? Define "need"...
Good attempt Walrat (Jaggerfanatic) asking and answering yourself.to keep your God thread going. Reminiscent of "Dumb and Dumber"...;-)
"God came up with NO rules because he is..."
Yes, 'He Is'...the clay yells out to the potter. "He Is...but a vague concept"...God gives every man(including you) a measure of faith(Rom 12:3...even Lenloc) when He made you.
You can suppress it as much as possible, but you are still using "His" name as you speak out your frustration to abrogate the existence of the very one you refuse to acknowledge.
There is this very small stamp "Made by God" in the heart/mind of all of us. We can deny our sneakers were "Made in China" as loudly as we might. It still does not change where they were made.
The idea of God being the Creator of the Universe (your and my Creator also) is offensive to many. Why? Because the implication is that if there is an all knowing, all powerful God who ordered all of this beauty and complexity we see around us. These things, as we can observe, function within very specific rules, (example our heart beating). If all these things function within very specific parameters and rules then He must also have certain Rules we are to live by.
Many don't like rules. As I formerly mentioned, we like to be the Captain of our own ship and don't want anyone telling us how we are to live.
Have you ever pondered how we ever got a conscience? How do we "know" a priori what we "ought" to be doing? How did we get the idea of "fairness"? If we live in a materialistic dialectic how did that notion evolve? These ideas involve transcendent notions of right and wrong. These fairness ideas of right and wrong describe rules. Rules lead by necessity to a Rule giver.
"All my beliefs are based on evidence. There is no evidence for God"
"God himself made it plain. Ever since God created the world, his invisible qualities, both his eternal power and his divine nature, have been clearly seen; they are perceived in the things that God has made" (Romans 1:19b-20)
"we don't know for sure what he said because his disciples wrote the history....which incidentally is very close to Bhudda who never claimed to be God"
Surely you see your inconsistent reasoning when you believe as true what was recorded as having been said by Bhudda, yet you refuse to trust the record of Jesus's words.
There is roughly 1000 times more evidence in the historical record of the latter over the former. Ask yourself if you can trust statements from "any" ancient historical figure, if you cannot trust the one with the most verifiable historical evidence...???
Think about it. No one living today were eye-witnesses of Lincoln's life and death. Why do you believe the written record? Maybe he was a made up figure by the power brokers of the world who wanted a civil war in America. Maybe he didn't write the Emancipation Proclamation.
Are you one of those folks who are so solipsistic that they refuse to believe"anything" they cannot verify with their own eyes. How do we know that Babylon's Hanging Gardens and the Colossus of Rhodes were really Great wonders of the ancient world, and were not simply imaginations of a creative mind? (Hint: We rely on the written historical record).
"His disciples wanted him to be something he was not"
Agree. Something he was not at that time. They wanted Him to be an earthly king of the J's at that time.
"Jesus repudiated the Old Testament"
Repudiate means to "deny" the truth of or to reject the same. Here is His own statement regarding the OT, as recorded in Mt 5:17:
"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose".
Their(law) purpose was to again remind us of our inability to keep them and to show us our "need" of a Savior. Jesus "accomplished their purpose" by paying our bail by dying for us. We get out of jail, through this bail bond (His death and Resurrection) when we place our trust in Him.
"his way is meant for here on Earth"
Agree. He left us a great example of love and forgiveness. Don't miss His greater mission though.. He knew and announced many times here on earth, during His three year ministry, that His main mission was the Cross and His Resurrection so that we could be reconciled with the Father and have everlasting life.
"You have to be unbelievably stupid in order to believe everything in the bible"
You are just ignorant and that's OK. You are in good company...;-) The Mosaic law had many 'Rules'. Purification laws, sacrificial laws, atonement laws. The Bible tells us that these 'laws' were given to show us one and one thing only.... That it was impossible for us, in our 'broken' condition(sinfulness) to keep them. Here it is...Romans 5:20 "God's law was given so that all people could see how sinful they were. But as people sinned more and more, God's wonderful grace became more abundant". They were given to show us that we "needed" a savior.
Do all these purification laws still hold? No. Here is when they ended...Galatians 3:19, " Why, then, was the law given? It was given alongside the promise to show people their sins. But the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised. God gave his law through angels to Moses, who was the mediator between God and the people."
So when the child (Jesus) came he ushered in a New Commandment to "love the Lord your God... and to love your neighbor as yourself"(Matthew 22:38-39). He said "everything rests on these two commandments". It was through His death that sin was dealt with and through faith and trust in Him that we become 'right' with God.
So when you say, "Obviously many things in the bible aren't right", the reason they don't appear "right" is that you simply don't understand them "yet". I understand why you relentlessly are attacking the Bible though, so keep seeking...;-)
Have a great trip. My son went to the exact spot two years ago and had one of the "best" times of his life! I hear from others that it is the best spot they have ever been to for vacation.
"I don't see how your comments detract or disprove what I said; mostly your comments don't really address my remarks"
You entirely missed my original point about intellectual dishonesty. The poster started this thread attempting to de-bunk the Christian story with suppositions. Those suppositions were proposed as the "true" story using the very document(Bible), which he later claimed as un-true, to support his original, made up claims.
You cannot honestly advance an idea as factual using references you later claim to be untrue. That was my point about intellectual dishonesty.
So now you open a new thread about the reliability of the "canon" of the Bible. You write:
"You point out that there are very many documents that corroborate the Bible, but that is really my point. All of these documents don't tell the same story"
You are very mistaken. All of these manuscripts of the original canon tell the exact same story. That is the point. Those documents you refer to are copies from as early as 60 AD from the original manuscripts. No other ancient historical figure has as many copies nor as close a time period to the time of their lives as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
The gnostic writings you refer to (and yes I have read ) were written later , have virtually no copies, and were never used by the early followers of Christ (before your Catholic church reference).
"Even the four Gospels that we do recognize have differences in the story they tell"
These differences are not contradictory but told from different perspectives by different writers. "For example, how many women did Jesus appear, and to whom did He appear first? (While each Gospel has a slightly different sequence to the appearances, none of them claims to be giving the precise chronological order.) So, while the resurrection accounts may seem to be inconsistent, it cannot be proven that the accounts are contradictory".
If you really want to go there Ray we can, although it is a lengthy journey. You use the traditional skeptic's misstatements to try to make a point about the un-reliability of the Bible.
In so doing you take "all" of history with you. The Bible has more manuscripts extant than any of other ancient work you mention, and is therefore much more reliable than any of these other works.
Re the Old testament:
"Jewish scholars performed "unbelievable" care in copying and preserving Scripture.
The Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in 1947 are dated from the third century B.C. to the first century A.D. These manuscripts predate by 1000 years the previous oldest manuscripts. They represent every Old Testament book except Esther (as well as non-biblical writings). There is word for word identity in more than 95% of the cases, and the 5% variation consists mostly of slips of the pen and spelling."
The New testament has over over 5,600 manuscript copies or portions of the New Testament. These are dated from 100 to 300 years after the originals.
"F. F. Bruce: "There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good attestation as the New Testament."
William F. Albright: "Thanks to the Qumran discoveries, the New Testament proves to be in fact what it was formerly believed to be: the teaching of Christ and his immediate followers circa.25 and circa. 80 AD."
Compare manuscript copies of Aristotle(49), Plato(7), Caesar(10). Throw out the Bible and you just threw out all of ancient history.
Now, what do you mean when you refer to my intellectual honesty Ray?
"My theory is that the universe was caused by the big bang"
That is an idea or "belief". You cannot prove that idea because it involves "faith". You cannot go back and observe it, you cannot test it and you cannot repeat it.
"When you ask how we got here you don't seem to understand that a supreme being doesn't explain ANYTHING it just complicates it"
I think an intelligent designer explains a heck of a lot more than a Big Bang out of nothing!! Think for just a minute about where all of the material came from in the Big Bang that filled the physical universe? Now that, in your words, "doesn't explain ANYTHING it just complicates it".
Further you state,
"I don't know for sure what is but I am very sure what isn't" (referring to a designer).
That is interesting. You do not know what started the universe but you are sure it wasn't God. Here is your intellectual dilemma. Please stay with me. If you are "sure" of something, (as opposed to a belief), and you said you were "very sure" that a supreme being did not create the universe , you must have proof. So prove it!
"Everything you know or think you know about Jesus comes from the disciples. They had ample reason to lie"
Your lying isn't the problem, your intellectual dishonesty is. We have no basis for a discussion when you constantly change the rules. What rules? Uh-huh, thought you'd never ask. You claim we cannot trust history and those things recorded about the life of Christ and yet you use that same historical record to discount the events surrounding the life of Christ in your opening post. Intellectual dishonesty.
As far as history goes how do we know anything is true about the past? How about Plato or Aristotle? Maybe someone lied about their lives. Perhaps they weren't even real people! Maybe the Egyptian Pharaohs never lived. How can you expect to have a discussion when you won't even allow the historical record to stand?
You obviously are confused. I thought we could have an intelligent discussion. I was wrong.
Jesus, who you said was a "good person", said some pretty strange things as just a "person". One in particular I thought you would also find peculiar. Speaking about himself he said, "I am the way the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me" (Jn 14:6). Did he lie or was he just deluded? If so, how then was he "good", as you say, for we know that "good people" don't lie or deceive, right?
Inquiring minds want to know. Hey, if your answer is:
""I am asking you what your theory is" (loop), just save the bandwidth...
You are acting the child. I told you many times what I believe. You have told me what you believe. Neither can prove this as it is our "belief". It is not a theory as theories involve the scientific method which is physical science and not philosophy or metaphysics..
I think your thread has dragged on way too long as you have run out of intelligent conversation. Before you reply, let me do it for you from your dwindling vocabulary:
"I am asking you what your theory is" (loop)
"Again "morality" or good behavior does NOT need religion"
"Religion is potentially very dangerous. Nothing scares me more than hundreds of nuclear weapons in the hands of any country founded on religion. "
Pretty lame Lenloc. The United states has one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world and we were founded on religion. How can you continue a discussion with such weak tripe as to compare radical Islam with Christianity or to discount the atheistic country's scorecard:
Atheist nations like Hitler's Germany, Stalin and Lenin's USSR and Mao's China and Pol Pots Cambodia killed millions upon millions of their own people. Many more people have been brutally murdered under atheistic regimes than any other.
"YOU need to believe"
Quite the opposite. I have been persuaded of the reality of God from among many things( those that I have pointed out to you)...design and complexity. You are the one who "Needs" to reject them. For if you believed in God then there are many implications which follow. Among them is a "Rule Book". You would be called into account for your actions.
That would mean you would be "expected" by your God to abide by the "Rules". You don't obviously care for that idea very much because you desire to be the captain of your "own" destiny. So be it. That is your right. Just don't expect theists to follow your "belief" system. As Bertrand Russell , the quintessential atheist said, the atheists existence is "One of despair". Good luck with that.