The only proof that the old Testament offers for the immutability of the counsel of God, are the blessings to your health and prosperity if you serve him without hypocrisy.
Has anyone tried this test for the existence of God?
‘Why have we fasted,’ they say,
‘and you have not seen it?
Why have we humbled ourselves,
and you have not noticed?’
“Yet on the day of your fasting, you do as you please
and exploit all your workers.
4Your fasting ends in quarreling and strife,
and in striking each other with wicked fists.
You cannot fast as you do today
and expect your voice to be heard on high.
5Is this the kind of fast I have chosen,
only a day for a man to humble himself?
Is it only for bowing one’s head like a reed
and for lying on sackcloth and ashes?
Is that what you call a fast,
a day acceptable to the Lord?
6“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
7Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe him,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
8Then your light will break forth like the dawn,
and your healing will quickly appear;
then your righteousnessa will go before you,
and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard.
9Then you will call, and the Lord will answer;
you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I.
“If you do away with the yoke of oppression,
with the pointing finger and malicious talk,
10and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
and your night will become like the noonday.
Mods: if he won't answer me, can you get him to do so as a condition of retaining posting rights? This is getting ridiculous.
Why? Yes, Michael can be pretty out there, but everyone in this thread is a willing participant. Whatever you may think of him, he's not insincere, he's not here to convert you, and he's not disrespectful; he's just eccentric.
But Kris: I can only disagree. Sincerity is surely measured in the terms on which you come to debate. Like integrity really.
If you just put up propaganda, post scripture, move the goal posts, don't answer direct questions then eventually we see what this sincerity really means, no? I've followed the last couple of Michael's threads with increasing suspicion about his motives for being here.
He clearly has no intention whatsoever of really engaging in the debates he stirs, but actually just wants the appearance of doing so - while continuing to put up Christian propaganda... I have to wonder why he does that - and I see little reason to think he is "sincere" in anything other than a hidden agenda.
The approach to and method of debate are the problem: they lack integrity and honesty.
I've just been back through the thread Kris. I'm not alone in feeling distinctly queasy at Michael's prevarication and obfuscation. Lots of others seem to assume he has bad motives for these dodgy postings.
So I think it's fine to come here as a Christian and debate with us: we'd enjoy that, if it is honestly done. But surely you need to be prepared to actually debate? Not just post scripture, unsubstantiated and indefensible rhetoric and myth - and then just avoid the direct challenges. We have this constant switch and mix of evidence type language (see the original post) followed by barking lunacy and no answers to the direct points made in rebuttal.
I don't see eccentricity, I see a lack of honesty and integrity: and I'm clearly not alone.
You appear alone to me. What question have I not answered on this thread?
You always post theses stong opinions and type casting me in some general grouping. However this shows that you have not read my message, particularly on my blog post. You will plainly see that I am not the "Christian" that you speak of. I am here to point out the falsehold in Christianity, as known and as practiced.
You are good at grand standing demagoguery, the problem is that it has no bearing in reality. But you would make a great politician
You appear alone to me. What question have I not answered on this thread?
What a shock. Read the thread. All those other people questioning your motives...which are still completely unclear... Do I really have to go through and collect questions (here and on the last thread) that you haven't answered? It's not the individual questions either though: it's the lack of address to issues of principle which are raised by the statements you put out there. Like - what is evidence? What is your method for knowing what is true/un-true? If you're up for engaging with these - great: let's go for it.
I have no idea who you are or what you believe: it's utterly inpenetrable. I have read what I have read of your posts: each one does need to stand alone at some level... I'm not likely to go searching for more on your blog to be honest. Why would I? This is a (painful) public discussion that I'm responding to: if required reading exists elsewhere that needs to be said at the outset perhaps?
And grandstanding demagoguery eh? That's pretty fine stuff. To be accused of having no bearing in reality by someone who posts the stuff you post is irony in it's highest form. But hey ho. I'd make a dreadful politician: I sort of care quite a bit...
Michael: on reflection - you are right. I will read your blog and perhaps your motivation for being here will come clear from there.
OK Michael: sorry - none the wiser. The link is to a posting of an interpretation - which would be rejected by the vast majority of students I suspect - of the history of Christianity.
But it does not explain why you come to an atheist board and post sections from the bible, posit unsubstantiable theist dogma, use evidential language but don't engage in evidential debate.
The last is the key really: before asserting anything about god, souls or any other concept of that ilk, demonstrating their existence is prerequisite. Most here just can't get past that point.
Yes you can not demostrate the existence of the supernatural, however I try to attach compelling video clips whenever I can.
One such clip appears in this thread. A non-baryonic being appears to manifest itself at a millitary installation in the orient then simply vanishes. However the cover story refers to it as an alien. I group aliens, ufos and hauntings all in the same category; non-baryonic beings fallen from their respective places throughout the Cosmos, awaiting judgement in Tartarus, i.e. inclose vicinity of the earth, sky,ocean, beneath the ear th and on the Moon..
But it does not explain why you come to an atheist board and post sections from the bible...
I'm here to learn why theism still exists, and how to defend against the worst of it. In fact, I don't see how there would even be any need to advocate for atheism, if theism didn't exist. So I appreciate hearing sincere explanations from theists, no matter how much I disagree with them.
What is stunning, right after posting the essay, that mentions the obelisk in Vatican city and church spires and steeples as a carryover from the the standing images (matzebah) erected in front of the Temple that cause Israel (Judea) to go into captivity. A earthquake strikes toppling one of the spires on the national Cathedral and cracking the dedication stone atop the Washington monument.
You think this is a test for the existence of something/anything????? (I've deleted the less polite bit here : though I would point out that posting this rubbish here appears to be bad faith. Posting scripture to an atheist forum is not the action of someone with integrity).
You talk in evidential terms but seem to have no a clue what evidence is. Why is this not evidence for the existence of my verucca? Words can be written down. But they need to be testable to be evidence for something. Think about what evidence you would require to believe in Osiris. And then apply this same standard to your god.
Evidence is evident Michael. This is mystical rubbish. There is quite a difference. (This conversation is utterly surreal: how can someone who understands enough about evidence to know to leave his 25th floor apartment by the door not the window in the morning, say, think that there is anything here that consitutes a testable hypothesis?)
And again: posting scripture to an Atheist forum is very bad form. Many of us know it quite well already, thanks: many of us find it utterly abhorent in it's profoundly immoral views.
This looks like an attempt to proselytise. Answer honestly please: do you think that scripture has magical properties and that if we all read enough of it we will convert? Why are you here? Please do tell us.
Because the lie was broadcasted and enforced by the sword by parochial authorities for 2000 years. Time to give the history a chance. A nutshell appears in my blog post.