Churchwork #fundie

Churchwork #fundie biblocality.com

$10,000 U.S. is being offered to the first person who can overturn the perfect proof for God of the Bible.

The reason for this offer is to show that, still, no agnostic/atheist can find fault with the Proof. In the work world, if someone offers you $10,000 to perform a task, most who seek employment needing the work would do the work, but the atheist/agnostic does not when it comes to their faith because their's is blind faith. It would be an impossible task. In the work world, the non-believer would have been fired, how much more in God's design?

All previous attempts have been removed, because they all had some flaw. Only new arguments will be allowed.

The only stipulation is the challenger must present his or her case at Biblocality Forums in this thread.

Oh, by the way, if you get crass and abusive, you're banned. This includes nicknames, emails, self-declarations, being ignorant (belligerent), and lying on the 18 questions at registration also found under "Edit Profile". If there is no love, then all your efforts are in vain stemming from self.

1226 comments

old comment by DiZtheGreat

"$10,000 U.S. is being offered to the first person who can overturn the perfect proof for the existance of a tiny gyrating testicle-shaped creature named Barrafrack that lives in my pocket. Barrfrack is both invisible and silent, and he is undetectable by any sensory, electronic, or other means of perception. He cannot be seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled, he cannot be picked up by radar, sonar, or any other tracking means, and his form has no interaction with matter whatsoever.
The reason for this offer is to show that, still, no person can find fault with a creature that is outside the realm of logic or perception. All previous attempts have been removed, because Barrafrack said so, and I believe him. Only new arguments will be allowed, if Barrafrack says so." My conclusion: You can't prove that Barrafrack doesn't exist. Therefore, he must.

old comment by Lee

Just for reference, if they're the same size and shape, the wind resistance will be the same, and they will fall at the same rate, regardless of their weight. Unfortunately as I see it, he was right. In a vacuum this is true (take air resistance to be 0 in the following). However, take two falling balls, one of 1kg and one of 100kg. Same size and dimensions. Let's assume an air resistance at speed x of 5N on both objects. So we have a combined force on the first of (rounded) 10N - 5N and on the second of 100N-5N. The resultant forces are then 5N and 95N. If we divide by the mass to get acceleration we get 5/10 = 0.5m/s/s and 95/100 = 0.95m/s/s. That is one object is accelerating faster than the other. Similarly, different terminal velocities would be achieved. You'd need 100N of air resistance on the more massive object to equal the acceleration due to gravity and only 10 on the other, so you could expect the more massive object to be going 10 times faster at terminal velocity (actually, that may be a square root arrangement, but there's certainly a difference). At low speeds air resistance will be tiny and so can largely be excluded.

old comment by [i]McCulloch[/i]

The problem is that there is no objective criterion as to whether the alleged proof has been overturned. If anyone presented a valid disproof, it would be deemed as invalid by Churchwork.
I just read the first step. It is patent nonsense.

Why is eternally evolving in the past of cause and effect (do not confuse this with the limitedness of evolution, the physical science, since the amoeba or prokaryote) NOT TRUE, in the physical realm (material nature), biologically or non-biologically, organically or non-organically; that is, in its more encompassing meaning? Simply stated, If for eternity things have been evolving (biologically or non-biologically, etc.), by this very definition of evolving (in causes and effects, before or after the amoeba, even before or after the big bang), you would have had an eternity to be perfected (without sin) irrespective of when you personally started in the evolving chain according to calculus where the approximation of eternity is taken as eternity. Evolution (the limited definition of the physical development since the amoeba) is NOT towards perfection for evolution is just a limited way of man understanding some things for it does not address or make treatment of the spiritual and the soulical, since these other two components are beyond its scope; but, evolving (a different term relating to cause and effect over a greater time frame) has a more encompassing and expansive meaning. If such evolving (of causes and effects) was going on for an eternity of the past (which it has not, of course), we easily would have been perfected by now, having ample time to do so. Let us not be so restrictive in the petty self or vague with words by generalizing (being unspecific) so as not confuse the definitions of evolving and evolution differentiated that were provided for the sake of clarity. Nor should we behave legalistically like a bad lawyer or bear false witness against what is said here since that would be deflecting and circumventing. Let us not be belligerent or obstinate by misreading this most excellent first step. The assumption by many unsaved souls (thus, a good place to commence the 4 Step Proof for God) is that the universe has always been going on in the past for eternity (many unsaved cosmologists and evolutionists believe this, either biologically or non-biologically, as they have told me so). Therefore, what must follow, is that you have also had an eternity to be perfected and since you are not (since you are still a sinner and make mistakes), this proves that such evolving eternally in the past is incorrect. As proof of this, we can see in just a few short years (approximately 6000 years ago) since the first Adamic man (the first man with God-consciousness), we have changed and matured in leaps and bounds; thus, we will not need another 6000 years to be perfected (speaking of those who have God's uncreated life). We do not need to know all that entails being perfected, only that it is without sin. And, since we know we jail people for crimes, we know there is this sin that has consequence, and the mention of it does not presume God first, since notice I did not mention God first. This throws a wrench in lots of atheists'/agnostics' ideology. Note: this proof is not referring to nature merely reacting, but to man made in God's image, and only those men who are being perfected because they are born-again or saved. We are referring to only man, not animals, and only those men and woman who are saved. One observes an exponential curve in our development, not just technologically, but also in our conscience, historically and scientifically undeniable. For example, it is no longer common practice, except in Islam, to sacrifice children on altars to their god or gods. In a very simple way we can say it this way: we will not keep killing each other for millions of years. The pre-endemic or pre-adamic period is considered the "dust" of the ground (Gen. 2.7). It will do nothing for your spirit and your life in Christ for it can not explain first cause, and that is where it will always fall short of the glory of God since man can not know all God's ways, nor does God need you to know all the aspects of the "dust" to be saved. If you knew everything, then you would be God and would not need to be saved, but God gloriously saves without you needing to know all things. And only the smart people would be saved if you needed to know so much, but recall "that God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10.34).

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm]The perfect proof

old comment by Helping you with the link

Various pages for the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible exist.
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm There are also many threads on the 4 Step Proof. Check under "evolution and intelligent design," "Gnostics, Agnostics and Atheists" and "Origins & Creation" The commonality of them all is that nobody can find anything wrong with the 4 Step Proof, which is really just the proof God supplies in the Scriptures most reasonably, since you nor I can find any fault with it, so it stands, and nobody gets the $10,000. At the same time then, you have no excuse for rejecting Christ. The objectivity of the proof is measurable, for we are able to quantify through various methods the exponential progression in our conscience these past 6000 years it will not take much longer to reach sinless in in the saved.

old comment by OmegaHunter

That 4 step proof is so damn bogus and full of logical fallacies it isn't even funny that you claim no one can find fault with it.
The first step shoots the whole proof in the foot by sounding like an idiot tried his hand at the logic. I'm going to go over the "summary" since the full version is too damn long but just as dumb. "If there had been an eternity of the past of causes and effects, we would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin, but since we still sin, we know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effect." First it makes the mistake of talking about humans as if we've been around forever, as long as the entire universe. It then assumes that "sin" is some kind of empirical fact rather than a concept. Then it crudely mashes these two dumbass ideas together and assumes that we are at the end of some anti-sin evolutionary chain; when using the proof's own dipshit logic we could be in the middle. "And thus we were created by God of the Bible, given Christ-none can compare!" So the god of the Bible must be correct because the Bible says that Christ is the best and we all suck? "Psychological studies can be done to verify in just these past 6000 years the exponential progression of the conscience of mankind, that it will not take another 6000 years to reach sinlessness in the saved: e.g. God works in long transitions from the OT period of 4000 years to the dispensation of grace of 2000 years to the millennium of 1000 years." Wow more dumbass assertions right there in the "proof," what a joke. First it basically pulls what seems to be an admittedly unverified claim out of it's ass. Who are these psychologists that analyzed the minds of people 6000 years ago then compared them to now then projected how long it will take to reach sinlessness? Then it assumes that the earth and man are 6000 years old. "Each period exhibits a new grace. Did you notice anything special? This is an exponential progression." Exponential progression, eh? Fundie word redefinition project? "For example, we usually don't throw our children as sacrifices into the fiery mouth of the Molech-type god as many nations did in the past which Israel got rid of some. The only place you really see this today is in Islam, teaching their kids to be suicide mass-murderers. There are lots of examples: another is the murder rate per capita has continued to go down century after century." This "proof" also includes racism, hooray! So proof of the evolution of man away from sin is that the Hebrews and later Christians killed a lot of other people? We don't stone adulteresses to death anymore either but the god you're supposedly trying to prove commands just that. "Step 2 - Nothing in nature or time happens all by itself. It always has a cause. Therefore, since it must have a cause, always, we know God did it, given Christ." Except God, he doesn't need a cause right? If I said the universe as a whole could be that one thing that was without cause why would I be wrong and you be right? Moreover this doesn't prove the existence of YOUR god just because you half-assedly tacked "given Christ" on the end. "Don't let the cunning try to deceive you by saying what is true of Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics is not true of Quantum Physics just because of its complexity. That's called snake oil. You can catch a person in the act selling the snake oil when they desperately argue for their puff-the-magic-dragon stories, that it happens all by itself, lol." Someone is talking about magical fairy tales but it isn't us. "Step 3 - If you wish to try to disprove this Proof, do not try to disprove some god, but keep your issues directed at God of the Bible-given Christ the Uncreated Creator." Just because you keep tacking "Christ this and that" throughout doesn't mean your proving YOUR god exists at all. You simply keep babbling on and on about the short comings of man then say that proves god exists. " Step 4 - Just as Step 1 treats the natural, there is also the supernatural, in which there could not have been an eternity of the past of cause and effects of gods creating gods; otherwise, you would have had an eternity to be perfected to be without sin. Ergo, God did it, given Christ." So if you repeat the same non-logic from step 1 it counts as another step? And again, it makes a dumbass leap of logic straight to "GODDIDIT" but since he's supposedly proving the Christian god then he throws "given Christ" in there. The full version isn't any better. It adds in attacks on atheists and scientists to these arguments then backs up its own assertions with Bible verses. Round and round the logic goes, where it stops, nobody knows.

old comment by A Friend

Why is OmegaHunter going to hell? People want to know why. See the truth of his mistaken assumptions.
He is missing the point. The proof never said humans have been around forever, but that if we had. Of course sin is an empirical fact. For example, if you murder someone, you will go to jail. I hope you don't need to test this out to know that it is true. The proof does not establish an evolutionary chain, but says evolution is itself too limited a view since the first single celled organism billions of years ago doe not itself explain how it came into being or what came before it. Nor does the proof state we are in the middle of the period or end or beginning. What is established is that if we had had an eternity of the past to exist we would have had an eternity to be perfected to be without sin, yet we still sin. This shows that we were created by the uncreated. And given the fact of the exponential progression in the conscience of the saved it will take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved. For example, just taking the populace at large, murder rate per capita has gone down each century. The reason why the God of the Bible is the best is because none can compare. Compare Him to anything and you will find in discussion He always wins. There is no evidence for your claim Christians killed people. But when the nations of Canaan were slottering their own children in human sacrifices, God righteously told Israel to remove those people from the face of the earth would do that. Israel sinned in not doing what God said. Similarly, we got rid of Hitler and the world is stopping Islam's slaughter and training their children at the youngest of ages to blow themselves up. The big bang could not have happened all by itself because nothing in nature happens all by itself. That would be the puff the magic dragon theory. Silly. Therefore, we know the uncreated created, and the only one who by comparison meets that requirement is God of the Bible, since only Jesus said He is God, walked the walk and talked the talk. He said before Abraham, I AM of Himself. He said He existed from everlasting to everlasting and is equal with the Father, so the Father, Son and Spirit existed One Being in the eternity of the past. Jesus gave His life for you sinlessly. He was seen resurrected by many different groups. Many of the people in these groups went to their death with that testimony as martyrs. Therefore, you have no excuse for rejecting Christ. The earth is not 6000 years old, why bear false witness? That's disingenuous. The proof says the universe is 13.7 billion years old, which scientists agree, and the earth is billions of years old. Rather, 6000 years ago was when the first God-conscious man existed and we can go down through the lineage to know that it is so. Even if you don't accept this, at least accept the fact that at some point man became aware and so unique above all other known creatures. God is saying this is when man was finally made in His image. You are being racist against the Jews for God chose the first nation He would reveal Himself to-Israel-because they suffered like no other, in slavery for 430 years. You should repent. Why be antisemetic? Do you seek to follow in Hitler's footsteps? Your fate will be his then. God said you will be judged according to how you treat the little brother-Israel. Most scholars and critical scholars agree that Jesus lived and died on the cross and believe those who said they truly saw Him resurrected truly believed they saw Him bodily resurrected. Critical scholars though they admit this can't find an alternative explanation. So you see scientists don't agree with atheists and agnostics, nor the hindu gods or buddhist gods, nor the Islam god, because he comes 600 years later to change the story. As usual, you can see the Christian wins again, and arguing against the proof will not work if you misrepresent it; that is sinning bearing false witness. Arguing against it will not work anyway, for you can see you are always wrong, forever! http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm Essentially God's proof of Himself, http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2013 I love how the Christian always wins! I really do love that! Praise the Lord!

old comment by A Friend

Helping the Yankee.
Is God willing to stop evil but not able? God does stop evil for it is His will which He is able. He never lets evil get away with anything. Therefore, he remains omnipotent. Is God able to stop evil, but not willing? He is able and willing. Then he is NOT malevolent. Is God both willing and able to stop evil? Then why is there still evil? Is God neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? The reason there is still evil is because those beings who chose to be evil were given the right to be evil. Righteously, therefore, God deals with it properly, not like puff the magic dragon, it happens then it gets stopped in a second, but in due time it gets erradicated. For example, Hitler had his short time, then he was stopped. Similarly, the coming Antichrist will do his nasty and be stopped in a few short 7 years, then be cast into hell for all eternity. In otherwords, that will never happen again. Why then still call God God? Because He is the only uncreated. There are no gods before God and He existed from everlasting to everlasting. The problem is man's puny brain can't except the concept of the uncreated being, but then again, neither can a Non player character fathom this either in a computer game about its creator. So then why is hell for you? In a nutshell, you are a bad person rejecting God's forgivenes through His only begotten Son. The difference between the NPC though and you is that you have been given free-choice made in God's image, but the NPC is just a robot. A different link for the 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible: http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1855

old comment by A Friend

Simply stated:
1) You have not had an eternity of the past to exist because you still sin, therefore you were created by the uncreated. 2) Nothing in nature, e.g. big bang, happens all by itself, therefore, you were created by the uncreated. 3) Don't argue against some god, but we are talking about God of the Bible's qualities. Don't use vain arguments. 4) There also can not be gods creating gods for an infinite past because then you still would have had an eternity to be without sin since you are derived from the past, yet you still sin. In comparison, since Jesus is the only one who said He is God, proved it by multiple attestation, died for your sins, was resurrected and testified by multiple attestation, we can conclude easily He is the uncreated creator God of the Bible in the Trinity with the Father and Spirit. It should also be noted there were no resurrection cases before Christ. Just copycats that came after up to no good. Yet another page for the 4 Step Proof http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1146

old comment by Blue Lithium

The proof never said humans have been around forever, but that if we had.
then it is merely speculating. For example, if you murder someone, you will go to jail. That's what's known as "the law". since the first single celled organism billions of years ago doe not itself explain how it came into being or what came before it. It is not the ToEvolution's purpose to explain that. That's abiogenesis. What is established is that if we had had an eternity of the past to exist we would have had an eternity to be perfected to be without sin, yet we still sin. That assumption assumes sin exists. The reason why the God of the Bible is the best is because none can compare. Compare Him to anything and you will find in discussion He always wins. "Because I say he is the best!" is not an argument. There is no evidence for your claim Christians killed people. How about [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler}=this one?[/url] Or this incident? Or this? God righteously told Israel to remove those people from the face of the earth would do that. Two wrongs don't make a right. Israel sinned in not doing what God said. So anything goes so long as Gawd says so? Rape, murder, genocide, slavery, all fine? the world is stopping Islam's slaughter and training their children at the youngest of ages to blow themselves up. Way to genralise. meets that requirement is God of the Bible Or the FSM. Allah. etc etc. He said He existed from everlasting to everlasting and is equal with the Father, so the Father, Son and Spirit existed One Being in the eternity of the past. I say I am God. Obviously, because I said it that makes it true. Jesus gave His life for you sinlessly. He sacrificed himself to himself to overturn a law he made himself. It doesn't make sense. The earth is not 6000 years old, A point on which we agree. You are being racist against the Jews WTF? Why be antisemetic? I'm not. Hasn't antisemitism been prominent in Christainity and the "Christ-killer" stuff? Most scholars and critical scholars agree that Jesus lived and died on the cross and believe those who said they truly saw Him resurrected truly believed they saw Him bodily resurrected. 1. Prove it. 2. Just because they truly believed it doesn't make it true. I truly believe that I am toughed by His Noodly appenage, ergo, FSM exists. As usual, you can see the Christian wins again Pride is a sin?

old comment by A Friend

It is not speculating to say that if you had an eternity to be perfected without sin, then you would still not be sinning by now, since in just the past few thousand years alone we see the exponential progression in our conscience that it won't take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved.
The law is not sin. There is not a law that says you should go to jail for no reason at all, but the reason is because of the sin of murder. A simple example of sin is you cheat on a test, then if you get caught, you will likely fail the course. If you don't think so, then try it. Take some course, then bring cheat sheets with you, and see if you fail the course due to this bad behavior which is sin. Appreciate how dead your conscience is to God. If I ask you if you nuking 10 cities is wrong-a sin-and you say it is not, then what does that say of you? It says you are a bad person who belongs in hell. Since it is not evolution's theory to explain the cause of the first single celled organism, then we cannot rely on the view of evolution to explain talk about things before the first single celled organism. I am glad you realize this. And so this is why we talk about the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible which does not incorporate evolution into the proof because it is admittedly limited in its scope. Christians don't just say "Jesus is the best," then walk away. We prove it. We see the multiple attestation of his life, His death, His resurrection, His prophecy of His death and resurrection, and His promise fulfilled. We see that attestation from Christian sources and non-Christian sources. Such strong evidence speaks volumes. Adolf Hitler is not a Christian. To say he is is just nonsense. Jesus never killed anyone, so to claim Hitler is a Christian is utterly mindless. Why doesn't fsdtdt collect mindless quotes from non-Christians? Sounds biased, or should I say possessed? Was the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusade actually Christian? Nope. It was conducted by the Roman Church, which the Bible speaks against as the woman who sits on the beast in Revelation and makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications (14.8). Matt. 13 speaks of the unsaved tares in the kingdom of heaven who pretend to be in the church-body of Christ. You'll need to reconcile this contradiction of you accusing the same group the Bible accuses as being false, that is, as not Christian. You agree with Scripture the Roman Church is false, yet you reject Scripture without reason. Why shut your mind down? It is not wrong for God to remove nations several millennia ago who keep on sacrificing their children. It was the righteous thing to do, for imagine if they were still doing that? Islamic suicide mass murderers would be much more common place than they are now. Would you really prefer that kind of world? If so, it speaks of your evil nature that you embrace. God doesn't commit rape, murder, genocide, slavery, so why accuse him of this? This is your problem, is you accuse, but you don't have anything to support your accusation. Israel annihilating nations that no longer exist today because they were so utterly corrupted in killing their own children for sacrifice is something that needed to be done, otherwise this would continue to this day and protected under constitutional rights to practice their religion by being allowed to murder their children. Israel changed the world to God's good pleasure to say this was in those days no longer permitted. What a sick world that would be eh? However, because Israel sinned in not finishing the job, Islam is the remnant of child sacrifices through suicide mass murderers and training their children at the youngest of ages to prepare to blow themselves up when they come of age. Is it generalizing to notice this when people blow themselves up and it is almost exclusively Muslim suicide mass murderers? Allah of Islam is not God of the Bible obviously, since Allah said Jesus did not die on the cross, and they make this claim 600+ years later in the Koran without any supporting documentation. Obviously that is without consideration or credibility from what was substantially documented in the first century. You say you are God and Jesus said He is God. What's the difference? Well, look at all the mistakes you have made already? But Jesus in all those who wrote about him could never find once any mistake or sin. He was sinless and therefore, since only God is sinless, He is God. Moreover, a holy and righteous God would make Himself a little more accessible than is the case for you in you claiming you are God. Who knows you are God besides you? Funny. That you even say you are God shows how sinful you are that you would say that. Did you always exist? Do you remember when you created your mother and father, the earth and the universe? God does not draw a blank. Jesus said before Abraham I AM. If you were God you would die for me selflessly to atone for my sins, but notice you are too selfish too do that. Jesus did not overturn a law, but the Bible says He came to fill up the law. The law remains, but now it is filled up. Read Matthew 5-7 to see how the law is spoken about and how it is filled up by Christ. The law of the animal sacrifices was to point to the coming perfect sacrifice. It makes perfect sense. Any sin has consequences which is death and the second death. Only through the perfect sacrifice can forgiveness be achieved. And only God could be that perfect sacrifice. It will not make sense if you remain stuck in your selfish and self-involved head. His sacrifice was for Himself and for you. It was for Himself so He could walk with those out of His creation who were redeemed back to Him, and it was for you so that you don't have to go to Hell if you don't want to. Blue Lithium, where did you post before about being antisemetic? Isn't this your first post? If you reject God revealing Himself to Israel as a nation first, then you would be racist against the Jews. This would be a reason you reject God because of your racism. You can conceal it, but it's there. Since the Jews did send Jesus to Pilot to be killed and when asked who should be killed, Barnabas or Jesus, they chose Jesus. So when murder takes place and you accuse those in the person who was murdered of being racists, don't you feel evil when you make that accusation? Gary R. Habermas, a leading scholar today on the resurrection, does an interesting amount of work. He likes to gather all the scholars to see whether they believe this thing or that thing. The majority of scholars, critical or not, accept some basic things: 1) Jesus died on the cross, 2) the disciples believed Jesus appeared to them bodily, 3) conversion of Paul a persecutor, 4) conversion of James a family skeptic, 5) Jesus believed His death was to atone for sins, 6) He believed He was sent from God and existed before Abraham, 7) the tomb was empty. Since the disciples after He was resurrected touched him, saw him eat, walked with him and so forth, and they agreed together, then this multiple attestation is very strong and would need to be explained away if it was not true. What they saw can't be an illusion because an illusion is a distortion of something that is there. Even if they had a distored view of Jesus, he is still there with them. What they saw can't be a delusion, because a delusion is when someone sees something but everyone else doesn't. But all the disciples in the 12 different group settings saw the same thing. And what they saw can't be a hallucination which is seeing something that is not there, but a hallucination is individually experienced, not in multiple attestations. A hallucination is individually mentally based. So considering all these possibilities, a reasonable person looks on to find there is no alternative explanation but that they did see Jesus resurrected bodily. In your example you said you were touched by his appendage, but who else saw this with you? Where is the multiple attestation? You said you were God, but now you say you are being touched by something greater than you. Which is it? Are you God or not? Christians winning is not pride. If I play a sport against you and beat you in that game, acknowledging that I won is not pride, but a fact. Should I deny the truth? Of course not. Do I brag that I won? No. I merely state it as a fact as evidence that since you lose every discussion every time it is because this is evidence to you Christ is your salvation if you receive Him. Amen. There is one other thing I should bring about FSM. You admit you believe in a monster as your god and that he is created because he is made of spaghetti and appears that his main mode of operation is flying. Stack that up against God of the Bible? He is uncreated, not a created thing, He is righteous and holy, not a monster, and He is spirit, not bound by flying. My God trumps your god. Yea! Christ is victorious! Start at the beginning, http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/spiritsoulbody.htm

old comment by CT

I don't think this is a place to advertise your non-Christian forums

Certainly isn't a place to repeatedly advertise your ban-happy forum/website, is it?

(besides once-saved-always-saved)

As Jesus said, once someone has left the faith, THEY CAN NEVER RETURN.
Are you calling Jesus a liar? (why, yes you are)

and produce wild speculation about who was banned where and why and if that person is still banned.

Not wild speculation at all Troy... the posts and your STILL ACTIVE ACCOUNT are still there for the world to see... Lied about being banned... not once, not twice, but over and over for days in an attempt to paint the WB in a bad light. What does it say about false witness again?

Nor do I think it is necessary to go into speculating who I am, but perhaps deal with the subject matter.

Which is that what you come out with is mangled logic and outright falsehoods, with protection from a ban-happy fool. That would be you, Troy. Oh, and Troy? When your perfect proof for God was dis-proven the first time, what did you do? Yes, you banned the person who proved it wrong, deleted his posts that proved you were wrong, then altered your perfect proof to avoid the problems that were highlighted. Problem is, you just created even more problems in your newly perfected perfect proof which people regularly rip to shreds... just before you ban them, delete their posts, and pretend it never happened. You never did pay the $10,000 when your old "perfect proof" was dis-proven either... bad, dis-honest Troy. Jesus spank.

old comment by CT

Oh, almost forgot...
Whether you are Troy or not, the point remains... Troy came up with the perfect proof for God (v2) Troy lied like shit about being banned. Troy constantly bans ANYONE who proves his precious proof(v2) wrong. Troy constantly deletes any evidence that his precious proof(v2) has been proven wrong. (I've had one of the "banned because you are unsaved" notices... can't he be honest and just say he's banning because he's wrong and doesn't want to admit it?) Troy once, very famously, accused someone of not being a Christian because "Christians don't accuse Christians of not being Christian" Frankly, it doesn't matter if you're Troy or not... If you are, you're a lying, dis-honest, hypocritical fool who's unable to conceive of the possibility that you might be wrong. If you're not Troy, then you're believing a lying, dis-honest, hypocritical fool who's unable to conceive of the possibility that he might be wrong... which makes you a gullible fool. Either way, your posts are the ramblings of a fool.

old comment by A Friend

What I am glad to see, and knew by the Holy Spirit, is that though many words are spoken in vagaries, misunderstanding and misrepresenting by self-declarations, nobody can find anything wrong with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible specifically (I always reply to everyone's post, so if they fail to respond in kind, that's their shutting their mind down if they have not accepted the truth yet).
If someone could disprove the Proof, they would have done it by now and someone could show it, but they can't. That's the power of the proof. Thousands of people have tried, but they always fail. How perfect God's Proof of Himself is! http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm Once-saved-always-saved is to say that once you are born-again you have eternal life and it is eternal, that is, it can never be lost. You can't lose God's life if you are saved. Nowhere does the Bible say you can lose salvation. Salvation is given with God's infinite foreknowledge. God does not make a mistake in whom to give His life to. It sticks forever! If you feel you walked away from the faith, just realize you were never born-again to begin with. You can still be saved. I love how even the unsaved who are going to hell give glory to God, though unwittingly. Look in the mirror and say, "Jesus, you are a liar," because that is what you are doing. No wishy washy when you say, "I'm not sure." Jesus said He is God, so even if He isn't, you are still calling Him a liar, because He clearly said, which is fully documented and multiply attested. So Jesus said if you are not for Him, you are in actuality against Him as it so happens of your decrepit condition. Agnostics, you lose! Atheists, you lose too since there can not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects; and things just don't happen all by themselves. Don't be intellectually dishonest with yourself, because of your sin nature you like so much. Just accept you are a bad person and you want not to be saved, but to go to hell. How sad for you! All religions and world-views lose if they are not grounded in Christ. There is nothing you, nor anyone can do about it! It is set in stone. He is the way, the truth and the life. It is not that the truth is unreasonable, but it is unloved.

old comment by Ringwraith

I think that I most appreciate the last stipulations: "If you get crass and abusive, you're banned."
It is safe to assume that it is "crass" to question the fundamentals of a person's faith, and that it is "abusive" to challenge someone's carefully held beliefs. Notwithstanding the bias of the challenge judges, no submissions could possibly be accepted through this rule. That leaves a lovely insulated, and self supporting society, well protected from dissenting thought. If you believe so firmly in your faith, such that you are willing to wish pain on those who do not follow your beliefs, why do you fight so hard to defend it? Surely allowing a winner of the $10,000 question would mean nothing to a true believer. Or is the foundation so fragile that you fear a true test?

old comment by A Friend

A person has never been removed from Biblocality Forums for having questions. In fact all kinds of questions are constantly welcomed.
A Christian wishes pain on nobody, why think otherwise? The only reason the $10,000 has not been dispersed is because it would be wrong to give it out if the Proof had not been disproven. In fact a Chritian would recount their faith if it was disproven, because this is the proof of why we believe and since it has never been disproven, eternal life too remains forever! Hundreds of people have tried to disprove the Proof for God, but they all failed, and as they failed they got angrier and angrier to the point where most of their posts were left up, but they had to be removed for their belligerency and obstinacy as the Board Etiquette states is reason for removal.

old comment by A Friend

12 Groups Saw Jesus Resurrected
Jesus appeared 12 times to different group sizes ranging from just one person to 500 people: 1) Mary Magdalene (Mark 16.9-11; John 20.11-18) 2) the other women at the tomb (Matthew 28.8-10) 3) Peter in Jerusalem (Luke 24.34; 1 Cor. 15.5) 4) The two travelers on the road (Mark 16.12,13) 5) Ten disciples behind closed doors (Mark 16.14; Luke 24.36-43; John 20.19-25) 6) All the disciples, with Thomas (excluding Judas Iscariot) (John 20.26-31; 1 Cor. 15.5) 7) Seven disciples while fishing (John 21.1-14) 8) Eleven disciples on the mountain (Matthew 28.16-20) 9) A crowd of 500 (1 Cor. 15.6) 10) Jesus' brother James (1 Cor. 15.7) 11) Those who watched Jesus ascend to heaven (Luke 24.44-49; Acts 1.3-8) 12) Least of all Paul as though he was not living in the proper time (1 Cor. 15.8-9; Gal. 1.13-16; Acts 9.1-8, 22.9, read all of chapters 22 and 26; 13.30-37; 1 Cor. 15.10-20; Gal. 2.1-10): Luke has no problem between Paul's appearance and those made to the disciples in Luke 24, Acts 1.1-11. Luke records both types of appearances of Jesus to the disciples and to Paul. "Last of all he was seen of me also" (1 Cor. 15.8). "Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (1 Cor. 9.1). Others saw the light and heard the voice during Paul seeing Jesus bodily, however because Paul's experience was post-ascension, it may be slightly different. Evolution of a resurrection theory actually devolved from the accounts of the 40 days with the disciples to when Paul saw Jesus (Gal. 1.15-16). "To reveal His Son in me" (Gal. 1.16,18) took three years following the Damascus road experience. "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man" (Acts 9.7). This presumes that Paul saw the man. Now if so many people saw Jesus resurrected, is it really so hard to believe the saved will be resurrected at the consummation of the age of the dispensation of grace (the end of the mystery age of the church)?

old comment by A Friend

The 4 Step Proof does not talk about evolution since evolution is just a limited theory about what happened since the first single celled organism; whereas, the 4 Step Proof goes into events that occured prior to evolution and abides in the law of causes and effects.
The law of causation is not invoked but evidence speaks for it, since nothing in nature is ever seen to be without a cause. Therefore, since the law of causes and effects is true, the natural could not have created itself and must have been created by the uncreated, which only God of the Bible meets those specifications. Only Jesus ever said He is God from everlasting as uncreated, the great I AM who existed before Abraham, did not sin, predicted His resurrection, was resurrected and multiply attested. For 1500 years His coming was anticipated. He did this to atone for sins for anyone who would receive Him. This is the greatest loving act. Since none can compare to what He did, He is who He says He is. You don't find grammar problems, and you have failed at life, since you are going to hell for calling Jesus a liar. I assure you. I have succeeded at life, for I have God's life. Nothing can be better. Amen. If you want to give your life to Christ you are free to do so, but if you are too selfish, you are free to reject Him also. Your choice. 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible

old comment by A Friend

Since we see the exponential progression in conscience these past 6000 years, it won't take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved.
If there had been an eternity of the past of cause and effects, then you would certainly not still be sinning by now given what has occured in just 6000 years. Therefore, we must conclude the uncreated created who is God of the Bible. This exponential progression is abiding in the law of cause and effect not evolution, since obviously evolution does not deal with what came before the first single celled organism, nor is it even adequate to explain effectively what happened since the first single celled orgaism. Evolution is really of no use, so the 4 Step Proof does not get into it.

old comment by Distind

Hey friend, Disprove this one, my comment from earlier you completely ignored.
If there had been an eternity of the past of causes and effects, we would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin, but since we still sin, we know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effect. This being the first bit of the proof, not even the entire first step. Without a proof that we become perfect over an eternity, the entire thing is baseless. So, suffice to say, the entire thing is baseless. As someone already said, bogus assumptions. As has been repeatedly said, you initial assumptions are completly baseless. Even then there are problems with it. You have failed at this. I, and atheist, am sure that god would probably load his shorts laughing if he read this. But I tend to lend my own personality to fictional characters.

old comment by A Friend

It is no assumption that if you had an eternity to be perfected without sin, you still would not be sinning as was repeatedly proven by the fact that in just these past 6000 years there has been an exponential progression in conscience, so we know it won't take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved. Thus, we know that we were created and there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effects. This proof trumps anything said so far.
The question to ask is after this has been repeated several times, why shut your mind down to it to continue to overlook it? Christians don't do that. Lots of people want to go to hell, because they reject their creator. It's a free country. Before the foundations of the world the council of the Godhead, which is One Being of God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit, had decided to create out of His glory. It was agreed that the Son would enter into creation to atone for the sins of mankind and erect obedience for them through Him to redeem those who love Him back to Him and for Him to walk with in the millennial kingdom and after in the new city and new earth forever and ever! We all have our different standards. While I am grateful to God He regenerated my spirit with His life and that He will keep you eternally separated from me and my brothers and sisters, you are free to wish the same to keep yourself away from us and continue to call Jesus a liar who gave His life for you. You are a sovereign being with free-choice and you are have reached the age of accountability. Since God proved Himself in the 4 Step Perfect Proof of God of the Bible, and God is holy, righteous and true, and none can compare to Christ and the multiple attestation of His perfect work, it is clear the Triune God created us. You can thumb your nose at Him, but there are eternal consequences. I certainly would not want to be in your shoes with your attitude. Jesus said if you are not for Him, you are against Him. How you respond to Christ in this age is how you will be treated in the next.

old comment by mjonesQuaker

A Friend, you've failed to realize that we aren't all atheists/agnostics here. I, for one, am a Christian, as are several others. And you can't go to a place like IIDB and spam it with self-promotion. It's counter-productive to your cause.
I suggest you move to christianforums.com or somewhere similar. It's a different kind of censorship there, a kind of censorship in which refuting a fundie's "I-hates-teh-ghey" argument will get your account suspended when the pwned party has nothing meaningful to say to your argument. It's happened to me twice in the past month. Is that a "cult" to you? Hey, it's essentially the same thing, amirite? I think you'll fit right in on CF. :-)

old comment by A Friend

All your posts are spam. Why? Because you do everything but actually address the fact that you can't find anything wrong with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible. Therefore, your posts are both inappropriate and irrelevant, ie. spam. The question you ought to ask yourself is why shut your mind down like a zombie for Satan? Seems like a reasonable question to ask considering you are going to hell, calling Jesus a liar Who died for you to save you. Admit it, you don't want to be forgiven for your sins do you? Just be honest with yourself, you are a bad person who belongs in hell. Accept what you really are. Don't lie to yourself.
The testimony of Paul (outsider skeptic) who wrote the epistles, James (family skeptic) who wrote the book of James, John (book of John) and the other testimonies are quite strong. Surely they did not lie when they went to their martyrdom for the testimony of the resurrection of Jesus. Did Matthew the apostle write Matthew, did the brother of Jesus who is Jude write the book of Jude? Did not Peter write the books of Peter? Did not Mark who wrote Mark and Luke who wrote Luke convey what was received to them from the apostles? Did not Paul say he met with James, John and Peter on several occassions to find agreement, and they continued to agree on the teachings of Christ and the resurrection significance? I think you have a big problem on your hands, because you are some bad bad people calling some very very good people liars. God puts this sin of bearing false witness right up there with worst of crimes. And what's worse is you do it with no reason for doing it, no evidence, just your envy and jealousy against us Christians because we have by the fruit of the Holy Spirit love, peace, patience, self-control and much more, more than you will ever know. We have God's forgiveness and are made presentable to God, but you remain unclean, unforgiven. Even now you know you have a foretaste of hell where you are going. You can sense it. Your spirit is dead to God. Do you not know you resemble a zombie? That's how you come across. But Christians have received a quickened spirit and made a new creation for God with His uncreated and eternal life. All you have is eternal separation to be punished in hell forever! You want it, you got it! Christianforums.com is owned and run by the Roman Church which Christianity and Christ rejects. Christians do not believe Mary is a sinless human for the Bible says all that is born of the flesh is flesh. Christians do not believe in the false teachings of non-OSAS and amillennialism taught by the Roman Church. Not at all! That would explain why I have been banned from Christianforums.com no less than 50 times and iidb.org no less than 30 times. They are two sixes, half a dozen of the other. They are the same garbage don't you know? The list goes on and on: intermediary priesthood and paying for indulgences, etc, etc. The Bible considers the Roman Church evil and it will be destroyed when Christ returns, for the Roman Church is the woman who sits on the beast and makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications, and iidb.org has its own set of fornications. Both are no less evil than the other. To God they are both useless and irrelevant. They will be destroyed when Christ returns, you can count on it. iidb.org is a cult just like the Roman Church christianforums.com is a cult and fstdt is a cult. It is all to be destroyed and there is nothing you can do about it. It is all evil. Christians, like myself, promote not ourselves but Christ and forums that adhere to the teachings of Christ. For example, see the questions at registration here, Biblocality Christian Forums iidb.org censors because like you, its moderators shut their minds down when confronted with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible. It is delivered by Christian upon Christian in one form or another, and they are martyred on the Internet one after another in hoards by such cults like iidb.org. But they won't tell you this. It's their dirty little secret. As a token though, they may keep a couple Christians on there if it suits their needs and if they can keep them in check. That's how it works in the propaganda land at iidb.org and christianforums.com. So you see what they do is they shut their minds down. Yes, that is what they do insteading of seeing still they can find nothing wrong with the 4 Step Proof, just like you. Faith in Christ in proven; faith in rejecting Christ has no basis just the selfish core in your being trying to exalt itself above your creator. Pathetic! Even the scientific method and the court of law would not agree with your approach at all. My prayers go out to you that you may yet receive Christ as your Lord and Savior.

old comment by David B.

@A Friend

All your posts are spam. Why? Because you do everything but actually address the fact that you can't find anything wrong with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible.

Fault 1:

Step 1 - If there had been an eternity of the past of causes and effects, we would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin, but since we still sin, we know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effect.

An eternity of 'past' does not imply that we have existed for an eternity, just as the world is considerably older than any living thing upon it. Even an eternal universe could have existed for an eternity without human beings, hence we may be (are) only very recent players on the stage. Even within your own theology this must be so; God is enternal (you say), so he must have existed for an eternity before he created man. Hence your first assertion is false within your own logic, that one thing has existed for an eternity does not imply that another has.

And thus we were created by God of the Bible, given Christ-none can compare!

This is a false dichotomy. It is not a straight choice between having existed forever or being created be the Christian god. There are many, many other creation myths, including (if you wish to characterise it as one) the methodologically naturalist origin by abiogenesis and evolution. Hence your second assertion is false. Even if your first assertion were true, the conclusion that we have not existed for an eternity prior to now does not imply anything but a point of origin. It provides no evidence for any particular creator or, to be fair, for a natural origin. That's 0 for 2 so far. Is there any point in going on?

old comment by CT

David B... there's no point. That's been pointed out to Troy before on so many occasions but he never understands it.
The guy doesn't even understand what he's saying... take this for example...

I would agree, it is wrong for a Christian to accuse a Christian of being a non-Christian so there is only one possibility. That person accusing was a non-Christian.

Who was the person doing the accusing? IT WAS TROY!! Troy just showed that he isn't a Christian... and he doesn't realise what he's done! How can someone post something like that and not notice they've just shot themselves in the foot?? And Troy..? You've got proof here now, where you can't ban anyone, or delete their posts, that your perfect proof(v2) is flawed. You gonna pay David B that $10,000? Or are you going to alter your "perfect" proof yet again? You're going to be dishonest, aren't you? You're going to change it, yet again, then claim that no-one can find fault with your perfect proof(v3) aren't you?

old comment by CT

I'm gonna make this simple Troy... proof that you are full of shit.

All your posts are spam. Why? Because you do everything but actually address the fact that you can't find anything wrong with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible. Therefore, your posts are both inappropriate and irrelevant, ie. spam. The question you ought to ask yourself is why shut your mind down like a zombie for Satan? Seems like a reasonable question to ask considering you are going to hell, calling Jesus a liar Who died for you to save you. Admit it, you don't want to be forgiven for your sins do you? Just be honest with yourself, you are a bad person who belongs in hell. Accept what you really are. Don't lie to yourself.

I never once said that Jesus was a liar... I've already addressed the faults with your "perfect proof(v2)" Proof that you've just lied.

The testimony of Paul (outsider skeptic) who wrote the epistles, James (family skeptic) who wrote the book of James, John (book of John) and the other testimonies are quite strong. Surely they did not lie when they went to their martyrdom for the testimony of the resurrection of Jesus. Did Matthew the apostle write Matthew, did the brother of Jesus who is Jude write the book of Jude? Did not Peter write the books of Peter? Did not Mark who wrote Mark and Luke who wrote Luke convey what was received to them from the apostles? Did not Paul say he met with James, John and Peter on several occassions to find agreement, and they continued to agree on the teachings of Christ and the resurrection significance? I think you have a big problem on your hands, because you are some bad bad people calling some very very good people liars.

The Gospels, which are now known as the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John... are anonymous. They were given those names by the Roman Catholics. No-one knows who wrote them, but they do know that they were not written by any disciples. Have I said that the disciples were liars? Nope... but I have said that the anonymous writers of the Bible were writing fiction. Since they weren't the disciples, YOU have just lied.

God puts this sin of bearing false witness right up there with worst of crimes.

I'll keep a seat warm for you by the lakes of fire...

And what's worse is you do it with no reason for doing it, no evidence, just your envy and jealousy against us Christians because we have by the fruit of the Holy Spirit love, peace, patience, self-control and much more, more than you will ever know. We have God's forgiveness and are made presentable to God, but you remain unclean, unforgiven. Even now you know you have a foretaste of hell where you are going. You can sense it. Your spirit is dead to God. Do you not know you resemble a zombie? That's how you come across. But Christians have received a quickened spirit and made a new creation for God with His uncreated and eternal life. All you have is eternal separation to be punished in hell forever! You want it, you got it!

What's worse is you should be unable to do it... but you still do. Well, you've proven that you are not a Christian, so you are just what you accuse me of being.

The Bible considers the Roman Church evil

You don't know a damned thing about the Bible, do you? The Bible was compiled in it's current form by, go on... have a guess... Yep, by the Roman Catholics. The very same people you claim the Bible condemns put the bloody thing together. The very same people who EVERY OTHER SECT OF CHRISTIANITY COMES FROM! You understand yet? If you are a Christian (which you admit you are not) then you are part of a sect of the RC... What really makes me laugh is how everything to you is a cult. You don't even know what the word means... since there's no way on earth most of what you call a cult is anything LIKE a cult. You are an idiot... an idiot who is so deluded they don't even know that they're an idiot. The only thing you manage to do where ever you go is to make people laugh at your stupidity. That's why you end up getting banned from places. Your stupidity ends up being annoying and you break the rules you agree to... kinda like a moronic spamming troll. Which is just what you are...

old comment by Wise Son

I am glad nobody can find anything wrong with the Proof. Praise the Lord!

If there had been an eternity of the past of causes and effects, we would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin, but since we still sin, we know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effect.

Well, it's based on the unproven assumption that atheists believe that humans have existed for 'an eternity'. Factual error. It also assumes that the passage of time will necesarily create people who do not sin. There is no evidence of that. Of course, I've seen from your torrent of spam that you won't accept any of this, but what the hey, I've had one of the things I've said in this list scientifically disproven, might as well get something insanely disproven.

old comment by CT

What I find really amusing... scratch that... what I find fucking hilarious, is his forum.
Since Nov 8th 2005, there's been 1903 posts... 1360 posted by Troy. Currently there's only 8 members... mainly because Troy is ban-happy and can't let people read his "refutations" of their posts. (yep, he bans them, THEN he tells them where they went wrong) Troy manages to misread what people post, over and over again, managing to look a total moron in the process... for example... @Troy

@Someone's summary of Troy's "proof"
Step 1. If evolution has had infinite time to operate then we should by now be perfect. We are not perfect, therefore the Universe has not been around forever. (confused idea of evolution, but still vaguely sound reasoning)
If you admit you have confused the idea of evolution, then why do it? This is belligerence, warned not to do. And you admit you are being vague, then stop it. Don't do it.

I'm beginning to wonder if Troy is real... the whole thing smells like an extreme parody. Really, no-one could possibly be that dumb... Could they?

old comment by A Friend

David B.,
You are not understanding, when you said, "An eternity of 'past' does not imply that we have existed for an eternity, just as the world is considerably older than any living thing upon it." Just as the earth did not happen all by itself, neither did we happen all by ourselves. Therefore, we know there was a cause and since we still sin, we know that we have not be derived from the eternity of the past, because we would have had an eternity to be perfected. So if we had been derived from the eternity of the past that itself approximates eternity of our being. This is not true though, because we still sin. Therefore, we were created by the uncreated. Just because there are many other views does not make them right. That is why we compare, and why you find this statement of yours to be false, "It is not a straight choice between having existed forever or being created be the Christian god. There are many, many other creation myths, including (if you wish to characterise it as one) the methodologically naturalist origin by abiogenesis and evolution." Naturalism origin theories fail because nature does not create itself. It always has a cause. Abiogenesis does not explain what happened before itself, so it fails too in explaining what caused it. And evolution fails to explain what happened before the first single celled organism so it too is unable to explain a cause for evolution. So, the first step and the second step remain solid. When comparing all potential candidates for the uncreated creator, God of the Bible always wins. You would be incorrect about Randi when you said, "they are either independently arbitrated or use mutually agreed terms (like the Randi MDC)." Randi already owes $1,000,000 for the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God, but he fails to pay it, because he is corrupted. He does not abide in his own terms because he is biased and unethical. This is a false accusation, "I just liked the way his logic implies God isn't eternal. Rather a controversial thing for a christian to say!" Since I never said that God isn't eternal, then it would not be controversial would it? The fact remains in step 1 and step 2 that since nothing in nature happens all by itself and because you still sin, we know that the uncreated created and by comparison none can compare to Christ. Very simple. Understandably though, not so simple for the unregenerate.

old comment by A Friend

CT,
You would be mistaken when you said, "I've already addressed the faults with your perfect proof". Since nobody can reproduce your argument that is valid, then you have not done as you claim. Yes, you have called Jesus a liar, for Jesus said He is God, and you say He is not. Your claim is "The Gospels, which are now known as the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John... are anonymous" Early Christian scholars referred to these books as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, so this is not something new, and so they would not be anonymous. Therefore, your claim is false. The Roman Catholics come centuries later, so since the early Christian fathers were quoting the names of these books, it stands to reason the Roman Church did not introduce those names. Therefore, the burden of the proof is on you to show otherwise. The writers of the gospel accounts and Paul are clearly writing not as fiction, but truly believe what they are saying, so yes, you would be calling them liars, so God will make a liar out of you, for already you misrepresent them, because it is clear they intend to mean exactly what they are saying. Since you have no evidence to suggest they intended these to be stories, you would have failed in your position. Anyone who is in Christ is a disciple, so even if they did not write those books, the authors are clearly for Christ so they would be disciples and your statement would be false when you said, "they weren't the disciples". So, you continue to call not only Jesus but the disciples liars when you have no reason to other than you want to go to hell. I am glad you are at least being honest with where you are going when you said, "I'll keep a seat warm for you by the lakes of fire," but I will not be going where you are going, for I have eternal life to be with God and His people in the new city and the new earth. Nothing can change that. "You should be unable to do it... but you still do". What are you referring to, being able to prove God? A righteous and holy God would give proof of Himself to have faith in Him, and He does, and I do. Wow! You proclaim, "You've proven that you are not a Christian, so you are just what you accuse me of being". How so, you don't say? All the books of the Bible were created in the first century, and early Christian writers quoted most of the Bible by the second century from those first century texts. The Roman Church comes along many centuries later and adds a bunch of other books of the Bible. They have no credibility, so you would be wrong when you said, "by the Roman Catholics". Study the various church periods. The 4th church period is called Thyatira. This refers to the Roman Church period. The first church period is Ephesus. Therefore it stands to reason not all things flow from the Roman Church and you would be wrong when you said, "EVERY OTHER SECT OF CHRISTIANITY COMES FROM" the Roman Church. I think you are learning here that you are always wrong because you call Jesus a liar. Look how twisted your thinking is: "If you are a Christian (which you admit you are not) then you are part of a sect of the RC" I admit I am a Christian, so you are wrong. I admit the Roman Church is wrong on many things so it is wrong, and that it stems from the 4th church period errors, so not all things come from the Roman Church. You can say what I believe flows from the first century church period. Your accusations become more absurd on your way to hell, "everything to you is a cult". Chocolate cake is not a cult. Swimming is not a cult. But iidb.org is a cult, christianforums.com is a cult. fstdt is a cult for sure! The Roman Church is the largest cult in the world. The dictionary says a cult is "a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist". All these conditions are met. Since you accuse me of being an idiot and a troll, but you can't show it, and I can show that you are these things, then you are these things and I am not. You are also a bad person going to hell for calling Jesus a liar. I am just telling you the truth. The reason people ban quite often is because they would prefer to shut their mind down like you do. In a way it is easier to act like you do like a zombie, but its also devestating to be eternally separated from God.

old comment by A Friend

JaredM,
No the proof is not as you say it is, when you said, "1. Humans haven't been around forever, but they should be evolving toward perfection". Rather, because we still sin and we would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin, we know we were created. Considering the exponential progression our conscience these past 6000 years we know it won't take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved. You are wrong on step 2 also, when you said, "2. The Universe must have had a cause, because I say so. Quantum physics be damned." Not because I say so, but because nothing in nature is ever seen to have been caused by itself. Nothing in quantum mechanics ever shows something happens all by itself. Understand your own heart that you bring up the most complicated of things which is quantum mechanics, but fail to provide proof of your claim. That is disingenuuous. You misread step 3 also, when you said "3. The cause must be the Christian god. Just take my word for it." Step 3 does not say the cause must be God of the Bible. The purpose of step 3 is to say please don't argue against qualities of some other god, but this proof is about God of the Bible, so address his qualities which include being uncreated, Triune Being, entering into creation through the 2nd Person of the Godhead, etc etc. You misunderstand step 4 also, when you said, "4. Even though I just said that everything must have a cause, God is the exception to this rule, because I say so." Step 4 says, rather, that there can not be an eternity of the past of gods creating gods because then you would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin, yet you still sin, which shows the uncreated created who is God of the Bible given Christ. Since we have proven that the uncreated created, that means nothing created the creator God of the Bible. Notice it is not because I said so, but because it is shown. Since you still can find nothing wrong with the 4 Step Proof, ask yourself why you still call Jesus a liar? Is it not because you are made in God's image to have the free-choice to reject your creator and go to hell if you want to?

old comment by A Friend

aurelia,
You said, "Thanks JaredM for summing it up, as I had absolutely no idea what this troll was prattling on about with this 4 step nonsense." Why are you thanking him? I just proved what he said is wrong in my response to him. If I show the 4 steps to be A,B,C,D and he misinterprets them to be E,F,G,H, then did he sum them up? Hence, you are trolling. Wise Son, Your claim is irrelevant, "it's based on the unproven assumption that atheists believe that humans have existed for 'an eternity'." It does not require all atheists believe there has been an eternity of the past of cause and effects, but that if any do believe that, then it shows they are wrong if that is why they are atheists. I have talked to many atheists and many times they try to present this argument, so that is why it is step #1. Please go to Biblocality Forums to see that they do in fact make this argument quite often. Notice I keep repeating the proof while people keep overlooking it when you wrote, "It also assumes that the passage of time will necesarily create people who do not sin. There is no evidence of that." There is evidence for that. In the past 6000 years we have seen the exponential progression of our conscience so that we know based on this progression that is exponential, it will not take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved. You claim that you "had one of the things...in this list scientifically disproven". Where?

old comment by A Friend

NonProphet,
Check your words, "'A Friend' blatantly ignores all refutations to his 'Proof,' and even goes so far as to say that nobody has even addressed it after half a dozen different refutations on the same page." It is only because nobody was trying to disprove the proof that urged people on to look at the proof. Now we see recently some arguments being put forth. That is what I want, to continue to show you that these are same old arguments shown to be false. Now since I have refuted all refutations, we can see that the 4 Step Proof still remains solid. Your objection is "he's calling others who claim to be Christian non-Christians". That's correct, there has been at least one person who said he is a Christian, but he is not for he would not be so hostile if he were a Christian. Your view you said of yourself, "I'm Shintoist, and I have found lots of holes (most of which have been pointed out already) in your 'Proof.'" Since no holes have been shown in the Proof and you could not either, it should stand to reason there is no holes in the Proof thusfar. What does a Shintoist belief? First off it calls Jesus a liar, so you are going to hell. But secondly, Shintoism is itself false because it in its purest form teaches the superiority of the Japanese people and their land above all others on earth is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Bible. According to the Bible, the Jews are God's chosen people through whom He entrusted His words. Shintoism worships spirit beings, which would be created beings; they do not worship the uncreated creator. Shinto was founded in 660BC in Japan, and was the official religion until 1945. Shinto means “the way of the gods” so you are sinning worshipping created things. Shinto is polytheism. Japanese frequently hold wedding in Shinto shrines and funerals in Buddhist temples. Buddhism is wrong since reincarnation is false. Basic beliefs are: Main deity is Amaterasu, she is a sun and fertility goddess and ancestor of the emperor (emperor worship). Again, sinning, worshipping created things. The Kami a divine spirit that exists in all living creatures and the rocks and mountains. Its strongest essence is at count Fuji in Japan. This is a false teaching, since God the Spirit will not indwell the unsaved, nor does He indwell the inanimate. Though God is all present, He does not indwell by His Spirit anyone but the saved. No mention of a life after death. Therefore, it is lacking. Ancient holy books are: Kojiki ancient masters (710AD) Nihon Shoki chronicles of Japan (720AD) We can conclude that Shintoism on this basis is false.

old comment by A Friend

CT,
As you can see there are tonnes of attempts at refutation, but each and every time they always fail, http://biblocality.com/forums/search.php?searchid=3037 So therefore, you would be wrong in saying, "can't let people read his refutations of their posts". It is not the fault of anyone but the person if they need to be removed for being belligerent and obstinate. Also, there is not even a single person banned at Biblocality Forums, so you would be wrong saying, "Troy is ban-happy". If this is true, "Troy manages to misread what people post" why can't you show any examples? The questions to Biblocality Forums are very important for the apostles and elders in the work of the ministry for the Church. The number of members on the forum is a reflection of the condition of those who have joined but could not cease to be belligerent and mindless. Even so, many of their posts before they went a-wall have remained which you can review at your leisure. Here is a false assessment of Step 1, "If evolution has had infinite time to operate then we should by now be perfect. We are not perfect, therefore the Universe has not been around forever. (confused idea of evolution, but still vaguely sound reasoning)". Since the 4 Step Proof does not address evolution, because it is a limited theory which can't explain what came before the first single celled organism, therefore it is not dealt with in the Proof, nor does it need to be for the sake of the Proof. Don't confuse evolution with the laws of cause and effect. This is the best you can come up with which is mindless accusation? "I'm beginning to wonder if Troy is real... the whole thing smells like an extreme parody. Really, no-one could possibly be that dumb." Based on your own assessment, aren't you being dumb? Since you still find nothing wrong with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible, and yet still call Jesus a liar?

old comment by A Friend

Almighty Gawd,
You wrote, "Evolution also fails to explain what colour socks I'm wearing. It explains the diversity of species very well, but obviously evolution doesn't explain what happened prior to evolution." Amen. Hence there is no need to discuss evolution, so the 4 Step Proof does not go into it. I would make the case though that evolution does not explain the diversity of animals, since if it is the fittest survive, then there should only be one species left, so that does not explain the diversity of species. If there had been an eternity of the past of cause and effects, then the fittest would have survived according to evolutionary theory, yet we don't see that. Hence, the uncreated God createad. The diversity of species is better explained by the fact that such diversity gives glory to God's creation in all its vast beauty and complexity and diversity according to His intelligent design. You will not ever understand it fully, for there are some things God keeps to Himself.

old comment by aurelia

Your claim is "The Gospels, which are now known as the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John... are anonymous"
Early Christian scholars referred to these books as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, so this is not something new, and so they would not be anonymous. Therefore, your claim is false. The Roman Catholics come centuries later, so since the early Christian fathers were quoting the names of these books, it stands to reason the Roman Church did not introduce those names. Therefore, the burden of the proof is on you to show otherwise. Yes, you are correct in stating that the books had been chosen bfore the existance of the RC church. They had been chosen at some time in the second century by the Proto-Orthodox, which then split into the RC church and the European Orthodox church which still exists today. There was no cult oops! pardon me, I meant sect of American evangelicals spreading the same beliefs which you do today, so by demonising the RC church you are displaying complete and total ignorance of the origins of your own religion. Anyone who is in Christ is a disciple, so even if they did not write those books, the authors are clearly for Christ so they would be disciples and your statement would be false when you said, "they weren't the disciples". Now this is just one example of the blatant dishonesty you have displayed so far. You make an argument on one premise, that the gospels were written by the said authors, and then completely refute that premise by stating that "it doesn't matter who wrote them, they were disciples of Christ anyway." It's exactly the same as when the creationists claim evolution is a lie, and that it never happened, and then when they get their arguments refuted, start bleating about how "evolution is still compatible with the god of the bible and you're still going to hell!" I had a good laugh before I went to bed last night when you accused another poster of lacking in intellectual honesty. It's pretty clear to me you wouldn't know what intellectual honesty was if it lapdanced in your face and then licked you on the nose.

old comment by aurelia

aurelia,
You said, "Thanks JaredM for summing it up, as I had absolutely no idea what this troll was prattling on about with this 4 step nonsense." Why are you thanking him? I just proved what he said is wrong in my response to him. If I show the 4 steps to be A,B,C,D and he misinterprets them to be E,F,G,H, then did he sum them up? Hence, you are trolling. If I remember rightly, the correct definition of a troll is a person who posts on an internet forum, with the sole purpose of causing argument or dissent. I merely made an observation that I had absolutely no idea WTF you were harping on about, and it seems apparent that I am not alone. I called you a troll on the basis of your behaviour which includes; 1)Referring to posters as racists and anti-semites for refusing to comply with your religious views. 2)Referring to other posters as non-Christian for the reasons described above. 3)Throwing a kiddie style tantrum and referring to posters as "weally bad, bad, jeawous, nasty people who deserwve to go to hell!" for the reasons described above. 4)Cluttering up the board with spam, and yes, I am referring to that shit you post, before hollering "PRAISE JESUS!" at the end. 5)Making claims about the beliefs of other religions, while displaying a blatant and wilful ignorance of them all...including your own. And by the way, strumming a list of random words together does not "prove" what JaredM said is wrong. You are correct in one respect that nobody can successfully debate with you, however, this is simply because you are not capable of putting across a coherent argument. In plain English - you're just talking bollocks!

old comment by mjonesQuaker

He did call Jesus a liar. Jesus said He is God, the apostles said the same of Jesus, and I do with proof. You can call us liars, but the difference is we can prove he (Tempus) is a liar and you are a liar. That's the difference.
Not taking your unsupported word for it. When did we lie? Support or retract, kthx. Are we Christians claiming we are Jesus you ask when you said "Are you claiming to be Jesus now?" No. So, how is calling you a liar equivalent to calling God a liar? Did you star in your own Public Access TV special called "Spirit of Truth" back in the late '90s, by any chance? Any more dumb questions? Oh gee, I dunno, Troy. Are you done spamming the site?

old comment by A Friend

aurelia,
The Roman and Eastern churches did not choose the 66 books, for remember, they added more books to those books. Therefore, we can accept reasonably that the books were agreed before. This is not proto- anything. It is the full 66 books of God's Word. To prove this, notice each time someone tries to add to God's Word, we can easily disprove those false additions. So the Eastern Orthodox Church (Pergamum church period) and the Roman Church (Thyatira period) are both wrong. Before these two church periods there was the Ephesus church period and the Smyrna church period. The Roman Church is wrong, for it teaches amillennialism, non-OSAS, intermediary priesthood, popery, sinless Mary and paying for indulgences. This is wrong. You see Christians can identify what is wrong in large cults; small ones too. Whether American evangelicals agree with this assessment or not I don't know. You would have to talk to each one of them personally to find out what they believe. What I show is your argument fails either way regarding the 4 gospel accounts. If they were written by the Matthew (one of the twelve), Mark, Luke and John (one of the twelve), you don't have anything to suggest otherwise. But if they weren't written by these individuals then they would still be disciples anyway, and in fact that would pose no serious problem. Creationists don't say evolution is a lie. We only say it is too limited a view since it can't explain what caused the first single celled organism. Christians have always realized there is a certain amount of evolution involved, for this is the "dust" (Gen. 2.7) to form the body. I don't know any Christians who deny this, so why go on a tirade about it? You see Gen. 1.1 does not say how long God took to create. We know it is 13.7 billion years and several billion of those years involved the time since the single celled organism. May these comments help you be intellecutally honest with yourself, even repent. My prayers go out to you.

old comment by A Friend

aurelia,
A lot of times one's misunderstanding is due to their lacking information and overassuming. Humility can correct this problem, especially the humility in Christ. Since I am not harping or trolling why accuse of these things? My purpose here is merely to facitate responses to people showing interest in the answers. When someone says something racist against Israel it is duly noted. Israel was the first nation God revealed Himself to. The reason for the hostility against Israel is people are jealous of Israel, the little brother. I am not Jewish, though I am the true Jew-the Christian. My religious view is proven to be true, which you find no problem with, so you should accept Israel is the first nation God revealed Himself to. If you can't it is a reflection of your hostility against God of the Bible. A person who is a non-Christian is someone who refuses Christ as being God, and possible other things as well as false fruit not of God. If you refuse Christ as your Lord and Savior, you will go to hell. There is no mistake about it. Stating this fact is not a tantrum, but spiritual reality. Praising Jesus is not spam, but giving credit to Him, since He created you, and He is fully proven in the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible. That is why you can't find anything wrong with the Proof. Praise the Lord! Spam and trolling and reviling is what you are doing since you behave this way and still have no reason for doing so other than that you want to go to hell to be with Satan. Since I have not said anything untrue about other religions, don't just say I have, but show it. Since you can't know that you are wrong in being a false accuser. When someone totally alters what the 4 Step Proof said, I think I am well equiped to identify such nefarious behavior. Any accusation you have if you can't back it up is disregarded. I have told you the truth. Anyone can debate with me, but they will fail because they are debating and not seeking after the truth. Debating tends to do that for it argues for the sake of arguing with little concern for the truth. You should repent. Know the flesh will not stop its assault on the truth, so that is why you have to go to hell, because you call Jesus a liar and have no reason for doing so other than you want to go to hell. You are a bad person.

old comment by mjonesQuaker

In post 207404, I told you:
A Friend, you've failed to realize that we aren't all atheists/agnostics here. I, for one, am a Christian, as are several others. And you can't go to a place like IIDB and spam it with self-promotion. It's counter-productive to your cause. Then you go and say that I called Jesus a liar and accuse me of spamming the board? May I suggest a course in remedial reading comprehension for you? Ah well, let it be. If all of FSTDT is going to Hell, I'll be sure to bring the DDR and some veggie dogs. Maybe we'll even let you play if you behave yourself. Until then, I'm done with you, and I encourage everyone else not to feed the troll.

old comment by A Friend

JaredM,
You misrepresented the Scriptural proof of God of the Bible. That's your sin, that's why you don't respond to those points of the 4 Step Proof. And so this behavior of yours makes you a liar and a fraud. It makes you a liar because you are trying alter 4 Step Proof in your fuzzy head, which I showed you how you tried to alter it. And this makes you a fraud because you are trying to act as though you are being true, but obviously this is false. Your false summary is in post #207517 and I responded to it in #207819 So you can see the difference between your misunderstanding of the 4 Step Proof and the actual 4 Step Proof. Notice you don't respond to the correct view of the 4 Step Proof. Then question to ask you then is why shut your mind down? The reason is because you don't care how dumb you behave towards your reviling God's perfect proof of Himself and that is why you are going to hell. Now this type of behavior of yours is considered spam; that is, it is both irrelevant and inappropriate. I only respond because I would not wish my worse enemy to go where you are going. There is no proof virtual particles happened all by themselves. That's just dumb. No credible scientist says things happen all by themselves like puff the magic dragon, nor is any proof ever given for such a crazy idea. What we do have proof of is trillions of things that have causes so the odds are against you big time. All things have a cause and effect. It is quite disingenuous to pick the most complicated of subjects to then self-proclaim there is a proof of these things happening all by themselves. What you are doing is taking on an assumed position which you have no evidence for. Moreover, it does not take knowledge of the most complicated things to be saved, after all there are many things that are so complicated, God will never let us know about them or we may not be designed to be able to conceive them. God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10.34). You are going to hell because you call Jesus a liar. Make no mistake about it. If that is what you want, then just be honest with yourself about it.

old comment by A Friend

mjones,
There are other Christians, but I have not met any on this thread, nor have you identified any. I don't consider you a Christian, because all I have seen is your hostility which is not the behavior of a Christian, for Christians agree in the 66 books of God's Word, that Jesus is uncreated and entered into creation to atone for sins and give eternal life, and the Godhead is a Trinity, etc. We can talk about various many different things that show why you are not a Christian. Since I never went to the cult iidb.org to self-promote, but to show God's proof of himself, then why accuse otherwise? But of course they censore and prevent discussion and get rid of Christians by the hoards, especially those who can speak plainly about the proof for God of the Bible. This is how they martyr us. Nothing new. When anyone says Jesus is not God they call Him a liar because He said He is God so many times. This is your lie and takes you to hell. Not only this, but there are other ways you can reject God too, such as hostility and false teaching which is not fruit of the Spirit showing you really don't walk in Christ. I do believe you are spamming, since there is no problem you can find with the Proof, but yet you go on reviling. Where you are going which is hell is a dimension to which you will never be able to make contact with me and I will never be able to make contact with you, because I will be with God and the Lamb in the new city with all His people. It is the grace of God to keep you away from us forever! mjonesQuaker, try to keep your promise, "I'm done with you" for God does not like broken promises. You are a troll, that is one who is who tries to disrupt with no regard for the truth. You should repent. I will pray for you to give your life to Christ. You admit you are going to hell when you said of yourself "I'll be sure to bring" various items with you to hell. When you leave the body of flesh and blood, you don't get to bring anything with you to hell. You are delusional. Now all your wasted commentary is mindless, for it all has the purpose of shutting your mind down to avoid dealing with the... 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible. Praise the Lord for this discernment!

old comment by A Friend

Bottom line:
Nobody is able to find a fault with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible and this is why we who are saved have faith in Christ, have been chosen before the foundations of the world. You may be saved also, but you will have to come to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Affirmatively. This is the only way to receive God's forgiveness and receive eternal life. Otherwise, you remain unsaved and shall be eternally separated from God. There is no more opportunity to be saved after you die. Your opportunity is now! God said if you search Him with all your heart and soul, you shall find Him. By inference then, if you have not found Him yet to receive the gift of eternal life it is because you have been too selfish up to this point so far and unrepent and self-exalting for God to grace you with His life. So you remain in the land of the unforgiven! How truly truly sad.

old comment by aurelia

The Roman and Eastern churches did not choose the 66 books, for remember, they added more books to those books. Therefore, we can accept reasonably that the books were agreed before. This is not proto- anything. It is the full 66 books of God's Word.
Did you actually read what I said? I had already agreed with you that the chosen books had been determined before the Council of Nicea. What I disagree with is that they were chosen by Christians with the same preachings and religious beliefs that you hold today. Therefore your demonisation of the Catholic and Orthodox churches is not a valid argument. What I show is your argument fails either way regarding the 4 gospel accounts. If they were written by the Matthew (one of the twelve), Mark, Luke and John (one of the twelve), you don't have anything to suggest otherwise. But if they weren't written by these individuals then they would still be disciples anyway, and in fact that would pose no serious problem. It was not my argument, it was your argument. I was merely making an observation as to its dishonesty. Personally, I couldn't care less who wrote the gospels, only that the biblical consensus view holds it extremely unlikely to have been the apostles themselves. Making an argument claiming to be right based on one (highly unsupported) premise, and claiming that you are right, even if that argument is wrong, is both dishonest and weak. Then again if you chose to use such piss poor apologetics you are welcome to do so, I get the impression from your postings that displaying blatant ignorance on a public forum for all to see is not a rare occurence for you. Creationists don't say evolution is a lie. that is exactly what creationists say. We only say it is too limited a view since it can't explain what caused the first single celled organism. You're right, it doesn't. it's not meant to. it's not a religion or a philosophy. the ToE is based on evidence and data. as to some god having a hand in it or not is a matter of personal opinion. Christians have always realized there is a certain amount of evolution involved, for this is the "dust" (Gen. 2.7) to form the body. Evolution does not work this way! I don't know any Christians who deny this, so why go on a tirade about it? Because some of them come out with hilarious, cringe inducing, insane statements like this which really show they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about; Hence there is no need to discuss evolution, so the 4 Step Proof does not go into it. I would make the case though that evolution does not explain the diversity of animals, since if it is the fittest survive, then there should only be one species left, so that does not explain the diversity of species. If there had been an eternity of the past of cause and effects, then the fittest would have survived according to evolutionary theory, yet we don't see that. Sound familiar? What really makes me laugh is that you can produce a word vomit like this, and yet still talk down to other posters as though you are of superior intelligence! That's really funny! May these comments help you be intellecutally honest with yourself Well if you define my intellectual honesty as thinking you are a deluded nutcase with far too much time on his/her hands, who really needs to find something a little more constuctive to do, consider your comments a job well done!

old comment by A Friend

aurelia,
Since I agree with the 66 books and nothing I have said disagrees with the original, then why accuse otherwise? The RC and the EC disagree with these original teachings. There is nothing dishonest to accepting that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, Luke wrote Luke and John wrote John. We have no reason to think otherwise. Scholars are in the same position giving them the benefit of the doubt. Luke was meticulous like a doctor and that is reflected in his writings. John Mark wrote Mark which is more base writing reflecting his difficulties he had early on with Paul, and John is known for his stance on love reflecting in the book of John. Matthew focused on Jesus being King which is very governmental since Matthew was a tax-collector or publican. So the very character of each of the books is very much like the people that would have written those books leading us to believe likely they wrote those books. Either way you look at it, you are wrong. I am a creationist, and I don't believe evolution is a lie, but that it is just very limited in its scope of analysis. Evolution has a very limited subset of data with which to reference, but a life in Christ has a much greater set of proofs and references and as you would except to be far more encompassing than a limited stand-alone theory of evolution. Evolution does work this way through atoms which we may deem the "dust" in the Bible formed from the inanimate to the animate. Evolution does not work this way because evolution does not address how the animate came into being from the inanimate, but the Bible does and the 4 Step Proof does too. I think it holds true that your misunderstanding betrays you. This is a way to prove that evolution is itself alone by itself not a sufficient explanation of things, since there is a diversity of species. You asked, "Well if you define my intellectual honesty as thinking you are a deluded nutcase with far too much time on his/her hands, who really needs to find something a little more constuctive to do, consider your comments a job well done!" I don't consider you intellectually honest with yourself and even if I did, I would not base it on the reasons you gave. Silly. My work before you is to respond to your mistaken assumptions and give you the truth. It is up to you whether you want to accept the truth and continue using lame reasons for calling Jesus a liar. He will make a liar out of you forever!

old comment by A Friend

I think you still have the same old problem as usual in that you can find nothing wrong with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible
and so you venture off into other things, also misrepresenting reality, instead of dealing with the proof. That is dishonest and mindless. Now since the proof proves God and is how God proves Himself, you should have no excuse, but know why you still call Jesus a liar, because you are a bad person who belongs in hell. If that is what you want, so be it! Just be honest with yourself you want to be that way. One might come to the realization that since pure solid reason will not convince a person as in the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible, there is something else going on that causes them to be so dull. That dullness therefore must come from either the will or choice to be mindless, or there is an emotional disconnect from reality as though they are possessed to be controlled by evil spirits. There is one other possibility. Though everyone has a spirit of God-consciousness, which means everyone is fully aware they are made in God's image and have the choice to receive salvation, they choose not to for no reason other than self-exaltation. This is the independency and disobedience inherited from Adam. Nonetheless, we still have the choice to come to the cross.

old comment by JaredM

It is quite disingenuous to pick the most complicated of subjects to then self-proclaim there is a proof of these things happening all by themselves. What you are doing is taking on an assumed position which you have no evidence for.

This is the irony police. Step away from the computer immediately. I mean seriously, I bring up quantum physics (which does indeed involve random (or at least unpredictable events) and all of a sudden you claim I am disingenuous...while you are simultaneously "self-proclaiming" that something even more complex (the Omnimax God of the Bible) happened "all by itself". Now who is disingenuous? I am, admittedly, not an expert on quantum physics (though I do know people who are). But, then again, I am not the one postulating the existence of a complex, unproven, and counterfactual entity. You say I will go to hell? Whatever. There is no afterlife, so I am not worried. So you can threaten me all you like...it matters not.

old comment by A Friend

JaredM,
Seek after the truth. Just because something appears to be random or unpredictable doesn't mean it is. It only means that to you it is because you lack the necessary information to know the cause. Do you see that is actually selfish to say something is random just because you don't understand the elements involved? It centers on you because the perspective is from you, yet you are not the guiding principle. That which is greater than you, that has greater truth, better reason, righteousness and purity is the center. Yes you are very disingenuous to think because something seems random to you that it is without a cause. To make that claim is quite unscientific. Now that you made that mistake, why not just correct your thinking? Let's move to your next mistake when you said, "while you are simultaneously self-proclaiming that something even more complex (the Omnimax God of the Bible) happened all by itself". I never self-proclaimed God happened all by Himself. The meaning of uncreated does not mean you create yourself, but that you have always existed. Surely you can understand this simple point. And, we know God is uncreated because of the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible proves it for us which is disclosed scripturally. "I am not the one postulating the existence of a complex, unproven, and counterfactual entity". Good, neither am I. Let's work from that basis by getting you to not shut your mind down, but see the 4 Step Proof proves God of the Bible. Yes you are going to hell, because God has not forgiven you. Yes there is an afterlife. This is easily proven. Since it is proven Jesus is God and He was resurrected and He said we will be resurrected too, the only question remains where? Some He says will be resurrected before the 1000 years for eternal blessings and the unsaved at the end of the 1000 years for eternal separation from God and remain consciously aware of their eternal loss. Since you are made in God's image, you can never cease to exist, because God's image can never be annihilated. Just like when you turn your computer off, your computer doesn't disappear, it just remains dormant. Similarly, when you die, you just remain dormant before you are resurrected. You see you are not instrumental value to God, but you are considered intrinsic value. Even if you want to go to hell, God must allow you to have your choice. He will not violate His righteousness. I would never threaten you that you accuse me of doing. I simply tell you the truth because I would not wish my worse enemy to go where you are going. You are not worried, but you spend time here for a reason, because something is moving you, but you just need to listen to your conscience. The problem is that you don't listen to you. You have a spirit of God-consciousness, but you don't give into God's impetus to receive His eternal grace of forgiveness. I think you are worried and that is why you are talking to me right now. I feel your concern. Make the right choice, before it is too late. Jesus said if you are not for Him, you are against Him. How you respond to Him now is how you will live out eternity. Another consideration for you is since you said it matters not, then you can do anything and it doesn't matter. You can murder, rape, kill a billion people with nuclear weapons. It just doesn't matter according to you. You are sorely deceived and deep down inside I know you know that. I know you know that there are consequences. Ergo, heaven and hell. Heaven will come down to the new earth one day and that will be the new city.

old comment by JaredM

The meaning of uncreated does not mean you create yourself, but that you have always existed. Surely you can understand this simple point.

Well then why couldn't the universe "just be there"? Why couldn't the universe be "uncreated"? We don't know exactly what caused the big bang or what "preceded" it in any temporal sense, but postulating an anthropomorphic entity to create it is just silly.

Yes you are going to hell, because God has not forgiven you. Yes there is an afterlife. This is easily proven. Since it is proven Jesus is God and He was resurrected and He said we will be resurrected too, the only question remains where?

So there is an afterlife, because it is mentioned in an old religious book. That's your argument? My mother died and was resuscitated, and she told me she didn't see anything. Who should I believe, her, or some delusional idiot on a message board?

You are not worried, but you spend time here for a reason, because something is moving you, but you just need to listen to your conscience.

I (and most others here) spend time here to make fun of idiots like you who foolishly believe that they have access to metaphysical truth. They are all charlatans like yourself, and are exposed as such.

Another consideration for you is since you said it matters not, then you can do anything and it doesn't matter. You can murder, rape, kill a billion people with nuclear weapons. It just doesn't matter according to you.

Oh, fuck you, buddy. You don't know me or anyone else here, but you come here and condescend to us about morality? You believe that all that matters is whether you get cake and ice cream with your imaginary friends in the hereafter. I actually think about the temporal consequences of my actions, which is the only real basis for morality. Eventually the admins will ban your sorry ass, and we will forget all about you. Go back to your little one-man forum and cry about it, you pathetic troll. This will be the last time I address you; you are beneath me and a waste of my time.

old comment by CT

*ahem* Deconstruction time... again.

If there had been an eternity of the past of causes and effects, we would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin, but since we still sin, we know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effect.

This statement is based on several premises... Premise 1: That Sin exists. This is an unproven premise and the base of this premise is... Premise 2: That God exists. Sin only exists if God exists, so the premise that Sin exists require the premise that God exists. Premise 3: That life evolves towards perfection. This premise is based on a chain of other premises... #1 That perfection exists for life to evolve towards... which requires... #2 That perfection can be defined... which Troy has done as... #3 That perfection is the lack of Sin... which requires... #4 That Sin exists... which requires... #5 That God exists. Those 3 premises all base themselves on one thing... the assumtion that God exists. As those premises are the base on which this proof rests, and as the conclusion is based on the proof, the conclusion that God exists is based on the assumption that God exists. Since the quoted statement is the base of the entirety of Step one, then the summary of Step one is as follows... The proof that God exists is that God exists. Step two, within it's first statement, requires as a premise the conclusion from Step one... that God exists. Since the only proof given for that premise is that God exists, Step two's summary is as follows... The proof that God exists is that God exists. Step three uses the premise that God is eternal and uncreated... the proof of this is found only in the Bible, which is only true if God exists. Thus, the base premise of Step three is that God exists. Step three's summary is as follows... The proof that God exists is that God exists. Step four is based on the premise that Step one is correct... which means it's based on the same premises AS Step one. As such, the summary is as follows... The proof that God exists is that God exists. We can see that the only proof given in the Four Step Perfect Proof is, in fact, that God exists. Unfortunately, since the proof for the conclusion is the conclusion, it's just a massive experiment in circular logic couched in word salad designed to distract the reader from the complete lack of any kind of proof. In short, the proof is nothing of the kind.

old comment by CT

@A Friend

Since there is nobody banned at Biblocalty Forums, you would be misrepresenating about renouned banning.

A very short look at said forums shows you are lying through your teeth there Troy... Shit man... you banned my account and my IP last time I was there... not that it does much good because of something called "Dynamic IP" The only way that ban would ever work is if you banned every single IP that AOL uses... even then, I could proxy around it. You ban like it's going out of fashion, yet it's just a waste of your time to do so. But, since you can't refute the posts that prove you wrong, banning the people who make them is going to be the only thing that makes you feel better. Pretty pathetic of you Troy... try growing up some time.

old comment by Wise Son

There is evidence for that. In the past 6000 years we have seen the exponential progression of our conscience so that we know based on this progression that is exponential, it will not take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved.

Why? Sin is not something that can be objectively measured, any more than conscience can. I could argue that accepting other cultures, sexualities and philosphical viewpoints is a development of conscience, but you would obviously disagree. Even if we do develop towards being 'perfectly conscious' or whatever term you wish to use, how does this demonstrate a divine presence?

You claim that you "had one of the things...in this list scientifically disproven". Where?

It's near the beginning. I had something I said disproven using rational means, no shame in that. You have not offered anything like that in your 'proving' your 4 claims. Hell, CT even pointed out the circular logic you're using - 'my points prove the existence of god, based on the evidence that god exists.' Do you even have $10,000?

old comment by A Friend

What's wonderful about the 4 Step Proof is it makes no assumptions. All is proven, just as all is proven in Scripture. No premises!
We know sin exists because taking just one example, if you murder, you go to jail. Without any mention of God, we see that you still go to jail for this sin. Since there has been an exponential progression in our conscience these past 6000 years it won't take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved, so this shows the progression towards sinlessness. Perfection need not be defined. All we need say is that it is without sin. It is much more, but at least we can hone in on the fact that it is without sin. So based on these reasonable assessments which are fully backed, we must conclude then that the uncreated created and given the evidence and comparision, we know God of the Bible is the uncreated creator. Step 1 of the proof shows the exponential progression and that therefore there can not be an eternity of the past of causes and effects. We realize then the uncreated created. Step 2 realizes that nothing in nature happens all by itself. Therefore, we know the uncreated created. The reason we go to step 2 from step 1 is because once one realizes there can not be an eternity of the past of causes and effects, they might try for the puff the magic dragon theory that it happened all by itself. Step 3 then becomes important because the skeptic gets more desperate since neither can there be an eternity of the past of causes and effects, nor can existence have happened all by itself. And so various other kinds of accusations are labelled against God of the Bible, but what we find is that those are NOT his attributes at all, so step 3 says don't try to disprove some god, for we are talking about God of the Bible uncreated. And finally there is the contention of gods creating gods because the skeptic is realizing there had to be a creator of intelligent design but the skeptic still doesn't want to accept God is uncreated. But it is not possible for the creator to be created for the same reason as in step 1. See how easy it is!

old comment by A Friend

Only God of the Bible fulfills the perfect role of the Uncreated, since only Jesus said He is God, and gave His life for your sins. Only in Christianity does God enter into His creation to atone for sins and give eternal life. And this event of His resurrection He predicted and was predicted in the OT, and it happened. It was multiply attested. So this is the proof, and Muslims have no credibility for they come along more than 600 laters and say Jesus didn't die. Scholars agree Jesus died. To suggest that He didn't has no basis, no documentation. The Jews rejected their Messiah as prophesied in Isaiah 53.
Scientologists say you were created by evil aliens, but there is not a shred of evidence for this. Besides nobody has the power to create life but the righteous and holy one. And Buddha says you can come back as a chicken if you are not good which is just plain silly so you can keep on sinning always getting another chance with no eternal consequence. So you see Jesus is God and He is proven in the 4 Step Proof.

old comment by David B.

@A Friend

David B.,
You are not understanding, when you said, "An eternity of 'past' does not imply that we have existed for an eternity, just as the world is considerably older than any living thing upon it."

But if God is eternal, then he would have had an eternity to perfect us without sin, but since we still sin, we know he has not had an eternity hence he must have a cause.

Naturalism origin theories fail because nature does not create itself. It always has a cause. Abiogenesis does not explain what happened before itself, so it fails too in explaining what caused it. And evolution fails to explain what happened before the first single celled organism so it too is unable to explain a cause for evolution. So, the first step and the second step remain solid. When comparing all potential candidates for the uncreated creator, God of the Bible always wins.

But as God is not eternal (otherwise we would be without sin), he also must have a cause, hence cannot be causeless. If God could come into being without cause then it could be possible for other things to do likewise and so God would not be necessary, and hence not be proven. That's 0 for 4.

old comment by David B.

@A Friend

What's wonderful about the 4 Step Proof is it makes no assumptions. All is proven, just as all is proven in Scripture. No premises!
We know sin exists because taking just one example, if you murder, you go to jail. Without any mention of God, we see that you still go to jail for this sin. Since there has been an exponential progression in our conscience these past 6000 years it won't take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved, so this shows the progression towards sinlessness.

That would be an assumption. In fact, just about no other fundamentalist who makes these boards would agree with you that we are progressing towards sinlessness, instead they see our obvious descent into iniquity as a sign of the end times. The bible asserts that man was created sinless and then fell from grace, which is not an upwards progression. By the time of Noah the whole world is supposed to be so steeped in sin that God did not deem even the newborn babies worth saving. The bible also says that by the time of the events in revelation, only 144000 people will still be worthy of heaven. Your proof demonstrates that God is not eternal, and that he is not the god of the bible (which documents a descent into sin, not a inexorable climb out of it). Hence the Jesus of the bible is not proved by it, but disproved.

old comment by Jerry

I can tell you in these hundred plus posts and the thousands of posts before, still nobody can disprove the 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible because it is perfect.
Let's be real! How many times do you have to be wrong before you accept the truth? 100, 100, 100,000 times? I don't think you have to be wrong that many times to finally accept the truth, therefore, I think it is reasonable or at least the probability is extremely high you will never receive Christ into your life and will go to hell.

OKAY, maybe not...one last try. let's assume god doesn't exist. let's assume all the aposteles and shit are bogus. yet you create your evidence saying "I say God exist, try and prove me wrong!" this is, what we call in holland, shifting the burden of evidence... we can't prove you're wrong, but neither can you prover you're right... EDIT: as for the christ, and hell part...call me agnostic, I'll believe it when I see it...God, allah, whomever couldn't possibly blame ME for believing what I see (the everyday world without god) EDIT2: please stop spamming that link, we get the picture...

old comment by A Friend

There is no assumption in saying there has been an exponential progression in our conscience these past 6000 years, for studies have been done how the murder rate per capita has gone down each century. And the number of child sacrifices has dropped significantly even in the case of Islamic suicide mass murderers in the backdrop of the population as a whole. I don't know any Christian that would deny these statistics.
While Christians such as myself know that the Great Tribulation is coming on an overall basis the number of murders per capita are going down. Your scope is too narrow so you might not be able to see it. When the Great Tribulation ends there will be a thousand years of no war. This is the millennial kingdom (Rev. 20.2-7). This is part of the exponential progression. Man falling from grace is not an upward progression, but man being in sin and finding redemption is a progression. Remember what Step 1 says of the proof: IF there hand been an eternity of the past you would still not be sinning because we know of the exponential progression in our conscience since Adam's fall. If you accept that Adam was created sinless, then realizing it is because it was the first God-conscious man who had truly been created in God's image to have a choice. But remember one who is redeemed by the precious blood of our Lord and Savior has something that Adam never had, which is eternal life. Adam never ate of the tree of life. So you get into danger when you pick pockets of no progression as your thesis when God works in much wider time periods. You misinterpret the flood. Just because babies had died in the flood does not mean they are unsaved. With a flood souls get caught under, but they are still saved those who are saved. If someone dies before they reach the age of accountability they would be saved. Don't think God creates a river that just runs through horrible sinner's homes. Sometimes to get rid of the bad, some of the good have to suffer but shall be rewarded. Now compare the local flood in Noah's day to the global flood in Gen. 1.2 which is far greater. Again, here you see a progression. The Bible does not say only 144,000 are worthy of heaven. The Bible says there are two groups of 144,000. A Jewish remnant (and there are others) and the 144,000 virgin firstfruit Christians, that are closest to Christ, but there are others saved and resurrected too.

old comment by David B.

@A Friend

Step 2 realizes that nothing in nature happens all by itself. Therefore, we know the uncreated created.

You do realise that this negates the concept of 'free will' don't you? If no choice, decision or action we take has no other ultimate cause than a causeless impulse on our part then nothing we do is free will, everything is cause and effect. Without free will there is no sin, without sin we are sinless, if sinless then step 1 is not valid. If nothing is causeless except God (step 2), then we are without sin and step 1 is false. If we are with sin (step 1) then we have free will and our choices are not determined by an unbroken chain of cause and effect leading back to God and step 2 is false.

old comment by A Friend

That nothing in nature happens all by itself does not negate freewill. Our choices are not causeless, for we were given the right to choose which is the cause of our free-choice to be under God or Satan.
If nothing is causeless except God then God does not sin, but only those who are given the choice to sin can sin. Since our choices have a cause which is the right to have the choice being made in God's image, then this strengthens God's perfect choice to create us to have the choice. Step 2 then remains true because still nothing in nature happens all by itself, especially not our free-will and as usual we come back to the same conclusion, that the uncreated created.

old comment by Jerry

That nothing in nature happens all by itself does not negate freewill. Our choices are not causeless, for we were given the right to choose which is the cause of our free-choice to be under God or Satan.
If nothing is causeless except God then God does not sin, but only those who are given the choice to sin can sin. Since our choices have a cause which is the right to have the choice being made in God's image, then this strengthens God's perfect choice to create us to have the choice. Step 2 then remains true because still nothing in nature happens all by itself, especially not our free-will and as usual we come back to the same conclusion, that the uncreated created.

Now, god is omnipotent I take it (for she/he is, in fact, god) so if god is omnipotent he also controls my destiny. Now if god almighty has his hands on my destiny, who am I as mere mortal to try and change that. All my choices I've already made, for the omnipotent god ahs set my destiny...who are you to work against the will of god?

old comment by Jerry

God knows if you will or not because He has infinite foreknowledge of your free-choice

then what do I have to choose? the answers already set... either way, It's not that I don't believe in a supreme being, it's not that I don't believe in the supernatural. I just don't want to pick a religion because some mere mortal tells me to...Jews, muslims, satanist and christians..they all claim to be the 'true' religion, and fight/kill for it as well... I don't want to be a part of such a hatefull war, my religion is my own, my morals are my own..I don't need a bible, preacher or savior. I practise my beliefs on a day to day basis, not for sucking up to god to get into heaven, but for me and for the world... what is wrong with that?

old comment by A Friend

The answer is not already set for you might still choose Christ. This is why it is a conditional election. It is conditional on resistible grace to an unlimited atonement for preservation of the saints which God foreknows.
Christians don't fight. Did Jesus fight? Nope. You know Muslims are wrong because they came 600 years later and claimed Jesus never died. You know the Jews are wrong because they rejected their Messiah. You know Satanists are wrong because they worship Satan who fell from heaven. You know Christianity is true because Jesus said He is God, was sinless and gave His life for you to give you eternal life if you would receive Him. The multiple attestion of His resurrection proves it. Nobody else said they were God and was resurrected. It's not that you don't believe in a supreme being, but that you have not been forgiven by God because you still have not accepted His only begotten Son. You are a sinner, and you admit you don't need God of the Bible, that you don't need to be forgiven by Him, so you will wage you own war. Everyone has their own morals, but they are not all right. The god of this world is Satan, so you have admitted who your god is really, "but for me and for the world". Self and Satan's world. Hell is for you then.

old comment by Jerry

Since this is a word that agrees with all other God's Word, we can be sure it is God's Word revealed to a person who wrote it down. 2 billion people say so today. Though they might not all be saved, they know its true. Scientists too have determined where that flood took place where the land gave way to cause it.

the flood does not prove the christian-god is the true one..many, many other religions have a major flood in their dogma (ie the greek gods). There is no "word of god"... God didn't throw a book down from heaven for us to live by. Mortal hands wrote the bible, just like other mortals wrote the Koran. teh fact that many believe it doesn't prove anything...How many people believed the sun orbits the earth in 1400? hwo true is that?

old comment by A Friend

The scientific finding of the flood only corroborates the timing and the place that we can't deny God of the Bible based on this flood, as it remains in agreement with His teaching.
God prepared for us 66 books which make the full Word of God embodied on paper. It was written upon peoples' hearts over 1500 years by about 40 writers in complete agreement. This very Word of God created you. The difference between the mortal hands that wrote the Bible and the mortal hands that wrote the Koran is that the mortal hands that wrote the Bible told the truth about Jesus dying on the cross, whereas the immoral hands of the Koran writer said he did not die yet there is nothing to back his claim, so he is clearly wrong. That so many believe it is an evidence that God makes His salvation so mercifully touching all four corners of the earth. The freest book in the land is the Bible. So you are without excuse.

old comment by A Friend

God already judged you in John 3.18. He says you are already condemned for calling His Son a liar.
Since you are not afraid of hell, then just be patient, you will be there soon enough. Though I think you are somewhat concerned because you are here talking about it. So perhaps one day you will give up self and give your life to Christ. Discounting other religions is based on the evidence. The evidence says Jesus died. This proves Islam is false. To defend that which is false is hardly objective. Many muslims have sensed Islam was wrong and have given their life to Christ. Hypothetically speaking would have I? I don't know. How could I know such a thing? We all have a spirit of God-consciousness so even if you are the most brainwashed person who ever lived, God still takes you into account and does not burden you with more than you can handle.

old comment by David B.

@A Friend

@David B.
So I make choice. And I caused myself to make that choice? And I caused myself to cause myself to make that choice? And so on? So the choice is ultimately mine alone? Is that right?

That's right it is your choice alone to be under God or under Satan. You have this choice because God afforded to you. And this is what it means to be a sovereign living soul made in God's image.

But you said nothing in nature happens all by itself, now you are saying I can make choices all by myself.

Step 2 - Nothing in nature or time happens all by itself.

My choices are mine alone. I make them all by myself. I am part of nature, I am part of time. You admitted it. By choice.

old comment by CT

As far as banning goes, there is not even one account that had registered which is banned. It would have been removed. But you are always welcome to join if you can behave yourself.

Really? Would that be why when I last tried to log onto your forum I was notified that my account had been banned? Would that be why I received an e-mail from you stating that I had been banned? Would "being removed" also include IP banning? Would that be why the post the original quote is taken from THREATENS PEOPLE WITH BANNING?? No Troy... you're ban-happy and your attempts to wriggle out of it just show you're a liar. Meanwhile, about you assuming that Sin exists in your first step... if you remove that assumption (which requires the existence of God for the assumption to be true) then your entire proof falls apart. You can claim you don't use any assumptions in your proof, but it's riddled with them. All your proof does is prove that you don't have any proof.

there can not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects, otherwise you would not still be sinning by now

See? Assumes the existence of sin... Remove that assumption, and all you have is...

there can not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects

You first have to prove Sin exists before you can use it as part of your proof... and the only proof that Sin exists, is because God says so. Where's the proof that God exists? Well, it's because Sin exists... Your proof has been deconstructed and shown to be based on circular logic and flawed premises... that is why you've had to alter it over and over again. Now... since I've shown your proof to be in error, and since I've shown you to be a liar, and since I've shown you exactly HOW your proof is in error... what are you going to do? That's right... you will declare us to be wrong, but will give no explaination as to how or why. Which is exactly what little kids do when they lose an argument. Would you like a nap now, kiddy?

old comment by A Friend

Jerry,
The whole book of the Bible is written by the same faith, not by two faiths. Israel was predicting it's Messiah constantly. All those threads that have many less posts when I went to them were not locked away, so I think you are mistaken on that theory. That a book is created and said to be God's Word whether 2000 year ago or any other time should not be a compelling reason to reject Proof for God of the Bible. Think about it. If God intended to show forth His redemptive design and save souls then when He enters into creation, would He not break into time, and that most appropriate time then be 2000 years ago as it would not be too far off from the first God-conscious Adamic man (about 4000 years prior)? Fits perfectly. God does not leave the human race in the dark. Remember, He is full of grace and mercy and forgiveness for those who would receive His redemptive design. Aren't you being stubborn and blind since you can't find anything wrong with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God yet still reject God? Makes no sense. You should at least have some reason for doing so, but you don't. Why do you think you need no logic then in rejecting God? Are you trying to be as stubborn as Satan?

old comment by A Friend

David B,
You existing is not the same thing as you choosing. The reason you exist is because God caused you. The reason you choose is because God has given you this ability. The reason you choose wrongly is your choice, because God does not desire you choose wrongly. Step 2 remains true, since everything in nature has a cause, therefore the uncaused is the cause of the first natural existing thing. Now look at your misunderstanding when you said, "You said I cause myself to choose. You also said nothing causes itself." Since you did not create you, you did not cause yourself. Since you were created and caused by God, you can choose. Your confusion is seen when you mix terms, "I am an 'it', so is my choice." A choice is not it, but the choice is something the it does. Therefore, still you find no problem with Step 2. This is a false statement, "Ultimately my choice is either causeless or not my own." Your choice is never causeless and never not your own. You don't realize it but you are passing responsibility that belongs to you. Time to grow up! No matter how far you go back to your choices, your earliest choices, even your first one, was still your choice, and that choice was afforded to you because if God didn't create you as a sovereign being, you could not have that choice to begin with that belongs to you. Wow!

old comment by A Friend

CT,
You are lying when you wrote, "Really? Would that be why when I last tried to log onto your forum I was notified that my account had been banned?" Since there is not even one account in the banned user group, I trust people can see that you are not telling the truth. There is not even any banned user names, but there is some derogatory emails and worse of the bunch IP's that are banned to stop that belligerency. These are not deemed "accounts" since there is no account attached to them. "Would that be why I received an e-mail from you stating that I had been banned?"-If you were banned, you aren't banned now. The infraction system will put a person into temporary ban before deciding to finally remove. You asked, "Would being removed also include IP banning?" Being removed as the Rules state is not mutually exclusive of an IP that is blocked. Read Board Etiquette #8 "Would that be why the post the original quote is taken from THREATENS PEOPLE WITH BANNING??"-No threats of banning, just the reasonable need to behave yourself by NOT violating the simple board etiquette. There should be no reason a person gets banned or is removed, their IP blocked or email disallowed because of such ample warning. Definitely if one is belligerent and obstinate they will need to be removed, their account will eventually be deleted (since there is no accounts that remain permanently banned), and if you are the worse of the worse, your email and IP will be banned. There is only a few of those. So don't blame me for your bad behavior. You are the one responsible for that. Now regarding sin. It does not require the existence of God as was said many times and proven, but you continue not to respond to. Why shut your mind down to the fact that if you murder you go to jail for committing this sin. And so there is no assumption of sin, but it is seen in real time. So the proof stands strong on the fact that there is sin. You state without proof, "You can claim you don't use any assumptions in your proof, but it's riddled with them." If there is even one assumption, why can't you find it? Notice carefully the Proof never establishes sin because God says there is sin, but if you murder someone you go to jail showing as one example there is indeed sin. The 4 Steps of the Proof have never changed. If they had you could show it. Since you still can't find anything wrong with the Proof, you continue to give it more and more strength by your inability to find anything wrong with it. The burden of the proof is on you to show that you don't go to jail for the sin of murder. If there is no consequence to this action, then you will have to prove it, but there are lots of people in jail as we speak for the sin of murder. Why keep shutting your mind down? Don't you get embarrased by mindlessness?

old comment by A Friend

Hazel,
Lots of name calling going on, but I forgive them. I understand you are going to hell because you have not received Jesus as your Lord and Savior so God has not forgiven you. Yes, scientology is goofy claiming evil aliens took humans to earth and claiming that is the cause of man's sin. The reason man sins is because man is disobedient, born into sin form the first man Adam who was created in God's image about 6000 years ago. Scientology passes responsiibility onto evil aliens, does not explain where we ultimately come from, and provides no redemption by the uncreated creator's forgiveness with His very merciful act of entering into His creation to atone for sins. Scientology thus has a works based faith and a false assumption that aliens are the cause of our sin. Passing up responsibility lowers and deadens one's conscience, and that is exactly what the very evil man L. Ron Hubbard was aiming for to control his cult members. That's how all cults work. That's how the cult of fstdt works with its bias for non-Christians.

old comment by A Friend

I might be back to post here at the fstdt cult down the road one day, or I might never post here again, but my work is certainly done here now! God is well pleased that I spent an adequate amount of time to help you, but not too much time because we are not to always stay in an evil place and cast what is holy onto dogs. That's why Jesus moved from place to place, not staying too long anywhere because the revilers are out in hoards. The posts are just people repeating themselves, so I have no interest in responding to the same thing again and again without a reply to what I said.
But, if you would like to talk further you may do so at http://biblocality.com/forums/ if you have something of substance to talk about. I would like to now take this time to thank the Lord for His Spirit leading me to help the lost souls at fstdt and may some yet receive Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Amen. I won't have time to read your responses at the fstdt cult, but if you would like to take a crack at the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God, you are free to do so at Biblocality Forums which is required to receive the $10,000 U.S. if you are able to disprove it. The point of this is that if you can't disprove it, then know God of the Bible created you and you need to be saved. In all honesty as well, I find the fstdt adherents utterly mindless and complete dullards as anyone can be. Very dead consciences! I know why you are here and why you make this thread one of the busiest threads at fstdt, because you have doubts about your various non-Christian faiths that you have so far blindly accepted (let it go, you don't need it). They are all wrong, from atheism and agnostism to religion of self and polytheisms, reincarnationisms and alien theologies, etc etc. It's all man-made disobedience. All of them call Jesus a liar when Jesus and the apostles said He is God, was multiply attested for 3 years and seeing His resurrection that He himself prophesied and the saints of old prophesied. I encourage you to stop shutting your minds down, but appreciate the fact and act on it that if you search God with all your heart and soul, you shall find Him. At least realize you have not found Him because you don't search with all your heart and soul. Selfishness is the culprit. Do you even know you are a sinner? That's why the majority of the Bible is the OT, because God is first trying to get you to see you are a sinner that needs to be saved. Sin leads to death and the second death. It is a scientific fact you will kill yourself if you engage in the deadly sins. The second death is proven by the fact that you can not be annihilated having proven that you are made in God's image in the 4 Step Proof. The second death is an eternal separation from God. It's kinda nice that I can just get up and not post here ever again if I so choose to. All done!

old comment by A Friend

old comment by Jerry

sure, bye bye now...
you sure gave us a good laugh! (as for the locked away part...It was concernign people like you, in real life.(you know, outside you little internet crusade for god)) as for you attacking my bliefs yet again: - your proof isn't perfect, read some replies from people...I think they're right..it ís circular logic...being longwinded doesn't make you right.. - you can't force somebody to choose your religion... - Am I being stubborn and blind? dude...you really are clueless... this ranting of yours doesn't make you more convincing... and you spammign your link still claimign nobody came close to disproving circular logic doesn't work in your favor.. you might wanna try getting out more..

old comment by CT

"Would that be why I received an e-mail from you stating that I had been banned?"-If you were banned, you aren't banned now. The infraction system will put a person into temporary ban before deciding to finally remove.

Ah... that's your game.
Ok, you ban people... wait a while, then remove their accounts and posts. That way, you can get away with banning them while being able to claim that there are no banned accounts. Sorry Troy, but people can see right through that.

You are lying when you wrote, "Really? Would that be why when I last tried to log onto your forum I was notified that my account had been banned?"

Really? And your proof that when I last tried to log on, the account wasn't banned is? Do you even know when I last tried to log on? Do you even know what my user name was? Do you know ANY detail of that account? No, you don't... yet you claim to know enough to state that it wasn't banned, that I didn't try to log on while it was banned but before it was removed, that I'm lying about something that even the introduction to your proof says will happen!

"Would that be why the post the original quote is taken from THREATENS PEOPLE WITH BANNING??"-No threats of banning, just the reasonable need to behave yourself by NOT violating the simple board etiquette.

Right... no threats of banning, even though it says if you get crass or abusive, you're BANNED. That is a threat of banning... you wrote the damned thing, now you're claiming it doesn't exist??

Now regarding sin. It does not require the existence of God as was said many times and proven, but you continue not to respond to.

What is Sin? No... not what YOU want to define sin as, (which is basically doing ANYTHING wrong) but what is the TRUE definition of Sin? This is the fun part... which you'll love... because depending on how you look at it, it's either... #1 transgression of divine law (which requires God, otherwise there'd be NO divine law) #2 any act regarded as such a transgression (which requires God, otherwise there'd be no divine law) #3 any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc. (which, according to the Bible, is something God has done) Take your pick... either it needs God, or God has SINNED! Does God sin? Would you ever accept or use a definition that makes God into a sinner? I think not. So, the definition you are left with is one that requires God to exist... making your proof reliant on God existing to be true... which is the conclusion, making it nothing more that circular logic based on flawed premises. Of course, you can go for the "any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc." but that makes God a sinner, which means he's not perfect, which means that God is NOT the God of the Bible, which is what your proof is trying to proof, thus your proof fails... instead only possibly proving the existence of some other God. The way you try to "clear up" the various problems that are being pointed out to you just result in you making it worse, or... in a few cases... totally disproving your own proof.

old comment by David B.

@A Friend

Step 2 remains true, since everything in nature has a cause, therefore the uncaused is the cause of the first natural existing thing.
Now look at your misunderstanding when you said, "You said I cause myself to choose. You also said nothing causes itself." Since you did not create you, you did not cause yourself. Since you were created and caused by God, you can choose. Your confusion is seen when you mix terms, "I am an 'it', so is my choice." A choice is not it, but the choice is something the it does. Therefore, still you find no problem with Step 2. This is a false statement, "Ultimately my choice is either causeless or not my own." Your choice is never causeless and never not your own. You don't realize it but

My choice is never causeless. I cause my choice. What causes me to cause my choice? I do, you said so. What causes me to cause me to cause my choice? I do, you said so. On an on it goes, my choice has a cause, that cause has a cause, that cause has a cause, every cause has a cause, you said so. Only I am not eternal, I have not existed for ever. Eventually one of these causes will either not have a cause, or will have a cause other than me. You said everything in nature has a cause. You said I alone am the cause of my choice. If I alone am the cause of something, and I was not caused to cause something, I have created a causeless cause. You said this is impossible. If I am caused to cause something by something other than myself then it is not free will, it is cause and effect. Without free will there is no sin, and I am sinless. You said this is not true. All your pretence is in vain. You have said I have free will. You have said I alone cause my choices, hence that I am not caused to cause that choice. You have admitted I create causeless causes.

As usual, nobody can find any fault with the... 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible

Except you. You said I causelessly cause myself to choose. Whether I am choosing to sin or not, or merely a flavour of icecream, the unbroken chain of cause and effect stops not with God, but with me. Free will dictates that my choice ultimately comes from nothing but my conscious mind, the effect (choosing vanilla) has a cause, has a cause, has a cause, only as far back as some conscious decision of mine somewhere.

old comment by Wise Son

Why shut your mind down to the fact that if you murder you go to jail for committing this sin. And so there is no assumption of sin, but it is seen in real time.

But that's because murder is genereally accepted as being wrong by all religions and by non-religious people. Try other 'sins': Stealing - again, pretty universally accepted as wrong, punishable by law. Of course, move past that, and you're left with; Jealousy, adultery, disrespecting parents - defined as 'sin', seen as regrettable by most people, not punishable by law. Your comparison starts to break down, and then collapses with; Idolatry, sloth, lust - Not even seen as wrong by most people, seen as a waste of time by some. There is no universal evidence that such a thing as 'sin' exists. I keep meaning not to respond, but your posts are like whirlpools of ignorance, dragging me inexorably in. ;-)

old comment by punchybird

If there had been an eternity of the past of causes and effects, we would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin, but since we still sin, we know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effect.
This makes no sense. Do you know how long an eternity is? Change is on going there is NO end. You could have an eternity to write a book and at the end, who would say the book is perfect? An eternity of cause and effect does not equal perfection. What is perfection? There is only change. Humans are not perfect and never will be. Even with an eternity. There is only change. All things are different and all things change. There is no perfection and never will be.

old comment by A Friend

I was amazed when I came to look today, for all these posts that followed after shows a cry for help. I can't leave you stranded in you deceiving yourself, so let me reply.
@Jerry

you sure gave us a good laugh!

I guess you can say you are laughing yourself all the way to hell for calling Jesus a liar. @Jerry

(as for the locked away part...It was concernign people like you, in real life.(you know, outside you little internet crusade for god))

Why do you create this rule for yourself Christians are not allowed to use the Internet? @Jerry

as for you attacking my bliefs yet again: - your proof isn't perfect, read some replies from people...I think they're right..it ís circular logic...being longwinded doesn't make you right.. - you can't force somebody to choose your religion... - Am I being stubborn and blind? dude...you really are clueless...

I am sure you feel like your beliefs are being attacked when the truth of your mistaken assumptions is given, but giving you the truth is not to attack you, but to help you. I don't want you to go to hell as much as you want to. Since you can't show any circular logic, then aren't you being circular? Since you can't show long-winded, aren't you being long-winded? You can't force someone to choose your religion. As you know Christians know you have free-will so we know we can't force you, nor would we want to. @Jerry

this ranting of yours doesn't make you more convincing... and you spammign your link still claimign nobody came close to disproving circular logic doesn't work in your favor..

What ranting, you don't show any ranting? Then you are ranting. The link is part of this thread to show what we are talking about - the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible which nobody can find a fault with. This gives it more and more strength each time.

you might wanna try getting out more..

I think you are speaking of yourself projecting that you are not getting out much. I think you are stuck in your mindessness and know it.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Ah... that's your game. Ok, you ban people... wait a while, then remove their accounts and posts. That way, you can get away with banning them while being able to claim that there are no banned accounts. Sorry Troy, but people can see right through that.

No it's not a game. It is just doing the right thing. The Infraction System is quite clear that as a person becomes more and more belligerent they are moved from regular membership to being moderated then to temporary ban which is consideration for removal. These infractions are mostly temporary so they wear off. This gives them ample warning to change their bad behavior. Once you reach a certain number points too you can shoot right through temporary ban to permanent ban based on infractions incurred at which point the account is removed shortly there after as well. Those accounts removed most of their posts remain. At the time when you said you just went onto Biblocality Forums there had been nobody placed into temporary ban for many days, so that is how I knew you were lying when you said you just went on and couldn't with your account because you said it was banned. You're just being dishonest, aiming to deceive. I knew you were lying because nobody was in banned status. Not even one account. So why lie?

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Really? And your proof that when I last tried to log on, the account wasn't banned is?

I already said the reason is because there is not a single account that is in banned status. So this is how I know and people can know you are lying. You're just trying to cover up your lie.

Do you even know when I last tried to log on? Do you even know what my user name was? Do you know ANY detail of that account?

You said you just tried login that same day you posted. If there is nobody in banned status then I don't need to know your account to know that nobody is in banned status. Nor do I need to know the details of an account to know that no accont is in banned status. Your reasoning is illogical.

old comment by James

A lesson in logic for you Troy:
Here are my initial premises: 1. If you make an assumption in a logical proof, the proof only holds if your assumption holds true. 2. The bible says that god, and god alone, decides what is, and what is not, a sin. In your proof, you assume that sin exists. Since god is the sole arbiter of sin, by assuming sin exists, you assume god exists. Your proof, therefore, is useless, since it is reduced to the rather more succinct, and rather less profound, "If god exists, then god exists. Q.E.D." As a side-note, people are not punished by the government for sinning, people are punished by the government for comitting crimes, which are decided by men. Whilst some sins are crimes, sin is not the same thing as crime.

old comment by A Friendss

@CT

What is Sin? No... not what YOU want to define sin as, (which is basically doing ANYTHING wrong) but what is the TRUE definition of Sin?

The 4 Step Proof is talking about sin as being doing nothing wrong. Whether you want to use another definition is irrelevant. Try to stick with the proof. Do you see how you are being disingenuous?

This is the fun part... which you'll love... because depending on how you look at it, it's either... #1 transgression of divine law (which requires God, otherwise there'd be NO divine law) #2 any act regarded as such a transgression (which requires God, otherwise there'd be no divine law) #3 any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc. (which, according to the Bible, is something God has done)

But in the 4 Step Proof we are not using any of these definitions. We are using this dictionary definion: "to offend against a principle, standard, etc" at http://dictionary.reference.com/

Take your pick... either it needs God, or God has SINNED! Does God sin? Would you ever accept or use a definition that makes God into a sinner? I think not. So, the definition you are left with is one that requires God to exist... making your proof reliant on God existing to be true... which is the conclusion, making it nothing more that circular logic based on flawed premises.

So your logic is flawed, since the definition of sin we are using according to the dictionary is the one that does not render your conclusion, then you come to a conclusion based on misreading the Proof. I would have to say I don't approve of your faulty logic, for it is illogical to misread something, because it is disingenuous and attempting to be couth. You should repent.

old comment by A Friendss

@CT

Of course, you can go for the "any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc." but that makes God a sinner, which means he's not perfect, which means that God is NOT the God of the Bible, which is what your proof is trying to proof, thus your proof fails... instead only possibly proving the existence of some other God.

Since the definition you just mentioned makes no mention of God, then you would be adding your own words to this definition as well as misreading the Proof which makes no mention of God first to proove that you do sin.

The way you try to "clear up" the various problems that are being pointed out to you just result in you making it worse, or... in a few cases... totally disproving your own proof.

I don't consider it a problem for me when you misread the Proof. I think that is your problem. You just increase the strenght of the proof and make your faith look blinder and blinder.

old comment by A Friend

@Hazel

I don't believe I said whether I was a Christian or not. You can't know who is going to hell and who isn't, otherwise you are claiming to know the mind of god, which I'm sure must be some kind of blasphemy.

Your hostility shows you are not a Christian with such name calling as "wanker" and other such hostilities. This shows you are not a member of the body of Christ. And when you said, "Fuck off and die, dickwad." I am not familiar with these types of words used by Christians. Ok, so you didn't murder any Christians, but your hate is most apparent, just like the hate against Jesus for being God, so, Christians are hated. Jesus said for us not to worry because we will be hated. If the world hated Him, they will hate us. This is the nature of hostility, reviling and idenpendency from God. Test this out for yourself. Go into any church building and yell out these words say before the minister starts to speak and see how people react. Christans have the mind of God, that He reveals His will by His Spirit in our spirits. This is not blasphemy. It is fact. God loves revealing His mind to us by revelation in agreement with the Word. Praise the Lord! You are going to hell. I am confident in that.

old comment by A Friend

@David B.

My choice is never causeless. I cause my choice. What causes me to cause my choice? I do, you said so. What causes me to cause me to cause my choice? I do, you said so. On an on it goes, my choice has a cause, that cause has a cause, that cause has a cause, every cause has a cause, you said so.

That's correct. You're learning.

Only I am not eternal, I have not existed for ever. Eventually one of these causes will either not have a cause, or will have a cause other than me.

Wrong. You are confusing the causes you cause with the cause of being giving the right to those causes. Satan is the author of confusion. So it is wrong to say "Eventually one of these causes will either not have a cause" because you are always the cause of your choices. You don't need to be eternally existing from the past to be the cause of your choices. What you can say is that God caused you to have the right to those choices.

old comment by A Friend

@David B.

If I am caused to cause something by something other than myself then it is not free will, it is cause and effect. Without free will there is no sin, and I am sinless. You said this is not true.

I am glad then that you are not caused to cause something other than yourself, so it remains freewill. So since there is still freewill there can be sin and you are still a sinner because you were born into sin. Indeed, this shows what I said that your reasoning is not true.

All your pretence is in vain. You have said I have free will. You have said I alone cause my choices, hence that I am not caused to cause that choice. You have admitted I create causeless causes.

All my pretense would be vain. Thank God I am not being pretentious. I have not admited you create causeless causes; I have admitted that your choices are caused by you and you exist because God created you. This is perfect cause and effect in God's design. Praise the Lord! Amen.

old comment by A Friend

@David B.

Except you. You said I causelessly cause myself to choose. Whether I am choosing to sin or not, or merely a flavour of icecream, the unbroken chain of cause and effect stops not with God, but with me. Free will dictates that my choice ultimately comes from nothing but my conscious mind, the effect (choosing vanilla) has a cause, has a cause, has a cause, only as far back as some conscious decision of mine somewhere.

Not just me, but you too, since you can't find any fault with the 4 Step Proof either. I never said you causelessly cause yourself to choose, so why misread? God created you, so you can choose. I don't think you murdering a hundred people can be constituted as just a flavor of ice cream. I think you really do deserve to go to jail. The unbroken chain of cause and effect does not stop with you since you didn't create you. God created you. Can't you see you are just trying to self-exalt yourself like Satan does? Who is the cause of giving you the mind to have the choice? God of the Bible. So you can see why you are going to hell and these are the lame reasons you use for calling Jesus a liar. I think you have a real problem on your hands.

old comment by A Friend

@Wise Son

But that's because murder is genereally accepted as being wrong by all religions and by non-religious people.

Exactly so this is our proof murder is a sin.

Try other 'sins': Stealing - again, pretty universally accepted as wrong, punishable by law. Of course, move past that, and you're left with; Jealousy, adultery, disrespecting parents - defined as 'sin', seen as regrettable by most people, not punishable by law. Your comparison starts to break down, and then collapses with; Idolatry, sloth, lust - Not even seen as wrong by most people, seen as a waste of time by some.

Where does it break down? You don't say. You even admit idolatry, sloth and lust are a waste of time. I agree, since they are sins. The little sins lead into the bigger sins. If you keep lusting and is outwardly creating problems at your office, you might get fired.

There is no universal evidence that such a thing as 'sin' exists. I keep meaning not to respond, but your posts are like whirlpools of ignorance, dragging me inexorably in. ;-)

We have just established universal acceptance of sin, even if only regarding murder. What is dragging you in is truth. Truth shall set you free. I am here because I know you are lost soul in need of salvation.

old comment by A Friend

@David B.

Of course, Troy's main claim is that as no-one has disproved his 'proof' it is obviously true. What he means is that no-one has disproved it to his satisfaction, and as he believes his proof is 'perfect', no-one ever will.An iron-clad proof of God, huh? Why then didn't Troy claim the $1million prize from ThinkAndReason for proof of God?
Surely, if an unclaimed $10k is proof of God, an unclaimed $1M is a hundred times the proof of no God?

What is meant that nobody has ever disproven the Proof for God is that you can't find anyone who has, nor have you. If you had, you could show it. I believe the 4 Step Proof has been submitted to ThinkandReason, but they refused to reply. The claim for $1,000,000 has been made, but they refuse to pay up. In like manner, the $10,000 for the 4 Step Proof can't be given out because nobody can find any fault with it. And this gives glory to God of the Bible!

old comment by A Friend

@(H9) - EvilBible

A Friend, I'll give you 100000$ if you can disprove my alien theory. The theory is that super advanced aliens created this realm as part of an experiment. All religions are either man-made or made up by aliens to examine our reaction. Any "miracle" you might experience or hear of is actually an alien doing it to make you believe in false gods and primitive superstition. Any evidence that seems to indicate that this is not the case is simply put there by the aliens to mislead you. Cause their technology is advanced enough to do that.
PS: The proof you bring must be convincing to me.

You said, "All religions are either man-made or made up by aliens to examine our reaction". I agree atheism, agnosticsm and all other such world-views are man-made, but there is no evidence for aliens. The evidence speaks agains aliens because scientists have done calculuations on over 150 variables, that the odds of life on another planet is, in one study done, less than 1 in a million after taking all planets into account. The study I am referring to is in the one referenced in The Case for the Resurrection (2004) of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas. Since the 4 Step Proof proves God of the Bible created then it proves there is in fact one religion that is not man-made and not created by aliens. I really do believe the ministry of the Church could use those funds, but when and if you keep your word to give it out since your alien theory is disproven, I don't want you to give it out because you are proven wrong, but I want you to give it out because God has moved you to do so. All for the glory of God!

old comment by A Friend

@punchybird

This makes no sense. Do you know how long an eternity is? Change is on going there is NO end. You could have an eternity to write a book and at the end, who would say the book is perfect?

You were referring to this proof (step 1): If there had been an eternity of the past of causes and effects, we would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin, but since we still sin, we know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effect. This makes perfect sense. How long is an eternity? Eternity. Nothing is longer than that. There certainly is no end to the future, that's for sure. But the past had a beginning created by God. God only was the ever one in the eternity of the past. Change is ongoing. Yes, but what kind? It is an exponential progression in our conscience seen these past 6000 years. As is the case with all exponential progressions they all approximate infinity since anything that nears infinity is deemed as infinity. Therefore, calculus says the book is perfect.

An eternity of cause and effect does not equal perfection.

Yes it does. There is nothing more perfect than that which has always existed. You can't beat eternity: there is no sin in the eternally saved and God who is eternally existing from the eternity of the past.

What is perfection? There is only change. Humans are not perfect and never will be. Even with an eternity. There is only change. All things are different and all things change. There is no perfection and never will be.

Humans are sinners, but those who are being perfected through Christ will be perfected, that is, without sin. There is not only change, for change for change sake is vanity. It is a loopdiloop, so you have to ask yourself, what caused the change and why does it change? Is it being changed one way or the other? If you say humans can never be free of sin then you go to hell in that state and be that way forever. Perfection is coming for the saved. Even for the unsaved such as yourself going to hell, you will be greatly restricted in hell for all eternity. How sad for you.

old comment by A Friend

@James

In your proof, you assume that sin exists. Since god is the sole arbiter of sin, by assuming sin exists, you assume god exists.

But we are not using this definition of sin for the proof. We are using the definition of sin that all agree murder is a sin, that is, it is wrong, and needs to be punished, without any mention of God. I don't know any person who would disagree this is the consequence for this sin. So, this proves there is at least something called sin which shows that we were created since murder would still not be happening now if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects.

As a side-note, people are not punished by the government for sinning, people are punished by the government for comitting crimes, which are decided by men. Whilst some sins are crimes, sin is not the same thing as crime.

People are punished by the government for committing some sins which are crimes. These are decided by men and universally accepted at least for the major crimes. Sin is more encompassing than crimes. While we can say all crime is a sin, we can't say all sin is a punishable crime for prison. Hope this helps.

old comment by A Friend

THE SAME FINDINGS REMAIN:
NOBODY HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO DISPROVE THE 4 STEP PERFECT PROOF FOR GOD OF THE BIBLE. IF SOMEONE HAD BEEN ABLE TO THEY COULD SHOW IT HERE BY NOW. THE TRINITY IS THE TRIUNE GODHEAD OF GOD THE FATHER, GOD THE SON AND GOD THE SPIRIT. THE TRINITY IS THE ONLY UNCREATED BEING. REST ASSURED IF YOU DON'T RECEIVE JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR, UNCREATED DEITY, WHO DIED ON THE CROSS TO ATONE FOR YOUR SINS AND WAS RESURRECTED AND MULTIPLY ATTESTED, THEN YOU ARE GOING TO HELL. JUST TAKE A MOMENT TO REALIZE HOW EVIL YOUR POSITION IS. GOD CREATED YOU, PROVED HIMSELF, AND YOU CALL HIM A LIAR. WHY? BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO BE FORGIVEN BY GOD FOR YOUR SINS. YOU LOVE YOUR SINS TOO MUCH AND WOULD PREFER TO BE ETERNALLY SEPARATED FROM GOD. YES, THIS IS ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING YOU ARE A BAD PERSON. JUST LIKE WE THROW CRIMINALS IN JAIL, GOD WILL NEED TO THROW YOU IN HELL FOREVER TO KEEP YOU ETERNALLY SEPARATED FROM HIS SONS AND DAUGHTERS. THANKYOU JESUS! AMEN. YOU ARE ALWAYS FREE TO DISCUSS AT BIBLOCALITY FORUMS AND CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION WITHOUT ALL THE SPAM-IRRELEVANT AND INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS-AND TROLLING-FALSE STATEMENTS FOR INTERNET LURING. OBVIOUSLY, YOU CAN SEE THE NEED FOR A FORUM THAT DOESN'T LET PEOPLE GO ON REPETITIVE MINDLESS TIRADES AND BELLIGERENTLY CONTINUE TO MISREAD AND MISREPRESENT. FSTDT SHOULD GET RID OF ITS CENSORING PROGRAM BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SENSE. QUITE OFTEN YOU CAN'T POST UNLESS YOU FIRST TYPE A COUPLE LETTERS, THEN EDIT THE POST WITH WHAT YOU WANTED TO POST ORIGINALLY. OTHERWISE IT BLOCKS THE POST.

old comment by A Friend

You know what is one of the sneakiest techniques of the devil? Using vague words as though those words mean the same thing to another person, then confusion occurs. For example a fundi to one person is not a fundi to another. There are many different kinds of fundis. I also think the word fundi is a derogatory term for it is not used respectfully and is used intolerantly.
Using fstdt's own terminology I consider the owner of fstdt to be himself a fundi as per the definition of a fundi. Since fundi is used by fstdt to attack many different beliefs, it seems to be an attack on the human race. But remember, we were created in God's image. It also seems to me the position of the fundi fsdtdt owner is that of atheism or agnosticism. Sounds biased considering the proof for God of the Bible.

old comment by A Friend

@punchybird

There is no proof of god.[Or the devilhidden]

This thread is not about a proof of good or bad, but of God. When many may focus on good or evil, behind that is really obedient or disobedient, unselfish or selfish, dependent or independant. In harmony or out of harmony. Lost or found. That's why Step 3 is part of the 4 Steps, for it says if you want try to disprove the 4 Step Proof don't try to disprove some god or some concept like good, for the Proof is not about a concept or a god, but God of the Bible. Stick to His qualities, His nature, His being uncreated. The devil is Satan, fallen Lucifer who is going where you going, to hell forever! The proof is not even about Satan. Try to stick with the 4 Steps of the Proof. By the way Satan is proven to exist also, because when you do things you don't want to do and not do things you know you should do, this is your flesh in operation from your fallen nature. It came from being disobedient. And you became disobedient from a false suggestion from the evil spirit, since it did not originate from you, but you did certainly heed its voice. You need to be saved now.

old comment by A Friend

@punchybird

There is everything wrong with your 4 perfect steps. 1st of they are not perfect. They are not perfect proof. As humans (and you being human) are not perfect, by your account it's not perfect. Besides it makes no sense. I find a lot of fault with it and so do a lot of people. You don't listen, YOU don't understand, YOU are flawed.

I am just happy to know that you can't find anything wrong with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible. Since you can't show it is not perfect, then it remains perfect. There is such a thing as a perfect proof, and this is it, since you still can't find anything wrong with it. Being human, born into sin, does not mean something can't be produced pefectly. For example, 2+2 is 4 perfectly perfect. Just because humans make mistakes is no bearing on 2+2 not being 4. By your account you admit the Proof is perfect because you can't find anything wrong with it. If there is anything about the Proof you are confused by, just ask. Since you can't find any fault with it and that is why you can't show any, know that just saying so makes you look bad. Since I am listening to you, I do understand, and I am a new creation being perfected in Christ, there certainly is some power by the Holy Spirit in this fact. Realize why you behave this way. It is because you are flawed and a sinner who is disobedient to God so you mindlessly shut your mind down. Alcoholics take alcohol, drug addicts take drugs, angry people get angrier, those who are hellbound shut their mind down in all kinds of different ways. I don't think this will be much comfort to you, but you will be hell very soon!

old comment by Wise Son

Where does it break down? You don't say. You even admit idolatry, sloth and lust are a waste of time. I agree, since they are sins. The little sins lead into the bigger sins. If you keep lusting and is outwardly creating problems at your office, you might get fired.

It breaks down because you do not necessarily get punished for those other 'sins'. The most you can say is that you might get into trouble, but most people who lust do not suffer bad consequences. You can't seriously answer that something that is a waste of time is universally seen as being as bad as murder.

We have just established universal acceptance of sin, even if only regarding murder

Since part of the definition for god is that he is perfect, you can't have some 'sins 'being sins and some 'sins' not being sins. Therefore the onus is on you to prove that all sins are universally accepted as such. Your evidence that murder is a sin is that you get punished for it (a contentious point in itself, but allowing it for argument's sake), so if you don't get necessarily get punished punished for being lustful, envious or slothful, you have, by your own standard, no evidence that they are sins. This is where your point breaks down, because if you don't have perfect proof for the existence of all sins, you don't have perfect proof for the existence of god.

I am here because I know you are lost soul in need of salvation.

I appreciate the concern, but I really don't see that you have anything to offer me. We'll tlk when you've worked on your rationality and modesty. ;-)

old comment by A Friend

@Hawker Hurricane

Poor Troy. The FSTDT is doing the same thing to him that he does to others on his board, and it upsets him. The fact that they have cause to censor his spam doesn't matter, he doesn't like being treated as he treats others. Too bad he never learned the Golden Rule, he'd be better off.

It is not the same thing. I have received no explanation why I have to use proxies to post, but it was just arbitrarily imposed. I would not do that to someone. At Biblocality Forums though reason is given and agrees with the Board Etiquette which is based on 3 simple rules. I think these 3 simple rules are quite reasonable don't you? However, I think it is possible there is something wrong with the posting setup at fstdt and was not constructed very well, because sometimes it accepts posting and other times not. It is hard to believe that its operator would be so arbitrary and inconsistent. Who knows. Sometimes I can't post all day. Sometimes I can. I am not sure what they are up to. Sometimes they block a proxy after the first post, very quickly so many different proxies are needed. As you can see no cause for doing this is given, so you would be wrong in saying they have cause. And you accuse of spam, but what spam. What I say is relevant and appropriate unlike those who deflect from dealing with the 4 Step Proof this thread is about. It is undoubtedly spam when you continue to repeat yourself and avoid the response or accuse people of spam but don't identify any spam. This shows the person is being disingenuous. That's you. You should lear not to be the great false accuser, it makes you look real bad. I would expect fstdt operators to explain to me the problem as I would to them, but of course, I don't do this that what they are doing because I don't treat people as I would not want to be treated. I hold to the golden rule and not accuse people falsely cause I think that is a sin, so I can't behave like you do accusing falsely. Hopefully this will help you repent seeing all your mistakes in accusing. Since you can't repent and are going to hell as that is what you want. Just know you can yet be saved and I pray that you still might. Maybe, just maybe one day you'll stop calling Jesus a liar, and you will admit to yourself honestly it's true, you can't find anything wrong with the 4 Step Proof, instead of shutting your mind down. How you respond to Christ in this life is how you will live out in eternity. Jesus said if you are not for Him you are against Him. You can see why you need to go to that eternal jail.

old comment by Wise Son

You don't think going to jail is punishment? I guess some people think its not. How weird. Are you looking forward to going to jail some day? How absurd that you think this is contentious. The weird things the unsaved say!

Not every murderer is caught, not every murderer who is caught is succesfully convicted. If there was a divine component to sin it would be impossible to avoid consequences for the sin. Also, I believe the bible says 'thou shalt not kill', rather than 'thou shalt not murder,' so what about soldiers or policemen who kill in the line of duty? They are not treated as sinners, and in some cases are praised for their actions. Also, believe me, I have seen plenty of people who are slothful in their work, but get away with it, and are inno danger of losing their house.

All sin leads to death, because all sin is disobedience and causes loss of fellowship with God. All sin has its consequences. You may think you got away with something, but I assure you didn't. Most people who lust do get into trouble such as extramarital affairs or a lustful look while one's spouse is looking or any number of other things. And it is distractive, unproductive and lacks meaningful relationships. 50% of marriages end in divorce. Homos are rampant.

Wow, so much wrong there. First off, everything leads to death. People who don't sin, would still die. If you are trying to argue about 'eternal life', that depends on the existence of god, so you can't use it as evidence to prove his existence. Secondly, what evidennce do you have that 'most people' who lust get into affairs, etc? Just because all people in affairs are lustful doesn't necessarily follow that all lustful people are in affairs. Divorces aren't always down to lust. A lot of them are between people who have never cheated or been anything but loyal, but who find themselves incompatible. And as for 'homos' being 'rampant', aside from the obvious bigotry, homosexuals make up around 10% of humanity, and I think it's staying pretty constant. When 90% of the world is straight, I hardly think that qualifies homosexuality as being rampant.

I am not trying to prove some god, but God of the Bible is proven. It is an accomplished fact. And as has been discussed using the minimal facts approach, we don't need to go into all the sins, but just realize some very obvious ones like murder, rape, robbery, etc.

If God (notice I specify your God here) is perfect, and if your proof is perfect, it should apply equally to every sin, and not just the ones you like to mention. If there are exceptions to your rule, then your proof is not not perfect, and God is not perfect, and if God is defined as 'perfect', he must not exist. I am only pointing out the limitations you have placed on yourself. You have made it so that a single exception to your rule disproves it, by relying on abstract concepts like 'perfection' and 'sin'.

old comment by Jerry

@troy

3/29/2007 7:16:19 PM I was amazed when I came to look today, for all these posts that followed after shows a cry for help. I can't leave you stranded in you deceiving yourself, so let me reply.

Hi Troy, yet again... first off, it's not a cry for help...I ahven't got the slightest clue were that came from... I'm not the one deceivign myself..Aren't you the one with the bogus proof and 10.000 dollars to spare?

I guess you can say you are laughing yourself all the way to hell for calling Jesus a liar.

for the last fucking time: Fuck You. I did not call anybody a liar accept YOU...wether or nto you think I'm going to "hell" doesn't matter to me...at least I live in reality..

Why do you create this rule for yourself Christians are not allowed to use the Internet?

it's not a rule..it's called sarcasm...what I was trying to say was: "nutters like Troy should be locked up"...I was trying to be subtle, even a tad humorous, btu you didn't get it..

I am sure you feel like your beliefs are being attacked when the truth of your mistaken assumptions is given, but giving you the truth is not to attack you, but to help you. I don't want you to go to hell as much as you want to. Since you can't show any circular logic, then aren't you being circular? Since you can't show long-winded, aren't you being long-winded? You can't force someone to choose your religion. As you know Christians know you have free-will so we know we can't force you, nor would we want to.

Okay, point for point: -what you feel is like "truth" isn't what I think..Yóu may believe in the god of the bible, But I don't think so..Try and respect that.. -circular logic, you want em to point it? Sure, here we go: * you said because there's sin there is god..you use sin as a premise to god.. *Sin is a "crime against god"...so god is a premsie to sinning.. *circular logic... never mind about the rest...which woudl be a nonsense discussiong.. PS: fstdt isn't censoring you..It's just a standard anti-spam mechanism. If somebody's posting a lot in a short time it egts blocked..happens..

old comment by David B.

About the only interesting thing sbout this proof is Troy's complete obliviousness to its 'if P then P' nature.
If one assumes God exists then (he claims) this proves God exists. But what if we assume God doesn't exist? Asks a critic. That's not a valid assumption, says Troy, because we have just proved that God exists. So God exists, because the proof says so; and the proof is correct because God exists. So in the spirit of circularity, I present... The perfect 4 step proof that God doesn't exist! Step 1: Everything has a natural explanation. This is clearly shown by the fact that every problem we have ever solved scientifically has been shown to have a natural explanation. A 100% success rate. Step 2: If everything has a natural explanation then there is no such thing as the supernatural. Supernatural claims must be false because only natural explanations for anything have ever been found. Step 3: If any god existed he would be able to do things supernaturally, that is to cause something to happen which didn't have a natural explanation. If no god existed then everything could only have a natural explanation. Step 4: As everything does have a natural explanation; no gods exist. This proof is perfect, hence God doesn't exist.

old comment by CT

But in the 4 Step Proof we are not using any of these definitions. We are using this dictionary definion: "to offend against a principle, standard, etc" at http://dictionary.reference.com/

And... what standard? who's principles? who's standards? Who's being offended? Is it yours? Mine? Bob down the street? Societies? Humanities? Let's find out... is Homosexuality a Sin? Who says it's wrong and gets to dictate that to all of humanity? Do you have that right? Do I? Maybe it's collective human nature? No... it's none of them... considering that there's no collective consensus on whether homosexuality is a Sin. Is lying a Sin? Is lying wrong? Is lying to protect someone from being unjustly tortured and killed wrong? Who does that offend? Who's standards does that offend? Who's principles? Yours? Mine? John Doe's? Give me a straight answer Troy... is lying a Sin? If yes, why? Who says so? Who has the right to dictate to all humanity that it's a Sin? Is Homosexuality a Sin? If yes, why? Who says so? Who has the right to dictate to all humanity? Give me an answer on this Troy, because this is fundamental to your proof. You know... sin is the ultimate problem for your proof, since your proof is based on sin alone. Without sin, your proof falls apart... so solving that should be the first thing to do. So... solve it... show us what sin is, per the definition you want to use. Show us just what principles or standards are being offended, and just who came up with them.

old comment by CT

Where does it break down? You don't say. You even admit idolatry, sloth and lust are a waste of time. I agree, since they are sins. The little sins lead into the bigger sins. If you keep lusting and is outwardly creating problems at your office, you might get fired.

Who says Idolatry is a Sin? Seriously... what makes Idolatry a sin? What makes worshiping an object a sin? What makes lust a sin? Who got to rule that lust is a sin? We know just who says Idolatry is a sin... A certain supreme being known as YHWH. You call him God. We know who calls lust a sin... A certain supreme being known as YHWH. You call him God. Guess we know just who you think is the one saying what's a sin... and just who is required for sin to exist. The problem is... lying is a sin, according to you. God lied, so God has sinned. Sinning means your not perfect, so God isn't perfect. But... your proof claims to prove the existence of the God of the Bible who is, as you claim, perfect... which means you must be talking about some other God other than the God of the Bible since the God of the Bible has sinned, which leaves you proving something other than what you claim to be proving... Now, since a perfect proof would only prove what it claims to prove, and since your proof manages to claim something else instead, your proof cannot be perfect since it fails to prove a perfect God of the Bible. (one who has not sinned...) As such, your proof is proven wrong... and it's the Bible that proves it wrong.

old comment by James

Genesis 2:17 - But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
God said Adam and Eve would die in the same day they ate the fruit. They did not. Thus, either God lied, or God was wrong, therefore he is not perfect. And don't you even dare try no claim that the word die is not literal, when you so staunchly claim that the word the day cannot be, despite the fact that the Earth is roughly 4.55 billion years old (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html) and that the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html). Still, I don't know why I provide my sources, I know you won't read them.

old comment by CT

Oh my... this is good...
@Troy

Sin is caused by independency and disobedience to the Uncreated.

Troy... that statement of yours shows that, in your mind, sin requires an uncreated being to exist... According to your proof, the existence of sin is proof that an uncreated being exists. So, according to your proof, independence and disobedience to the uncreated is proof that the uncreated exists. In simple terms, you need the assumption that the uncreated exists to prove that the uncreated exists. The base assumption that your proof is built on is the conclusion of your proof... thus circular logic. Now... would you like to redefine sin again? Oh, and what does it say about your claim that Sin is "to offend against a principle, standard, etc" rather than being anything dependent on any God? (which you claim is the uncreated being) What it says is, you've changed the definition you use, but claim it's still the same... Lying Troy? Not something your God would ever be happy about, is it?

old comment by A Friend

@Wise Son

Not every murderer is caught, not every murderer who is caught is succesfully convicted. If there was a divine component to sin it would be impossible to avoid consequences for the sin.
Also, I believe the bible says 'thou shalt not kill', rather than 'thou shalt not murder,' so what about soldiers or policemen who kill in the line of duty? They are not treated as sinners, and in some cases are praised for their actions. Also, believe me, I have seen plenty of people who are slothful in their work, but get away with it, and are inno danger of losing their house.

Do you really think if you murdered someone that you got away with it if you don't go to jail for it? You have it on your conscience and it will eat away you, hardening you. To not kill is the same thing as not murder. If you have a gun in your hand and it is between your loved one and someone else threatening her life with a gun, I think it is reasonable to conclude take the shot. And war was necessary to stop Hitler, for sure! Don't take the narrow view if someone is slothful that they get away it because you can't see immediate effects. Things take time to unfold.

Wow, so much wrong there. First off, everything leads to death. People who don't sin, would still die. If you are trying to argue about 'eternal life', that depends on the existence of god, so you can't use it as evidence to prove his existence. Secondly, what evidennce do you have that 'most people' who lust get into affairs, etc? Just because all people in affairs are lustful doesn't necessarily follow that all lustful people are in affairs. Divorces aren't always down to lust. A lot of them are between people who have never cheated or been anything but loyal, but who find themselves incompatible. And as for 'homos' being 'rampant', aside from the obvious bigotry, homosexuals make up around 10% of humanity, and I think it's staying pretty constant. When 90% of the world is straight, I hardly think that qualifies homosexuality as being rampant.

When we say sin leads to death, what is meant is that it increases the speed to death. If you smoke a pack of cigarettes a day, all else being equal, you wil die sooner. This is statistically proven. Eternal life is proven by our proof of the existence of God, that's correct. I didn't say most people who lust have an affair, but I included this as one of the possible consequences of sin. Incompatability as a reason for divorce is unacceptable. People are not so incompatible to need to be divorced unless of course someone is such a horrible sinner in the marriage he is a danger to his spouse. The point being, it is wrong to get married and then divorce. Divorce is always wrong, for the person should not have been married in the first place if their outcome was to get divorced. Saying they are incompatible is just a copout for the flesh. Knowing that same sex is wrong is not bigotry, but a fact of life, you can't make babies with the same sex. Homosexuality goes up when an nation becomes more corrupted and it goes down in a more righteous society. It doesn't stay constant. In previous times it was deemed acceptable, but God destroyed homosexual cities, literally burned them to the ground. Today it's not that bad to have to do that. This is an exponential progression in conscience. What I mean by rampant is 10% is too much, 5% is too much, and 2% is too much. That's rampant. You don't think it is rampant only because your consciece is dull. The Proof does apply to every sin for sin is sin, but that doesn't mean we need to analyze every sin, for nobody has the ability to do that. All we need know as a minimal facts approach is that sin exists, so we can point out some obvious sins for the proof.

If God (notice I specify your God here) is perfect, and if your proof is perfect, it should apply equally to every sin, and not just the ones you like to mention. If there are exceptions to your rule, then your proof is not not perfect, and God is not perfect, and if God is defined as 'perfect', he must not exist. I am only pointing out the limitations you have placed on yourself. You have made it so that a single exception to your rule disproves it, by relying on abstract concepts like 'perfection' and 'sin'.

The first step of the proof identifies the fact that you still sin, and you would not still be sinning if you had an eternity to be perfected. It is not about how many sins or which sins, but that you still sin, so you know you were created by the uncreated. There is no limitation being placed in recognizing this fact. You can't find an exception. Sin is not abstract. I assure you murder is wrong, and most people agree. You will go to jail. And is not 2+2=4 perfectly correct? Of course. So is this abstract? No. It is very exacting and quantifiable. So you see the 4 Step Proof remains unchallenged.

old comment by A Friend

@Jerry

Hi Troy, yet again...
first off, it's not a cry for help...I ahven't got the slightest clue were that came from... I'm not the one deceivign myself..Aren't you the one with the bogus proof and 10.000 dollars to spare?

Since the proof is still unchallenged, how is it bogus then? The reason why this stuff is on your mind because your conscience tells you that you are wrong, so that is why I am here, to help lead you to Christ.

for the last fucking time: Fuck You. I did not call anybody a liar accept YOU...wether or nto you think I'm going to "hell" doesn't matter to me...at least I live in reality..

Since I did not lie and you showed no lie from me, then where did I lie? Yes, you called Jesus a liar because He said He is God who created you and the disciples attested to it. In fact, I don't know any individual more well documented in antiquity than was Jesus. Jesus is more well documented than all the Roman emperors. You don't live in reality since you want to go to hell and call Jesus a liar. Where did He lie? He walked, talked, ate, was resurrected, said He is God and proved it. This is glorious that God would enter into His creation to atone for sins. He is merciful and full of grace.

it's not a rule..it's called sarcasm...what I was trying to say was: "nutters like Troy should be locked up"...I was trying to be subtle, even a tad humorous, btu you didn't get it..

Ok, so you changed your mind, now we are allowed to use the Internet. You did say, "locked away part...It was concernign people like you, in real life.(you know, outside you little internet crusade for god)". I was using humor, for certainly Christians are not restricted to just the Internet. Funny. You are way too serious.

Okay, point for point: -what you feel is like "truth" isn't what I think..Yóu may believe in the god of the bible, But I don't think so..Try and respect that.. -circular logic, you want em to point it? Sure, here we go: * you said because there's sin there is god..you use sin as a premise to god.. *Sin is a "crime against god"...so god is a premsie to sinning.. *circular logic... never mind about the rest...which woudl be a nonsense discussiong.. PS: fstdt isn't censoring you..It's just a standard anti-spam mechanism. If somebody's posting a lot in a short time it egts blocked..happens

The 4 Step Proof is not a feelings proof, but a proof of logic. I do believe in God of the Bible, because He is proven in the Proof. That's what I respect. I didn't say because there is sin there is god. The Bible is not about some god, but God of the Bible. Step 1 says if you had an eternity of the past of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin, yet you still sin; therefore, you can know for sure you were created by the uncreated, and by comparison you know this is God of the Bible. You still didn't show this is circular. Sin is a crime against God of course, but the proof does not use the definition of sin in the dictionary that mentions first God; it only describes sin as being that which is wrong. Do you see the mistake you are making? You are misreading the proof, for the proof uses one definition of sin, while you misread it to use anothe definition. Thus, you enter into circular reasoning, but the proof doesn't. So far your argument is nonsense because it depends on misreading the proof. I wouldn't bother with more nonsense if I were you, but just realize you are being disingenuous and unethical when you misread so blatantly. Thanks for explaining the reason why the censoring takes place, but it has gone to the extreme. This is only my second post today and it just got censored. Lots of posters needing lots of responses limits those responses because of such a filter. That doesn't make much sense to me. I believe it remains unrighteous censoring to censor the truth so you can keep shutting your mind down and feed the fstdt cult.

old comment by A Friend

@David B.

YOU DISPROVED IT YOURSELF. YOU SAID MY CHOICES ARE CAUSED BY ME ALONE, SO CAN'T BE PART OF A CHAIN OF CAUSE AND EFFECT LEADING BACK TO THE 'CAUSELESS CAUSE' YOU CLAIM IS GOD. HENCE STEP 2 IS WRONG, BECAUSE YOU SAID SO.
(Look, I used the "Caps Lock of Truth" and everything, so I must be right!)

No. This proves God of the Bible because you couldn't have the choice to begin with if God didn't create you. You are not like puff the magic dragon all of a sudden you can choose. There had to be a cause that gives you the right to choose. Hence Step 2 remains true, not because I said so, but because it's true, nothing in nature happens all by itself. The big bang had a cause, but nothing in nature causes itself. You can cause your choices, but you didn't cause your existence to have the choice. That would be arrogant if you thought you created you. The caps are the summary of the 4 Step Proof. The caps function itself is not the proof itself, funny!

old comment by CT

To not kill is the same thing as not murder. If you have a gun in your hand and it is between your loved one and someone else threatening her life with a gun, I think it is reasonable to conclude take the shot.

Ergo, killing in self-defense is the right thing to do, even though it's a sin...

Incompatability as a reason for divorce is unacceptable.

Why? Who says so? People are not so incompatible to need to be divorced unless of course someone is such a horrible sinner in the marriage he is a danger to his spouse.Of course, being such a horrible sinner WOULD mean they're so incompatible that they have to divorce... but incompatibility as a reason is unacceptable, so you've just contradicted yourself... Kinda usual for you Troy.

The point being, it is wrong to get married and then divorce.

Unless he's a horrible sinner... but even then it's wrong even though you say it's right even though you say it's wrong even though you say it's right... Ever feel you managed to screw up your argument Troy?

Divorce is always wrong, for the person should not have been married in the first place if their outcome was to get divorced.

Oh, divorce is always wrong, except if he's a horrible sinner... then it's right, but it's wrong, but it's right, but it's wrong...

Saying they are incompatible is just a copout for the flesh.

There you have it... even if your spouse is a danger to you, and that's when Troy says you're incompatible enough to justify divorce, it's still not right to divorce even though Troy says it's right... Flip, flop, flip, flop... pick an argument and stick with it Troy.

Knowing that same sex is wrong is not bigotry, but a fact of life, you can't make babies with the same sex.

Celibacy is wrong then... since you can't make babies with celibacy. Find another argument for that Troy... this one's just fallen apart at high speed.

In previous times it was deemed acceptable, but God destroyed homosexual cities, literally burned them to the ground.

Really? You talking about Sodom? Where they were punished for being generally nasty, NOT for the kind of sex they had? Read the Bible Troy... you might learn something. (like God sinned, that Jesus was a horse thief)

The Proof does apply to every sin for sin is sin, but that doesn't mean we need to analyze every sin, for nobody has the ability to do that. All we need know as a minimal facts approach is that sin exists, so we can point out some obvious sins for the proof.

Well... name something that is a sin WITHOUT requiring God to make it a sin... let's see if I'm a sinner. Before you start... lying isn't a bad thing, nor is it a good thing. Lying to protect someone from being tortured and murdered is a damned good thing... means you can't use that as an example. Never killed anyone, let alone murder... unless you count the biblical claim that to hate someone is to murder them, but that requires God to make it a sin. Tell you what... come up with some non-religious sin, explain WHY it's a sin... making sure you give details for what exactly makes it a sin, and then we'll see if I've sinned that sin. That's the only way you'll set this sin problem to rest... so get to it. Sort out the problem, or you admit it's a flaw in your proof.

old comment by CT

No. Not paying out the $10,000 is because the Proof has not been overturned. Not paying the $10,000 is not reason the proof is true. It is the consequence of it being true and unchallenged. You are slow eh?
Not paying the $1,000,000 for the perfect proof of God is because the person is unethical in saying he would. Not paying after the proof can't be found faultless is proof that the person who made the promise is unethical.

And it couldn't possibly be that your proof is a load of horse crap... Troy... so many people have managed to find problems with your proof, yet you still insist we're all misreading it. If so many people are misreading it, then it's what you've written that's the problem. You manage to contradict yourself over and over, yet you expect people to believe you've managed to write something as long-winded as your proof is without a single possible mis-understandable word?? Heck... you've managed to use 3 different definitions of "sin" in this thread alone, definitions that don't match at all... To insist that everyone but you is mis-understanding it is preposterous at best and hideous pride at worst. Either way, the problem would be with your imperfection, not anyone's reading of the proof.

old comment by (H9) - EvilBible

"You said, "All religions are either man-made or made up by aliens to examine our reaction".
I agree atheism, agnosticsm and all other such world-views are man-made" Wow, get a clue dude. Atheism is not a religion. Agnosticism is not a religion. "but there is no evidence for aliens. The evidence speaks agains aliens because scientists have done calculuations on over 150 variables, that the odds of life on another planet is, in one study done, less than 1 in a million after taking all planets into account. The study I am referring to is in the one referenced in The Case for the Resurrection (2004) of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas." Perhaps you should first check up a more reputable source. "Since the 4 Step Proof proves God of the Bible created then it proves there is in fact one religion that is not man-made and not created by aliens." That "proof" isn't worth the web page it's written on. "I really do believe the ministry of the Church could use those funds, but when and if you keep your word to give it out since your alien theory is disproven, I don't want you to give it out because you are proven wrong, but I want you to give it out because God has moved you to do so. All for the glory of God!" Uh, nope, your proof wasn't good enough. You fail. I'm sorry.

old comment by A Friend

@David B.

About the only interesting thing sbout this proof is Troy's complete obliviousness to its 'if P then P' nature.If one assumes God exists then (he claims) this proves God exists. But what if we assume God doesn't exist? Asks a critic.That's not a valid assumption, says Troy, because we have just proved that God exists. So God exists, because the proof says so; and the proof is correct because God exists.

The Proof does not first say God exists but makes no mention of God. What it does is say that since you still sin, there can not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects. There is no assumption God first exists, so this approach is not used. The proof starts out with neither assuming God exists or doesn't exist, but through the proof we discover God exists. Do you see how the proof takes a higher road than you because you admit you first assume God doesn't exist. If this is your assumption, then it is locked. You are biased and stuck in your ways. It makes more sense to neither first assume God exists or doesn't exist and see if the proof shows if God exists.

So in the spirit of circularity, I present... The perfect 4 step proof that God doesn't exist! Step 1: Everything has a natural explanation. This is clearly shown by the fact that every problem we have ever solved scientifically has been shown to have a natural explanation. A 100% success rate. Step 2: If everything has a natural explanation then there is no such thing as the supernatural. Supernatural claims must be false because only natural explanations for anything have ever been found. Step 3: If any god existed he would be able to do things supernaturally, that is to cause something to happen which didn't have a natural explanation. If no god existed then everything could only have a natural explanation. Step 4: As everything does have a natural explanation; no gods exist. This proof is perfect, hence God doesn't exist.

You admit you are being circular so you admit you are being wrong in your attempt here with your own 4 steps, so it fails. It is also faulty with its various assumptions. Let me show you. Your first step has two mistaken assumptions. "Everything has a natural explanation". This is not the same thing as saying all natural causes have a cause, for a cause may have a natural or a supernatural cause. It is also false to say "This is clearly shown by the fact that every problem we have ever solved scientifically has been shown to have a natural explanation" because the probem of our existence scientifically shows us a supernatural explanation. Scientifically the exponential progression in our conscience shows us we did not need an eternity to be perfected without sin; therefore, we know the uncreated created us. Your step 2 is false also, "Supernatural claims must be false because only natural explanations for anything have ever been found". Since I showed you a supernatural explanation in my response to your step 1. Your step 3 is false also, because it is talking about some god, not God of the Bible. Your step 3 is wrong too, for you said, "If no god existed then everything could only have a natural explanation." But we have proven God exists because we know you had to be created by the uncreated, which would have been done supernaturally. Your step 4 is wrong, since not everything was shown to have a natural explanation, but must have supernatural origin. Your saying your 4 steps are perfect doesn't make it so, after I showed how they are wrong.

old comment by A Friend

@Bob

Using the argument that the Bible says God exists therefore God must exist, is a fallacy. The 'so called' truth does not support the statement.

That's why the the 4 Step Proof nor the Bible says God exists therefore God exists, but proves God exists first to know God exists. You have to ask yourself, why make this argument since the 4 Step Proof doesn't? What it shows is that you have the quality of the evil spirit to accuse of something falsely. Now look at the negative consequences of your sin, for Jerry writes in response to your sin,

David, you're my hero! I'm gonna call my kids David when I grow up...all 8 of them! ;)

Do you see how you sinned, then another sinned? If another person mistakenly assumes off of your mistaken assumption, then you both are in a vat of sin. Crazy stuff!

old comment by A Friend

@CT

And... what standard? who's principles? who's standards? Who's being offended?
Is it yours? Mine? Bob down the street? Societies? Humanities?

Everybody is universally agreed murder is wrong. The extension of this is that if it were good then the human race should annihilate itself. That makes no sense at all. This may be Satan's desire though.

Let's find out... is Homosexuality a Sin? Who says it's wrong and gets to dictate that to all of humanity? Do you have that right? Do I? Maybe it's collective human nature? No... it's none of them... considering that there's no collective consensus on whether homosexuality is a Sin. Is lying a Sin? Is lying wrong? Is lying to protect someone from being unjustly tortured and killed wrong? Who does that offend? Who's standards does that offend? Who's principles? Yours? Mine? John Doe's? Give me a straight answer Troy... is lying a Sin? If yes, why? Who says so? Who has the right to dictate to all humanity that it's a Sin? Is Homosexuality a Sin? If yes, why? Who says so? Who has the right to dictate to all humanity? Give me an answer on this Troy, because this is fundamental to your proof.

So tell me, if your boss asks you what happened to the $10,000 in the safe at your work place which you stole, is it right for you to steal, lie about it? Do you know anyone who favors this kind of behavior? When you as a man have sex with another man, don't you feel sick inside, since if everyone did this in place of a man and a woman there would be no way to procreate the human race? You may get off on your man on man sex and sticking your genitals up another man's but and sticking your tongue down his throat, but don't you feel sick when you do that, because you know it is wrong? The problem with this sin is that you may adopt a child and screw his mind up too, and give him a warped perspective on life. He has no mother. You are soo selfish while you are sucking on a man's genitals that you don't think about how you hurt a child and not give him a mother. I am certain you are a bad man and you are going to hell.

You know... sin is the ultimate problem for your proof, since your proof is based on sin alone. Without sin, your proof falls apart... so solving that should be the first thing to do. So... solve it... show us what sin is, per the definition you want to use. Show us just what principles or standards are being offended, and just who came up with them.

Step 1 establishes God exists because you still sin and you would not be if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects; so you know the uncreated God created. Step 2 does not mention sin, but shows that nothing is without a cause except the uncaused, so you know God did it. So you can see your assessment is wrong that it all depends on sin, since it all does not depend on the fact that there is sin. Even if it did, that would be ok too anyway. Suffice it to say if you kill someone in cold blood for no reason at all other than you get off on it or a rage of jealousy or greed, it is wrong. Do you know any societies that condone this? I don't.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Who says Idolatry is a Sin?
Seriously... what makes Idolatry a sin? What makes worshiping an object a sin? What makes lust a sin? Who got to rule that lust is a sin? We know just who says Idolatry is a sin... A certain supreme being known as YHWH. You call him God. We know who calls lust a sin... A certain supreme being known as YHWH. You call him God.

Certainly God says idolatry and lust are sins, but the Proof does not first ask if God says this, but first establishes that there is indeed sin, that is things that are wrong and unhealthy for human beings like murder or rape, etc. Just as there are the outwardly obvious sins, there are also they suttle more deceptive sins and sins of the heart like lust and idolatry of idolizing and lusting after something that does damage to you.

Guess we know just who you think is the one saying what's a sin... and just who is required for sin to exist. The problem is... lying is a sin, according to you. God lied, so God has sinned. Sinning means your not perfect, so God isn't perfect. But... your proof claims to prove the existence of the God of the Bible who is, as you claim, perfect... which means you must be talking about some other God other than the God of the Bible since the God of the Bible has sinned, which leaves you proving something other than what you claim to be proving... Now, since a perfect proof would only prove what it claims to prove, and since your proof manages to claim something else instead, your proof cannot be perfect since it fails to prove a perfect God of the Bible. (one who has not sinned...) As such, your proof is proven wrong... and it's the Bible that proves it wrong.

Remember, the Proof does not take a position of whether God first exists or doesn't, or even whether He has a view on sin or not. God never lied. Since you lie in accusing Him of lying, that's you can't show it, only mindlessly self-declare it. Since God never lied, He is sinless and perfect. Step 3 of the Proof says don't talk about some god who sinned, for we are talking about God of the Bible who never sinned. If He had sinned you could show it, but you can't. By your own testimony you give power to God of the Bible and so since you reject Him you have to go to Hell.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Who says Idolatry is a Sin?
Seriously... what makes Idolatry a sin? What makes worshiping an object a sin? What makes lust a sin? Who got to rule that lust is a sin? We know just who says Idolatry is a sin... A certain supreme being known as YHWH. You call him God. We know who calls lust a sin... A certain supreme being known as YHWH. You call him God.

Guess we know just who you think is the one saying what's a sin... and just who is required for sin to exist. The problem is... lying is a sin, according to you. God lied, so God has sinned. Sinning means your not perfect, so God isn't perfect. But... your proof claims to prove the existence of the God of the Bible who is, as you claim, perfect... which means you must be talking about some other God other than the God of the Bible since the God of the Bible has sinned, which leaves you proving something other than what you claim to be proving... Now, since a perfect proof would only prove what it claims to prove, and since your proof manages to claim something else instead, your proof cannot be perfect since it fails to prove a perfect God of the Bible. (one who has not sinned...) As such, your proof is proven wrong... and it's the Bible that proves it wrong.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Who says Idolatry is a Sin?
Seriously... what makes Idolatry a sin? What makes worshiping an object a sin? What makes lust a sin? Who got to rule that lust is a sin? We know just who says Idolatry is a sin... A certain supreme being known as YHWH. You call him God. We know who calls lust a sin... A certain supreme being known as YHWH. You call him God.

Certainly God says idolatry and lust are sins, but the Proof does not first ask if God says this, but first establishes that there is indeed sin, that is things that are wrong and unhealthy for human beings like murder or rape, etc. Just as there are the outwardly obvious sins, there are also subtle more deceptive sins and sins of the heart like lust and idolatry of idolizing and lusting after something that does damage to you.

Guess we know just who you think is the one saying what's a sin... and just who is required for sin to exist. The problem is... lying is a sin, according to you. God lied, so God has sinned. Sinning means your not perfect, so God isn't perfect. But... your proof claims to prove the existence of the God of the Bible who is, as you claim, perfect... which means you must be talking about some other God other than the God of the Bible since the God of the Bible has sinned, which leaves you proving something other than what you claim to be proving... Now, since a perfect proof would only prove what it claims to prove, and since your proof manages to claim something else instead, your proof cannot be perfect since it fails to prove a perfect God of the Bible. (one who has not sinned...) As such, your proof is proven wrong... and it's the Bible that proves it wrong.

Remember, the Proof does not take a position of whether God first exists or doesn't, or even whether He has a view on sin or not. God never lied. Since you lie in accusing Him of lying, you can't show it, only mindlessly self-declare it. Since God never lied, He is sinless and perfect. Step 3 of the Proof says don't talk about some god who sinned, for we are talking about God of the Bible who never sinned. If He had sinned you could show it, but you can't. By your own testimony you give power to God of the Bible and so since you reject Him you have to go to Hell.

old comment by A Friend

@James

Genesis 2:17 - But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Death has entered from that day forward. That sin worketh death daily. God said Adam and Eve would die in the same day they ate the fruit. They did not. Thus, either God lied, or God was wrong, therefore he is not perfect.

You misread it. "thou shalt surely die" is not this day, but "for this day" is referring to "eatest". That's why it says, "for in the day that thou eatest thereof". It's amazing the lame arguments people use. The Holy Spirit has revealed to me the reason why people use horrible misreadings which they know full well they are doing, is because they don't care anyway. They really don't mind being mindless because they really do want to go to hell. They like being bad people. It's the only expanation because they have their idol and lusts and self-exalt themselve above God like Satan tried. Though he can never be saved, you still can be saved by the precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And don't you even dare try no claim that the word die is not literal, when you so staunchly claim that the word the day cannot be, despite the fact that the Earth is roughly 4.55 billion years old (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html) and that the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html). Still, I don't know why I provide my sources, I know you won't read them.

The word "day" is, for that is the day he ate of it. "die" is literal. As a consequence of this disobedient act, death enters even the second death, an eternal separation from God. Because of this sin, that person will leave the planet sooner than they would have otherwise. I already know the age of earth and the universe. But that doesn't help your case though. It does give strength to the glory of God that in Gen. 1.1 God created perfectly, but does not need to disclose the length of time it took, nor does God need to give you all the details of the body created from "dust" (Gen. 2.7).

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Troy... that statement of yours shows that, in your mind, sin requires an uncreated being to exist...
According to your proof, the existence of sin is proof that an uncreated being exists. So, according to your proof, independence and disobedience to the uncreated is proof that the uncreated exists. In simple terms, you need the assumption that the uncreated exists to prove that the uncreated exists. The base assumption that your proof is built on is the conclusion of your proof... thus circular logic. Now... would you like to redefine sin again?

You are still confused. The sin definition that God supplies is true. But that is not the definition of sin used in the Proof. We are using the dicionary definition of sin that does not make first use of God's name. I have said this many many times already, so this shows you are just being belligerent. It is entirely circular logic to continue to avoid this fact. What you are doing wrong is pulling one definition when it suits you, but when doing that you bear false witness, since that is not the definition that is being used in the proof first. Would you redefine sin again? If you make this mistake again as you did before, it shows you shut your mind down. Why be a pawn for the Satan? You know he is always wrong.

Oh, and what does it say about your claim that Sin is "to offend against a principle, standard, etc" rather than being anything dependent on any God? (which you claim is the uncreated being) What it says is, you've changed the definition you use, but claim it's still the same... Lying Troy? Not something your God would ever be happy about, is it?

I gave you the link to the dictionary definition already. Why shut your mind down to it? "to offend against a principle, standard, etc". Where does it mention God at dictionary.com in this definition? To overassume gets you into trouble. This is the full definition given at dictionary.com for this particular usage, which is the same usage time and again the 4 Step Proof uses. What it says about you changing the definition is to bear false witness and misread the Proof for your own selfish mand mindless purposes, but I trust people can see through that deceptiveness. Yes, you are lying when you do this, because you know full well this is the position of the Proof, so why try to change it? Don't you feel ugly inside when you do that. If I was trying to disprove someone Proof, I would not use that approach so why do you? Know why you do this mindlessly. It is because you are a bad man, going to hell, and you don't care. So I say, so be it! But just know you can yet be saved if you change your mind. Repentance is humility having a change of mind.

old comment by A Friend

@James

Troy, no matter no how many times you say no-one has found a fault with the proof, it won't become true.
Oh and by the way this here, along with other sources, show that the sin of sloth actually increases your life span. So your theory of "When we say sin leads to death, what is meant is that it increases the speed to death" turns out to be bullshit. And you define sloth as a sin yourself; "You even admit idolatry, sloth and lust are a waste of time. I agree, since they are sins" (you, post #209684) You lose.

What makes it true is that you can't find anything wrong with the Proof for God. I find that sad that you still reject Him, and why it is so absolutely necessary there be a Hell for you. Know how evil you are that you condone all sin because you think it makes you live longer. How crazy is that? So if you walk down the street with a gun and start blowing peoples' heads off you think this will make you live longer. It's proven people don't live as long in jail even if you manage to escape not getting shot by the cops. The article you gave did not say sin will make you live longer, for it is a sin the article says to overexercise, "Scientists in Germany have found that too much exercise is bad". The article is a very common sense finding, but you warp it into something else? That's selfish. Do you see how your arguements depend on twisted and illogical premises and misreading? If I behaved that way I would be embarrassed but I have found those going to hell such as yourself don't have this feeling in them much at all. And so it remains true, as you sin you die a little more each day. Slothfulness is a deadly sin to be sure! Try it, don't exercise, laying on the couch ever day for many extended hours and see if you live longer than the average. I bet you won't. Speed it up if you like. Since you are going to hell anyway, what does it matter when you die? Don't work, be as lazy as possible, and see what happens when you can't pay even for the utilities on your home so you have to sleep on the streets where you eventually starve and freeze to death. Or if you commit suicide see if this sin puts you death and keeps you eternally separated from God when you are resurrected to hell.

old comment by A Friend

@James

Things in nature happen by themselves all the time Troy. Take radioactivity for example. In beta-minus radiation, a neutron in an atom's nucleus will spontaneously turn into a proton, producing also an electron and an electron anti-neutrino. The process is completely random.

That which is spontaneous to you does not mean it happens all by itself because you are not smart enough to figure out the causal chain of events. Don't you feel arrogant by that claim? Why overlook the things that arise that cause the neutron to change? Your approach is very unscientific. Did Columbus assume there was no more land on earth? Notice too how you go to the most complicated reactions in science to try to make your case, all the while shuting your mind down to considering any causes. Why not pick something on a more simple basis to show it is without a cause. Many things that are simple to us now where deemed as spontaneous before. But through science and God's grace, we were able to discover the causes. You prevent that from ever happening in your puny mind. It's like you are in a cult of self. You only do discredit to yourself by your approach. People can see that. My recommendation to you is just admit you want to go to hell. Then you would be more honest with yourself.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Ergo, killing in self-defense is the right thing to do, even though it's a sin...

It is not a sin to stop Hitler from ruling the world. How evil of you to think it is. I am glad somebody had a conscience to think up D-Day. But how much better it would have been if the nations of Europe did not in the first place make false peace treaties to appease an evil man.

Why? Who says so?

Because it is an excuse, not reality.

Of course, being such a horrible sinner WOULD mean they're so incompatible that they have to divorce... but incompatibility as a reason is unacceptable, so you've just contradicted yourself... Kinda usual for you Troy.

The incompatibility is not referencing physical harm, but obviously incompatibilities such as one person likes to sleep on the left side of the bed and the other likes to sleep on the left side too. What do you rely on? You rely on misreading. When you misread what another person says it shows you don't hath an ear to hear, that you are really being selfish to misrepresent what that person said. But you know you do this, and don't care.

Unless he's a horrible sinner... but even then it's wrong even though you say it's right even though you say it's wrong even though you say it's right... Ever feel you managed to screw up your argument Troy?

I am grateful that what is said has not been done damage to just because you misread and misunderstand. For example, we always have to use extreme cases to get through thick skulls. Let's say your spouse was physically doing harm to you to the point that your spouse had to go to jail. I don't think the people would be against you marrying again.

Oh, divorce is always wrong, except if he's a horrible sinner... then it's right, but it's wrong, but it's right, but it's wrong...

For ALL the petty reasons why people divorce it is wrong. For extreme cases it is necessary. Why is this so confusing to you? It is because your arguments depend on your petty self to misread what someone says. That's the case is it not?

Celibacy is wrong then... since you can't make babies with celibacy. Find another argument for that Troy... this one's just fallen apart at high speed.

Your argument fails because if someone is celebit because they can't make babies, then does not do damage to the human race because some people are not celebit. But in your world of homosexuality your world is a world of fags. Whereas it is obvious God does not mean for everyone to be celebit, and the Bible agrees, some are celebit to have more time for spiritual matters, and after all, there is no procreation in the new city and the new earth for those who are resurrected.

Really? You talking about Sodom? Where they were punished for being generally nasty, NOT for the kind of sex they had? Read the Bible Troy... you might learn something. (like God sinned, that Jesus was a horse thief)

Sodom was destroyed for the homosexuality it says in the Bible, not for just being nasty. Again, you misread the Bible. Remember, they wanted to have sex with those men that came to town? They wanted to gang bang him. This was common practice in that city so God destroyed it. Since you can't find any sin by God, doesn't that make you a liar? The person who gave the pony to Jesus did it of his own free-will, why accuse Jesus for that?

Well... name something that is a sin WITHOUT requiring God to make it a sin... let's see if I'm a sinner. Before you start... lying isn't a bad thing, nor is it a good thing. Lying to protect someone from being tortured and murdered is a damned good thing... means you can't use that as an example. Never killed anyone, let alone murder... unless you count the biblical claim that to hate someone is to murder them, but that requires God to make it a sin. Tell you what... come up with some non-religious sin, explain WHY it's a sin... making sure you give details for what exactly makes it a sin, and then we'll see if I've sinned that sin. That's the only way you'll set this sin problem to rest... so get to it. Sort out the problem, or you admit it's a flaw in your proof.

Just because all sin is a sin to God does not mean that sin that we identify without mentioning God is still not a sin, since we identified it as a sin and everyone agrees it is a sin. This is called the minimal facts approach. When you lie about stealing that money, you are not protecting yourself, but you are rationalizing to yourself your sin. You need to put that money back, repent, allow the authorities to decide what to do with you, but you can't because you are liar, so as sin begets sin you live a lie and do more damage to yourself day by day. The Bible does not say to hate people, but forgive and keep on forgiving. Hate the sick and demented behavior, but forgive the person. Again just like the word sin, you confuse the word hate. Hate can be a sin but it also can be righteousness, to hate the evil of murderers. The sin of murder is a non-religious sin as well as a religious sin. We already talked about this, so why ask for this information again? Again, you are being belligerent. You can never find the flaw in the proof so you attack the nature of sin being wrong by trying to make it right. Don't you see how wrong that is? Don't you see how corrupted your conscience is to do that? The only way to set this problem to rest is for you to go to hell, and that is exactly where Go is going to put you because you are a bad person. The other option is receive Christ as your Lord and Savior, but that you can't do because you are hellbent on hell. That's too bad.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

And it couldn't possibly be that your proof is a load of horse crap... Troy... so many people have managed to find problems with your proof, yet you still insist we're all misreading it. If so many people are misreading it, then it's what you've written that's the problem. You manage to contradict yourself over and over, yet you expect people to believe you've managed to write something as long-winded as your proof is without a single possible mis-understandable word?? Heck... you've managed to use 3 different definitions of "sin" in this thread alone, definitions that don't match at all... To insist that everyone but you is mis-understanding it is preposterous at best and hideous pride at worst. Either way, the problem would be with your imperfection, not anyone's reading of the proof.

Since nobody has ever found anything wrong with the Proof for God of the Bible, this shows that it is true. Enough time has passed. Many years have gone by and thousands have tried and all failed to find anything wrong with the Proof. In fact this has been going since the age of man and nobody has ever found fault with it. People misreading the Proof with its lengthy explanation so that they don't misread it, is a reflection of the fact that Hell is large for so many people. The bottom line is that since you can't find anything specifically wrong with it and you don't know anyone else who has found anything specifically wrong with it, then it remains true. The thing about misreading is once you found out you misread it and misunderstand it, then you repent. You don't keep making the same mistake misreading it. Thereby you are exposed. Since there is no contradiction, that is why you can't show any. Don't blame me for the dictionary.com using different definitions of sin. All that matters is you not misread the Proof and realize the definition of sin the Proof is using, which is doing something wrong or harmful. I don't say everyone is misreading the proof, for many don't misread it and that is why they accept it. There are some also who don't misread it, but choose to reject it anway because they want to go to hell. I think this latter case is indeed the case for many. The problem then does not become the Proof itself whether in 4 sentences or with much explanation to leave no stone unturned, but the problem is with the person who makes lame excuses to rationalize to themselves why they are going to hell. All Christians are born into sin. But this does not change the fact of the proof. In fact it gives it more credence because if we are all sinners, then we all need salvation from the uncreated who entered into creation to save us from our sins.

old comment by A Friend

@James

Just give it up Troy. You've been owned all over the shop. You've shifted goalposts, redefined words, just plain ignored arguments you couldn't refute and contradicted yourself so many times that I could swear Perry Mason is about to accuse you of the murder any minute now.

Did the apostles give up? No. They stood the course. Why? Because of OSAS-Once-saved-always-saved. It bears out in reality. Why do we remain? It is because the proof proves itself, and since the proof proves itself, we know God did it! And this is the power working in us. We whom are saved are stronger than you because we have eternal life, and you do not. Owned how? By you not being able to find anything wrong with the Proof? What goalpost was shifted you don't say? What word was redefined, you don't say? What arguments were ignored you don't say? Where's the contradiction, you don't say? Notice how you can say things, but you can't back them up. Bizarre statements I don't think help your cause. I love how the truth just stands there and causes you to notice you can't find anything wrong with it. Wow!

old comment by A Friend

@James

Troy that argument is plain bullshit. There is only one way in the English langugage that "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" can be construed correctly, which is "you will die in the day that you eat thereof".

English is pretty simple, you shall surely die. If today you do something wrong that will cause you to die, you will surely die. No commentary is made on when you will die, but you will die because of it before your time. The very day you ate of it, you died a spiritual death, that is, at that moment you were separated from God. This is not hard to understand at all. So God will make a liar out of you. You can even look at this way, since the Bible has Adam still living for many years obviously in the same passages it does not mean to physically die that second. That you try for this argument is really disingenuous because the Bible said Adam lived many more years. Obviously the Bible did not intend to contradict yourself, so instead of seeing the light, you make yourself look silly. This is why I have long since known the unsaved don't mind being belligerent and they don't care how mindless their reasoning is. They just don't care. Thank God there is a hell for you to keep you eternally separated from God's people.

old comment by CT

So tell me, if your boss asks you what happened to the $10,000 in the safe at your work place which you stole, is it right for you to steal, lie about it? Do you know anyone who favors this kind of behavior?

So, lying is always wrong then?
Come on Troy... give a simple yes or no answer. IS LYING ALWAYS WRONG?

When you as a man have sex with another man, don't you feel sick inside, since if everyone did this in place of a man and a woman there would be no way to procreate the human race?

I'm infertile, you great dunce... since me having sex with a member of the opposite sex wouldn't procreate, does that mean it's sinful for infertile couples to have sex?? WHY IS LYING A SIN? WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN? YOU say it's wrong, but YOU are not the person who dictates for everyone.

Suffice it to say if you kill someone in cold blood for no reason at all other than you get off on it or a rage of jealousy or greed, it is wrong. Do you know any societies that condone this? I don't.

And if I lie to save someone being tortured and murdered, it is wrong? ANSWER THE QUESTION TROY...

old comment by CT

Certainly God says idolatry and lust are sins, but the Proof does not first ask if God says this, but first establishes that there is indeed sin, that is things that are wrong and unhealthy for human beings like murder or rape, etc.
Just as there are the outwardly obvious sins, there are also they suttle more deceptive sins and sins of the heart like lust and idolatry of idolizing and lusting after something that does damage to you.

Is there anything other than religious gods who say that Idolatry and lusting is wrong? Come on Troy... anything?

God never lied. Since you lie in accusing Him of lying, that's you can't show it, only mindlessly self-declare it. Since God never lied, He is sinless and perfect.

*ahem* "Do not eat from that tree, for on the day you do, you shall die" They ate, they lived for another 800+ years... God lied.

If He had sinned you could show it, but you can't. By your own testimony you give power to God of the Bible and so since you reject Him you have to go to Hell.

Just showed that he did... Ooops... fancy apologizing now?

old comment by CT

You misread it. "thou shalt surely die" is not this day, but "for this day" is referring to "eatest". That's why it says, "for in the day that thou eatest thereof".

Finish the quote Troy...

for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.

See? For in the day that you eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die... In that day... not week, not month, not year, not decade, not century, not millennia... but that day.

It's amazing the lame arguments people use.

The word "day" is, for that is the day he ate of it. "die" is literal. As a consequence of this disobedient act, death enters even the second death, an eternal separation from God. Because of this sin, that person will leave the planet sooner than they would have otherwise.

So... it's literal, even though you've just argued that it isn't? You truly have no idea what you're saying, do you?

old comment by A Friend

@Christopher

THE SAME FINDINGS REMAIN: NOBODY HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO DISPROVE (To the great god Troy) THE 4 STEP PERFECT PROOF FOR GOD OF THE BIBLE. REST ASSURED IF (According to the Great god Troy) YOU DON'T RECEIVE JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR, ...THEN YOU ARE GOING TO HELL. WHY? BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO BE FORGIVEN BY Troy's Ego FOR YOUR SINS. YOU LOVE YOUR SINS TOO MUCH AND WOULD PREFER TO BE ETERNALLY SEPARATED FROM The great god Troy. YES, THIS IS ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING Troy's ego is so fragile he must forever proclaim his superiority over all. THANKYOU JESUS! AMEN. There you go. Fixed it. :D

Troy is a human being, not a god, so why accuse falsely? The Proof is the Proof God gives which nobody can find fault with. Anyone imparting this proof is doing God's will. It is God you need to be forgiven, the God who is proven, not by Troy. Christians teach the sacrifice of none other than God. The eternal separation is from God of the Bible who is proven, as well as from all believers. All Christians are superior to the unsaved because we have all received God's forgiveness, and those who refuse God's salvation are too selfish, so they must go to hell. Remember, we all come to the same table, but the inferior who choose to be selfish like Satan go to hell. That's where you are going. The ego of the unsaved is too fragile, it can't let go of self. Let this constitute the truth of your mistaken assumptions.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

So, lying is always wrong then? Come on Troy... give a simple yes or no answer. IS LYING ALWAYS WRONG?

Lying is almost always wrong.

I'm infertile, you great dunce... since me having sex with a member of the opposite sex wouldn't procreate, does that mean it's sinful for infertile couples to have sex?? WHY IS LYING A SIN? WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN? YOU say it's wrong, but YOU are not the person who dictates for everyone.

If you are infertile, why would that be a sin to have sex? Sex is still good between couples for pleasure. I don't mean homos or lesbos. Why do I have to be the person who dictates for everyone to know that lying is a sin? I gave you one example of why lying is a sin. Lying is wrong because it is dishonest. You are hurting yourself especially when you do that. Don't you feel evil inside promoting lying? You have a sick mind.

And if I lie to save someone being tortured and murdered, it is wrong? ANSWER THE QUESTION TROY...

If you save someone from being tortuted by lying, how does that justify lying when you steal or rape or murder? You belong in jail. There is not two ways about it. Lying to protect yourself is lying to yourself. Accept that you deserve the appropriate punishment and you will feel better about yourself. Thank God Jesus died for us in place of that punishment! But since you refuse His gift of salvation, you will be punished forever in hell. So be it! An extremist will take exceptions to the rule and apply that to the rule in general. That's demented. Do you see how you are getting off topic. We only establish that there is sin to show we still sin, and therefore as part of Step 1 this proves that God created. You are going off on a tanget which is dishonest and unethical to avoid the Proof of God.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Is there anything other than religious gods who say that Idolatry and lusting is wrong? Come on Troy... anything?

Psychology books will describe obsession, idols people make for themselves, things they prop up that possess their behavior and how lusting is sinful, for it hurts relationships. I can't believe I have to tell you this. Is your mind so darkened you don't realize this? This is what the Bible describes as a seared conscience.

*ahem* "Do not eat from that tree, for on the day you do, you shall die" They ate, they lived for another 800+ years... God lied.

The day you eat you shall surely die. He surely died sooner than expected and entered into a spiritual death. Obviously it is not talking about physical death that day since he lived centuries more on earth. Don't you feel mindless making your argument? No scholar of any repute would go along with you on your argument so anybody that you knows that tries to make this lame argument is surely got a few screws loose don't you think? You can yawn and moan, but the fact remains you misread it so you can go to hell, because you want to go to hell. I really have no other explanation why someone could be so mindlessly belligerent. I would be embarrassed if I were you.

Just showed that he did... Ooops... fancy apologizing now?

I just showed you that He didn't. You should accept your mistake, for that would be the right thing to do.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

See? For in the day that you eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die... In that day... not week, not month, not year, not decade, not century, not millennia... but that day.

We know the Bible refers to death and the second death, so this refers to dying sooner than would otherwise and the second death, an eternal separation from God. Obviously it did not mean he would die that day since he lived centuries more. "though shall surely die" is a statement of the future, not this second, or 10 seconds from now, nor a day or 10 days, not even a year or 10 years. It is a statement of fact that if you eat it today against God's will, you will experience death as a result.

So... it's literal, even though you've just argued that it isn't? You truly have no idea what you're saying, do you?

It is literal. To die physically is literal. To be eternally separated from God is literal. I have said the same thing continually. Why so confused?

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Always Troy... leaves no room for circumstances...

In the perfect design nobody divorces. You should not marry a non-Christian if you are a Christian so these problems never occur in the way God desires. I heard of one study that said secular marriages end 50% of the time. Christian marriages end 1% of the time. And true Christian marriages that pray every night together end in divorce less than 0.01% of the time.

Read what you post before accusing others of misreading it.

You still misread what was said. Understand why you are always misreading. It is because the petty self is corrupted and legalistic. When you read what someone says look for the intent of their writing, don't misread it, for you have shown you can misread anything, even 2+2=4.

old comment by A Friend

@Patches

When trying to prove the validity of your premise, you cannot use any evidence that assumes your premise is already valid. In essence, you cannot use the Bible to prove God, because the Bible is only valid evidence if God is real.

I am not trying to prove any premise, but the proof flows and leads one to the proof of God of the Bible. And no evidence is given that already assumes some premise. As has been stated dozens of times in this thread, and yet again, that God is not first assumed, nor is any evidence that is used assumes God first. I guess there is lots of people in the world, that is why Christians have to keep saying the same thing over and over to them. I am more concerned with those we keep saying the same thing to and they keep shutting their minds down by repeating themselves. These are hard nuts to crack because they relish in their own repetition without engaging the discussion.

old comment by A Friend

@Patches

When trying to prove the validity of your premise, you cannot use any evidence that assumes your premise is already valid. In essence, you cannot use the Bible to prove God, because the Bible is only valid evidence if God is real.

I am not trying to prove any premise, but the proof flows and leads one to the proof of God of the Bible. And no evidence is given that already assumes some premise since no premise is even given. As has been stated dozens of times in this thread, and yet again, that God is not first assumed, nor is any evidence that is used assumes God first. There are lots of people in the world, that is why Christians have to keep saying the same thing over and over to them. Serious concern is placed with those we keep saying the same thing to and they keep shutting their minds down by repeating themselves like a clanging bell. These are hard nuts to crack because they relish in their own repetition without engaging the discussion.

old comment by A Friend

@Brian X

What I see in this thread is one egotistical Christian apologist who is trying to overwhelm with his "truth" people who really couldn't care less what he has to say in the first place. I mean, yes, A Friend is a remarkably prolific poster, but I don't think I've ever heard that said as a compliment.

It appears lots of people are interested as this is the largest thread I know of at fstdt. As a Chritian, my responsibility is to show the proof for God that God gives of Himself. This may be overwhelming to some, but it is a really simple matter. All that is really being said is look at the stars and the mountains and ask yourself, did you do that? No. God did it for none can compare to Christ. Therefore, to overlook these simple truths is egotistical, for when God gives the proof of Himself, to then just shut your mind down, avoiding the thought of need for salvation, you are just exalting yourself egotistically like Satan does. You are sinner in need of salvation which only Christ can provide. The only way He said to the Father is through Him. So you call Him a liar. It is true though in one sense that many could care less, but thank God there is a place called Hell for them. This is God's righteousness to keep you there and eternally separated from His people. I am not a prolific poster, but it is due to the need presented. If there was less need, I would post less responses. God has given me the strength to answer all these issues people bring up even though they are mostly repetitions and they continue to not look at the response to their repititions. My best advice always is admit since you can't find anything wrong with the Proof of Christ when He said He is God, then just admit you have no evidence in calling Him a liar. And you can find nothing wrong with the Proof of God. In so admitting, you are admitting that you want to go to Hell and you don't want to be saved. This is being honest with yourself. Don't rationalize some nonsense, but just accept what you are - a bad person who belongs in hell!

old comment by CT

Let's have some fun...
If, as Troy's proof claims, there is only one uncaused being in the universe, then all of reality other than this uncaused being must have been caused by it. If, as Troy's proof claims, all of reality is caused by an uncaused being, then the cause of everything that happens is this uncaused being. As such, since it caused everything, all rapes are it's fault... all murders, wars, violence, lies, theft... everything evil in the universe is the fault of the uncaused being, since it caused everything. Since, as shown, this uncaused being is the cause of all evil in the universe then this uncaused being is "offending against a principle, standard, etc." Thus, the uncaused being is committing sin. Question: Would punishing someone for something they are not to blame for be right? To punish those who did not cause an action is wrong. It is as right as punishing a PC virus for infecting your PC... Thus, punishing people with hell for something that they are not the cause of is "offending against a principle, standard, etc." as such, God sins. Troy's proof requires the existence of sin to work, since his definition of perfection is to not sin and the lack of perfection is his proof that eternity hasn't happened, thus requiring that all be created by an uncaused being. Since it is proven that an uncaused being would be the cause of all sin, it can truthfully said that the only being that sins is the uncaused being, as all others are not causing anything... thus only that which causes something doing something. As such, nothing other than the uncaused being sins, thus everything other than the uncaused being is perfect, thus Troy's proof is shown to be false, as it is based on everything sinning. Since nothing other than the uncaused being sins, Troy's proof is hereby shown to be flawed and proving the opposite of what it claims to prove.

old comment by CT

Troy has tried to show how being Homosexual is wrong because "in a homosexual world, the human race wouldn't procreate" but is that a valid argument?
Lets see what happens if we use that logic and argument with other things... It's wrong to be celibate, since in a celibate world, the human race wouldn't procreate. It's wrong to be infertile, since in an infertile world, the human race wouldn't procreate. It's wrong to be male, since in a male world, the human race would not procreate. It's wrong to be asleep, since in an asleep world, the human race would not procreate. Hmm... seems Troy's argument and logic would show that Celibacy, Infertility, being Male and being alseep are all wrong. Guess you need a new argument Troy... this one's broken.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Let's have some fun... If, as Troy's proof claims, there is only one uncaused being in the universe, then all of reality other than this uncaused being must have been caused by it. If, as Troy's proof claims, all of reality is caused by an uncaused being, then the cause of everything that happens is this uncaused being. As such, since it caused everything, all rapes are it's fault... all murders, wars, violence, lies, theft... everything evil in the universe is the fault of the uncaused being, since it caused everything.Since, as shown, this uncaused being is the cause of all evil in the universe then this uncaused being is "offending against a principle, standard, etc." Thus, the uncaused being is committing sin.Question: Would punishing someone for something they are not to blame for be right? To punish those who did not cause an action is wrong. It is as right as punishing a PC virus for infecting your PC... Thus, punishing people with hell for something that they are not the cause of is "offending against a principle, standard, etc." as such, God sins.

I don't think its fun to be dumb. Since God is not the one who caused these things but righteously and perfectly made man in His image, then if man so chooses to sin, that is man's fault, and is no fault on God's part. God could not make man any better than He did. Consequently, your conclusion is derived from a false premise.

Troy's proof requires the existence of sin to work, since his definition of perfection is to not sin and the lack of perfection is his proof that eternity hasn't happened, thus requiring that all be created by an uncaused being. Since it is proven that an uncaused being would be the cause of all sin, it can truthfully said that the only being that sins is the uncaused being, as all others are not causing anything... thus only that which causes something doing something. As such, nothing other than the uncaused being sins, thus everything other than the uncaused being is perfect, thus Troy's proof is shown to be false, as it is based on everything sinning. Since nothing other than the uncaused being sins, Troy's proof is hereby shown to be flawed and proving the opposite of what it claims to prove.

Since it has been shown that God did not cause the sin, but man did it, then it remains true still that God is sinless and the uncaused creator. When God created us in His image (Gen. 1.26,27), He made us perfectly in His image with a free-will to have the free-choice to be cause of our own obedience or disobience. This is the wonder of God's creation that He does this and wants to walk with those who choose rightly. Those such as yourself who choose to call Jesus a liar still will go to hell. Sounds reasonable, for you choose to remain eternally unforgiven to be bound in hell with Satan, atheists, agnostics, buddhists, muslims, deists, hindus, scientologists, muslims and the list goes on and on and on. As you can see you keep trying to disprove the proof but you fail every time. How many times do you have to keep failing before you receive Christ? I propose that you will try so many more times even all the way to your deathbed, so that God will then resurrect you to GWT and cast you into hell. That is the righteous thing to do because you are intrinsic value to God, not instrumental value.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Troy has tried to show how being Homosexual is wrong because "in a homosexual world, the human race wouldn't procreate" but is that a valid argument? Lets see what happens if we use that logic and argument with other things... It's wrong to be celibate, since in a celibate world, the human race wouldn't procreate. It is a valuable service to society that some people remain single to devote more time to things that could not otherwise be accomplished if they had to raise a family with a spouse. Some people are given the gift of being single. Being a homo is not a gift but a curse being born into sin, which only the salvation of the cross can overcome if the sinner lets himself die a complete death on the cross with Christ rendering the flesh impotent. It's wrong to be infertile, since in an infertile world, the human race wouldn't procreate. It's wrong to be male, since in a male world, the human race would not procreate. It's wrong to be asleep, since in an asleep world, the human race would not procreate. Hmm... seems Troy's argument and logic would show that Celibacy, Infertility, being Male and being alseep are all wrong. Guess you need a new argument Troy... this one's broken.

Let's see if this is really a valid comparison or not. A person has the choice to be a homo. A person does not have the choice if their eggs or sperm are unable to conceive. A person can't change their sex. A person can't force themselves to sleep forever, except for suicide I suppose which is killing yourself and if everyone did that, then the human race would cease to exist just as it would if everyone was a homo or lesbo. If everyone chose to be celibate we would not continue to exist, but being celebit is a good thing to the extent it makes some very spiritual people in the world that are gifted with being single. Not everyone has this gift. This is quite unlike being a homo sticking your genitals up another person's bum hole, lol. It looks like all your reasoning fails you. It is wrong to be a homo. It led to aids and homos get aids quite a bit. This is part of the sin of their lifestyle. How sad and unfortunate for the child to be raised with no mother, but you are too selfish to care about that. CT, you are too busy lusting as a homo.

old comment by A Friend

@(H9) - EvilBible

"Technically speaking agnosticism is a religion and so is atheism. They are world-views, but essentially still religions because what is a religion? It is that thing you place above all else. That is what atheists and agnostics do is place these blind faiths above all else." Sorry, but you're stupid and you're a bigot. Look up the word "religion" in a reputable dictionary. Or are you one of those retards who think they can just redefine words?

I think these things you accuse me, which you have no evidence for, is probably you projecting yourself onto others. The dictionary does not agree with your restricted view, "something one believes in and follows devotedly" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion&r=66 You are one of those people that has selective hearing. And still with this off topic discussion, you still can't find anything wrong with the proof for God of the Bible, and this is why you are a bad person because you don't need any proof for your blind faith of your religion all the while you call Jesus a liar without just cause. Can't you sense this is disobedience and independency form your creator which is why you have to go to hell. You are a bad person and don't want forgiveness, so you remain eternally separated from God.

old comment by Jerry

wait a minute, wé are repeating ourselves?
midn you, you have posted the same capslock message ehre over 5 times..and posted a link to your forums over 30 times..

The way to move the conversation forward is to realize if you can't find anything with the Proof for God, then you should accept Christ into your life. That's just common sense.

now, I'm pretty much done debating you. (not because I feel I lost, but because it's simply going nowhere) but please stop forcing your religion on me... Even íf god existed, even if it was crystal clear to me that god is real...I woudl still not join a religion...just because people like you are in that group...and Bro Randy, offcourse..

old comment by A Friend

@Jerry

wait a minute, wé are repeating ourselves? midn you, you have posted the same capslock message ehre over 5 times..and posted a link to your forums over 30 times..

What's the difference? The difference is the caps lock message speaks of the 4 Step Proof and you don't reply to it to find anything wrong with so therefore it must be true as the subject of this thread. Your repetitive avoidance of the truth is the problem either by deflection onto other matters or other excuses. All you can do is run and put your head in the sand, for you know full well you are not going to repent, so you must shut your mind down further by avoiding those who speak the truth. It is too painful for you in your sins when the truth is spoken.

now, I'm pretty much done debating you. (not because I feel I lost, but because it's simply going nowhere) but please stop forcing your religion on me... Even íf god existed, even if it was crystal clear to me that god is real...I woudl still not join a religion...just because people like you are in that group...and Bro Randy, offcourse..

Your first mistake was to debate in the first place. This is not a debating contest but seeking after the truth. There is nowhere else to go if you remain in limbo. All you have to wait for is death and then to be resurrected to hell. Since you can't find anything wrong with the Proof, the proof proves you are a going to hell. Nobody has your hands tied behind your back. That I tell you the truth you are going to hell is what the proof shows. That feeling you have now of being forced on will reach its pinnacle when you are thrown into hell and feel the full force of God's judgment. You will be before Him at GWT and hear all your sins. You will be so convicted you will have nothing to say for yourself, willingly realizing you truly belong in hell for all eternity. That's just the kind of person you are. You made your bed, now you have to lie in it. Since I have done nothing but tell you the truth your reviling is to be expected. "Blessed are ye when [men] shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you" (Matt. 5.11,12). Knowing now that God exists and that He entered into His creation to die on the cross for your sins to receive eternal forgiveness, but you still reject His love, both you and Randy are going to Hell. You really are bad people. Would you expect anything less from God's righteousness to put you where you belong? You're in a cult, the cult of self, propped up on a pedestal, self-exalting yourself as high as you can manually place yourself with no reliance on God whatsoever. Your house of cards will come crumbling down in due time. If at that time when you come crashing down you may have opportunity because then you are open to receive salvation. Don't let it escape you at that time, but grip onto it for dear life by accepting truly the free gift of eternal life because only then will you have fulfilled the condition for God's grace. He needs you to fulfill the condition as a repentent sinner before He will save you. And only through His Son is salvation possible.

old comment by CT

Since God is not the one who caused these things but righteously and perfectly made man in His image, then if man so chooses to sin, that is man's fault, and is no fault on God's part. God could not make man any better than He did. Consequently, your conclusion is derived from a false premise.

What causes Man to sin? According to you, we cause ourselves to sin... But what causes us to sin? What causes that? What causes what's causing that?And so on... until you find what caused everything. That which caused everything is what causes man to sin... thus, your uncaused entity, which you claim caused everything, is the cause of sin. If you cause something to happen, then you are at fault... thus, your uncaused entity is at fault for everything that is evil in existence, which in your proof shows that it's sinning and thus God sins. Arguing that something other than God is the cause of sin means that there is not one uncaused entity but many... which rips your proof to pieces. You have a choice Troy... either God sins or your proof is false.

old comment by CT

Let's see if this is really a valid comparison or not.
A person has the choice to be a homo.

Well, no... they don't. They can choose their orientation in the same way they can choose their species... as in, they can't.

A person does not have the choice if their eggs or sperm are unable to conceive. A person can't change their sex. A person can't force themselves to sleep forever, except for suicide I suppose which is killing yourself and if everyone did that, then the human race would cease to exist just as it would if everyone was a homo or lesbo.

So... you agree that your argument works against you then, since they are the same?

If everyone chose to be celibate we would not continue to exist, but being celebit is a good thing to the extent it makes some very spiritual people in the world that are gifted with being single. Not everyone has this gift. This is quite unlike being a homo sticking your genitals up another person's bum hole, lol.

You seem to be fixated on anal sex there... do you even know what being Homosexual means? Anal sex, by the way, is not part of the definition... mainly because a greater number of HETROSEXUAL people have anal sex that Homosexual people do... which you would know if you'd researched the subject. Meanwhile, since Homosexuals also produce spiritual people, guess it's as wrong as Celibacy... again, your argument works against you. Current data shows that hetrosexual women are the group contracting AIDS... Hetrosexual men are right behind them. Drug users come next, with homosexual males a distant 4th. Seems all us hetrosexuals are the sinners, since we get it more than anyone else.

How sad and unfortunate for the child to be raised with no mother, but you are too selfish to care about that.

Judging me? Are you God? No? The you fry in hell for the sin of pride... placing yourself in God's place.

CT, you are too busy lusting as a homo.

Proof please... now. Oh wait... YOU HAVE NO PROOF! Bearing false witness Troy... you show that you are nothing but a liar yet again.

old comment by CT

@CT
Haven't spotted where you're going wrong yet, have you?
Uh oh, you still haven't spotted where I am going wrong yet have you either?
Gotta make something up now don't you? Come on now, don't be coy.

Troy... where you are going wrong is you seem unable to decide whether to argue using Absolute Morals or Subjective Morals. For example... stating that divorce is ALWAYS wrong is using Absolute Morals. Stating that there are times when it's ok is using Subjective Morals. Stating that lying is always wrong is using Absolute Morals. Stating that there are times it's ok is using Subjective Morals. Your switching back and forth between the two is resulting in your argument contradicting itself... for example, lying is always wrong but there are times it's ok. That example shows that, despite what you say, lying is NOT always wrong. This results in a serious problem, since you have claimed lying is a sin. But, since you classed a sin as "offending against a principle, standard, etc." then lying must ALWAYS be "offending against a principle, standard, etc." But you have a problem there... because using that definition means that, somehow, doing the right thing is a sin and doing the wrong thing is not a sin. Now... you could get around that by using a different definition of sin, but the only others available are all based on religious grounds... which dumps you headlong into the "assuming the existence of God to prove the existence of God" problem that you're trying so hard to escape. You could also get out of it by stating that lying is not always a sin... but that would mean all those times you've claimed lying is a sin to be false, and that would mean the number of lies you've told just to cover your own mistake is astronomical, not to mention offensive against principles, standards, etc... which makes it a sin. As a bit of irony, anyone with the Holy Spirit indwelling in them CANNOT sin... according to the Bible. So, thanks to your enormous amount of sinning, you cannot have the Holy Spirit indwelling inside you, meaning you didn't get your proof from it, meaning you have lied about where it's come from, and meaning it's all come from your imperfect mind... thus, by your own proof, cannot be correct. Now... you can feel free to ignore this, twist it, spin it, simply declare it wrong... but it doesn't change the fact that your own arguments prove you wrong. But, there are none so blind as those who will not see... and you refuse to see what is just about the biggest flaw in your proof... It works for Allah too.

old comment by ghost

the irony is that half of the shite he has been posting here should in fact be referred to fstdt again :D
you (all) have made an admirable attempt to make him see the light - a call answered far far beyond duty imho He has proved to be a liar and as such his very soul is in danger of being damned if he had a soul that is :P If his proof was any proof it would be shouted from the roof tops, it would be printed in every newspaper and it would be on television every hour on the hour. For so long has humanity searched for even the slightest inkling of prove that a deity exists. This proof is but yet another failed attempt. There is no God and no hell and that is a fucking good thing.

old comment by A Friend

@James

Okay, ignoring the fact that everything you've said so far has been bullshit, and you've failed to address why everything in the universe must have a cause (because it does not). The evidence for the big bang is irrefutable. You claim the big bang could not have happened because it did not have a cause (and for some reason this leads to you to believe all of it must be wrong, despite all of the evidence saying you are wrong, and despite the fact you know little about physics), so I present to you M-Theory.

What bullshit, you don't say. Do you always assume something is bullshit without just cause for saying so? Everything has a cause in the universe because we have never seen anything that is without a cause. There has always been a cause in trillions of examples from the smallest to the largest. The odds are stacked against your theory of puff the magic dragon it happened all by itself. I think you are willingly being mindless and disingenuous since you don't have one iota of evidence to even consider the idea something had all by itself. Why be such a dullard? The scientific method considers you a nutcase. Step 2 of the proof mentions the big bang already that since nothing in nature happens all by itself it gives you no reason to think the big bang happened all by itself; thus, it had a cause. Do you see what I mean about you repeating yourself mindlessly or what has already been covered in the proof. Why not respond to what was already said instead of repeating yourself mindlessly. It shows you are not listening. Why be so selfish, this belligerent little pawn for Satan? Don't you feel dumb when you make statements like this: "You claim the big bang could not have happened because it did not have a cause (and for some reason this leads to you to believe all of it must be wrong". I claim the big bang happened 13.7 billion years ago and so does the proof. I already know about the M theory which enhances what I have already told you. Just like the big bang would have a cause so do the multiverses of M theory since everything we have ever studied always was found to have a cause. Sometimes we learn the cause immediately, other times it takes time to discover the cause. You should be embarrassed for your mindlessness, but one thing is clear the unsaved don't get embarrassed for their retardation, especially adamant belligerent types. Try to actually read the 4 Step Proof, for all this is already covered.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

What causes Man to sin? According to you, we cause ourselves to sin... But what causes us to sin? What causes that? What causes what's causing that?And so on... until you find what caused everything. That which caused everything is what causes man to sin... thus, your uncaused entity, which you claim caused everything, is the cause of sin. If you cause something to happen, then you are at fault... thus, your uncaused entity is at fault for everything that is evil in existence, which in your proof shows that it's sinning and thus God sins. Arguing that something other than God is the cause of sin means that there is not one uncaused entity but many... which rips your proof to pieces. You have a choice Troy... either God sins or your proof is false.

God did not cause sin. God created man in His image to have the right to be obedient or disobedient. Therefore, if man chooses to be disobedient, it is no fault of God's. To be made in God's image is to have the free-choice. What you are claiming is the false teaching of calvinism. Christians are not calvinists. Calvinists teach that you were preprogrammed to choose this way or that, that if you sin, God caused it. Christians don't believe this because that is not proper cause and effect. Proper cause and effect is making a beautiful masterpiece that has the choice to be dependent or independent. God concerns Himself with the source of a thing. If you abide in His will, then He is pleased. If you choose to be selfish and go your own way, He is displeased and you will be judged. Similarly, Lucifer choose to go his own way. God had to cast him out of 3rd heaven. God warned Adam and Eve not to be disobedient letting them know there would be grave consequences. Therefore, God remains uncaused and sinless. This is the only way God can be God. You are actually violating Step 3 which says don't argue against some god, for we are discussing the qualities of God of the Bible. You have a choice, either you receive the truth or you are going to hell. It's that simple really.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Well, no... they don't. They can choose their orientation in the same way they can choose their species... as in, they can't

If you think we are preprogrammed zombies as do calvinists I can see how you would believe that, but we are not zombies. Lots of people who were homos repented and in the name of Christ overcome that sin, so this proves they have been able to act in such a way that is not common to all their species. So you are wrong, again.

So... you agree that your argument works against you then, since they are the same?

I agree that you have a choice to be homo, just as you have a choice to kill yourself and that if everyone chose to be a homo or kill themselves the human race would cease to exist, then these obviously are sins.

You seem to be fixated on anal sex there... do you even know what being Homosexual means? Anal sex, by the way, is not part of the definition... mainly because a greater number of HETROSEXUAL people have anal sex that Homosexual people do... which you would know if you'd researched the subject. Meanwhile, since Homosexuals also produce spiritual people, guess it's as wrong as Celibacy... again, your argument works against you. Current data shows that hetrosexual women are the group contracting AIDS... Hetrosexual men are right behind them. Drug users come next, with homosexual males a distant 4th. Seems all us hetrosexuals are the sinners, since we get it more than anyone else.

I think you are fixated on sex, for aren't you the one that is defending being a homo? You defend being a homo so shouldn't you know what it means to like man on man sex? When I defend something I try to know what I am defending first. Heteros don't use anal sex to make babies. Neither do homos. Homos can't make people, not even a single soul. Why? Because all they can do is stick it up other men's asses? lol. No babies come out. And so the human race ceases to exist with all that man on man sex. I can't believe you think we have to research to know people have anal sex. Don't you think this is known already? Celibacy is something that a person has no choice in. Being a homo, you have choice not to keep sticking your genitals up other men's asses. Why don't you just stop this sin? A drug user is not necessarily a homo, but certainly drug addiction is wrong. Being a homo is worse because you are making a move to cancel out the human race preventing any more babies from being made because you will only engage in sticking your genitals up men's holes. Why are you so intent on being fag? Wipe off your poop stained genitals, lol, and give your life to Christ, so that you can be saved or you will get aids.

Judging me? Are you God? No? The you fry in hell for the sin of pride... placing yourself in God's place.

You are already judged for defending faggatry. God has already judged you. He knows your sin. Christians reading the Word of God and by the Holy Spirit know God has judged you already and it is just a foretaste of your being cast into hell for all eternity. Christians don't put themselves in place of God. You won't find any Christians who believe that.

Proof please... now. Oh wait... YOU HAVE NO PROOF! Bearing false witness Troy... you show that you are nothing but a liar yet again.

You are defending homos due to the lust. Whether you play with other men's butholes or not is irrelevant. Lust does not require you to engage in the act to actually lust. You may be the greatest fag in the world and with this pride of defending being a fag, I recommend you come off your high horse, for you will come crashing down. Hence, the aids as well as unhealthy family relationships with no mother for their children. You are a sick man, get some help. My advice to you is stop being a fag. You will go to hell for it.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Football is a religion then... Funnily enough though, Atheism and Agnosticism don't fit that... since they don't have a belief for anyone to follow. Agnostics say we don't know for sure, thus no claim is certain. Atheists just don't believe in God/s No belief to follow means no religion.

Football can be a religion yes, if you place it above everything else. It becomes your idol and would be obsessed with it. Atheism and agnosticm are idols, that is, they are placed as being the truth above all else, even though they are wrong since the 4 Step Proof proves they are wrong as evidenced you find nothing wrong with the Proof for God, but the proof for God proves why atheism and agnosticsm are wrong. Agnosticsm claiming not to know for sure is a false concept, since we know for sure and it is very easy to know God created. The religion of agnosticism is an idol you place above your creator. There is no great sin in fact. So this is why you are going to hell, because you don't mind being mindless in refusing salvation. It's really disingenuous to shut your mind down like a zombie.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Troy... where you are going wrong is you seem unable to decide whether to argue using Absolute Morals or Subjective Morals. For example... stating that divorce is ALWAYS wrong is using Absolute Morals. Stating that there are times when it's ok is using Subjective Morals. Stating that lying is always wrong is using Absolute Morals. Stating that there are times it's ok is using Subjective Morals. Your switching back and forth between the two is resulting in your argument contradicting itself... for example, lying is always wrong but there are times it's ok.

The morals I give you are both objective and subjectively experienced as well. When we say divorce is always wrong it is saying it for the 99.9% of the time. But there are alway exceptions to things in extreme cases. This is not a subjective moral only, but it is still objective. If one is in a situation where they have to tell a lie to save a 1000 people from being murdered to death because that evil person is putting them to the test, I think God considers that possibly acceptable. I am not sure actually. What I do know is that blatant lying is a sin because it is selfish. I think you get yourself into trouble when you legalize rules for yourself by demanding this is an objective moral and this is a subjective moral. Things are not always so cut and dried, nor are they required to be mutually exclusive things. Suffice it to say, that which is subjective is personally experienced whereas that which is objective may not yet be the experience of the person. Just because someone experiences what they deem to be a subjective moral subjectively they could still be wrong objectively. For example, someone may rationalize to themselves it is ok to lie about murdering and raping women each week, because it protects you from going to jail, but objectively I think we can agree, you need to get locked up and tell the truth you are liar and have been lying about where you have been and what you have been doing. So we can say lying is wrong. When we say lying is always wrong we are speaking obviously of the vast bulk of cases. There could be an extreme case that falls out of the radar in bizare instances. A legalist will come and say you said the word ALL instead of appreciating ALL is just another way of saying almost always. This is common English. People say all abortions are wrong. Well what happens in the case in one instance we know it will save the woman's life if she has an abortion, to take an extreme example. ALL is just short usually for almost always. Instead of saying "almost always" which is longer, people just easily shorten it to "all". No biggie. You see you get yourself into big trouble when you become this hard case legalist. It's like being a bad lawyer. And so you render bad lawyer verdicts like below:

Your switching back and forth between the two is resulting in your argument contradicting itself... for example, lying is always wrong but there are times it's ok. That example shows that, despite what you say, lying is NOT always wrong. This results in a serious problem, since you have claimed lying is a sin. But, since you classed a sin as "offending against a principle, standard, etc." then lying must ALWAYS be "offending against a principle, standard, etc." But you have a problem there... because using that definition means that, somehow, doing the right thing is a sin and doing the wrong thing is not a sin.

Do you see how you are being unethical? If 99.9% of the time lying is a sin equivalent to saying lying is always a sin because it virtually is, doesn't that make you feel ugly inside that you are trying to be a legalist for that .01% of the time? Murder is wrong, but are we not to have stopped Hitler? You see you are just making yourself look bad by your legalisms.

Now... you could get around that by using a different definition of sin, but the only others available are all based on religious grounds... which dumps you headlong into the "assuming the existence of God to prove the existence of God" problem that you're trying so hard to escape. You could also get out of it by stating that lying is not always a sin... but that would mean all those times you've claimed lying is a sin to be false, and that would mean the number of lies you've told just to cover your own mistake is astronomical, not to mention offensive against principles, standards, etc... which makes it a sin.

There is a third choice as I already mentioned that you are being a petty legalist. In which case you are sinning, because you are sinning bearing false witness. It is very rare in society there is not exceptions to rules at the very extremes. That's why you shouldn't hold your hat(e) on them, because then you puff yourself up. That's a sin, that is pride. And also, none of this is pertinent to the Proof using the minimal facts approach. It is enough with the proof to establish that lying is a sin or that murder is a sin or that rape is a sin. Your conscience should convict you for trying to defend these things. That you try to defend these sins shows how bad a person you really are. Thank God He is sending you in hell. That is the righteous thing to do for calling His Son a liar. So notice very carefully you are getting off track from the 4 Step Proof. This is your effort to deflect and avoid the 4 basic steps of the proof. What else can you do since you won't repent? Sin begets sin so you need to trying various sinful methods of obfuscation. People can see through that.

As a bit of irony, anyone with the Holy Spirit indwelling in them CANNOT sin... according to the Bible. So, thanks to your enormous amount of sinning, you cannot have the Holy Spirit indwelling inside you, meaning you didn't get your proof from it, meaning you have lied about where it's come from, and meaning it's all come from your imperfect mind... thus, by your own proof, cannot be correct.

You misrepresent the Holy Spirit. Just because someone has the Holy Spirit in their spirit does not mean they are robotically switched on to never sin. God works in degrees. Things take time. We can say a Christian is being perfected. Whatever sin they were lost in before is committed less and less unto perfection. The point being the believer has power over sin and can access the cross to put to death the deeds of the flesh in a way that a non-beliver could never receive because he is not forgiven by God, for still calling His Son a liar. So He is not forgiven and you have that unforgiveness working in you now to send you to hell and be with your father the devil shortly. Do you see how all your lame arguments depend on you misreading the Bible or being a legalist or letting your petty self go on a rampage? So your conclusions about the Holy Spirit are false since your premise about the Holy Spirit is false. The reason you act like this is because the evil spirit is in your spirit and you like it there. That's why you are going to hell. You like being a bad person.

Now... you can feel free to ignore this, twist it, spin it, simply declare it wrong... but it doesn't change the fact that your own arguments prove you wrong. But, there are none so blind as those who will not see... and you refuse to see what is just about the biggest flaw in your proof... It works for Allah too.

Since I showed you the truth of your mistaken assumptions, that renders your conclusions false, because you have false assumptions in the way of your being. Since you couldn't find then a fault with the proof still, this shows that the reason you reject the proof for God is because you not only deserve to God to hell, but in fact you want to. Allah is an idol created by those who wanted a religion of racists against white people and to reject Jesus as being God. They have no credibility since they have no documentation 600 years later to rely on by calling Jesus a liar. All that represents is mindlessly means of separation from God to be independent of Him as Lucifer tried. They even said he never died. Crazy stuff.

old comment by A Friend

@Jerry

as for the rest of that post...hell is only scary to people whom believe in it.. and your proof IS bogus, why? read this whole damn thread...you're wrong, it's plain and simple (and no, before you ask, I'm nto quoting anything, it's up to you to start reading here) eitherway, you're not shwoing much fo that christian compassion, and neighbourly-love..you're just being an asshole shoving your "proof" down everybody's throat claiming they should repent because the proof is infallible... not very christian-like..

The reason one gets saved is not to go to hell, but because of God's grace and love that He would give His only begotten Son. Since His Son is proven and the Father is proven, then there is no excuse. Mass murderers are not scared of hell either, so how does that help your case? Since I have read everything, then I think you still have the problem since you can't right here right now produce a problem with the Proof for God. It is very Christianlike to show you that God fully proves Himself. This is what it is to be a Christian to have this compassion and love to show you that God fully proves Himself, so you have no excuse to keep calling His Son a liar. You need to know what you are so you can not be that thing anymore by God's grace. This is the gospel. Continuing to tell you the truth of your mistaken assumption is something that is incumbent on all human beings, not just Christians. Telling the truth is not shoving it down your throat, but shoving it down peoples' throats is when you keep shutting your mind down and say read this or read that when it was already read, saying something was disproven over and over but still refusing to show it. You should feel ugly for being such a mindless retard. Stop shoving your mindlessness down peoples' throats. You need not force yourself on others like that. Instead, if you have nothing new to introduce to this thread which you think might disprove the proof, then there is no need for you to post. Show some restraint.

old comment by A Friend

@ghost

the irony is that half of the shite he has been posting here should in fact be referred to fstdt again :D
you (all) have made an admirable attempt to make him see the light - a call answered far far beyond duty imho He has proved to be a liar and as such his very soul is in danger of being damned if he had a soul that is :P If his proof was any proof it would be shouted from the roof tops, it would be printed in every newspaper and it would be on television every hour on the hour. For so long has humanity searched for even the slightest inkling of prove that a deity exists. This proof is but yet another failed attempt. There is no God and no hell and that is a fucking good thing.

I agree the garbage by these non-Christians should be disallowed since it is mostly mindless repetition instead of responding to the truth of such mistaken assumptions. It is not admirable to misconstrue the darkness to be light. Since I have eternal life, eternal life is eternal and can never be damned. There is nothing you can do. Since you showed no lie, you have no cause to call me a liar. That is how God makes a liar out of you. You have a spirit, soul and body. If you could not think you would not have a soul. If you had no conscience you could have no spirit and if you do not have this body you are in, then duh! The proof is in every paper, shouted from rooftops. Remember when in the Bible they were on rooftops and the rooftop fell in? I don't know of any paper where there has never been mention of God of the Bible and His proof of Himself. You see it doesn't matter how much proof God gives of Himself, you will still always reject salvation because you don't want to be forgiven. You like being a bad person. So why should God have another 12 original apostles or another 12 different settings of seeing Him resurrected or another 10 trillion examples of no causeless effects or a million more examples of the exponential progression our conscience these past 6000 years? You won't believe it anyway. You are pawn of the devil. I don't know where there has been a single television station that does not mention God in some respect. Every hour upon the hour there is a station somewhere that alludes to God in some fashion or something about His being uncreated since nothing is without a cause. You are just not listening. Like I said you shut your mind down. The freest book in the world is the Bible. Even 2 billion people call themselves Christian. Humanity has always known God exists but refuse to receive Him. You have a spirit of God-consciousness. You are were made that way, but you have broken communion with Him and need to be restored. The Proof is the same, it has not changed. Nothing is new under the sun. God created you and that is a good thing. And hell is created for you and that is a good thing, to keep you eternally separated from God's people. Praise the Lord!

old comment by CT

I think you are fixated on sex, for aren't you the one that is defending being a homo? You defend being a homo so shouldn't you know what it means to like man on man sex?
When I defend something I try to know what I am defending first.

So you know, then, that homosexuality is an orientation, not a sex act? Your posts would indicate the other...

Why are you so intent on being fag? Wipe off your poop stained genitals, lol, and give your life to Christ, so that you can be saved or you will get aids.

Two points... and this is where you are shown to be very badly mistaken... First, I'm hetrosexual... which makes that claim of yours, and any others you've made like it, fabrications. Second, and this is where you'll really love it... I don't engage in anal sex... So Troy... I'm not a "fag" nor do I have shit-stained genitals. Which means you've just borne false witness, libeled, defamed someone's character... You're a bad bad boy...

You are already judged for defending faggatry. God has already judged you. He knows your sin.

Now... where in the bible does it say that defending faggetry (is that even a word??) is a sin? Adding to God's word, which you've just done, is a great sin Troy. You're a bad bad boy...

Christians reading the Word of God and by the Holy Spirit know God has judged you already and it is just a foretaste of your being cast into hell for all eternity. Christians don't put themselves in place of God. You won't find any Christians who believe that.

Nothing in the Bible... you know, the Word of God... says that defending homosexuals is a sin. Anyone who says it does, or claims that God told them it's a sin, is adding to the Bible. Since adding to the Bible is, in fact, setting yourself up on the same level as God, and since you're using something that is NOT in Gods Word to judge, you're sinning big-time. You're a very bad boy...

You are defending homos due to the lust. Whether you play with other men's butholes or not is irrelevant. Lust does not require you to engage in the act to actually lust. You may be the greatest fag in the world and with this pride of defending being a fag, I recommend you come off your high horse, for you will come crashing down. Hence, the aids as well as unhealthy family relationships with no mother for their children. You are a sick man, get some help. My advice to you is stop being a fag. You will go to hell for it.

Proof that I'm Homosexual please... now. Oh, I forgot... you have just as much proof for that as I do for you being a Peadophile... in other words, none.

old comment by CT

The morals I give you are both objective and subjectively experienced as well.

Sorry...? Do you even know what they mean?

When we say divorce is always wrong it is saying it for the 99.9% of the time. But there are alway exceptions to things in extreme cases. This is not a subjective moral only, but it is still objective.

Uh-huh... You do realise that they are opposites? You know... it can be one or the other, but not both?

I think you get yourself into trouble when you legalize rules for yourself by demanding this is an objective moral and this is a subjective moral. Things are not always so cut and dried, nor are they required to be mutually exclusive things.

Well, things can be either situational, (where the situation dictates the result, so the result changes in each case) or absolute. (where nothing makes a difference, the result will always be the same) Another word for these is Subjective and Objective. If you can find anything that can be both of those at the same time, you will have shattered the basis of logic. (and your proof, by the way...) Go to it Troy... find something that can be both Subjective and Objective. Find something that depends on the situation but doesn't... Find something that will shatter the very tool you'll be using to find it. You're going to claim you can, aren't you?

old comment by A Friend

@CT

So you know, then, that homosexuality is an orientation, not a sex act? Your posts would indicate the other...

This orientation involves usually sticking your genitals up other men's asses or just one man's ass. I know that much about it. In either case it has the highest probability of getting aids. I have said the same thing, so my posts have not changed about this sin.

Two points... and this is where you are shown to be very badly mistaken... First, I'm hetrosexual... which makes that claim of yours, and any others you've made like it, fabrications. Second, and this is where you'll really love it... I don't engage in anal sex... So Troy... I'm not a "fag" nor do I have shit-stained genitals. Which means you've just borne false witness, libeled, defamed someone's character... You're a bad bad boy...

Just because you don't do a thing that you defend does not make you not that thing. If you agree with Hitler then you are a Nazi. Just because you didn't kill someone in the name of Hitler, doesn't mean you are not of his ilk. You are a bad man through and through. I think metaphorically you have shit stained genitals and you are a fag for fags defend faggatry. This is an accurate representation of you. You think being a fag is aok! But if this were true it was aok, then it would be aok for everyone to be exclusively faggots to depopulate the earth down to zero. Various cults like free masons are about depopulating earth, killing off the majority for natural selection.

Now... where in the bible does it say that defending faggetry (is that even a word??) is a sin? Adding to God's word, which you've just done, is a great sin Troy. You're a bad bad boy...

Why be a petty legalist? I think we both know when referring to fags that we are talking about homosexuals. God knows your heart completely. Don't think just because you avoid doing a sin outwardly that that sin is not working in you. By defending faggotry, you are adding to God's Word, for God would not judge a sin for you to secrety harbor it as being ok. Crazy stuff! You are Satan's little pawn accusing the Christian of bearing false witness who recognizes your sin. Yes you are bad. Isn't it amazing how you project your own condition with your accusations?

Nothing in the Bible... you know, the Word of God... says that defending homosexuals is a sin. Anyone who says it does, or claims that God told them it's a sin, is adding to the Bible. Since adding to the Bible is, in fact, setting yourself up on the same level as God, and since you're using something that is NOT in Gods Word to judge, you're sinning big-time. You're a very bad boy...

God judges sin. Those who defend the lifestyle in Sodom and Gomorrah though they did not participate it in it were destroyed, and so will you be. God reveals by the Holy Spirit this is true in agreement with the Word. This is God's Word, so naturally Christians impart this fact in His Word. Because we are humbled by God, we do His will. You are a very bad person. The proof that you are a homo is the fact that you defend homos for being homos when God of the Bible says engaging in that lifestyle or being silent about it is still a sin. For God says the unspoken sin is just as bad as the outward sin.

Oh, I forgot... you have just as much proof for that as I do for you being a Peadophile... in other words, none.

Just as it is wrong in the Bible to have sex with children so it is wrong to be a homo. The Scriptures are fully proven on this point. If you defend pedophilia then you are a pedophile. Whether you do it or not or get caught or not makes no difference. In your heart of hearts it is your belief that is ok to to have sex with children. You are sick sick person. However, we are getting way off track. Since in this we at least establish there is sin as commonly accepted then we know Step 1 of the Proof is true, since you would still not be sinning if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects considering the exponential progression in our conscience these past 6000 years. It won't take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved. Therefore God created and given Christ whom none can compare we know He did not lie when He said He is God.

old comment by CT

God did not cause sin.

So, sin is uncaused?
No, you say that Man causes sin... but since Man is caused by God, that means that God caused sin. You don't agree? But you claim that God caused everything... which, by definition, includes sin. What's that? There's something that God DIDN'T cause? You mean to say there's more than one uncaused around? You know what that does to your proof, which concludes there's only one uncaused around? Say it with me Troy... if there is more than one uncaused around, the proof's conclusion is WRONG! Oh dear... when you claim God didn't cause sin, you claim that God didn't cause everything... which means that little part of the proof that makes the claim that he did, and bases the rest of your proof on that, is wrong. Troy... I'll be kind. Award the money to yourself, since you've just disproved your own proof...

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Sorry...? Do you even know what they mean?

Yes, don't you?

Uh-huh... You do realise that they are opposites? You know... it can be one or the other, but not both?

Only if you are a petty legalist, but you need to be delivered from legalisms and the petty self for they are corrupted behavior patterns. God's redemptive design can deliver you. English short hand is a beautiful thing, it even exposes petty legalists.

Well, things can be either situational, (where the situation dictates the result, so the result changes in each case) or absolute. (where nothing makes a difference, the result will always be the same) Another word for these is Subjective and Objective. If you can find anything that can be both of those at the same time, you will have shattered the basis of logic. (and your proof, by the way...) Go to it Troy... find something that can be both Subjective and Objective. Find something that depends on the situation but doesn't... Find something that will shatter the very tool you'll be using to find it. You're going to claim you can, aren't you?

It's another way of saying it is experienced or not. If something was not experience or situational, it can still be objectively true. For example, objectively I know that nothing in nature happens all by itself, but experientially I may not appreciate it yet because I have not cared enough to investiage that nothing has ever been shown to be without a cause. Another example is one may know objectively that a certain math equation works in such a fashion, but subjectively it still doesn't make sense to them. They need to gather additional information to allow the situation they are encoutering to turn into spiritual reality. Take you for example. Subjectively you like to shut your mind down to the existence of God and just can't accept Him being uncreated, but objectively the Proof proves God perfectly. You will need to allow the acceptance of the objective truth to work in you to allow it to become a subjective reality. Either way, it will be your subjective experience but when you are in hell it will be too late. Even now you experience this subjectively in seeing you can never find a fault with the proof in the sense that you can make no headway in your reviling.

old comment by CT

This orientation involves usually sticking your genitals up other men's asses or just one man's ass. I know that much about it.

Which confirms that you don't know much about it at all...

This is an accurate representation of you. You think being a fag is aok! But if this were true it was aok, then it would be aok for everyone to be exclusively faggots to depopulate the earth down to zero. Various cults like free masons are about depopulating earth, killing off the majority for natural selection.

I think being male is aok... but if it was aok, then it would be aok for everyone to be exclusively male to depopulate the earth down to nothing... Try again Troy... that argument never worked.

By defending faggotry, you are adding to God's Word, for God would not judge a sin for you to secrety harbor it as being ok. Crazy stuff!

And where did I say that God wouldn't judge a sin for me to secretly harbour as being ok? I haven't, so I've not been trying to add to God's word. Please stop lying Troy.

God reveals by the Holy Spirit this is true in agreement with the Word.

Yep... pride. See you in Hell, sinner Troy.

The proof that you are a homo is the fact that you defend homos for being homos when God of the Bible says engaging in that lifestyle or being silent about it is still a sin.

I defend women... does that make me a woman? I defend cats... does that make me a cat? I defend people who cut their beards... does that make me a person who cuts their beard? (something God considers a sin, by the way) No, it doesn't... so me defending Homosexuals doesn't make me a homosexual. Now, where's your proof Troy? Don't weasel out of it, show the proof or admit your lies...

Just as it is wrong in the Bible to have sex with children so it is wrong to be a homo. The Scriptures are fully proven on this point.

Really? Chapter and verse please... or are you lying again?

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Ya I Win Again. The problem with debating Fundys. What I find amazing is how Troy thinks he's won anything...

First off, I have won with God's eternal life. Anything eternal wins. And the proof for this winning is that you can't find any fault with the proof for God, yet still call Jesus a liar. Hence, you lose and I win. Heaven is for me, hell is for you.

What about the Catholics? You gonna add them to your total?

Roman Church is included, but just because someone says they are a Christian, doesn't mean they are. The Bible speaks strongly against the Roman Church and its adherents, most of whom would be unsaved tares. The point being, the knowledge of Christ is global unlike any othe religion, so it is clearly accessible to all without excuse. Cool!

old comment by CT

Only if you are a petty legalist, but you need to be delivered from legalisms and the petty self for they are corrupted behavior patterns. God's redemptive design can deliver you.
English short hand is a beautiful thing, it even exposes petty legalists.

Funny... you seem to be using words from the English language but show a distinct lack of understanding.

It's another way of saying it is experienced or not.

Thank you... you've just conclusively proven that you have no knowledge at all about subjective and objective in this context. End of story Troy... you are ignorant of this topic and your ramblings do nothing but expose your lack. But please... give us yet more evidence of your ignorance. We'll put it on the pile along with all the other ignorant replies you've posted here...

old comment by A Friend

@CT

So, sin is uncaused? No, you say that Man causes sin... but since Man is caused by God, that means that God caused sin. You don't agree? But you claim that God caused everything... which, by definition, includes sin.

Satan is the cause of sin, and man choosing to do his will, also cause sin. God did not cause man to sin, and in fact did everything possible to get man not to sin, but man still sinned, so sin originates with man. God created everything and everything that was created includes man, but what sin man creates God did not. You see first there is creation and once created that is everything. Do you see you are riff with mistaken assumptions? That's what always gets you into trouble. In this case you have found a new word to get yourself stuck on, the word "everything". If you didn't misread the Bible you would not have this problem. There are two kinds of everything. There is everything and then there is everything God created to a point which is deemed as everything.

What's that? There's something that God DIDN'T cause? You mean to say there's more than one uncaused around? You know what that does to your proof, which concludes there's only one uncaused around?

Man caused sin so sin is not uncaused. Since here is still only one uncaused God the proof remains a solid and you still remain wrong. Have you noticed you are always wrong? Why don't you get embarrased with yourself? How many more times do you have to be wrong to be confident you are going to hell? 1000, 10,000, 10,000,000? That is why hell exists because you will never accept you are wrong so you being wrong will be forced on you because you are a truly a bad person who doesn't mind being eternally wrong. It's an amazing revelation.

Say it with me Troy... if there is more than one uncaused around, the proof's conclusion is WRONG! Oh dear... when you claim God didn't cause sin, you claim that God didn't cause everything... which means that little part of the proof that makes the claim that he did, and bases the rest of your proof on that, is wrong.

If there is more than one uncaused then the proof's conclusion is wrong. God still caused everything and since man caused sin then sin is caused by man not by God so that sin does not become uncaused. Wow! I will be kind to you in allowing you to continue to try to disprove the proof, but the money still awaits you if you can disprove it. Is that generous or what? The $10,000 still awaits to be rewarded, but we should not discount the possibility that it will never be awarded due to it being perfect. Have you considered that possibility? lol

old comment by David B.

@A Friend

You admit you are being circular so you admit you are being wrong in your attempt here with your own 4 steps, so it fails. It is also faulty with its various assumptions. Let me show you.

But circular does not equal wrong. My car's tyres are circular, yet there is nothing wrong with them. This is proven by the fact that cars with non-circular tyres are illegal to drive on the roads. The rightness of circular tyres is shown by law.

Your first step has two mistaken assumptions. "Everything has a natural explanation". This is not the same thing as saying all natural causes have a cause, for a cause may have a natural or a supernatural cause. It is also false to say "This is clearly shown by the fact that every problem we have ever solved scientifically has been shown to have a natural explanation" because the probem of our existence scientifically shows us a supernatural explanation. Scientifically the exponential progression in our conscience shows us we did not need an eternity to be perfected without sin; therefore, we know the uncreated created us.

The explanation as to why something happens would be a description of its cause. Every explanation ever scientifically proven has shown a natural cause, therefore every cause is natural. As science has never proven a supernatural cause for anything you claim that our existence has a supernatural cause must be false so your objection is false and step 1 is true.

Your step 2 is false also, "Supernatural claims must be false because only natural explanations for anything have ever been found". Since I showed you a supernatural explanation in my response to your step 1.

But I have shown your supernatural explanation to be false, hence your criticism of step 2 is false, hence step 2 is also true.

Your step 3 is false also, because it is talking about some god, not God of the Bible. Your step 3 is wrong too, for you said, "If no god existed then everything could only have a natural explanation." But we have proven God exists because we know you had to be created by the uncreated, which would have been done supernaturally.

Because my proof is perfect it works for any god. Hence it applies to the God of the bible, unless your 'God' is not a god, but some limited, natural being - in which case he would qualify as a natural cause and not violate this perfect proof. Because steps 1 and 2 has proven that there can't be any supernatural explanations for anything, hence we know that we were created naturally. Hence step 3 is also true.

Your step 4 is wrong, since not everything was shown to have a natural explanation, but must have supernatural origin.

But there are no supernatural origins as shown in step 1. Clearly you have not demonstrated as single fault in my proof because you are not able to. Hence God does not exist.

old comment by CT

Satan is the cause of sin, and man choosing to do his will, also cause sin.

So... God didn't cause everything?

God did not cause man to sin, and in fact did everything possible to get man not to sin, but man still sinned, so sin originates with man.

What caused Man? God did. What caused Satan? God did. What is the ultimate cause of everything that has ever happened? God.

Do you see you are riff with mistaken assumptions? That's what always gets you into trouble. In this case you have found a new word to get yourself stuck on, the word "everything". If you didn't misread the Bible you would not have this problem. There are two kinds of everything. There is everything and then there is everything God created to a point which is deemed as everything.

Uh-huh... now you're trying to prove that everything isn't everything because everything and everything are different... You just love coming out with random answers that don't actually make any sense, don't you?

Man caused sin so sin is not uncaused.

God caused Man caused sin... so God caused sin.

God still caused everything

So God caused sin...

and since man caused sin

So God didn't cause everything? Damn Troy... you just lied!

then sin is caused by man not by God

Yep... God didn't cause everything...

so that sin does not become uncaused.

but since it was caused, and since your proof says that everything is caused by God, that means sin is caused by God. You do realise that the longer I keep you talking, the more you destroy your own proof?

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Which confirms that you don't know much about it at all...

I am glad you just saying so is not in itself evidence to support your case. The fact remains that is usually what they do is homos whom you are one tend to favor sticking their genitals up each other asses or sometimes in their mouths and squirting cum on each other. Ya, you are definite a fag. You are that which you defend.

I think being male is aok... but if it was aok, then it would be aok for everyone to be exclusively male to depopulate the earth down to nothing... Try again Troy... that argument never worked.

Your argument fails you. People have the choice not to be fags, but you choose to be a fag. A person who is born a male does not have the choice not to be a male. Your comparison is mindless.

And where did I say that God wouldn't judge a sin for me to secretly harbour as being ok? I haven't, so I've not been trying to add to God's word. Please stop lying Troy.

You said you thought the Bible suggest no such thing that defending faggotry is wrong. This shows your stance. But now you have the doubletongue saying the opposite because you are caught in a lie... ...since you don't think God would not judge you for secretely harboring faggotry in your heart as ok since he judged Sodom and Gomorrah; this is another example of you saying you accept His verdict of you that you will be judged for it because you still defend it. Since you accept this judgment and still harbor it, it shows you are like Satan not caring anyway and seek to self exalt yourself above God. This is why you are going to hell. So which is it? Do you think you will be judged for defending faggotry or not since you don't think condoning faggotry is wrong in the Bible? Dude, you are a crazy! I do stand corrected, you do not harbor secretely defending faggotry, but you are a quite outspoken defender of faggotry, against God's Word. God has already made a liar out of you, for the Bible is against anything condoning faggotry. Since I have not lied why do your father Satan's bidding by accusing someone of lying who has not lied? It is because you like that quality of being like Satan the great accuser. You take after him. Your conscience is dead to realize this is wrong.

Yep... pride. See you in Hell, sinner Troy.

As was said you are not secret about your faggotry or in your wanting to self-exalt yourself above God by admitting you are going to hell. You are a very bad man. God does not consider me a sinner, but bought by Him and redeemed back by Him as His child because I have received His only begotten Son. He considers you a sinner because you call Him a liar, and to boot you can't even find one reason for saying so other than you want to go to hell. That is the ultimate pride to reject salvation. I don't have that pride.

I defend women... does that make me a woman? I defend cats... does that make me a cat? I defend people who cut their beards... does that make me a person who cuts their beard? (something God considers a sin, by the way) No, it doesn't... so me defending Homosexuals doesn't make me a homosexual. Now, where's your proof Troy? Don't weasel out of it, show the proof or admit your lies...

Defending women is not a sin, but defending the choice to sin of faggotry is a sin. Does a woman have the choice not to be a woman or a cat not have the choice to be a cat? How can you be a woman if you are born a man? How can you be a cat if you are born a man? God does not consider cutting beards a sin? Why accuse falsely? Why don't you think you need evidence for your accusation? like Satan People who cut their bears is a choice, so if you defend their choice then you are one who defends beard cutting just as your defending faggotry makes you a defender of their choice. So you are a homo in the sense that you defend their choice. Just like you are a beard cutter in the sense that you favor beard cutting. Don't try to weasal out of the fact that you are a homo for defending the sin of homosexuals.

Really? Chapter and verse please... or are you lying again?

Where did I lie the first time? Genesis 19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; Genesis 19:2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. Genesis 19:3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. Genesis 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: Genesis 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. Genesis 19:6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, Genesis 19:7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Genesis 19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. Genesis 19:9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. Genesis 19:10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. Genesis 19:11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door. Genesis 19:12 And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: Genesis 19:13 For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it. Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 18:29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 1 Corinthians 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Timothy 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 1 Timothy 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; Any type of sex that is not between grown adults is perverse. Adam and Eve did not procreate as children. The Koran and the other books of Mohammed have him sleeping with children under the age of ten. Did Jesus do that? The Bible forbids the use of sex outside of marriage. For example St. Paul says it is wrong for a man to go with a prostitute because he becomes "one body" with her (1Cor 6:16). That depth of unity can only be truthful in marriage. Jesus teachs the permanence of marriage for the same reason (Mark 10:1-12). Paul includes adulterers and (practicing) homosexuals among those who WILL NOT inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor 6:10), although in the following verse he does indicate they can be forgiven if they repent. In the case of pedophilia, the fourth commandment is also involved. A pedophile is inevitably deceiving the child's parents and causing him (or her) to do something behind the parent's back. St. Paul talks about the 5th commandment in Eph. 6:1. The Bible, by the way, presupposes that children are under their parents authority until the day they marry (not turn 18, like in our culture). The 7th commandment is broken also having sex outside of marriage. There are other ways to show you the sin of homos and pedophilia, but start here. Ex. 20.3 Do not worship any other gods besides me. 4 "Do not make idols of any kind, whether in the shape of birds or animals or fish. 5 You must never worship or bow down to them, for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God who will not share your affection with any other god! I do not leave unpunished the sins of those who hate me, but I punish the children for the sins of their parents to the third and fourth generations. 6 But I lavish my love on those who love me and obey my commands, even for a thousand generations. 7 "Do not misuse the name of the Lord your God. The Lord will not let you go unpunished if you misuse his name. 8 "Remember to observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days a week are set apart for your daily duties and regular work, 10 but the seventh day is a day of rest dedicated to the Lord your God. On that day no one in your household may do any kind of work. This includes you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, your livestock, and any foreigners living among you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; then he rested on the seventh day. That is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy. 12 "Honor your father and mother. Then you will live a long, full life in the land the Lord your God will give you. 13 "Do not murder. 14 "Do not commit adultery. 15 "Do not steal. 16 "Do not testify falsely against your neighbor. 17 "Do not covet your neighbor's house. Do not covet your neighbor's wife, male or female servant, ox or donkey, or anything else your neighbor owns

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Funny... you seem to be using words from the English language but show a distinct lack of understanding.

How so you don't say? You say, but you can't make your case.

Thank you... you've just conclusively proven that you have no knowledge at all about subjective and objective in this context. End of story Troy... you are ignorant of this topic and your ramblings do nothing but expose your lack. But please... give us yet more evidence of your ignorance. We'll put it on the pile along with all the other ignorant replies you've posted here...

Again, you have accused, but you could not make your case. I am glad you just saying so is not the determination of whether it is true or not. As for all these accusations, I am so grateful to God that our accusers have nothing to back up their accusations. Unwittingly this gives more power to God's Word. Praise the Lord for this discernment!

old comment by A Friend

@CT

So... you include them in the total number of Christians, yet in the very next sentence state that they're not Christians. Contradiction much?

I don't include them in the total number of Christians though certainly some would be saved, but I include them in those who say they are Christians to show how widely delivered God's Word and the Proof of God is which is why people either believe or say they do, but in their hearts still reject God. If you misread what I said, of course you will be confused. A humble person does not do that. You get off on misreading, all the while still finding no problem with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible.

old comment by A Friend

@David B

But circular does not equal wrong. My car's tyres are circular, yet there is nothing wrong with them. This is proven by the fact that cars with non-circular tyres are illegal to drive on the roads. The rightness of circular tyres is shown by law.

Please respond to how I showed you your circular is wrong, not all circulars.

The explanation as to why something happens would be a description of its cause. Every explanation ever scientifically proven has shown a natural cause, therefore every cause is natural. As science has never proven a supernatural cause for anything you claim that our existence has a supernatural cause must be false so your objection is false and step 1 is true.

Scientific explanation, which is the 4 Step Proof, proves a supernatural explanation. You just hold the false assumption that it can't be so when overlooking the evidence. So Step 1 of the Proof is true and your step 1 is false.

But I have shown your supernatural explanation to be false, hence your criticism of step 2 is false, hence step 2 is also true.

What you showed is you assumed only natural explanations were found while overlooking the 4 Step Proof which shows there can only be a supernatural explanation for the ultimate cause. That's why you ought to deal with the Proof and stop avoiding it. Hence, Step 2 is true and your step 2 is false.

Because my proof is perfect it works for any god. Hence it applies to the God of the bible, unless your 'God' is not a god, but some limited, natural being - in which case he would qualify as a natural cause and not violate this perfect proof. Because steps 1 and 2 has proven that there can't be any supernatural explanations for anything, hence we know that we were created naturally. Hence step 3 is also true.

Since all 4 points of your proof have been shown to be false it can't work for anything. All you are doing is making the mistaken assumption that all natural effects have a natural cause. Why assume this when the 4 Step Proof shows otherwise? Since nothing in nature has ever happened all by itself, we must conclude then the only possibility is the uncreated supernatural cause. Seems reasonable.

But there are no supernatural origins as shown in step 1. Clearly you have not demonstrated as single fault in my proof because you are not able to. Hence God does not exist.

I already showed your step 1 is false and Step 1 of the 4 Step Proof is true. Since you still sin there can not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects since you would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin. Hence you were created by the uncreated supernatural God of the Bible.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

So... God didn't cause everything?

God did cause everything. This is how it works. God caused creation and man is created. This is considered part of everything that was created. Once everything that is created, some things flow from that everything if it does not abide in the creator. Sin is that thing that flows from disobedience.

What caused Man? God did. What caused Satan? God did. What is the ultimate cause of everything that has ever happened? God.

God did not cause Satan. Lucifer caused Satan. God created everything but He didn't cause sin. Man caused sin. Just because God created man does not mean God created sin since God can never sin, so it is man who created it and caused it. God still created everything, but what flows from anything that is everything is sin if that anything that is everything is disobedient.

Uh-huh... now you're trying to prove that everything isn't everything because everything and everything are different... You just love coming out with random answers that don't actually make any sense, don't you?

Uh oh! You are still overlooking the answer that was said already and repeating yourself. That's shutting your mind down again. Yes, there are two kinds of everything, everything God created so it was done, and everything that is anything anywhere anytime before and after its creation. You like shutting your mind down to confuse yourself don't you. Try this. Instead of just repeating yourself, why not actually respond to what I said. Try to understand what I am saying. This is not knew, for Christians have believed this well founded truth since the beginning.

God caused Man caused sin... so God caused sin.

God caused man, not Man. Man caused sin ... so God did not cause sin, because man had a free-choice to incorporate disobedience into His life. God did not cause man to be disobedient. Man did.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

So God caused sin...

Just saying so does not make it true.

So God didn't cause everything? Damn Troy... you just lied!

God did not cause your everything, but God in creating caused everything which is everything not including disobedience, since God is perfectly obedient in His own righteousness. Part of your everything is sin which God could never create since He is not a sinner. Only man could do this, Lucifer and others that had free-choice to be disobedient. God has free-choice, but He is always right. You lie when you misrepresent by your lame misreading.

Yep... God didn't cause everything...

That's right, not your everything that includes sin that man created, but everything that is righteous. That is the one thing God did not create was sin in creating the only sovereign living souls in the universe. That is the beauty of it all is we are the only truly sovereign living souls in the universe and you are ruining it for yourself by wanting to go to hell shown by your reviling of your creator. Very sad.

but since it was caused, and since your proof says that everything is caused by God, that means sin is caused by God. You do realise that the longer I keep you talking, the more you destroy your own proof?

Since the everything that is caused by God is directly created by God and not that which is not necessarily, then the everything that is all things is not the same as the everything directly created by God. Like I said in the beginning you are confusing your two ways of looking at everything. We know God did not create sin because He himself has never sinned and knows not sin. But we know man knows sin for he is head over heals in it. Do you see that the more you keep talking, the more you can add another repetitive comment shown to be wrong and other things that don't work in your attempt to disprove God? That just continues to give more power to God of the Bible. I love that you are always wrong. That is the power of the Holy Spirit to expose you. You can keep blaming God for your sin, but you are the cause. It's time to take back the blame and responsibility over yourself, your actions and control of your feelings. It's time to grow up!

old comment by A Friend

@James

What's this exponential growth in consciousness you keep rambling on about? I can't see any evidence for it. Exponential growth in technology, sure, exponential growth in population, definitely, but none for human intelligence.

Because your conscience is dead to God it is hard for you to understand but not impossible. It's not rambling, but fact. The evidence has already been given, but you shut your mind down to it even after it passes right in front of you. Like I said this shows how dead your conscience is and why you are bound for hell. I didn't say "human intelligence," I said conscience. Do you know the difference between conscience and intelligence? Get out that dictionary. One example of the exponential progression of conscience is that the murder rate per capita each century has gone down. Another one is to say child sacrifices have pretty much been eradicated thanks to the nation of Israel that got rid of those evil nations, except in some parts of the Koranic cult of Islam where they train their children at the youngest of ages to be suicide mass muderers. Crazy stuff! Now because of the exponential progression in our conscience, we know it won't take much longer at all to reach sinlessness in the saved. If there had been an eternity of the past of cause and effects, we know you would still not be sinning by now. Therefore, we know you were created by the uncreated and comparing Christ none can compare.

old comment by A Friend

@James

What makes you think effeminate means homosexual?

It can mean several unbecoming male behaviors including homos based on the Hebrew, verified by Strongs and the lexicon and all those other verses I gave you that homosexuality is a sin, http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=6&verse=9&strongs=3120&page= Available Translations and Versions for 1Cr 6:9 KJV - 1Cr 6:9 - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, King James Version 1611, 1769 NKJV - 1Cr 6:9 - Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, Footnote: That is, catamites New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson NLT - 1Cr 6:9 - Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust NIV - 1Cr 6:9 - Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society ESV - 1Cr 6:9 - Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, Footnote: a Or wrongdoers b The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles NASB - 1Cr 6:9 - Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation RSV - 1Cr 6:9 - Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952. ASV - 1Cr 6:9 - Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, American Standard Version 1901 Info Young - 1Cr 6:9 - have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info Darby - 1Cr 6:9 - Do ye not know that unrighteous [persons] shall not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men, J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info Webster - 1Cr 6:9 - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Noah Webster Version 1833 Info HNV - 1Cr 6:9 - Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info

old comment by CT

I don't include them in the total number of Christians though certainly some would be saved, but I include them in those who say they are Christians to show how widely delivered God's Word and the Proof of God is which is why people either believe or say they do, but in their hearts still reject God.
If you misread what I said, of course you will be confused. A humble person does not do that. You get off on misreading, all the while still finding no problem with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible.

Troy... the 2 billion figure you quoted includes Catholics. If you want to try the figure without Catholics, (which is what you claim to have used in the first place) then the number of Christians worldwide is less than 1 billion... How do we know? Current number of Catholics @ 2001 was 1.06 billion. [url]http://www.cathnews.com/news/302/45.php[/url So Troy... you've been caught out in yet another lie.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Troy... the 2 billion figure you quoted includes Catholics. If you want to try the figure without Catholics, (which is what you claim to have used in the first place) then the number of Christians worldwide is less than 1 billion... How do we know? Current number of Catholics @ 2001 was 1.06 billion. [url]http://www.cathnews.com/news/302/45.php[/url So Troy... you've been caught out in yet another lie.

I already said the 2 billion figure includes the Roman Church. This figure is quoted quite a bit in the news. This is the number I used in the first place for all those who say they are Christians. The actual number of Christians is not anywhere near a billion. Not only should one take away the major portion of the Roman Church, but there are many others in Christendom that are unsaved as well. God is very clear about this in Matt. 13 when He says there are many tares in the outward appearance of the kingdom that are try to look like the saved wheat but have not actually been born-again into the body of Christ. You accused of some lie, but you don't show it. Don't you feel evil when you sin bearing false witness? Every time you belligerently misread or misinterpret and have no evidence to validate your view, you are continuing to expose yourself as being unethical. God has just made a liar out of you, for notice you can't back up your accusation, you can only self-declare it mindlessly. If I were you I would feel embarrased for behaving that way. You should repent. Notice what you are doing. You are still avoiding the Proof for God of the Bible. You are going on with this and that mindless accusation which you can only spout but you can't prove. And you do this to deflect away from the Proof. People can see you are unethically trying to obfuscate around the fact that you still can't find anything wrong with the 4 Step Proof. You're exposed again!

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Gotcha... God caused everything.

God caused everything including your free-choice, so you choose which is your doing. That's proper cause and effect. God does not choose for you. He caused you to exist, but He didn't cause you to call Him a liar without any proof. That was your choice. Don't blame Him for your own hostility to Him. That's demented.

Gotcha... God didn't cause everything. Contradicting yourself again Troy... not good.

If God didn't create you, you could not have even the choice to sin so in that sense, He created everything. But He didn't create everything in the sense that your choice was caused by Him, for that is your choice as a sovereign being. If you are not a soevereign being then then choice is made by God. So do you see what you are doing wrong? You have yet again created another legalistic rule for yourself like one made up by a bad lawyer. Your legalistic rule is that God creating everything must mean He caused your choice like a robot, but that would mean you are not a sovereign being; yet, you are a sovereign being with free-choice made in His image, so God allows you to choose and He does not cause everything in that sense. You are the cause of your choice to call Jesus a liar without just cause for doing so. Why take on this assumed position with no evidence? How silly it would be if God created you to call Him a liar. That's goofy, but that is what you are contending for.

Before it's creation?? Are you trying to say that something can exist before it exists? Do you even have the slightest idea what you're rambling on about??

I didn't say something can exist before it exists. You totally misread. Try to understand. I know that's hard for you, but try anyway. The choice which was created by you is a choice after you were given the choice. But before the choice there existed the creation of the right. I am saying that there is the definition of "everything" that is anything at all. And there is the definition of "everything" in which God creates everything up to a point and that point is up to the sovereign being of a person so that God is never the cause of sin. How could God ever sin? It's not possible, for He is perfect. We call the point of which He created everything "so it was done". And "everything that is anything anywhere anytime before and after its creation" is the everything in the sense you are using which is not the correct sense in terms of God creating everything. So do you see how you get all confused by a word, because of being a petty legalist? Whenever you legalize a word in the English language you create for yourself problems. English is not the issue. The issue is you are a petty legalist. As a petty legalist you say God creates everything. This is your assumption. And you consider "sin" as one of those things that are everything. It's nice to see you finally accept there is such a thing as sin and you are sinner, but you are not a sinner for any other reason than you are the cause of your sin, because you choose to remain in sin. God does not want you to sin. In fact you are contradicting yourself, since now you accept that there is such a thing as sin when before you were arguing against it. But your whole premise was to try to disprove the Proof for God by trying to claim there is no such thing as sin. But since you admit there is such a thing as sin, then you don't have any argument with the Proof, and yet again you give it the power and strength that it is true. That's wonderful! Amen.

old comment by A Friend

@JaredM

You people need to just ignore Troy...he will go away eventually. By paying attention to him you are just giving him what he wants. He can't be reasoned with, so he should simply be ignored.

I don't want you to go to hell. What I want is for you to stop posting trying to rationalize your flesh and realize it is in fact true, you haven't shown anything wrong with the Proof for God. If you had, you could produce it by now. Since you can't find anything wrong with the 4 Step Proof of God, doesn't this show you can't be reasoned with by still refusing it? That's illogical. Don't ignore it because you are just admitting you are shutting your mind down to be controlled by the evil spirit. That's what's really going on. Crazy stuff!

old comment by CT

I already said the 2 billion figure includes the Roman Church. This figure is quoted quite a bit in the news.

Really?

I don't include them in the total number of Christians

You're calling yourself a liar here now Troy...

God caused everything including your free-choice, so you choose which is your doing. That's proper cause and effect.

You don't understand Cause and Effect either... despite you trying to use it in your proof. God causes creation... the effect of that is anything that happens from that point on. Sin happened after creation, therefore it is an effect OF creation, thus God caused it. When you apply proper Cause and Effect, rather then having an Effect with no Cause, you see just how wrong you are Troy.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Really?

Really

You're calling yourself a liar here now Troy...

You called me a liar and then quoted this that I said, "God caused everything including your free-choice, so you choose which is your doing. That's proper cause and effect". How does that make me a liar? It is a true statement.

You don't understand Cause and Effect either... despite you trying to use it in your proof. God causes creation... the effect of that is anything that happens from that point on. Sin happened after creation, therefore it is an effect OF creation, thus God caused it. When you apply proper Cause and Effect, rather then having an Effect with no Cause, you see just how wrong you are Troy.

I do understand cause and effect as was described. All effects have a cause. This is the law of cause and effect. If there is some other kind of cause and effect you certainly aren't able to prove another kind. From that point on when God creates all things flow from God except that which is given to a sovereign being created in God's image if that sovereign being chooses to be disobedient because God did not desire that outcome for you. He does everything righteously possible to convince you not to be disobedient, but you are still disobedient anyway, so it is your doing, your fault, your cause. Shame on you for blaming your creator! God does not create disobedient zombies or robots. The person chooses to assume he is this robotic concoction. You choose to assume it. Don't blame God and accuse him of why you are such a horrible sinner. That's passing blame that belongs on you. Don't you think it is time you take responsibility for yourself and your actions? Time to grow up! "Sin happened after creation". Yes, it sure did! It is not the result of creation, but the result of man's disobedience. We don't even have to mention God here. We can just be sure there is sin and this sin comes from disobedience to truth. What caused this disobedience? Man did. Man is a sovereign being, so you don't blame God for man's choice. God gifts the gift of free-choice which is certain then He does not cause your reviling, but lets you be disobedient if you want. What God will do is if you have refused Him, which you do because you call His Son a liar when you have no reason for doing so, is He will harden your heart more and more. You can probably sense this about yourself in that you are becoming more and more mindless, more belligerent, more obstinate, and avoiding the Proof even more aggressively. For example, you say sin does not exist but now you are arguing that God is sinning which means you admit there is sin. You can't have it both ways. This doubleminded retardation is a consequence of God hardening your heart more and more all the way to hell. You are a bad man and I think you know that but don't care anyway. Hell really is for you. Why does He make you a sovereign being? Because He wants to walk with mankind out of His glory, but unfortunately because the one man chose to sin, we are all born into sin, but that doesn't mean we are all unredeemable. Those who realize what they are, sinners, born into sin, who want to be redeemed with God's eternal life may receive this most wonderful eternal blessing to walk with God, to reign with Him in the 1000 years, and after when rewards are done away with, to be with Him for all eternity as pillars in the new city and new earth. And all that is needed is to accept His Son on the cross, the resurrection and that He is uncreated deity. That's it. Pretty simple. How wonderful this is! You are on the other hand going to this dimension God created which is called hell or perdition or lake of fire or gehenna. It has many names, but its purpose is to keep you eternally separated from God's sinless sons and daughters. Because you can never be annihilated, that is, cease to exist, and you are not instrumental value (means to an end) but intrinsic value (you are really important to God no matter what you decide) you must go somewhere forever. What an incredibly loving God that He would do this. Priase the Lord! So you can see the effect is the choice you choose and the cause is that man has the choice and the cause of that effect is that God is the cause of being able to cause your own decisions, enact your own volition; and the cause of God is nothing because God is proven to be uncreated in the 4 Step Perfect Proof. And God is also in the Proof shown to be the Trinity. Since you can't disprove it and the proof is a solid, Christians win and you lose.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Troy, how long have they been letting you guys have internet access in the mental wards?

Don't you think it is insane to disagree with the 4 Step Proof when you still can't find anything wrong with it? I know for my experience, for example, that if the scientific community is well agreed and proves 2+2=4, I don't say it is wrong without any reason for saying so. Do you see how insane your position is? You see you don't mind being mindless and don't get embarrassed by it because you are a bad man going to hell. You just don't care how dumb your opinion is because at the end of the day you are trying to self-exalt yourself by any means necessary. You're a bad man, without the love of the Lord in his life. What an ugly life you must live.

old comment by A Friend

@Hawker Hurricane

Mark this date! I'm convinced, Troy! You've proven the existance not only of God, but the God described in the Bible. I'm converted! From this date forward, I'll be as good a Christian as Troy Brooks, and follow the standards his example has set! Remember the day!

No, don't follow my standard, follow God's standard by letting the Holy Spirit lead you in your spirit to do His will, not my will. All the glory goes to Christ, for He died on the cross for you, the greatest loving act ever known to mankind, so of course He gets all the glory. People on this thread point to themselves and their own wild theories. I don't do that. I point you to Christ, for He is the way, the truth and the life. Noone comes before Him. He said of himself, "before Abraham I AM...I am the alpha and the omega...the only way to the Father is throught the Son...you don't know the Father if you don't know the Son, for I and the Father are one...the Father sent me to be light for men." You are not a Christian but you are lying to the reader, because no Christian wants glory for himself, but you want to give glory to a man and not Christ when you said to follow me, "follow the standards his example has set". This is a works based faith, but you can't save yourself. The only way to receive salvation is to receive that which does not come from you, which is the ransom that was paid by your creator to be a substition for you in your stead and take all sins upon himself to be the perfect sacrifice and forgive all sins. Abel gave an offering not of his own labor, so God saved him. But God did not save Cain and Cain was jealous and then killed Abel. This is martyrdom that Abel will be rewarded in heaven. I look forward to that day that I see Abel. What a wonderful human being. Even if you copied everything Moses did or Elijah or Jeremiah or David or Paul or John or Mary or others in the faith, you still would not be saved because you are just engaging in a works based copy program, not actually receiving regeneration in your spirit by receiving salvation through the cross. In effect, you are still calling Jesus a liar. But in order to access this forgivenes and receive eternal life, you need to accept it as it really is, and not some facsimile. Lots of people make a copy of this truth and then don't actually truly receive it, but twist it into something else like works or they may consider Jesus as created or believe in modalism or polytheism still somehow. Crazy stuff! Let us remember this day the day you pretended to be saved and look forward to the day when you could truly be saved by truly receiving Christ into your life. I order to gain your soul you will first need to give it up to the one. This is so hard for you to do I know because it requires repentance, admittance you are a sinner in need of salvation and leave the old life of selfishness. The reason you won't change is because you like that selfishness too much to give it up. So God will not give you communion with Him. Amen.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

...

1 Tim. 6...teach these truths...and encourage everyone to obey them. 3 Some false teachers may deny these things, but these are the sound, wholesome teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, and they are the foundation for a godly life. 4 Anyone who teaches anything different is both conceited and ignorant. Such a person has an unhealthy desire to quibble over the meaning of words. This stirs up arguments ending in jealousy, fighting, slander, and evil suspicions.
For example, arguing because in your petty self not allowing for "everything" to refer to two different set of everythings or arguing over the word sin disallowing the different definitions of sin like the dictionary gives. Is it not the arrogant who sees the Proof, can't find anything wrong with it, and still disagrees with it without any basis for doing so? Some might call that the definition of insanity, believing in something one has no evidence for at all, not even an iota. Notta! None, whatsoever! Nill. Zippo! lol. Why be so jealous of Christians? Is it because you know God has given us resurrection life and you are still in the dredges? 5 These people always cause trouble. Their minds are corrupt, and they don't tell the truth. To them religion is just a way to get rich. 6 Yet true religion with contentment is great wealth. 7 After all, we didn't bring anything with us when we came into the world, and we certainly cannot carry anything with us when we die. 8 So if we have enough food and clothing, let us be content. 9 But people who long to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many foolish and harmful desires that plunge them into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is at the root of all kinds of evil.

old comment by Robotic Snake

By you continuing to shut your mind down to the fact that you find nothing wrong with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible, doesn't that show you are beating the dead horse? Seems to make sense.
You're narcissistic troy. Narcissism is the character trait of self love. ---------------------------------- People who have a narcissistic personality style rather than narcissistic personality disorder are generally psychologically healthy, but may at times be arrogant, proud, shrewd, confident, self-centered and determined to be at the top. They do not, however, have an unrealistic image of their skills and worth and are not dependent on praise to sustain a healthy self-esteem. Overreacts to criticism, becoming angry or humiliated Uses others to reach goals Exaggerates own importance Entertains unrealistic fantasies about achievements, power, beauty, intelligence or romance Has unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment Seeks constant attention and positive reinforcement from others Is easily jealous [4] Has a sense of entitlement Is interpersonally exploitative Lacks empathy Displays arrogant behavior Displays haughty behavior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

old comment by Anonymous

@A Friend

NOBODY HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO DISPROVE THE 4 STEP PERFECT PROOF FOR GOD OF THE BIBLE. IF SOMEONE HAD BEEN ABLE TO THEY COULD SHOW IT HERE BY NOW.

But I provided a perfect 4 step proof that God didn't exist and you weren't able to disprove it, so your proof must be wrong by your own logic.

FSTDT SHOULD GET RID OF ITS CENSORING PROGRAM BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SENSE. YOU CAN'T POST QUITE OFTEN UNLESS YOU FIRST TYPE A COUPLE LETTERS, THEN EDIT THE POST WITH WHAT YOU WANTED TO POST ORIGINALLY. OTHERWISE IT BLOCKS THE POST.

Yes, that affects me too, so at least it's equal-opportunity 'censorship'. Still it's probably enough to put off spam-bots and spam-monkeys, which I guess is the point.

old comment by David B.

@A Friend

Please respond to how I showed you your circular is wrong, not all circulars.

As you admit circular does not equal wrong you cannot dismiss my proof because it is circular.

Scientific explanation, which is the 4 Step Proof, proves a supernatural explanation. You just hold the false assumption that it can't be so when overlooking the evidence.

But your proof is wrong because my perfect 4 step proof has shown that God does not exist. Without god only natural causes can exist and science has only ever found natural causes for anything confirming the proof is right. My proof says only natural causes will be found, only natural causes are found, my proof is right. Your proof says there are supernatural causes, no-one has ever found a supernatural cause, your proof is wrong. QED.

What you showed is you assumed only natural explanations were found while overlooking the 4 Step Proof which shows there can only be a supernatural explanation for the ultimate cause. That's why you ought to deal with the Proof and stop avoiding it.

I have shown your proof to be wrong, hence it can safely be overlooked. Clearly since your proof pretends to show a supernatural cause, proving there are no supernatural causes is dealing with your claim. You have been unable to show that my proof of no supernatural causes is incorrect, while I have been able to show your 'proof' of a supernatural cause is incorrect. Clearly you are trying to avoid having to pay $10000, which (in your own words) makes you corrupted, biased and unethical.

All you are doing is making the mistaken assumption that all natural effects have a natural cause. Why assume this when the 4 Step Proof shows otherwise? Since nothing in nature has ever happened all by itself, we must conclude then the only possibility is the uncreated supernatural cause. Seems reasonable.

Your proof doesn't show a supernatural cause because it is wrong, and I have proved it so. Every cause ever determined anywhere has always been found to be natural, hence every cause everywhere is natural. Seems reasonable.

Since you still sin there can not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects since you would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin. Hence you were created by the uncreated supernatural God of the Bible.

But as I have already proved the supernatural does not exist, there is no supernatural God of the Bible to have created me. Therefore I was created by a natural process. What you call 'sin' must therefore be the result of a natural process; probably one subject to thermodynamic, quantum, Brownian and chaotic pertubation.

old comment by FriendA

@Robotic Snake

You're narcissistic troy. Narcissism is the character trait of self love People who have a narcissistic personality style rather than narcissistic personality disorder are generally psychologically healthy, but may at times be arrogant, proud, shrewd, confident, self-centered and determined to be at the top. They do not, however, have an unrealistic image of their skills and worth and are not dependent on praise to sustain a healthy self-esteem. Overreacts to criticism, becoming angry or humiliated Uses others to reach goals Exaggerates own importance Entertains unrealistic fantasies about achievements, power, beauty, intelligence or romance Has unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment Seeks constant attention and positive reinforcement from others Is easily jealous [4] Has a sense of entitlement Is interpersonally exploitative Lacks empathy Displays arrogant behavior Displays haughty behavior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

Yes Satan is a great accuser working in you, and like him you can't actually show your accusation and reviling. It is likely then that you are just projecting your own condition of self-love and narcissism. You should repent. It sounds like you know your selfish behavior pretty well, so why don't you repent? Being a false accuser is very narcissistic don't you think? I think it is because what you are doing is pointing to yourself when you accuse, that is, your accusation needs no evidence as you self-declare it on your pedestal. I for one would feel guilty if I behaved just as you did, so why don't you have a conscience to feel the same? It's because of your narcissism. Wow! And, you didn't find anything wrong with the proof for God which thread is about. Thus, you are giving strength to God unwittingly despite how hard you try to deflect from the Proof of God. Praise the Lord!

old comment by FriendA

@Anonymous

But I provided a perfect 4 step proof that God didn't exist and you weren't able to disprove it, so your proof must be wrong by your own logic.

Where is it, you don't show it? The 4 Step Proof is shown but you don't make a case for your claim. Thus it is thrown out.

Yes, that affects me too, so at least it's equal-opportunity 'censorship'. Still it's probably enough to put off spam-bots and spam-monkeys, which I guess is the point.

Well its not a very good program they use. Sometimes when I post also the post does not end up as the last post but is 10 or 20 posts back for some odd reason. So after I posted it I find this out, save it, wait for the program to work properly and resubmit it again and hopefully gets posted in proper place, then delete the old one out of place. If they are censoring then it is wrong without explanation because it is arbitrary.

old comment by FriendA

@David B.

As you admit circular does not equal wrong you cannot dismiss my proof because it is circular.

But because it is wrong as was shown why, its circularity is wrong.

But your proof is wrong because my perfect 4 step proof has shown that God does not exist. Without god only natural causes can exist and science has only ever found natural causes for anything confirming the proof is right. My proof says only natural causes will be found, only natural causes are found, my proof is right. Your proof says there are supernatural causes, no-one has ever found a supernatural cause, your proof is wrong. QED.

I responded to your 4 steps and showed how each was wrong. You are talking about two different beings. You mentioned God then you mentioned a god. God would mean uncreated and god would a created being. So you are trying to disprove a created being you call god, but Step 3 of the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible says don't try to disprove a god, for the proof is about God of the Bible. You're going off topic which is disingenuous. Your next mistake as was said before which you overlooked and failed to respond to and causing me to repeat here now again is your false statement, "science has only ever found natural causes." Be careful here because the scientific method itself can't prove itself. Nobody has ever been able to do that. Science has shown that the only possibility is there is a supernatural cause since nothing in nature happens all by itself. Scientifically we know this, so scientifically there is no other possibly we know of than the uncreated created. Just like Spock said on Star Trek, when all known possibilities are impossible we must conclude the seemingly impossible is the only possibility. I love that! Your third mistake was to blindly state, "Without god only natural causes can exist." Why can't some god cause the natural causes you don't say? You make no case either way. Now we know God of the Bible created since only the Uncreated is the ultimate cause. Since we know all natural effects are caused by a natural cause then the ultimate cause can not be another natural cause because that natural cause would have itself been caused by another natural cause so on and so forth, and we know that is not possible. We know that there can not be an eternity of the past of causes and effects because you would have had an eternity of the past to be perfected without sin, yet you still sin. This is substantiated by the fact these past 6000 year there has been an exponential progression in our conscience so it won't take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved. (Step 1 of the 4 Step Proof of God of the Bible). Do you see how Step 1 destroys your 4 steps? It's easy.

I have shown your proof to be wrong, hence it can safely be overlooked. Clearly since your proof pretends to show a supernatural cause, proving there are no supernatural causes is dealing with your claim. You have been unable to show that my proof of no supernatural causes is incorrect, while I have been able to show your 'proof' of a supernatural cause is incorrect. Clearly you are trying to avoid having to pay $10000, which (in your own words) makes you corrupted, biased and unethical.

I just showed you what is wrong with your your claim and I already said this before, which shows you are in shutting-your-mind-down mode as usual because you did not respond to what I showed, but just repeated yourself like a mindless robot. Clearly in good conscience the $10,000 U.S. should not be disbursed if a promise has been given to give it out if the Proof for God has been disproven and it has not been disproven. That's why it has not been given out yet. Makes sense.

Your proof doesn't show a supernatural cause because it is wrong, and I have proved it so. Every cause ever determined anywhere has always been found to be natural, hence every cause everywhere is natural. Seems reasonable.

I just showed you your attempt at a proof failed you. Now it is incumbent upon you to respond to that evidence I gave you instead of mindlessly repeating yourself. If you can't find anything to respond with then realize God fully proved Himself and if you refuse Him, you will go to hell. Seems reasonable.

But as I have already proved the supernatural does not exist, there is no supernatural God of the Bible to have created me. Therefore I was created by a natural process. What you call 'sin' must therefore be the result of a natural process; probably one subject to thermodynamic, quantum, Brownian and chaotic pertubation.

As I already showed, which you have not yet responded to, your attempt to show that a supernatural does not exist was erroneous. Therefore the 4 Step Proof of God of the Bible remains true. So you were created by the uncaused uncreated supernatural God of the Bible. When God decided to create, He created. He then formed your body from dust (Gen. 2.7) over 13.7 billion years, not from an eternity of the past of cause and effects. Then about 6000 years ago when the body reached the point where God desired, He breathed the breathe of life into the body to create the soul life. When the spirit which was made directly by God when He breathed in the breathe of life made contact with the body this created the soul life. You have the soul life, which is your mind, will and emotion, and your spirit life which uses the functions of intuition, communion and conscience. And so it began, God made man in His image (Gen. 1.26,27) which He had planned before the foundations of the world and the universe. On the matter of sin, we know we sin. Knowing we sin we can use this for the proof. We would not still be sinning if there was an eternity of the past of causes and effects, whether supernaturally or naturally. Yes there is sin that is supernatural separation from God, but without even mentioning God, we know sin exists naturally because you go to jail if you murder someone. Sin is not due to anything other than your choice to sin and be disobedient to the truth. You can say the sin against God by choosing independency from Him is the cause of the sin in the world naturally. Choice is choice, and choice is subject to being made with the ability to have the choice. How God does that you will never know, so no matter how many of these words you try to intruduce, you will never know how God gave you the ability to be a sovereign being to have free-choice. All you can know for certain is that it is ture. I love that. Throwing around these words...thermodynamic, quantum, Brownian and chaotic pertubation, does not address the issue of choice since notice you don't know how to explain choice by those words, but you can say the reason you have choice is because you were made in God's image to have the choice.

old comment by FriendA

@szenah

I can find plenty wrong with it, just like everyone else here. The fact that our arguments fly by you like birds flying over your head shows me that you are absolutely impervious to any argument. Nothing will get through those massive fences you have constructed in your brain to keep contrary beliefs out. Your "perfect proof" has so many holes in it that it's hard to list them all, but anyone trying to point them out may as well talk to a brick wall.

I am sure you can say anything you want and speak as vaguely about it as you like, but that does not address it specifically. Specifically you said you can find fault with the proof, but you don't produce it here. If you had people could quote you and show it, but they don't. You're drawing a blank. The way a conversation works is a person makes a claim, then another responds to it, then the first person responds back. The 4 Step Proof has been given and the reasons have been given, but I don't see you responded to them anywhere here. In short Step 1 says there can not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects because you would still not be sinning considering the exponential progression in our conscience these past 6000 years, it won't take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved. Step 2 says nothing in nature is without a cause because we only have evidence for causes to nature, therefore nature could not have started all by itself. Thus, the only possibility is the uncreated created who is God of the Bible given Christ. Step 3 says don't try to argue against some God for this Proof is about the characteristics and qualities of God of the Bible. And Step 4 says, similar to step 1, that there could not be an eternity of the past of supernatural causes and effects or gods creating gods, because then you would still not be sinning now having had an eternity to be perfected. So you see how you construct a massive wall for yourself by proclamating there is a disproof for the Proof, but you don't post it here, and people can witness that right here right now, that you got nothing. The true brick wall is you showing right here right now, you can't produce anything wrong with the Proof. Therefore, it remains true. Your obstinacy and shuting your mind down, your being coy and couth, only betrays you and since this is the only way you can react belligerently on the way to hell, it gives more power to the Proof for God. Praise the Lord!

old comment by FriendA

@JaredM

Am I the only one who noticed that every time someone makes a criticism of Troy, his only response is "Nuh-uh! You are! You're going to hell for disagreeing with me!" Real mature, Troy. Is this your idea of "Christian Love"?

I give the reason, so my response is "Nuh-uh". Hence the reasons given for the 4 Step Proof. This is very comforting to people to know that you can't find a fault with the Proof of God which helps increase faith. You are not vaguely going to hell for vaguely disagreeing with me. You are going to hell because you call Jesus a liar, and Jesus did say if you are not for Him, you are agains Him. That's what He said, He never sinned, He said He is God, His first coming was predicted and He predicted He is the one that is predicted. He said He would die for atonement and He did, then He was resurrected. All this was multiply attested by many people of the same faith of the Proof for God. Jesus spoke on hell more than anyone else, so is it Christian love to tell you that you are going to hell for calling Jesus a liar? Of course. The Gospel of salvation is salvation from not having to go to hell. Is it love to call Jesus a liar? Is it truth to see you still can't find anything wrong with the Proof and yet still reject God? What else can hold you now but hell. Hell is for you, that is what you want, so just be honest with yourself about it, that you are a bad man who belongs in hell. Criminals commit a crime and accept the fact when they are caught they deserve to be in jail, why not you? Are you too proud like Satan?

old comment by FriendA

@JaredM

Am I the only one who noticed that every time someone makes a criticism of Troy, his only response is "Nuh-uh! You are! You're going to hell for disagreeing with me!" Real mature, Troy. Is this your idea of "Christian Love"?

I give the reason, so my response is not "Nuh-uh", so why bear false witness? Hence the reasons given for the 4 Step Proof. But isn't that your response to the Proof "Nuh-uh" since you can't find anything wrong with it but still are against God. This is very comforting to people to know that you can't find a fault with the Proof of God which helps increase faith. You are not vaguely going to hell for vaguely disagreeing with me. You are going to hell because you call Jesus a liar, and Jesus did say if you are not for Him, you are against Him. He backs Himself up in everything He does. This is grace. He said it and walked the walk and talked the talk, He never sinned, He said He is God, His first coming was predicted and He predicted He is the one that is predicted. He said He would die for atonement and He did, then He was resurrected. He predicted that too. All this was multiply attested by many people of the same faith of the Proof for God. They saw Him resurrected bodily. They are not liars, so why do you call them all liars? Don't you feel ugly when you do that? Jesus spoke on hell more than anyone else, so is it Christian love to tell you that you are going to hell for calling Jesus a liar? Of course. The Gospel of salvation is salvation from not having to go to hell. Is it love to call Jesus a liar? Is it truth to see you still can't find anything wrong with the Proof and yet still reject God? What else can hold you now but hell. Hell is for you, that is what you want, so just be honest with yourself about it, that you are a bad man who belongs in hell. Criminals commit a crime and accept the fact when they are caught they deserve to be in jail, why not you? Are you too proud like Satan? How mature is that?

old comment by Irratio

@A friend:
"God does not consider me a sinner." Meditate on these words a little. While the Bible states he has given his word to humanity, I don't think he'd agree with you knowing his mind. Judgement is his, not yours. As for the proof: Your premise is flawed. There is no reason for an evolution to perfection in any moral sense. Also, as has been mentioned, the belief in an existance of a cause for everything is discredited by the claim of the existance of an omnipotent being. In addition, you use a specific definition of god, and you fall into a typical fallacy. I've forgotten the name, but roughly, it goes this way: God is perfect. Existance is a quality of perfection. Therefore, he exists. The problem with this argument is that it implies that God exists, in the first place - we are attributing something to him, and not to the concept of god. The proof is definitely not flawless. Irratio.

old comment by A Friend

@ghost

David.B's proof beats the perfect proof
there! I said it. So it must be so. You haven't proved David.B's proof wrong. Therefore his proof is the 100% perfect proof that you are a moron.

The difference between you and reason is that reason is not just saying it is so, but proving it. Hence the 4 Step Proof gives the reason. Since you just mindlessly repeat yourself and do not respond to what I said specifically at all, shows you have shut your mind down and merely self-declare what you spout which you admit, but you are not the center of the universe to be able to do that as would be the case for God who being uncreated can never be wrong. It's up to David B. to respond to how I showed his points were wrong, so as it stands he is wrong. This is how conversations work.

old comment by A Friend

@Irratio

@A friend: "God does not consider me a sinner." Meditate on these words a little. While the Bible states he has given his word to humanity, I don't think he'd agree with you knowing his mind. Judgement is his, not yours.

God gives His mind to believers by the Holy Spirit indwelling our spirits. You don't have His mind given to you to receive revelation because your spirit is dead to God and you are hostile to His Son. God does not consider any Christian a sinner. Though we still have the sin nature, what is meant by this is that because we have been bought by the precious blood, God has forgiven us for all our sins so it is as though we are without sin and can approach Him by His good graces. 1 Cor. 2 says, “The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one” (v.15). You are arguing against some god, but not God of the Bible, for God says the Christian judges all things. Hence Step 3 says don't argue against some god, for the Proof is about God of the Bible who says Himself we have His mind, “For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ” (v.16). “But we . . .” indicates that the “we” is different from those soulical people. “We” includes all the saved believers, many of whom perhaps continue to be fleshly. “But we have the mind of Christ.” We who have been regenerated, whether babes or grownups, possess the mind of Christ and discern His thoughts. Because we have a resurrected intuition we are able to know and have known already what Christ has prepared for us in the future (v.9). The soulical do not know, but we, the regenerate, do know. The difference is in having or not having the spirit.

As for the proof: Your premise is flawed. There is no reason for an evolution to perfection in any moral sense.

Your premise is false, the Proof has no premise. If there was a premise you could show it. The Proof does not talk about evolution for the proof, nor does it need evolution to be in the Proof for God. Evolution is just a physical process, the "dust" (Gen. 2.7) which covers all periods of dust before and after the first single celled organism. It can't explain what came before, so of course any Proof of God can not rely on the limited view of evolution, but needs a more encompassing Proof. Step 1 remains true, there has been an exponential progression in our conscience these past 6000 years to know it won't take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved. This being the case it would not take an eternity to unfold, so you know there has not been an eternity of the past of causes and effects. Therefore, you know the uncreated and uncaused creator is the only ultimate cause.

Also, as has been mentioned, the belief in an existance of a cause for everything is discredited by the claim of the existance of an omnipotent being.

It's not the case at all as has been said many times which you overlook. Since there has to be a cause of everything in the natural universe you admit requires a cause, that means it can't cause itself. It had to have a cause outside of it which then the only possibility is it is uncaused. Nature proves God. If God were caused then you still have the same problem violating Step 3 because then you would be arguing against some god, but not God of the Bible, and there can not be supernatural causes and effects in the past for eternity because you would still not be sinning, given the exponential progression in our conscience which is clearly observable and without premise, because it is observable.

In addition, you use a specific definition of god, and you fall into a typical fallacy. I've forgotten the name, but roughly, it goes this way: God is perfect. Existance is a quality of perfection. Therefore, he exists.

The proof is about God, not some god. There is nothing in the Proof that says existence is the quality of perfection. You exist and you are not perfect, for you still sin. God is not perfect because He exists but because He is uncreated since nothing in nature happens all by itself and you would not still be sinning now if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects. So you suffer a fallacy by mistaken assumptions in your misreading or bearing false witness of the Proof. How can you even begin to disprove something if you misread it? That would be irrational.

The problem with this argument is that it implies that God exists, in the first place - we are attributing something to him, and not to the concept of god. The proof is definitely not flawless. Irratio.

Nowhere in the 4 Step Proof does it say God existed first. Naturally you render a false conclusion if you misread the Proof. Not only that, but you are referencing you said a god, not specifically God of the Bible's qualities to disprove. Again that is misrepresenting. If you want to disprove God is uncreated then try to do so, but don't try to do it by saying He is already assumed first, for He is not. The Proof leads us to the concludion that the uncreated is God of the Bible considering Christ. How silly it would be to prove something already assumed. How silly. The point of a proof it reveals something by its proof. The 4 Step Proof for God remains perfectly flawless, because nothing you said would suggest otherwise as the reasons are given for your errors. Nor have thousands before you been able to challenge it. We must conclude then you remains mindless because you want to go to hell. That is the logical conclusion.

old comment by Anonymous

@A Friend

But because it is wrong as was shown why, its circularity is wrong.

Except you failed to show it is wrong. You said it is wrong because it is circular, although you admit that circular does not equal wrong. Hence you are merely saying it is wrong but are unable to prove it.

You are talking about two different beings. You mentioned God then you mentioned a god. God would mean uncreated and god would a created being. So you are trying to disprove a created being you call god, but Step 3 of the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible says don't try to disprove a god, for the proof is about God of the Bible. You're going off topic which is disingenuous.

I have proved there is no such thing as the supernatural, therefore your 'God of the Bible' can't be supernatural. Unless your 'God of the Bible' is subject to natural physical laws, he doesn't exist as demonstrated by my proof.

Your next mistake as was said before which you overlooked and failed to respond to and causing me to repeat here now again is your false statement, "science has only ever found natural causes." Be careful here because the scientific method itself can't prove itself. Nobody has ever been able to do that.

Science has only ever found natural causes for anything. As I have proved that there are no supernatural causes, I have also proved the scientific method. This demonstrates how correct my perfect proof is.

Science has shown that the only possibility is there is a supernatural cause since nothing in nature happens all by itself. Scientifically we know this, so scientifically there is no other possibly we know of than the uncreated created. Just like Spock said on Star Trek, when all known possibilities are impossible we must conclude the seemingly impossible is the only possibility. I love that!

Science has shown that only natural causes exist. Only you claim science shows supernatural causes to exist because you have to assume supernatural causes exist in order to prove them. Provide one peer reviewed scientific paper that documents a supernatural cause for something or stop lying. Mr. Spock is a fictional character. You are now having to resort to make-believe to make your points which demonstrates more clearly than ever that you are wrong.

Your third mistake was to blindly state, "Without god only natural causes can exist." Why can't some god cause the natural causes you don't say? You make no case either way. Now we know God of the Bible created since only the Uncreated is the ultimate cause.

The God of the Bible is a supernatural cause - also I note you have disingenuously referred to 'some god', not the God of the Bible - but there are no supernatural causes, as I have proved, so therefore the God of the Bible does not exist and cannot have caused the universe.

Since we know all natural effects are caused by a natural cause then the ultimate cause can not be another natural cause because that natural cause would have itself been caused by another natural cause so on and so forth, and we know that is not possible. We know that there can not be an eternity of the past of causes and effects because you would have had an eternity of the past to be perfected without sin, yet you still sin. This is substantiated by the fact these past 6000 year there has been an exponential progression in our conscience so it won't take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved. (Step 1 of the 4 Step Proof of God of the Bible).

There are only natural causes as demonstrated by my proof. Any 'sin' is the result of a natural process, evidently one that does not decrease over time, hence no finite or infinite amount of time will result in the eradication of sin.

I just showed you what is wrong with your your claim and I already said this before, which shows you are in shutting-your-mind-down mode as usual because you did not respond to what I showed, but just repeated yourself like a mindless robot.

You've merely repeated the mistake of introducing a supernatural cause that has been proven not to exist and asserted that by pretending it does you have proved it does.

Clearly in good conscience the $10,000 U.S. should not be disbursed if a promise has been given to give it out if the Proof for God has been disproven and it has not been disproven. That's why it has not been given out yet. Makes sense.

And the fact that neither ThinkAndReason nor James Randi have given you a $1M demonstrates that you have not proved the existence of God. Makes sense.

I just showed you your attempt at a proof failed you. Now it is incumbent upon you to respond to that evidence I gave you instead of mindlessly repeating yourself. If you can't find anything to respond with then realize God fully proved Himself and if you refuse Him, you will go to hell. Seems reasonable.

Hell is a supernatural realm populated by supernatural tormentors. I have proved the supernatural does not exist, hence Hell does not exist, hence I will not be going there. Seems reasonable. As you can neither produce anything supernatural, nor provide a paper where science has proven anything supernatural, your attempts to introduce the supernatural are just make-believe.

Throwing around these words...thermodynamic, quantum, Brownian and chaotic pertubation, does not address the issue of choice since notice you don't know how to explain choice by those words, but you can say the reason you have choice is because you were made in God's image to have the choice.

Actually they have a direct bearing on both consciousness and free will (along with strange-loops, Bell's theorem and possibly quantum gravity). You cannot explain free will so you make up a supernatural being called the God of the Bible to give it to you. You then cannot explain the God of the Bible so you use free-will to 'prove' that he must exist. (Personally, I favour Causal Dynamic Triangulation over M-Theory as the best approach to unifying QM and Relativity. No particular reason, except maybe a fondness for Toblerones).

old comment by A Friend

@the noname poster of post #214185

Except you failed to show it is wrong. You said it is wrong because it is circular, although you admit that circular does not equal wrong. Hence you are merely saying it is wrong but are unable to prove it.

I gave the reason it is wrong and that it is also wrong in its circularity. Why not respond to the reason I gave? Go to my response since you are well able enough to know that I mentioned your circularity is wrong, why not read the rest?

I have proved there is no such thing as the supernatural, therefore your 'God of the Bible' can't be supernatural. Unless your 'God of the Bible' is subject to natural physical laws, he doesn't exist as demonstrated by my proof.

Just saying it does not make the case. Since nothing in nature happens all by itself, it can't cause itself. Therefore this proves the uncreated created. Since you can't find anything wrong with this fact, it stands. Just because God is not subject to natural laws by being able to apply His supernatural laws does not mean He would not exist. Since you show nothing wrong with this, then it stands.

Science has only ever found natural causes for anything. As I have proved that there are no supernatural causes, I have also proved the scientific method. This demonstrates how correct my perfect proof is.

Science shows a supernatural cause because since it can't find anything in nature that happens all by itself and it shows an exponential progression in conscience that it won't take forever to reach sinless in the saved. Since you still sin, therefore the uncreated supernatural caused. Since you can't recount anything of your points to suggest otherwise, then the Proof stands. I just disproved your assumption nature only found natural causes.

Science has shown that only natural causes exist. Only you claim science shows supernatural causes to exist because you have to assume supernatural causes exist in order to prove them. Provide one peer reviewed scientific paper that documents a supernatural cause for something or stop lying. Mr. Spock is a fictional character. You are now having to resort to make-believe to make your points which demonstrates more clearly than ever that you are wrong.

I just proved in this post why natural causes do not require only natural causes, so you would be wrong. Notice no assumption supernatural cause exists, but that it is shown since nature can't cause itself and you would still not be sinning by now. Whether one can find a paper somewhere out there saying just what I said, I don't know. It is enough though to know God's simple proof of Himself that nobody has ever found nature to have caused itself otherwise you would still not be sinning now considering the exponential progression in our conscience does not take forever. Wheny you shut your mind down this fact, you are lying to yourself. The Bible is a wonderful peer reviewed scientific study that recounts this proof. Just because Spock is a fictional character does not change the truth of the statement he made. The logic remains: if all possibilities are impossible, then what you had deemed impossible must be true. Why do despise logic?

The God of the Bible is a supernatural cause - also I note you have disingenuously referred to 'some god', not the God of the Bible - but there are no supernatural causes, as I have proved, so therefore the God of the Bible does not exist and cannot have caused the universe.

I have not referre to some god, but you have; I only point out that you demand no possibility of a god on the basis that you assume no natural can be without a nature cause. But you have no basis for this assumption. No gods exist because they are merely idols. Since nothing in nature can happen all by itself the uncreated must be the cause. Since you still sin and you would not be if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, then you know it must be created by the uncreated God of the Bible. Just saying there are only natural causes does not make it so. Since you can't respond to this fact of the Proof as, then you do fail.

There are only natural causes as demonstrated by my proof. Any 'sin' is the result of a natural process, evidently one that does not decrease over time, hence no finite or infinite amount of time will result in the eradication of sin.

Since nobody has ever seen this proof of yours it must not be a proof at all. Since the murder rate per capita has decreased over time, we know your statement is false saying it does not decrease over time. Sin is a natural process. If you kill someone you are physically sent to jail for your sin. It's wrong. Since the progession of this has decreased exponentially on a per capita basis, we know that it won't take much longer to reach sinless in the saved, and there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effects sine you did not need that much time. So at some point God created.

You've merely repeated the mistake of introducing a supernatural cause that has been proven not to exist and used it asserted that by pretending it does you have proved it does.

I am glad that your assumptions are not reality. I am satisfied enough to know that nothing in nature happens all by itself to show that the uncreated must have created then, and that there is an exponential progession in conscience so it would not take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved. So there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effects. Since you find no fault with this, it stands.

And the fact that neither ThinkAndReason nor James Randi have not given you a $1M demonstrates that you have not prooved the existence of God. Makes sense.

Disbursing money should not be the reason something is true or not. How strange a theory is that? The reason it is not been disproven is because nobody can find anything in nature that is without a cause and nobody can deny the exponential progression in conscience. The reason then they don't pay out is because they can't disprove the 4 Step Proof for God. The reason the $10,000 is not given for disproving the Proof is because it has not been disproven.

Hell is a supernatural realm populated by supernatural tormentors. I have proved the supernatural does not exist, hence Hell does not exist, hence I will not be going there. Seems reasonable. As you can neither produce anything supernatural, nor provide a paper where science has proven anything supernatural. Your attempts to introduce the supernatural are just make-believe.

Since you did not prove the supernatural does not exist, then the Proof stands. I wouldn't describe hell as supernatural tormentors but an eternal separation from God since that is what is needed since you are unsaved and call Jesus a liar without just cause. Seems fair. Since you could not disprove the Proof for the supernatural, then it stands. Whether a paper is provided makes no difference since you can't find anything in nature that happens all by itself and refute the exponential progression in conscience. So you are in make believe as a means to be a bad person, refuse salvation and go to hell.

Actually they have a direct bearing on both consciousness and free will (along with strange-loops, Bell's theorem and possibly of quantum gravity). You cannot explain free will so you make up a supernatural being called the God of the Bible to give it to you. You then use free-will to 'prove' that there must be a God of the Bible.

There is nothing in these things you cite specifically to help make your case, so it stands however God employs free will in us it is due to Him creating us in His image. The reason we know God of the Bible gave us free will was because we know He is uncreated. We know He is uncreated because of the Proof. And we know we have free-will because right this moment you can choose to do one of two things: shut your mind down to the proof again or accept it. Since you can't find anything wrong with it, it stands. The 4 Step Proof doesn't get into free-will to prove God, so you are mistaken about that. It does however explain that you do have a free-choice to receive God's forgiveness. Amen. Once God is proven, we see some of the things He does such as give us a free-will. Free-will flows from God. Amen.

old comment by A Friend

@His Noodly Apostle

(takes Troy's proof, scratches out "God" and writes in "Flying Spaghetti Monster" in crayon) So, Mr. Brooks, when are you converting to Pastafarianism?

I thought spaghetti came from other natural products? So your god is created. Isn't flying a natural function, so it didn't happen all itself? Why do you worship that which is caused? Do you have any evidence for these monsters or is it just your imagination? So you worship a thing that can eat, fly and scares you? Compare that to God of the Bible. God is loving, merciful and full of grace. God does not need to fly for He can do better than that. He was resurrected and raised up. And you can't eat God, for He is invisible; nor does God need to eat a created thing like spaghetti, lol. When Jesus was in creation, if He was like your god, you would be teaching cannibalism. Crazy stuff! So in every way God of the Bible trumps your god. You lose.

old comment by Brian X

Reiterating what Irratio said: the premise is flawed. There is no reason to assume perfection can ever be achieved even in an infinite time continuum (which very few people will argue anymore anyway -- the Steady State theory is dead as a doornail).
The "perfect proof" is nothing more than an overly elaborate way of restating the first cause argument anyway, which, in light of what is known about vacuum physics, is contingent on defining what the handiwork of a creator deity is supposed to look like; otherwise you can't tell the difference between God-created and non-created. And my original objection to point #3 still stands -- if you disprove the general case of an intelligent creator, you have certainly disproved the existence of YHWH. And even if you do have a creator, omnipotence and omniscience seem to be mathematically impossible -- omnipotence is bounded by the laws of math and logic (and very likely physics as well, though when dealing with the supernatural that's irrelevant), while omniscience requires a single entity of a level of complexity several orders of magnitude larger than the universe itself, on a scale impossible under any known laws of physics. Now most people will consider this, if not exactly a knockdown proof (it's not), at the very least a long list of objections to the idea of the Biblical/Quranic god that need to be answered. However, I fully expect Troy to handwave everything I've just said and threaten me and everyone else with hellfire rather than make a reasonable response, so I'm just going to leave you all with one point to consider: Can we stop feeding the troll now?

old comment by A Friend

@Brian X

Reiterating what Irratio said: the premise is flawed. There is no reason to assume perfection can ever be achieved even in an infinite time continuum (which very few people will argue anymore anyway -- the Steady State theory is dead as a doornail). The "perfect proof" is nothing more than an overly elaborate way of restating the first cause argument anyway, which, in light of what is known about vacuum physics, is contingent on defining what the handiwork of a creator deity is supposed to look like; otherwise you can't tell the difference between God-created and non-created.

I agree the premise is flawed that existence is perfection, that is why the 4 Step Proof does hold that premise. But we do observe the exponential progession in conscience which proves that God created, since you would not still be sinning by now. Actually nothing ever reaches infinity except the uncreated. Even an exponential progression does not reach infinity because it is still exponentializing. But it is close enough that for example, the murder rate per capita will cease to exist. The Proof is not contingent on what a deity should look like since no such assumptions are first made in the Proof. Nothing in any kind of physics has ever shown something happens all by itself. If it had you could it show it now. Step 2 is the first cause principle which holds. Step 1 is the fact that you see the exponential progression of concience, so we should not still be sinning. Both of these are needed because a person could say about Step 2 why can't there be an infinity of the past of causes, which Step 1 erradicates. How do we determine who the non-created is? By examining all known information, and by comparison Jesus wins. He is God who was uncreated and He shows us His nature.

And my original objection to point #3 still stands -- if you disprove the general case of an intelligent creator, you have certainly disproved the existence of YHWH. And even if you do have a creator, omnipotence and omniscience seem to be mathematically impossible -- omnipotence is bounded by the laws of math and logic (and very likely physics as well, though when dealing with the supernatural that's irrelevant), while omniscience requires a single entity of a level of complexity several orders of magnitude larger than the universe itself, on a scale impossible under any known laws of physics.

Step 3 I think you are still misreading, because it is not saying if you have disproved God, but any argument you do put forth present it against God of the Bible for that is what the Proof is about. If there is omnipotence, then the laws of math and logic and everything else is bound by the ominipotent one, not the other way around? These things would not have caused that which is omnipotent. Even though God is far more complicated than any area of study like physics, it doesn't mean physics can't prove God. Physically we still sin and according to the law of cause and effect seeing effects in physics they always require causes; but since nature does not cause itself then the uncreated caused.

Now most people will consider this, if not exactly a knockdown proof (it's not), at the very least a long list of objections to the idea of the Biblical/Quranic god that need to be answered. However, I fully expect Troy to handwave everything I've just said and threaten me and everyone else with hellfire rather than make a reasonable response, so I'm just going to leave you all with one point to consider: Can we stop feeding the troll now?

Don't you know that you are the troll? You are trying to lure with false statements, this is the nature of a troll. We know the god of the Koran is not God of the Bible, for God of the Bible says Jesus is God and died on the cross, but the Koran says He is not God and did not die on the cross. Whoever God is, He would not contradict Himself. Looks like I disappointed you since I didn't do any handwaving, nor have I ever, but I have told you the truth and gave you the substantial reason. Where did I threaten you? When I have I ever? Why be a false accuser then? The fact that you continue to call Jesus a liar when He said He is God, is the reason why you are not forgiven by God and why you are a bad person going to hell. To threaten you is if to be able to inflict upon you something, but I can't do that. God will do it. He will keep you eternally separated form Him because you don't want His forgiveness. How truly sad. Please stop trolling now.

old comment by Friend

old comment by A Friend

@Brian X

"Hey, who's crazy CAPSLOCK guy in there, and what the hell is he talking about with that 'no one can find fault with my proof' gibberish?" "Eh, just another narcissistic creationist like that Ted Holden dude who used to post on Talk.origins. He's kinda loud and stupid, so everyone got bored and walked out and let him stay there." "Yeah, but why does he keep scribbling 'four point perfect proof' all over the walls?" "I dunno, OCD maybe?"

Lots of talk, but what does the evidence say? The evidence says nothing in nature happens all by itself since scientist can not verify such an idea and all known evidence points to the contrary in trillions of examples (Step 1), so all things in nature have a cause. Therefore, there is only two possibilities. Either there is an eternity of the past of cause and effects, or the uncreated created. Can an eternity of the past of cause and effects being disproven? I think so. That is what Step 1 does. Lets again go to the evidence. The evidence says there is an exponential progression in our conscience, e.g. murder rate per capita keeps going down each century. Therefore it would not take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved, and that would mean we would not have needed an eternity of the past to reach sinlessness in the saved, considering we still sin. The reason why the proof is ordered Step 1 through 4 is because in my experience lots of skeptics contend by saying there is an eternity of the past of cause and effects, which step 1 immediately destroys, so then they go to the old it happened by itself theory, which is disproven as was said. Step 3 then takes care of their next approach to find some flaw in some god's character, but this is not the character or quality of God, so Step 3 says, stay on topic. And then with Step 4 it is their last stand at the OK Corral by trying to bring up the supernatural cause and effects or gods creating gods for an eternity of the past, but for the same reason as step 1 this is not possible because then you would have an eternity to be perfected without sin, yet you still sin. So you see this is a perfect proof, nobody can find fault with it, nor do many even try because they know full well they can't. Praise the Lord! A narcissist is someone who is fascinated with himself, but this is not Christians because Christians point to Christ, not themselves. A narcissist is someone like David X who keeps sputing there is something wrong with the proof, but never says what it is. That is pointing to oneself as the center on a pedestal that he is too selfish to need to have to provide evidence for his claim. Wow! How do you get a narcisssist to see the truth? Keep posting caps locks to help keep at the forefront what he is avoiding in his narcissism.

old comment by A Friend

COMMUNION
We Communicate with the material world through the body. We communicate with the spiritual world through the spirit. This communication with the spiritual is not carried on by means of the mind or emotion but through the spirit or its intuitive faculty. It is easy for us to understand the nature of the communion between God and man if we have seen the operation of our intuition. In order to worship and fellowship with God man must possess a nature similar to His. “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4.24). There can be no communication between different natures; hence both the unregenerate whose spirit obviously has not been quickened and the regenerate who does not use his spirit to worship are equally unqualified to have genuine fellowship with God. Lofty sentiments and noble feelings do not bring people into spiritual reality nor do they forge personal communion with God. Our fellowship with Him is experienced in the deepest place of our entire being, deeper than our thought, feeling and will, even in the intuition of our spirit. A close scrutiny of 1 Corinthians 2.9-3.2 can provide a very clear view of how man communes with God and how man knows the realities of God through the spirit’s intuition. THE HEART OF MAN “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him” (v.9). The larger context of this one verse speaks of God and the things of God. What He has prepared can neither be seen or heard by man’s outward body nor conceived by his inward heart. The “heart of man” includes among other facets man’s understanding, mind and intellect. Man’s thought cannot envisage God’s work, for the latter transcends the former. It is therefore evident that he who desires to know and commune with God cannot depend solely upon his thought. THE HOLY SPIRIT “God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything; even the depths of God” (v.10). This verse sets forth the fact that the Holy Spirit searches everything and not that our mind conceives all. Only the Holy Spirit knows the depths of God. He knows what man does not know. By His intuition the Spirit searches everything. God is thus able to reveal through Him what our heart has never conceived. This “revealing” is not acquired after much thinking, for our heart cannot even conceive it. It is a revelation; it does not require the help of our thought. The next two verses tell us how God reveals Himself. THE SPIRIT OF MAN “For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God” (vv.11 and 12). No one knows man’s thoughts except the spirit of man; likewise, no one knows the things of God but the Holy Spirit. Man’s spirit as well as God’s Spirit apprehend things directly, not by deducing or searching. They perceive through the faculty of intuition. Since the Holy Spirit alone knows the things of God, we must receive the Holy Spirit if we also would know those things. The spirit of the world is cut off from communication with God. It is a dead spirit: it cannot effect communion with Him. The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, comprehends the things of God; therefore, by receiving in our intuition what the Holy Spirit knows, we too shall understand the realities of God. “We have received . . . the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God.” How then do we know? Verse 11 tells us man knows by his spirit. The Holy Spirit unfolds to our spirit what He knows intuitively so that we too may know intuitively. When the Holy Spirit discloses the matters pertaining to God He does so not to our mind nor to any other organ but to our spirit. God knows this is the sole place in man which can apprehend man’s things as well as His things. The mind is not the place for knowing these things. While it is true that the mind can think and conceive many matters, it nonetheless cannot know them. From this we can appreciate how highly God esteems the regenerated spirit of man. Before new birth man’s spirit was dead. God had no way of unfolding His mind to such a man. The cleverest brain fails to know the mind of God. Both God’s fellowship with man and man’s worship of God are contingent upon the regenerated spirit of man. Without this revitalized component God and man are hopelessly separatedneither can come or go to the other. The first step towards communion between God and man must be this quickening of man’s spirit. Because man enjoys a free will he has authority to decide his own matters. That explains why he continues to encounter many temptations following new birth. Due to his foolishness or perhaps his prejudice he may not yield the rightful position to his spirit and its intuition. God accepts this spirit as the one place where He will commune with man and man with Him. But the believer still walks by his mind or emotion. How many times he completely ignores the voice of intuition. His principle of living is to adhere to what he himself considers reasonable, beautiful, delightful, or interesting. Even should he have a heart to do God’s will, he usually will take either his impulsive idea or his more logical thought as the mind of God, not realizing that what he ought to follow is the thought expressed by the Holy Spirit in his intuition. He sometimes may be willing to hear the voice of intuition, but failing to keep his feelings quiet he finds that voice blurred and confused. Walking after the spirit consequently becomes an occasional affair instead of forming a daily continuous experience in the Christian’s life. If the initial knowing of God’s will is so difficult, who can wonder at the lack of further and more profound revelation? How then can we ever truly know in our spirit God’s plan for the end of this age, the reality of spiritual warfare, and the deeper truths of the Bible? For our worship merely corresponds to what we think is best or what we feel on the spur of the moment. And to commune with the Lord in our intuition naturally becomes an unheard of phenomenon. A believer must recognize that the Holy Spirit alone comprehends the things of Godand that intuitively. He is the one Person Who can convey this knowledge to man. But for anyone to obtain such knowledge he must appropriate it through the proper means; namely, he must receive with his intuition what the Holy Spirit intuitively knows. The conjunction of these two intuitions enables man to apprehend the mind of God. “And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit” (v.13). How are we going to impart to others the things of God which we have discerned in our spirit’s intuition? Having come to know the realities of God, our responsibility now is to proclaim them. The Apostle Paul declares he does not transmit them in terms taught by human wisdom. That wisdom belongs to a man’s mind and is the product of man’s brain. Paul categorically asserts that he does not employ the words which come from the mind to communicate what his spirit knows concerning the things of God. Paul in himself possesses great wisdom. He is perfectly able to formulate many new and wonderful phrases and to deliver his message eloquently with good organization and illustrative parables. He knows how to make his audience understand what he means to say. He nevertheless refuses to use the terminology taught by human wisdom. This declaration and attitude of the Apostle Paul indicate that man’s mind is not only useless in knowing the things of God but is also secondary in imparting spiritual knowledge. The Apostle articulates God’s realities in phraseology taught by the Spirit. In his intuition he receives His instruction. Nothing in the life of a Christian is of any value save that which is in his spirit. Even in relating spiritual knowledge he needs to employ spiritual words. Intuition appropriates not only the thing which the Holy Spirit unfolds but also the words taught by the same Spirit, in order to explain to others what has been revealed. How often a believer tries to impart to others what has been revealed so clearly to him by God; yet try as he may, he finds no words to convey the fundamental meaning of what has been disclosed. Why? Because he has not received words in his spirit. At other times, as he waits before the Lord, the believer senses something rising in the center of his beingperhaps but a few words. With those few words, however, he is able to communicate adequately at a meeting what has been revealed to him. He comes to realize how God actually uses him to testify for the Lord. Such experiences attest the importance of the “utterance” given by the Holy Spirit. There are two kinds of utterance, the natural and the Spirit-given. The type of utterance recorded in Acts 2.4 is indispensable in spiritual service. However eloquent our natural utterance, it remains powerless to truly communicate the things of God. We may view ourselves as having spoken quite well; yet we have not succeeded in expressing the thought of the Spirit. Spiritual words, that is, terminology received in the spirit, can alone articulate spiritual knowledge. If we are burdened with the message of the Lord in our spirit, as though a fire were burning within, and yet have not the means to discharge that burden, we should wait for the “utterance” to be given by the Spirit so that we may proclaim the message of our spirit and discharge that burden. Should we inadvertently employ language taught by human wisdom instead of waiting for the words bestowed intuitively by the Holy Spirit, we shall find our spiritual effectiveness comes to nought. Speech merely grounded in earthly wisdom can only move people to say that the theory advanced is indeed good. Sometimes we enjoy many spiritual experiences, but we are at a loss how to articulate them until other believers unlock them with a word. This is because until the moment we heard others uttering our experience in simple terms, we still had not received in our spirit explicit words from the Lord. Spiritual truths must be explained with spiritual phrases. We must employ spiritual means to reach spiritual ends. This is what the Lord especially wishes to teach us today. Spiritual goals need to be perfected through corresponding spiritual processes. The fleshly as fleshly will never become spiritual. If we hope to arrive at our spiritual objectives with our minds and emotions, we as it were are expecting sweet water to pour forth from fountains of bitter water. All matters pertaining to Godsuch as seeking His will, obeying His commandments, proclaiming His messageare effective only if they arise out of fellowship with God in the spirit. Whatever is performed through our thoughts, talents or methods is accounted by God as dead. THE SOULICAL AND THE SPIRITUAL The unspiritual (original, soulical) man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (v.14). The soulical are those who have not yet been born anew and who hence do not possess a new spirit. Since their intuitive faculty is dead to God, all which they have are the faculties of the soul. They are well able to decide what they like through reason and affection but, not having a regenerated spirit, they are powerless to receive the things of the Spirit of God. Although these individuals can think and observe, they still lack basic intuitive power; they cannot take in what God reveals exclusively to man’s spirit. How utterly inadequate are the natural endowments of man. He truly has much, but nothing can substitute for the operation of intuition. Because man is dead to God, no organ exists in him by which he can take in the things of God. Nothing in a soulical man is capable of communing with Him. Man’s most respectable mind, intellect and reasoning are as corrupt as his lusts and passions; both equally are incompetent to apprehend God. Even a regenerated man, if he attempts to communicate with God by using his mind and observation (just as the unregenerate does) instead of exercising his renewed spirit, is absolutely impotent to perceive the realities of God. Those elements which belong to us naturally do not change their operations following regeneration. A mind is still a mind and a will, a will: these can never be turned into organs capable of communion with God. Not only can the soulical person not receive the things of God, he even regards them as folly. According to the valuation of his mind, matters known by intuition are downright foolishness because they are all unreasonable, against human nature, contrary to worldly wisdom, or in conflict with common sense. The mind delights in whatever is logical, open to analysis, and psychologically appealing. God, however, is not governed by man’s law and hence His actions are folly to the soulical. The folly mentioned in this particular chapter unquestionably refers to the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus. The word of the cross speaks not only of the Savior Who died in our stead but also of the believers who have died with the Savior. Everything naturally belonging to believers must go through the death of the cross. The mind may accept this as a theory, but it surely will oppose it as a practice. Since the soulical person does not welcome this word of the cross, he obviously cannot comprehend what it is all about. Reception precedes knowledge. The ability or inability to receive tests the presence or absence of a quickened spirit. The capacity or incapacity to know manifests the vital or the moribund character of the intuitive faculty. The spirit first must be quickened before one is able to take in the things of God. With an enlivened spirit one is also given the intuitive ability to appropriate the things of God. Who knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man? A soulical person cannot discern God’s realities because he does not enjoy that new spirit which carries within it the intuitive power of discernment. The Apostle Paul proceeds to explain why the soulical man is incompetent to receive and to know matters pertaining to God: “Because they are spiritually discerned.” Do we not notice how the Holy Spirit repeatedly stresses the fact that man’s spirit is the place of communion with God? The focal point of this particular portion of Scripture is to prove and demonstrate that man’s spirit is basic to, and exclusive in, any fellowship with God and the knowledge of divine matters. Each element has its own particular use. The spirit is employed to know the heavenly realities. Now we are not trying to disparage the use of the soul’s faculties. They are useful, but here they must play a secondary role. They should be under control and not be the controller. The mind should submit to the spirit’s rule and should follow what intuition fathoms of the will of God. It ought not conceive its own ideas and then demand that the whole man comply. Emotion too should obey the dictates of the spirit. Its love or hate must follow the affection of the spirit and not its own. The will also should bend to what God has revealed intuitively in the spirit. It must not prefer those choices which are other than the will of God. Were these soulical faculties kept in secondary position the believer would make tremendous strides in his spiritual walk. Unfortunately most Christians give them first place, thus eliminating the spirit’s position. Is it any wonder that they do not live a spiritual life nor are of any spiritual worth? The spirit needs to be restored to its ordained position. A believer must learn to wait in the spirit for the revelation of God. Unless it ascends to its rightful place a man is barred from knowing what the spirit alone can know. That is why verse 13 adds, “interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit,” for only the spiritually sensitive can know things in the spirit. “The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one” (v.15). The spiritual man is one whose spirit dominates and who has a highly sensitive intuition. It is qualified to perform its functions because its quietness is undisturbed by the mind, emotion and will of the soul. Why can the spiritual man judge all matters? Because his intuition leans on the Holy Spirit for its knowledge. Why is he not judged by anyone? Simply because no one knows how and what the Holy Spirit imparts to his intuition. If a believer’s knowledge depends on his intellect, then besides those who are naturally talented no one can judge in all respects. Learning and worldly education would be indispensable. And such a learned one would also be judged by those who are as wise or even wiser than he, for they certainly could understand the train of his thought. Spiritual knowledge, however, is based on the spirit’s intuition. There is no limit to a Christian’s knowledge if he is spiritual and possesses a sensitive intuition. His mind may be dull but the Holy Spirit is able to lead him into spiritual reality and his spirit is able to enlighten his mind. The way the Spirit reveals Himself does indeed surpass the expectation of man. “For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ” (v.16). Here is posed a problem. No one in the world has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct Him because all men are soulical. The only way to apprehend God is by intuition. How can a person whose spirit is dead ever know the mind of God? This explains why no such persons as this can judge the spiritual man, for none of these have known the mind of the Lord. These are naturally the soulical people. On the other hand, the spiritual ones know the mind of the Lord for they have a responsive intuition. But the soulical cannot know because their intuition is not operative; hence they enjoy no fellowship with God. The meaning here is that the soulical can neither know the mind of the Lord nor that of those spiritual ones who are fully committed to Him. “But we . . .” indicates that the “we” is different from those soulical people. “We” includes all the saved believers, many of whom perhaps continue to be fleshly. “But we have the mind of Christ.” We who have been regenerated, whether babes or grownups, possess the mind of Christ and discern His thoughts. Because we have a resurrected intuition we are able to know and have known already what Christ has prepared for us in the future (v.9). The soulical do not know, but we, the regenerate, do know. The difference is in having or not having the spirit. THE SPIRITUAL AND THE FLESHLY “But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready” (3.1-2). These words are closely related to the preceding verses and their teaching follows the line laid down above which speaks of the spirit of man. Now we all recognize that the dividing of the Scriptures into chapters and verses was contrived for the convenience of the readers and was not something at all revealed by the Holy Spirit. These words of verses 1 and 2 of 1 Corinthians 3 should be read in connection with those of the preceding chapter. How incisive is Paul’s spiritual sense. He is acquainted with all his readers, whether they are spiritual or fleshly, whether wholly controlled by the spirit or frequently governed by the flesh. He does not therefore disregard the condition of his reader’s receptivity and pour out his thoughts at random simply because he is speaking of spiritual affairs. He will only communicate “spiritual things with spiritual” (v.13 RSV marginal). Paul’s communication depends not on how much he knows, but on how much his readers can assimilate. There is no boasting here of his own knowledge. The Apostle has spiritual phraseology as well as spiritual knowledge; he accordingly knows how to deal with believers of all kinds. Not all terms which articulate the deep mystery of God are spiritual terms; only those which are taught in the spirit by the Holy Spirit are. And they are not necessarily profound words: they may in fact be very common and ordinary: yet these words are taught by the Holy Spirit and apprehended in the spirit. When these are uttered they then produce considerable spiritual results. What the Apostle writes in these two verses and in verse 15 of the previous chapter resolves one interesting paradox; namely, if the spirit of man knows the things which belong to man and the spiritual man judges all things, why then are there so many spirit-renewed Christians who nonetheless do not sense that they have a spirit or who are not able to know the deep things of God through their spirit? The answer is: “the spiritual man judges all things” (v.15). Though all Christians possess a regenerated spirit, not all Christians are spiritual. Many are still fleshly. Man’s intuition has in truth been quickened, but man must give intuition its rightful place, providing it opportunity to operate. Or else it will be suppressed, unable to commune with God, or to know what it could know. Spiritual Christians do not walk by their soul life; they have delivered all its faculties to the cross and relegated them to a position of submission so that their intuition can receive God’s revelation freely. Afterwards their mind, emotion and will voluntarily comply with this revelation. Such is not the case with fleshly Christians. Regenerated and alive to God intuitively, they have every opportunity to be spiritual; but they remain bound to the flesh instead. The lusts of the flesh remain so exceedingly powerful as to drive these Christians to sin. Their carnal mind is still full of wandering thoughts, reasons and plans; their emotion runs wild with many carnal interests, desires and tendencies; and their will formulates many worldly judgments, arguments and opinions. They are so occupied in following the flesh that they have neither time nor inclination to listen to the voice of intuition. Since the voice of the spirit is usually very soft, it cannot be heard unless it is listened to attentively with everything else quieted. How then can it be heard if the various parts of the flesh are inordinately active? When believers are governed by the flesh they become influenced by it to such an extent that their spirit grows dull and they are unable to take solid food. The Bible compares a newly regenerated believer to a baby. The life in his spirit which he newly possesses is as tiny and weak as a baby naturally born. There is nothing wrong with his being a baby as long as he does not remain too great a time in that stage. Every adult must begin as a child. But should he persist as such very long, his spirit never progressing beyond what it was when he was first regenerated some years before, then something is drastically wrong. Man’s spirit can grow; the spirit’s intuition is able to wax stronger. A newly regenerated person is like a new-born baby who has no self-consciousness and whose nerves are wobbly in function. His spirtual life may be compared to a spark of fire. His intuitive power is extremely weak and not effective. But a baby must grow daily. His knowledge must increase continuously through exercise, training, and growth until he has become fully self-conscious and knows how to skillfully exercise all his senses. Even so must a believer. Upon regeneration he needs to gradually exercise his intuition. Each exercise means an increase in experience, knowledge and spiritual stature. Just as a man’s senses are not born with matured awareness, so a believer’s intuition is not born highly sensitive. All this does not signify, however, that the soulish Christians who long remain babes have no outward dealings with their sins, experience no increase in their knowledge of the Bible, exert no effort to serve the Lord, or receive no gift of the Holy Spirit. The saints at Corinth encountered all of these. They “were enriched in (Christ) with all speech and all knowledge ... not lacking in any spiritual gift” (1 Cor. 1.5,7). From the human point of view, are these not signs of growth? We probably would regard the Corinthian believers as most spiritual; yet the Apostle viewed them as babes, as men of the flesh. Why is it that the increase in speech, knowledge and gifts was not considered growth? This uncovers an intensely significant fact, which is, that though the saints at Corinth grew in these outward endowments they failed to grow in their spirit. Their intuition did not wax stronger. Increase in preaching eloquence, Bible knowledge and spiritual gift is not reckoned as increase of spiritual life! If the believer’s spiritthat which is capable of communing with Goddoes not grow stronger and keener, God judges that he has not grown at all! How many of the Lord’s people today are developing in the wrong direction! Many assume that upon being saved they must seek higher Bible knowledge, better utterance in preaching, and more spiritual gifts. They forget it is their spirit that must advance. Speech, knowledge and gift are purely outward matters; by contrast intuition is inward. Quite sad is the sight of that Christian who allows his spirit to persist as a babe, but who concomitantly fills his soul life with speech, knowledge and gift. These articles are valuable, but how can they be compared with the value of the spirit? What God has newly created in us is this spirit (or spiritual life), and what should develop into matured manhood is likewise this spirit. Should we commit the serious mistake of seeking the enrichment of the soul life instead of the increase of this spiritual life with its intuition, we shall have made no progress at all in God’s eye. God considers our spirit all-important; and so He cares for its growth. No matter how much our mind, emotion and will may gain by speech, knowledge and gift, it is all deemed by God as vain if our spirit is not developing. We daily expect to have more power, more knowledge, more gifts, more eloquence; yet the Bible contends that even if we have more of these elements we do not necessarily progress in spiritual life. On the contrary, our spiritual walk may remain the same without advancing a mile. Paul candidly reminds the believers at Corinth: “You were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready.” In what were they unprepared? They were not prepared to serve God with their intuition, to know more of God intuitively, to receive His revelation in their intuition. They were obviously not ready when they first believed in the Lord; but now years later, though enriched in speech, knowledge and gifts, they still were not so. By those two words“even yet”the Apostle signified that though they were replete with outward enrichments their spiritual life had made no progress since they first believed. Real advancement is measured by the growth of the spirit and its intuition; the rest belongs to the flesh. This should be impressed indelibly on our hearts. How sad that believers today seem to achieve progress in almost every sphere except in that of their spirit. After trusting the Lord for many years, they continue to lament; “I do not feel I have a spirit.” The difference between our mind and God’s mind is wide. We, like those at Corinth, try successfully to garner much so-called spiritual knowledge by exercising the intellect of our mind. Unfortunately the increase of our mind does not and cannot substitute the maturing in our intuition. To God we appear unchanged. We must henceforth remember that the increase God pre-eminently desires is not in our outward man but in the inward man and its intuition. He expects the new life which we receive at regeneration to enlarge. And all which belongs to the old creation He expects to be denied. A believer fails to be spiritual because he is influenced too much by the flesh. Only one whose intuition is alive and who enjoys uninterrupted communion with God knows the deep truths of God. If the intuitive power is weak, what else can be absorbed except milk? Milk is pre-digested food. What this denotes is that the soulish believer cannot maintain clear fellowship with God in the spirit’s intuition and hence must depend upon other more advanced Christians for the things of God. Matured Christians fellowship with God in their intuition and then transform what they have been shown into milk for the babes in Christ. The Lord permits such a thing in the life of a beginner, but He takes no pleasure in having His people remain dull and powerless in communing directly with Him. Feeding on milk indicates the person is far less capable of communing with God directly and instead relies on others to transmit God’s message to himself. The matured has his intuition fully exercised to distinguish good from evil. We are of no spiritual utility if we have many ideas but do not possess the ability to commune with God and know His realities with our intuition. The Christians at Corinth ranked high in speech, knowledge, gifts, but how was their spiritual life? Almost totally inactive. The church at Corinth was a carnal church, for all she had she had in the mind. Many of the Lord’s people currently commit the same error as did the saints at Corinth. The words of the Lord are spirit and life, but these people do not accept the words accordingly. They investigate theological problems with a very cold mind and search the hidden meaning of the Bible with the design of presenting the best interpretation. They satisfy their lust for knowledge. They communicate what they have found by writing and preaching. Excellent though their thoughts, arguments and outlines may be, seemingly most spiritual too, God nevertheless looks on these achievements as dead weights because they have not been achieved in the spirit. They have simply passed from one man’s mind to another man’s mind. Some readers or hearers may protest that they are helped, but the question is, what is helped? Beyond assisting the mind to acquire additional ideas, nothing else has happened. Such knowledge adds nothing to spiritual effectiveness. Only what comes from the spirit can enter the spirits of others; that which comes from the mind can only reach the minds of others. Finally, what comes from the Holy Spirit enters our spirit, and whatever the Holy Spirit transmits through our spirit can reach the spirits of others. THE SPIRIT OF WISDOM AND REVELATION In our communion with God the spirit of wisdom and revelation is imperative. “The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him” (Eph. 1.17). When a new spirit is received at regeneration its functions await development, for they presently lie dormant there. The Apostle Paul prayed for the regenerated believers at Ephesus, desiring that they receive the spirit of wisdom and revelation so that they might know God intuitively. Whether this ability is a hidden function of the believer’s spirit which is activated through prayer or whether it is something added by the Holy Spirit to the believer’s spirit as a result of prayer, we do not know. Yet one thing is certain: this spirit of wisdom and revelation is essential to one’s communion with God. We also recognize that it can be obtained through prayer. Although our intuition is capable of communing with God it requires wisdom and revelation. We need it to know what is of God and what is of ourselves. We must have wisdom to discern the enemy’s counterfeit as well as his attack. We also require it to know how to conduct ourselves among men. In a thousand different ways we need God’s wisdom, for we are foolish and prone to make mistakes. How difficult for us to execute God’s will in all matters, but He will grant us the necessary equipment. He does not impart it to our brain; rather, He dispenses the spirit of wisdom to us so that we may have wisdom in our spirit. God gives it to our intuition for He will lead us through intuition into the way of wisdom. While our mind may indeed remain dull, our intuition is full of wisdom. Often when our own wisdom seems to have reached its end, there gradually rises from within us another kind to guide us. Wisdom and revelation are closely linked because all God’s disclosures are those of wisdom. If we live naturally we have no way to figure out God. Nothing but darkness resides in the natural man. God and matters divine stretch far beyond the reaches of our mind. And although our spirit may even be quickened, it still dwells in darkness if there is no unfolding from the Holy Spirit. A quickened spirit only indicates that it is at last capable of receiving God’s revelation. It does not mean that it can now move independently. In our communion with God He frequently gives revelation. We ought to pray for such. The spirit of revelation implies that God reveals in the spirit. The spirit of wisdom and revelation signifies where God reveals Himself and how He imparts to us His wisdom. An impulsive thought is not to be interpreted as belonging to the spirit of revelation. Only what we intuitively know of the mind of God through the operation of the Holy Spirit in our spirit ever constitutes the spirit of revelation. God communes with us there and nowhere else. The spirit of wisdom and revelation affords us true knowledge of God; all else is skin deep, imaginary, superficial, and therefore false. We frequently speak of God’s holiness, righteousness, mercy, love, and other virtues. Man’s mind is capable of conceiving these attributes of God, yet such mental knowledge is like looking through a stone wall. When however a believer has received revelation from God concerning His holiness, he sees himself corrupted to the core and void of any cleanliness before the light of God’s dwelling in unapproachable light where no sinful, natural man can draw nigh. Oh, that many among us might be given such an experience as that. And thereafter let us compare the one who has received such a disclosure of God’s holiness with the other who has no such experience yet easily speaks of His holiness. They may perhaps employ the same terminology, but the word articulated by the first seems to be many times weightier than that of the second person. The first one appears to speak with his whole being and not just with his lips. The spirit of revelation alone explains it. And this applies equally to all other truths in the Bible. Sometimes we understand a certain truth and recognize its importance, but only after that particular truth is gradually unfolded by God to our spirit are we able to speak with a special emphasis. Whatever we gather outwardly which is not inwardly disclosed can neither move ourselves nor others. Revelation in the spirit alone contains spiritual potency. To commune with God is to receive His revelation in the spirit. Rare are God’s disclosures for many of us because rarely do we wait on Him for them. How can we compare a preoccupied natural life with a life walked according to revelation? But if we are willing to provide God the opportunity, we shall receive revelation quite often indeed. The life of the Apostles abundantly substantiates this assertion. SPIRITUAL UNDERSTANDING There is a soulish as well as a spiritual wisdom. The first springs from man’s mind while the second is supplied to the spirit by God. Education may remedy any lack of understanding and wisdom in a natural man, but it cannot alter his natural endowment. Spiritual wisdom, though, may be realized through believing prayer (James 1.5). One thing which we ought to keep in mind is, that in redemption “God shows no partiality” (Acts 10.34). He places all sinners, wise or foolish, on the same footing, and confers upon them the same salvation. As the entire being of the wise is totally corrupted so is that of the foolish. In God’s sight the mind of the wise is as nonefficacious as that of the foolish. Both need the regeneration of the spirit; and after that it is no easier for the wise man than for the foolish to know the words of God. Now of course it is quite difficult for a very foolish person to know God; but is it less difficult for the wisest among men? Not at all, because God must be known in the spirit by everyone. Their minds may be unalike, yet both their spirits are dead and hence equally foolish and deficient in divine matters. Man’s natural cleverness does not help him to know God and God’s truth. No doubt the wise one is easier to reason with and is quicker in understanding, but it is altogether limited to the mental realm, utterly contrary to intuitive knowledge. Do not assume that after regeneration the wise have advantage over the foolish in making spiritual progress. Unless they are more faithful and submissive, their better mental comprehension adds nothing to their intuitive knowledge. Man’s old creation never serves as the source of the new creation. Spiritual advancement is measured by faithful obedience. Natural endowment does not affect spiritual life one way or the other, although it yields priority to the flesh. In spiritual experience everybody begins at the same starting point, passes through the same processes, and obtains the same results. All regenerated believers, including the naturally wise, must consequently seek spiritual understanding, without which no one can maintain normal fellowship with God. Nothing can take the place of spiritual understanding. “That you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, to lead a life worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God” (Col. 1.9-10). This is what Paul prayed for on behalf of the saints at Colossae. In this prayer we find that true knowledge of God’s will is preceded by spiritual understanding and followed by: (1) leading a life worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to Him; (2) bearing fruit in every good work; and (3) increasing in the knowledge of God. No matter how good man’s natural endowment is, he cannot know God’s will by that means. It requires spiritual comprehension to know His will and to commune with Him. Only spiritual understanding can penetrate the spiritual realm. The natural kind may grasp some teachings but these stay in the mind and are unable to flow as life. Because spiritual understanding comes from the spirit it can transform what is understood into life. Have we now perceived that all true knowledge emerges from the spirit? The spirit of revelation moves hand in hand with spiritual understanding. God grants us the spirit of wisdom and revelation as well as spiritual comprehension. The wisdom and revelation we obtain in the spirit needs to be understood spiritually. Revelation is what we receive from God; understanding assists us to comprehend what is revealed. Spiritual understanding furnishes us the meaning of all the movements within our spirit so that we may comprehend God’s will. Communion with God includes receiving His revelation in the spiritthat is, in the spirit’s intuitionand then apprehending the meaning of this revelation by spiritual understanding. Our comprehension does not arise naturally but is enlightened by the spirit. It is clear from these two verses in Colossians that if we desire to please God and to bear fruit we must know God’s will in our spirit. Our spirit’s relationship with God is the foundation for pleasing Him and bearing fruit. How vain for us to expect God’s pleasure while walking according to the soul. God is pleased with nothing but His Own will. Nothing else can satisfy His heart. Our anguish is that we do not know God’s will. We search and think, yet we seem unable to touch His mind. We should therefore remember that the way to know God’s mind lies not in much searching and judging but in spiritual understanding. Nothing but man’s spirit can judge God’s will, for it has an intuitive power to discern His movement. If we apprehend God in this way continuously we shall increase in the knowledge of Him. Intuition can grow and grow. It knows no bounds. Its development means the development of the believer’s entire spiritual life. Each true communion we have with God trains us to commune better next time. We should seek to be perfect; accordingly, we must seize every opportunity to train our spirit to know God better. Today our need is to truly know Him, to appropriate Him in the depth of our being. How often we think we have discerned His will and yet later we discover we have been mistaken. Since our need is to know God and His will, we must seek to be filled with the knowledge of that will in all spiritual understanding.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

So, since God directly caused Adam to exist, and that enabled Adam to sin... God is in fact the direct cause of sinning. Go on... post another word-salad that doesn't refute it, then post another block of CapsLock Spam. Don't forget to insult us all and preach at us... oh, and don't forget to include several links to your forum. Yes, your comments ARE that predictable.

Since God would not want Adam to sin He would not cause him to sin, then God is not the direct cause of Adam sinning. That's Adam's doing being made a sovereign with his own free-will. That's the the thing about being made in God's image with your own free-will, is you can't place the cause of your choice on anyone but you. With regard to God, all you can say is He gives you the choice, but you can't say He is the cause of you choosing wrongly. Did your prediction fail?

old comment by ghost

ok. lets do start again :D
david B's perfect 4 step proof that God doesn't exist! Step 1: Everything has a natural explanation. This is clearly shown by the fact that every problem we have ever solved scientifically has been shown to have a natural explanation. A 100% success rate. Step 2: If everything has a natural explanation then there is no such thing as the supernatural. Supernatural claims must be false because only natural explanations for anything have ever been found. Step 3: If any god existed he would be able to do things supernaturally, that is to cause something to happen which didn't have a natural explanation. If no god existed then everything could only have a natural explanation. Step 4: As everything does have a natural explanation; no gods exist. This proof is perfect, hence God doesn't exist.

old comment by CT

Since God would not want Adam to sin He would not cause him to sin, then God is not the direct cause of Adam sinning. That's Adam's doing being made a sovereign with his own free-will. That's the the thing about being made in God's image with your own free-will, is you can't place the cause of your choice on anyone but you. With regard to God, all you can say is He gives you the choice, but you can't say He is the cause of you choosing wrongly.

Word salad... Since God caused Adam to exist, and since God caused Adam to have free-will, God is the direct cause of Adam being able to sin. Since God created everything, and since everything also included the choice Adam had to make, (tree/apple... that one, remember?) God is the direct cause of the choice. If God had not created Adam, sin could not have happened. If God had not created free-will, sin could not have happened. If God had not created the choice, sin could not have happened. Without God doing all that, sin would not exist... ergo, God is the cause of sin through his actions in creating. Your refutation fails... thus it's word salad that doesn't refute it. Since I posted, you've continued to preach at us. Since I posted you continue to insult our intelligence with your garbage. The only prediction I got wrong was the CapsLock Spam... but there's still time.

old comment by David B.

@A Friend

David B.'s proof was false, and the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible remains true.

No because again you had to invent a supernatural reason for my proof not to be true. As I have proved there is no such thing as the supernatural, any challenge involving the supernatural must be wrong because it has already been disproved. Clearly you are unable to disprove the 4-step proof that God doesn't exist and have to resort to inventing things so that it can be wrong. Just as the earth did not happen by a supernatural cause, neither did we happen by a supernatural cause. Therefore, we know there was a natural cause and since we still 'sin', we know that sin derives from a natural cause. Just because there are many other views does not make them right. That is why we have science, and why you find this statement of yours to be false, "Since nothing in nature happens all by itself and always has a cause, then nature could not have caused itself. Thus, the uncreated created." Supernatural origin theories fail because nature always has a natural cause. Creationism does not explain what happened before itself, so it fails too in explaining what caused it. And intelligent design fails to explain the purpose of the first single celled organism so it too is unable to explain a cause for complexity.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Word salad... Since God caused Adam to exist, and since God caused Adam to have free-will, God is the direct cause of Adam being able to sin. Since God created everything, and since everything also included the choice Adam had to make, (tree/apple... that one, remember?) God is the direct cause of the choice. If God had not created Adam, sin could not have happened. If God had not created free-will, sin could not have happened. If God had not created the choice, sin could not have happened. Without God doing all that, sin would not exist... ergo, God is the cause of sin through his actions in creating. Your refutation fails... thus it's word salad that doesn't refute it. Since I posted, you've continued to preach at us. Since I posted you continue to insult our intelligence with your garbage. The only prediction I got wrong was the CapsLock Spam... but there's still time.

It was possible because of choice Adam might have never been disobedient and even ate of the tree of life. Therefore, God is not the cause of sin, man is. Sin is defined as doing something wrong, but our being here obviously is not wrong, for it was meant to be, so you can't say God did not something wrong in creating man who sinned. It is man's fault. Time to take responsiblity! Also, your argument does no damage to the Proof anyway, since we still observe the exponential progression in conscience, and we would not still be sinning by now if there was an eternity of past cause and effects. And since nothing happens all by itself, then the uncreated created. So no matter how you talk about choice, it does nothing to disprove God of the Bible.

old comment by A Friend

@David B

No because again you had to invent a supernatural reason for my proof not to be true. As I have proved there is no such thing as the supernatural, any challenge involving the supernatural must be wrong because it has already been disproved. Clearly you are unable to disprove the 4-step proof that God doesn't exist and have to resort to inventing things so that it can be wrong. Just as the earth did not happen by a supernatural cause, neither did we happen by a supernatural cause. Therefore, we know there was a natural cause and since we still 'sin', we know that sin derives from a natural cause. Just because there are many other views does not make them right. That is why we have science, and why you find this statement of yours to be false, "Since nothing in nature happens all by itself and always has a cause, then nature could not have caused itself. Thus, the uncreated created." Supernatural origin theories fail because nature always has a natural cause. Creationism does not explain what happened before itself, so it fails too in explaining what caused it. And intelligent design fails to explain the purpose of the first single celled organism so it too is unable to explain a cause for complexity. Since God is proven not to exist by my proof and you find nothing wrong with the proof, and you have no basis for believing in what you believe, then the proof stands as the proof for God of the Bible not existing. Your theory breaks down because you start with a false assumption that God exists.

You agree we still sin since you said, "we still 'sin'." We have observed an exponential progression in conscience these past 6000 years it won't take much longer to reach sinlessness. Therefore if this is achieved in such a short period of time, then we would not have needed an eternity of the past, so we were not derived from an eternity of the past, but at some point the uncreated created. This shows a supernatural cause exists. Science agrees that nothing in nature happens all by itself. Name one thing in nature that happens all by itself? You can't. Therefore, nature can't be the cause of itself. So nature can not always have a natural cause because nature can't cause itself. Creation explains what happened before itself. God made a decision to create. Intelligent design does explain the purpose of the single celled organism. It is the means of the creating the body from "dust" (Gen. 2.7). The reason for the diversity is to give glory to God in all the created complexity. Therefore, your proof is wrong and the proof for God is right. There is no first assumption God exists, but seeing the exponential progression in conscience and the fact that nothing happens all by itself, this proves there needs be an uncreated who created since a created being can't be the ultimate cause.

old comment by CT

It was possible because of choice Adam might have never been disobedient and even ate of the tree of life. Therefore, God is not the cause of sin, man is.

God is the cause of man... God is therefore the root cause of sin. Without God, there could be no sin!

Also, your argument does no damage to the Proof anyway, since we still observe the exponential progression in conscience, and we would not still be sinning by now if there was an eternity of past cause and effects.

Considering you've classed sin as "to offend against a principle, standard, etc" without saying who's principle... and considering that some examples of what you call sins are, in fact, what any normal person would call "doing good", and considering that your own God has sinned in the past... Well, since the God of the Bible is defined as being Perfect, his sinning shows he isn't. That alone shows that there is no way your proof refers to the God of the Bible since your proof relies on the uncaused cause being non-sinning, which the Bible shows God is not. Also, if God is responsible for sin, then it is evil to punish us for what he is at fault for. If so, and God is the root cause, being the cause of everything that happened from the moment of creation by virtue of BEING the creator, then you are proving that we are right in rejecting him. The other thing is, since your proof makes the leap from a non-specific cause to God, without giving any reason other than Jesus or the Bible, you STILL use circular logic by using your conclusion as a premise. (Can't use the Bible to prove anything in the Bible, God and Jesus being who you say they are being the primary problem there... so using them as you do is a logical fallacy, thus your proof fails) Here's something for you to think over Troy... You know your proof is true, because nothing has proven it false... and you know nothing has proven it false, because it's true... and you know it's true because nothing has proven it false... and you know nothing has proven it false, because it's true... You are using some of the most simplistic circular logic I've ever seen to prove to yourself that you're right... and I pity you for it.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

God is the cause of man... God is therefore the root cause of sin. Without God, there could be no sin! Considering you've classed sin as "to offend against a principle, standard, etc" without saying who's principle... and considering that some examples of what you call sins are, in fact, what any normal person would call "doing good", and considering that your own God has sinned in the past... Well, since the God of the Bible is defined as being Perfect, his sinning shows he isn't. That alone shows that there is no way your proof refers to the God of the Bible since your proof relies on the uncaused cause being non-sinning, which the Bible shows God is not. Also, if God is responsible for sin, then it is evil to punish us for what he is at fault for. If so, and God is the root cause, being the cause of everything that happened from the moment of creation by virtue of BEING the creator, then you are proving that we are right in rejecting him. The other thing is, since your proof makes the leap from a non-specific cause to God, without giving any reason other than Jesus or the Bible, you STILL use circular logic by using your conclusion as a premise. (Can't use the Bible to prove anything in the Bible, God and Jesus being who you say they are being the primary problem there... so using them as you do is a logical fallacy, thus your proof fails) Here's something for you to think over Troy... You know your proof is true, because nothing has proven it false... and you know nothing has proven it false, because it's true... and you know it's true because nothing has proven it false... and you know nothing has proven it false, because it's true... You are using some of the most simplistic circular logic I've ever seen to prove to yourself that you're right... and I pity you for it.

The reason why the Proof is true is because you can't find anything wrong with it and nobody else has either. That's strong evidence. God did not cause sin, man did. Let me give you an example. I might drive someone to their classes, but I am not the cause of them skipping their classes. The reason they skipped their class was because I drove them to their class? No. I allowed them the choice. If they were obedient, they would have gone to class. Therefore, God did not sin. The principle or standard is that nobody I know of or you know of thinks that murder is a good thing, so it is a sin. Further evidence points to the fact that you have choice, that you are not a robot, so we know you have free-will as you exercise it daily. This speaks strongly in favor that God does not force you to sin. Also, there is no assumption of God's existence or not. Everything in the Proof is observable. We observe the sin. We observe the free-choice without any mention of God, so we know our refusing to do right is due to us, not caused by God.

old comment by Requiem:

My 1!!!! step disprove of the God of the Bible:
1. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for the story of Adam and Eve, the fall, talking snakes, talking bushes and talking asses, Noahs flood and the ark, Moses 10 plagues, the exodus and the 40 years in the desert, Jonah and the whale, Jesus virgin birth, Jesus walking on water, healing the sick, turning water into wine, raising the dead, Jesus resurrection and his ascend into heaven. All we have is a thousands of years old book compiled by the Catholic church, at the Council of Nicae by a bunch of bisshops and cardinals in 340 AD. They decided what came in the Bible, and that same basic Bible configuration of books and basic text is still being used now. That is no divine inspiration, nor the work of god, it's the work of a bunch of people in in the catholic church with a political agenda. It is one big bullshit book of fairy tales and bloodshed.

old comment by A Friend

@Jerry

now, you still didn't debunk David's 4-step evidence...your proof doesn't debunk his, it's in no way superior... Why is it possible for both evidences to be just as 'right' (in it's most subjective form)? they're both circular... either way, back at square one: IF (ÍF) Sin doesn't exist, god would not exist...right? (step 1, because we still sin there is god, you say) well, sin is defined bý god (because god told us what a sin is...)(if sin exists that is) so because of god we sin, and god exist because we sin... if you don't admit the above said is circular I'm done here...

I did debunk it in my response. You did not respond specifically to my response, so it stands. The 4 Step Proof is objective; that which is objective is without flaw. You are arguing against some god, small g, for the God of the Bible is big G. Step 3 says don't make this mistake. It is not sin itself, but the exponential progression in our conscience that shows we would not still be sinning, which proves the uncreated created, since you did not need an eternity of the past of cause and effects. The proof does not rely on the sin definition given by God, but the fact that we know there is sin because if you murder, for example, you go to jail. A person does not sin because of the existence of God or a god, for God does not want that person to sin, so the sin is caused by the person. Your mistaken assumption is a god or God exists because we sin, but it is very possible Adam may have chosen to remain obedient in which case there would be no sin, yet God still exists, because nothing in nature happens all by itself. Therefore the uncreated created. You're actually teaching the fallacy of calvinism which is not Christian.

old comment by Brian X

As an apostate, I know plenty of spiritual "truths". I stopped believing them when the cognitive dissonance started to get to be too much. So don't try to "no true Scotsman" me -- been there, done that, got the t-shirt (four of them as a matter of fact, none of which fit me anymore).
You have not won the argument despite your vehement assertions to the contrary, due especially to your stonewalling of virtually every argument put to you, and your interpretation of the scriptural quotes I mentioned is facile and ad hoc (not to mention completely wrong given the context of the quotes, a concept which far too few fundies seem familiar with when they go proof-texting). In fact, at no time during any of your profuse and rambling statements did you ever come close to anything resembling a coherent thought. All the people on this board are now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

old comment by CT

God did not cause sin, man did. Let me give you an example. I might drive someone to their classes, but I am not the cause of them skipping their classes. The reason they skipped their class was because I drove them to their class? No. I allowed them the choice. If they were obedient, they would have gone to class.

Useless example, since it doesn't even vaguely resemble the God/Man argument.
Try this though... You give birth to a child, raise it without any contact with the outside world, give it no grounding in any kind of morals, basically raising it with absolutely no knowledge of right and wrong... then force it to make a choice with the useless warning that it's "wrong" and will be "bad"... totally useless since those are concepts that it has no knowledge of thanks to how you've raised it. Don't forget to make sure they have a healthy dose of curiosity... since you don't want them to be static organic "lumps" Then, get someone to sneak in and let them know that if they chose one way, they gain the knowledge of what this "wrong" is... knowing that they'll want to know. (curiosity's a bitch, isn't it?) Now, when they, very understandably, decide to find out what this "wrong" idea is... who's fault is it? Theirs, because they did what would be natural under those circumstances? Or yours, for setting up the circumstances in just such a way? Oh, and no forgetting that you knew exactly what was going to happen, since you know everything, but did nothing to stop it... even if the result would be so much pain and suffering, not just for the child, but for everyone that would ever exist. Notice the difference... my example fits the discussion while yours is just a non-answer that tries to get God off the hook for something he caused. You try to defend wrongdoing and blame the victims... something that is offensive to just about everyone's principles. (hey... that means it's a sin)

old comment by A Friend

@Brian X

As an apostate, I know plenty of spiritual "truths". I stopped believing them when the cognitive dissonance started to get to be too much. So don't try to "no true Scotsman" me -- been there, done that, got the t-shirt (four of them as a matter of fact, none of which fit me anymore). You have not won the argument despite your vehement assertions to the contrary, due especially to your stonewalling of virtually every argument put to you, and your interpretation of the scriptural quotes I mentioned is facile and ad hoc (not to mention completely wrong given the context of the quotes, a concept which far too few fundies seem familiar with when they go proof-texting). In fact, at no time during any of your profuse and rambling statements did you ever come close to anything resembling a coherent thought. All the people on this board are now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Stonewalling how? Facile and ad hoc how? Don't you know? What didn't you find coherent? Try to cite even one example. Why would one be dumber for the well-disclosed truth? I don't buy that. God gave me eternal life. You don't have what I have. I use to be like you; not anymore. God saved me. He can save you to if you receive His Son.

old comment by Mr Smith

Step 1 - There is an exponential progression in our conscience these past 6000 years, so that it won't take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved. That being the case obviously there would not have been an eternity of the past of cause and effects. Therefore, the only possibility is the uncreated created.
You are going to need to cite some numbers for that, and I'd also like to know how you came by that information. Also, as far as I know, the only uncreated things that routinely pop into existence are sub-atomic particles. (See Quantum Theory) Step 2 - Since nothing in nature happens all by itself and always has a cause, then nature could not have caused itself. Thus, the uncreated created. No, there are many things in nature that happen all by themselves. Not everything needs a cause. See above. Step 3 - Don't argue against some god for we are talking about God of the Bible. Just stay on topic. But how do you know you have the right one? There are many other gods (even the bible states this) and every possibility that you have the wrong one. Step 4 - There can not be gods creating gods or supernatural events causing supernatural events in the eternity of the past, because they do not cause themselves. Therefore, the uncreated created. There are plenty of mythologies where gods spawn other gods. Just look at the greek legends. If you can't find anything wrong with the Proof then accept that it is true. Realize the proven fact that you were created by the uncreated. Can you do that? Your "proof" has been refuted many many times over. Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Nah! Nah-nah! Nah!" does not constitute a coherent arguement.

old comment by David B.

@A Friend

You agree we still sin since you said, "we still 'sin'."

Actually, I quoted it. You may define a particular group of actions as 'sin', I do not. But clearly the actions are occurring, hence - as shown by my proof - have a natural cause. Now you are forced to invent supporting opinions in your opponents to get your evidence. What next, magic pixies?!

Science agrees that nothing in nature happens all by itself. Name one thing in nature that happens all by itself? You can't. Therefore, nature can't be the cause of itself.

Radioactive decay? Virtual pair production? Neutrino oscillation? Quantum collapse? And (by the way), the idea that there is somesort of 'unknown information' that causes these phenomena has been scientifically disproved by the experimental violation of Bell's inequality. The law of methodological naturalism is not invoked but evidence speaks for it, since nothing in nature is ever seen to have a supernatural cause. Therefore, since the law of methodological naturalism is true, the natural could not have been created by the supernatural and must have been created by a natural cause, hence the God of the Bible does not meet those specifications.

Creation explains what happened before itself. God made a decision to create.

But as supernatural causes have been proved not to exist, creation can't explain what happens before itself, only lie about it.

Intelligent design does explain the purpose of the single celled organism. It is the means of the creating the body from "dust" (Gen. 2.7).

Except that your proposed explanation relies on a supernatural God of the Bible that has been proved not to exist. Intelligent Design advocates themselves do not pretend to explain the purpose of their imagined design, nor do they specifically ascribe it to a supernatural source. Again your only challenges depend on inventing things that have been proven to not exist, while I can point to things that have been scientifically proven. Hence your proof is based on make-believe and mine on fact. Therefore, your proof is wrong and the proof that God does not exist is right.

old comment by A Friend

I was told my account is not banned at ex-christians.net where I once had tried to lead some people to Christ. So I went there yesterday to check it out. As it turns out it is true my account is not banned (or was recently unbanned), but after being able to post for about a day, this is the message I got:
"Your account has been temporarily suspended. This suspension is due to end on Sep 24 2012, 09:05 AM." Technically, they are right. My account is not banned, just suspended for the next 5 years, lol. They sure do censure quickly. I think it has to do with the name of their forum which is ex-christian. They start from a false premise and misreading the Bible, since the Bible says once-saved-always-saved. You can't lose salvation if you are saved. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand" (John 10.27-28). For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8.28,29). "Nor any other," not even we whom are saved can change our mind, because our choice was the choice to be saved by grace eternally. "I am persuaded that he is able to guard that which I have committed unto him against that day" (2 Tim. 1.12). If He is able, I am sure He does it.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

*ahem* They were given no knowledge of Right or Wrong... they were given no concept of Punishment... they were given no concept of deceit... You say that raising someone like that is abuse... yet that is EXACTLY how God created Adam and Eve. By your own argument, God abused them. Read the Bible sometime Troy... you'd learn just how wrong you truly are.

Don't shut your mind down with oh's and ah's. You don't need to know punishment or have to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil to be obedient. It is enough to just be obedient if one is given that ability. It is not abusive to create a child who does not know anything yet, but at least can abide in her parents. Your claim is sick-minded to think this is abusive to create a child, as God creates man in His image. I have read the Bible many times, so why think otherwise? Your problem is not that you might have never read a verse or two in the Bible, but that you choose to read it wrongly because you are manifesting your disobedience to your creator just like Satan is hostile to his creator, when Satan use to be a beautiful angel Lucifer, who choose to fall. Hell is the only thing that can contain you and Satan. I am eternaly grateful to God for this!

old comment by A Friend

@Mr Smith

Step 1 - There is an exponential progression in our conscience these past 6000 years, so that it won't take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved. That being the case obviously there would not have been an eternity of the past of cause and effects. Therefore, the only possibility is the uncreated created. You are going to need to cite some numbers for that, and I'd also like to know how you came by that information. Also, as far as I know, the only uncreated things that routinely pop into existence are sub-atomic particles. (See Quantum Theory)

The numbers were already cited in terms of population sizes, being about 100 million 1000 BC, about 200-300 in the first century, 2 billion in the 19th century and nearing 7 billion today. The statistics are common knowledge at government websites how the murder rate per capita has gone down each decade. You can find this out for yourself as there are many govenrments and many websites. Sociological studies have been done as well to see if the murder rate has gone down per capita across centuries, and this is the finding. Previous wars do a dent in the population, but recent wars have not. Quantum theory does not say subatomic particles happen all by themselves. It does not even postulate they happened all by themselves. No reputable scientist suggesets such a thing, for he would be shutting his mind down. What is said in quantum physics though is that we don't know yet the cause to many things that happen on a quantum level. And that is reasonable, because it is very complicated.

Step 2 - Since nothing in nature happens all by itself and always has a cause, then nature could not have caused itself. Thus, the uncreated created. No, there are many things in nature that happen all by themselves. Not everything needs a cause. See above.

See above, nothing in nature is causeless. The evidence weighs against you because we can see many causes in quantum physics, so many in fact, there is no reason to believe that anything in quantum physics happens all by itself.

Step 3 - Don't argue against some god for we are talking about God of the Bible. Just stay on topic. But how do you know you have the right one? There are many other gods (even the bible states this) and every possibility that you have the wrong one.

The reason I have the right God is because what I say agrees with the Bible, testified by the Holy Spirit in my spirit, and agreed with my brothers and sisters Christ. There is no better proof!

Step 4 - There can not be gods creating gods or supernatural events causing supernatural events in the eternity of the past, because they do not cause themselves. Therefore, the uncreated created. If it was not so you could show some flaw in this harmony of agreement. There are plenty of mythologies where gods spawn other gods. Just look at the greek legends.

Of course, but they are false, since this chain or spawning of gods creating gods can not originate itself just like nature doesn't cause itself. It would need, if it was true, an originator who is uncaused. And we know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effects of these so-called supernatural gods, if they exist, because you would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin because you derive from them in nature, yet you still sin. So it is not possible.

If you can't find anything wrong with the Proof then accept that it is true. Realize the proven fact that you were created by the uncreated. Can you do that? Your "proof" has been refuted many many times over. Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Nah! Nah-nah! Nah!" does not constitute a coherent arguement.

The proof has never been disproven. If it was you could show it, but as you see, I responded to all your efforts as having failed. By you not responding to this fact is equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and shutting your mind down. You should repent.

old comment by A Friend

@David B

Actually, I quoted it. You may define a particular group of actions as 'sin', I do not. But clearly the actions are occurring, hence - as shown by my proof - have a natural cause. Now you are forced to invent supporting opinions in your opponents to get your evidence. What next, magic pixies?!

Actually you said, "we know that sin derives from a natural cause," and you didn't quote anything there. Ok, you changed your mind again, and this time you don't believe what you said before about sin, but believe now there is no such thing as sin. Crazy stuff! If you were to murder someone, you call this a natural cause, which it is. Your natural man has free-will to do this, but that doesn't make it not a sin. If it is not a sin, then you would not go to jail for it.

Radioactive decay? Virtual pair production? Neutrino oscillation? Quantum collapse? And (by the way), the idea that there is somesort of 'unknown information' that causes these phenomena has been scientifically disproved by the experimental violation of Bell's inequality. The law of methodological naturalism is not invoked but evidence speaks for it, since nothing in nature is ever seen to have a supernatural cause. Therefore, since the law of methodological naturalism is true, the natural could not have been created by the supernatural and must have been created by a natural cause, hence the God of the Bible does not meet those specifications.

Radioactive decay? No. Virtual pair production? No. Neutrino oscillation? No. Quantum collapse? No. These are all causal events. There is no puff the magic dragon now you see it now you don't, or now you don't see it, now you do. Silly. Time to grow up! No reputable scientists says that. They investigate the causes. That is what it means to be a scientist. If your attitude was taken, the we would never discover many things. This same mentality is seen in your not discovering the proven Christ for your life. "the idea that there is somesort of 'unknown information' that causes these phenomena has been scientifically disproved by the experimental violation of Bell's inequality"-Not it hasn't. If it had been you could show it, rather than just say it. The law of metholodoligical naturalism, if to mean nature happens all by itself, is false because nothing in nature can happen all by itself, since nothing is every proven to happen all by itself and all the weight of the evidence suggests otherwise in the trillions of causes and effects out there that we do observe. Therefore it has an uncreated cause. You see you draw your conclusion for naturalism by assuming no supernatural cause. Your assumption is false because nothing in nature happens all by itself. Here is where your doubletongue really catches on fire, when you said: "...the natural could not have been created by the supernatural and must have been created by a natural cause". You just admitted the natural has a natural cause, so therefore nothing in nature can cause itself. Yet before you said things in nature happen all by themselves. The Bible says be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8), for this is a sin. It shows how confused you really are, and even unethical in your approach. You need to get a conscience. God of the Bible remains the only uncreated.

But as supernatural causes have been proved not to exist, creation can't explain what happens before itself, only lie about it.

Since I responded to your post about your assumption "supernatural causes have been proved not to exist" and why it is wrong, it is now incumbent upon you to respond to that reason I gave and see if what I said was true or not. If am I right, then you should repent. If you can't find anything wrong with it, then you should repent. Waiting. Therefore creation shows us that the uncreated God made a decision to create, and we can only tell the truth about it if we are being intellectually honest with ourselves and want His loving grace.

Except that your proposed explanation relies on a supernatural God of the Bible that has been proved not to exist. Intelligent Design advocates themselves do not pretend to explain the purpose of their imagined design, nor do they specifically ascribe it to a supernatural source. Again your only challenges depend on inventing things that have been proven to not exist, while I can point to things that have been scientifically proven. Hence your proof is based on make-believe and mine on fact. Therefore, your proof is wrong and the proof that God does not exist is right.

The explanation does not rely on God of the Bible first assumed, but the explanation of intelligent design of the body from dust is proven by showing the uncreated created. Since you could not show otherwise, it remains true. The uncreated created because nothing in nature happens all by itself and you would not still be sinning by now given the fact there has been an exponential progression in conscience. Intelligent Design says the uncreate created created, there is purpose, that God wants to walk with His creation out of His glory, and the source is God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ in all His qualities and attributes. Intelligent Design is realized from the 4 Step Proof for the Uncreated. Why would the uncreated create? Because He has an intelligent reason and plan. Your arguments depend on misconstruing the meaning of intelligent design. Since the uncreated is proven, and you find no scientific evidence to suggest otherwise, then your faith is make-believe and mine is founded on fact. The reason you are this way is because you are manifesting your disobedience to your uncreated creator, so that He will put you in hell forever. This is what happens to bad people such as yourself, just like we throw murderers in jail. The worse sin in history is the sin of unbelief. Therefore, based on the above response, we should continue to believe your proof is wrong and the proof for God of the Bible exists is right.

old comment by A Friend

These fstdt forums are horrible. Most of the time they are not working, so you can't even post.
The replies of the unsaved in this thread are just too dull, so I am not going to monitor it further; but if you want to discuss further you may do so here which is where I like to hang out. I will take that as a sign of your willingness to seek after the truth. Just use your same user name so I know it is you. My preference is for a higher level of conversation of non-misreading and non-overassuming. I personally have a choice, to keep talking with those who want to go to hell who mindlessly keep repeating themselves, and wait for God to cut off the conversation when you are thrown into hell, or I can allow resurrection life to take hold and do God's will by kicking the dust from under my feet. How many times do you have to be wrong before you accept the truth? I would rather not be around to find out, because you may never give into the truth until you realize you were eternally bad and belong in hell, but it will be too late by then. So the Lord moves me in a direction elsewhere now! As Christians we need to learn to move when God wants us to move, even though we may want to stay to help. But if help is unwanted, this explains God's move for us. It is not that the truth is unreasonable but it is unloved. I am so grateful I am one of God’s chosen people.

old comment by HairlessMonkeyDK

"Why assume first God does not exist? It is better to reserver judgment first. Try not to overassume."
And saying that there is an omnipotent, omnipresent being isn't- overassuming??? "Here we have the 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible. If you can't isolate anything wrong with it, it proves God of the Bible." Many a thing is wrong with it, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly in this thread. You inability to grasp even the basics of logic proves only one thing: That you are dumber than a sack of wet doorknobs. "Step 1 - There is an exponential progression in our conscience these past 6000 years, so that it won't take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved. That being the case obviously there would not have been an eternity of the past of cause and effects. Therefore, the only possibility is the uncreated created." Are you the TimeCube guy? Your "logic" is at the same level. "Step 2 - Since nothing in nature happens all by itself and always has a cause, then nature could not have caused itself. Thus, the uncreated created." Yep, and as has been pointed out to you, repeatedly, that means God created sin and is himself a sinner. "Step 3 - Don't argue against some god for we are talking about God of the Bible. Just stay on topic." We are. You're not. It's pretty obvious that us atheists have a better grasp of what is biblical and what isn't, than you do. Which is pretty much par for the fuckin' course. "Step 4 - There can not be gods creating gods or supernatural events causing supernatural events in the eternity of the past, because they do not cause themselves. Therefore, the uncreated created." Huh? Then what CAUSED the UNCREATED, you fuckwit? "If you can't find anything wrong with the Proof then accept that it is true. Realize the proven fact that you were created by the uncreated. Can you do that?" I have found plenty wrong with it, as I have just pointed out. "If you still can't do that, know it is because you first assume God does not exist, then you try to rationalize your assumption, thus manifesting your disobedience to God, so this is why you are going to hell." Let me rephrase that for you, moron: If you still can't grasp logic, know it is because you first assume God does exist, then you try to rationalize your assumption, thus manifesting your idiocy, and this is why you are going to stay a dumbass. " You remain unforgiven for all your sins;" No, I'm not. My mother forgave me for stealing athat cookie when I was 6. You lose. "alas, you may not even realize you are a sinner because you have chosen to shut your mind down," My mind works okay. Yours, with it's circular logic? Not so sure. " or if you do know you are a sinner, you don't care anyway and would rather go to hell. Someone like that is a bad person. Very sad way to live! " You must be in despair then! Poor you. Poor fucking you.

old comment by A Friend

@HairlessMonkeyDK

By your inability to provide Proof for God here and now, your testimony gives us opportunity to mock you heartily! Praise FSTDT!

The way conversations work is someone makes their claim and gives the reason, then someone responds. I have given the 4 Step Proof with the reason, but you didn't respond. Since you didn't find anything wrong with it, yet still disagree, you embarrass yourself. But I won't mock you for your mindlessness, but I do pray for you. Why assume first God does not exist? It is better to reserver judgment first. Try not to overassume. Here we have the 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible. If you can't isolate anything wrong with it, it proves God of the Bible. Step 1 - There is an exponential progression in our conscience these past 6000 years, so that it won't take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved. That being the case obviously there would not have been an eternity of the past of cause and effects. Therefore, the only possibility is the uncreated created. Step 2 - Since nothing in nature happens all by itself and always has a cause, then nature could not have caused itself. Thus, the uncreated created. Step 3 - Don't argue against some god for we are talking about God of the Bible. Just stay on topic. Step 4 - There can not be gods creating gods or supernatural events causing supernatural events in the eternity of the past, because they do not cause themselves. Therefore, the uncreated created. If you can't find anything wrong with the Proof then accept that it is true. Realize the proven fact that you were created by the uncreated. Can you do that? If you still can't do that, know it is because you first assume God does not exist, then you try to rationalize your assumption, thus manifesting your disobedience to God, so this is why you are going to hell. You remain unforgiven for all your sins; alas, you may not even realize you are a sinner because you have chosen to shut your mind down, or if you do know you are a sinner, you don't care anyway and would rather go to hell. Someone like that is a bad person. Very sad way to live!

old comment by A Friend

@HairlessMonkeyDK

"Why assume first God does not exist? It is better to reserver judgment first. Try not to overassume." And saying that there is an omnipotent, omnipresent being isn't- overassuming???

But the Proof doesn't first say that. Rather, through the Proof, we know that it true. Why misread?

"Here we have the 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible. If you can't isolate anything wrong with it, it proves God of the Bible." Many a thing is wrong with it, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly in this thread. You inability to grasp even the basics of logic proves only one thing: That you are dumber than a sack of wet doorknobs.

Since I have responded to everything showing there was nothing wrong with the Proof and you couldn't find anything either to reproduce it here, the Proof remains solid, and according to your words, you are dumb. However, whether you are dumb or not, I think your real problem is you are a bad person, because you like your sin nature and don't want to be forgiven by God.

"Step 1 - There is an exponential progression in our conscience these past 6000 years, so that it won't take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved. That being the case obviously there would not have been an eternity of the past of cause and effects. Therefore, the only possibility is the uncreated created." Are you the TimeCube guy? Your "logic" is at the same level.

Time Cube guy? I don't think he is a Christian, so he is like you, with bad logic.

"Step 2 - Since nothing in nature happens all by itself and always has a cause, then nature could not have caused itself. Thus, the uncreated created." Yep, and as has been pointed out to you, repeatedly, that means God created sin and is himself a sinner.

I am glad that you can't show it, but we can show what we have discovered because Christians have the Proof of God.

"Step 4 - There can not be gods creating gods or supernatural events causing supernatural events in the eternity of the past, because they do not cause themselves. Therefore, the uncreated created." Huh? Then what CAUSED the UNCREATED, you fuckwit?

Logic states if something can't be possible then the thing you thought was impossible must be true. Hence, the uncreated created; that means, the uncreated has no cause but always was. This is what God's life is that has eternal life, is all-knowing and all-seeing. Your emotional reaction and swearing show you are not in control of yourself. You're just a bad person going to hell. You have committed the greatest crime known to man, to reject your creator and call Jesus a liar.

"If you can't find anything wrong with the Proof then accept that it is true. Realize the proven fact that you were created by the uncreated. Can you do that?" I have found plenty wrong with it, as I have just pointed out.

Nothing you said is shown to disprove the Proof, otherwise, you could have shown it. If you just showed it, where is it? Nobody can see it.

"If you still can't do that, know it is because you first assume God does not exist, then you try to rationalize your assumption, thus manifesting your disobedience to God, so this is why you are going to hell." Let me rephrase that for you, moron: If you still can't grasp logic, know it is because you first assume God does exist, then you try to rationalize your assumption, thus manifesting your idiocy, and this is why you are going to stay a dumbass.

But the proof is clear, no assumption of God exists, but through the 4 Steps we realize God does exist. The difference is we have the Proof, and you don't, so using your words, you are an idiot, dumbass, and a moron. How sad for you.

" You remain unforgiven for all your sins;" No, I'm not. My mother forgave me for stealing athat cookie when I was 6. You lose.

This is not about cookies. Your mother was born into sin just like you, so you can't save yourself, nor can your mother save you or herself. True forgiveness comes from the One who created you, for there would be no better more perfect sacrifice than God's Son. Since you sin, this leads to death and the second death. You're on your way to hell because you think a sinner can save you through cookies, lol. I think people can get an appreciation of how mindless you are, and what a bad person you really are.

"alas, you may not even realize you are a sinner because you have chosen to shut your mind down," My mind works okay. Yours, with it's circular logic? Not so sure.

Since you don't show any circular logic, then your accusation is disregarded, but Christians show you are going to hell through the Proof. Your mind remains unrenewed because your spirit remains dead to God. You need to get a conscience.

" or if you do know you are a sinner, you don't care anyway and would rather go to hell. Someone like that is a bad person. Very sad way to live! " You must be in despair then! Poor you. Poor fucking you.

I have been eternally forgiven by God, so I have no despair as you would for all you have to wait for is hell, eternal punishment and separation from God. All you can do is swear in a rampage because you know hell is for you.

old comment by HairlessMonkeyDK

"Step 1 - There is an exponential progression in our conscience these past 6000 years, so that it won't take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved. That being the case obviously there would not have been an eternity of the past of cause and effects. Therefore, the only possibility is the uncreated created."
But you're assuming this "progression"... There's no evidence of it. Also, if there -were- such a progression, it would mean that mankind would be sinning less and less via some sort of weird evolutionary weeding out of sin. Which ain't a biblical notion. "Step 2 - Since nothing in nature happens all by itself and always has a cause, then nature could not have caused itself. Thus, the uncreated created." Oh? Not if "nature", however you define it, IS the uncreated. "Step 3 - Don't argue against some god for we are talking about God of the Bible. Just stay on topic." This is meaningless. Because even if we DO assume the existence of a god, why should we assume it is the biblical one? "Step 4 - There can not be gods creating gods or supernatural events causing supernatural events in the eternity of the past, because they do not cause themselves. Therefore, the uncreated created." By that logic, even the uncreated couldn't create something in the "eternity of the past", because that would be the very definition of a supernatural event.

old comment by A Friend

@HairlessMonkeyDK

"Step 1 - There is an exponential progression in our conscience these past 6000 years, so that it won't take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved. That being the case obviously there would not have been an eternity of the past of cause and effects. Therefore, the only possibility is the uncreated created." But you're assuming this "progression"... There's no evidence of it. Also, if there -were- such a progression, it would mean that mankind would be sinning less and less via some sort of weird evolutionary weeding out of sin. Which ain't a biblical notion.

There is no assumed progression but it is observed in writings of history compared to today, e.g. today child sacrifices are not permitted except in some small pockets of places in Islam where parents say the Koran says to teach your children to blow themselves up as suicide mass-murderers. Of course this is really Satan working in the heart of people. The Bible is not against a diminishing of conscience, and less sin, for that is why there are dispensations where God responds one way rather than another during a long stretch of period. However, a person still needs to be saved, because no matter how close one comes to sinlessness they still need to be forgiven by God for their sins, so they still need to go through Christ who was the perfect sacrifice since He is God. The Bible is not against evolution, except that for the purposes of this Proof, it need not relying on evolution since it is just a limited theory of physical changes since the first single-celled organism. It can't formulate notions to what came before, nor can it address the aspect of the soulical and spiritual functions of our being.

"Step 2 - Since nothing in nature happens all by itself and always has a cause, then nature could not have caused itself. Thus, the uncreated created." Oh? Not if "nature", however you define it, IS the uncreated.

Since nature always has a cause, then it can't cause itself, so the only possibility then would be the uncreated created, who is God of the Bible which we know by comparison because of Christ. You need to accept logic if you are going to be logical; but if you aren't going to be logical when a logical proof is given, then this is just manifesting your independence from God by having your own kind of reasoning which is easily shown to be flawed.

"Step 3 - Don't argue against some god for we are talking about God of the Bible. Just stay on topic." This is meaningless. Because even if we DO assume the existence of a god, why should we assume it is the biblical one?

First off, Step 3 doese not assume the existence of God, but through the Proof of Step 1, 3 & 4, we know that the existence of the uncreated is true. What Step 3 says is don't argue against some god who has quality A, since God of the Bible does not have quality A. Moreover, it can be show quality A would not be the quality of the uncreated, because by comparison, that quality does not meet the greatness of the uncreated, and only Jesus could be God given His full set of qualities. None can compare to Him. The way to compare is by being specific. If you think Jesus has a contender, introduce your contender, and I will show you why Jesus wins, and your god loses, including the god of self or any other idol you place above your creator Jesus Christ.

"Step 4 - There can not be gods creating gods or supernatural events causing supernatural events in the eternity of the past, because they do not cause themselves. Therefore, the uncreated created." By that logic, even the uncreated couldn't create something in the "eternity of the past", because that would be the very definition of a supernatural event.

Since we know the only possibility is the uncreated created, then we must accept the truth, no matter how difficult it is for our flesh to accept. This is what is required if we are to abide in being logical. If you are then still reject the Proof of God, then know it is because you are reacting emotionally and with a seared conscience, self-willed and darkened mind, not logically. Whatever cause and effect may exist in the supernatural, there still needs be an uncreated created for both the supernatural (handled in Step 4) and the natural (handled in Step 1 and Step 2). Distinguish between a supernatural event that has a cause and a supernatural being Who is uncaused. There can only be one uncaused supernatural being because since then you would have to ask yourself about how these other so-called uncaused beings came into being, since they just can't happen all by themselves. Wow!

old comment by A Friend

@Mr Smith

A Friend, you still owe me £10,000. Why are you holding out on payment? I've disproved your "proof", therefore you now owe me that money. Please contact me so that I can tell you where to send the cheque. If I don't receive the money soon I am going to have to start charging you interest.

Do you always demand of people arbitarily they give you $10,000? If you can disprove the Proof for God, why can't you reproduce it here, and the condition for receiving the 10k is by posting it here, not on another forum. Why be so belligerent? It's because you are going to hell, so you are acting accordingly as one who is unforgiven by His creator. I think you have just cause for receiving interest if you had shown a disproof on the Proof for God at Biblocality Forums, but you never showed any disproof, since you can't reproduce it here or at Biblocality Forums. Funny little man!

old comment by A Friend

@Grungust

Jesus Christ, this clown is still spewing his bullshit?

Jesus has been raptured to third heaven at the right hand of the Father. He is not on earth right now speaking forth, but He is going to return to do so with the power of His words and presence when He will reign with a rod of iron for 1000 years, which will be the last length of period before the earth is burnt up. You think you can get away with alot now, just wait till the millennial kingdom, if you happened to be transferred into livingly. Even more than that, when you go to hell for calling Jesus a liar, just see how restricted you are then. Wow! Scientifically we know the earth will burn up within 5 billion years or so, or possibly sooner, because the sun keeps growing and is considered a small star at present and will not need to actually touch earth to burn it up and render it without the sea. However, I do not believe the desolation of earth will arrive before then for some reason or another in agreement with Rev. 20-21, for lots of things could still go wrong as have in the past. What non-believers don't realize is when natural disaster happens it is happens because of sin. God accounts for nature and will use it to judge even now. We were originally in the Garden of Eden and were not to leave this beautiful place that had everything we need and would be free of earthly disasters, but man sinned, and felt he could live in the most dangerous places in the world like the Philippines. This place is known world-wide for its prostituting young children and it is also a haven for Islam to flourish. New Orleans is also a sin city. Since you could find no problem with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible, know then, using your words, you are hostile because of your own "spewing...bulshit" just like Satan, the biggest mindless reject of them all which you choose to take after. You need to get a conscience. Because you are too selfish to want to be saved and give it up for your creator, what else can He do but throw you into hell for all eternity where you will be consciously aware of your wrong choice forever! How sad for you that you would rather be a bad person than receive the love of the Lord! So sad.

old comment by A Friend

How Christ Returns
"He cometh with a cloud" (Rev. 1.7) - Just as He went up to heaven with a cloud, so shall He come back with the cloud. The word here is in perfect accord with what is said in Acts 1.9-11. Then: "And every eye shall see him, and they that pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over him. Even so, Amen" - These words agree with Matthew 24.30. Act 1:9 And when he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. Act 1:10 And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, Act 1:11 and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven." Rev 19:11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 19.11 The marriage ceremony is over, now the Lord comes down to the earth with His faithful followers. These names “Faithful and True” have already been spoken of in chapter 1 of this book. Here they are names of our Lord in His second coming, and they reveal His relationship to the world; in chapter 1, however, these names are especially connected with the church. Mat 24:27 For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of man. vs.27 “Lightning” flashes in the sky and everybody sees it, whereas by contrast “the wilderness” is hidden from many eyes. The Lord’s appearing is absolutely open. He shall come in the cloud. If anyone suggests that the Lord will come to the earth stealthily, do not believe him. Nevertheless, the first rapture does happen secretly, and the Lord’s coming from the throne to the air is also in secret. Just as the lightning is first hidden in the clouds until the time of its flashing in the sky, so Christ will hide himself in the cloud until the right moment for His appearing (see Rev. 1.7, Acts 1.11). According to the record of the book of Acts, at His ascension the Lord was first taken up without any cloud, and only then was He received by a cloud. Even so shall be His coming again, except the order will at that time be reversed. First, He will be hidden by the cloud (which will include the rapture), and next will He appear publicly (by that time all the saints will have been raptured before His appearing). So that what we are waiting for in parousia is not the coming but the going. Zec 14:4 On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives which lies before Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley; so that one half of the Mount shall withdraw northward, and the other half southward. What the Scriptures do say is that when the feet of the Lord Jesus shall touch the Mount of Olives God will open a foundation of salvation for the children of Israel, and then and there they will be saved (Zech. 13.1, 14.4, 12.10-14). Mat 24:30 then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; v.30 “In heaven” Since the sign appears in heaven, all the tribes of the earth shall see it. “All the tribes of the earth” refers to the twelve tribes of Israel. They shall mourn and weep (see Zech. 12.10-14). “With power and great glory” At His first coming, the Lord manifested both great authority (in that He cast out demons and healed the sick) and glory. At His second coming, He will manifest power and glory. At His first coming, people marveled His teaching and authority (Matt. 7.28). The Pharisees questioned Him as to the source of His authority (Matt. 21.23). A centurion believed in His authority (Matt. 8.8-9). But at His second coming, He will not only manifest authority but also power. He will not ride on a colt (as the Prince of Peace) but will ride instead on a white horse. Power is used in executing the judgment of God. In the future Satan will greatly increase his lawless works; so the Lord will destroy him with power. The difference between power and authority may be illustrated by the driving of a car (power) in contrast to the directing given by a policeman (authority). At His first coming our Lord healed the sick, cast out demons, and calmed the storm all these being demonstrations of authority. Even when He overturned tables and drove out sheep and oxen with a scourge of cords, He did not use the whip on men. Only at His second coming will He exercise such power.

old comment by A Friend

How Christ Returns
"He cometh with a cloud" (Rev. 1.7) - Just as He went up to heaven with a cloud, so shall He come back with the cloud. The word here is in perfect accord with what is said in Acts 1.9-11. Then: "And every eye shall see him, and they that pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over him. Even so, Amen" - These words agree with Matthew 24.30. Act 1:9 And when he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. Act 1:10 And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, Act 1:11 and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven." Rev 19:11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 19.11 The marriage ceremony is over, now the Lord comes down to the earth with His faithful followers. These names “Faithful and True” have already been spoken of in chapter 1 of this book. Here they are names of our Lord in His second coming, and they reveal His relationship to the world; in chapter 1, however, these names are especially connected with the church. Mat 24:27 For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of man. vs.27 “Lightning” flashes in the sky and everybody sees it, whereas by contrast “the wilderness” is hidden from many eyes. The Lord’s appearing is absolutely open. He shall come in the cloud. If anyone suggests that the Lord will come to the earth stealthily, do not believe him. Nevertheless, the first rapture does happen secretly, and the Lord’s coming from the throne to the air is also in secret. Just as the lightning is first hidden in the clouds until the time of its flashing in the sky, so Christ will hide himself in the cloud until the right moment for His appearing (see Rev. 1.7, Acts 1.11). According to the record of the book of Acts, at His ascension the Lord was first taken up without any cloud, and only then was He received by a cloud. Even so shall be His coming again, except the order will at that time be reversed. First, He will be hidden by the cloud (which will include the rapture), and next will He appear publicly (by that time all the saints will have been raptured before His appearing). So that what we are waiting for in parousia is not the coming but the going. Zec 14:4 On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives which lies before Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley; so that one half of the Mount shall withdraw northward, and the other half southward. What the Scriptures do say is that when the feet of the Lord Jesus shall touch the Mount of Olives God will open a foundation of salvation for the children of Israel, and then and there they will be saved (Zech. 13.1, 14.4, 12.10-14). Mat 24:30 then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; v.30 “In heaven” Since the sign appears in heaven, all the tribes of the earth shall see it. “All the tribes of the earth” refers to the twelve tribes of Israel. They shall mourn and weep (see Zech. 12.10-14). “With power and great glory” At His first coming, the Lord manifested both great authority (in that He cast out demons and healed the sick) and glory. At His second coming, He will manifest power and glory. At His first coming, people marveled His teaching and authority (Matt. 7.28). The Pharisees questioned Him as to the source of His authority (Matt. 21.23). A centurion believed in His authority (Matt. 8.8-9). But at His second coming, He will not only manifest authority but also power. He will not ride on a colt (as the Prince of Peace) but will ride instead on a white horse. Power is used in executing the judgment of God. In the future Satan will greatly increase his lawless works; so the Lord will destroy him with power. The difference between power and authority may be illustrated by the driving of a car (power) in contrast to the directing given by a policeman (authority). At His first coming our Lord healed the sick, cast out demons, and calmed the storm all these being demonstrations of authority. Even when He overturned tables and drove out sheep and oxen with a scourge of cords, He did not use the whip on men. Only at His second coming will He exercise such power.

old comment by A Friend

@Rime

Feeling lonely over there in Bibliocality, Troy? Sad that the mountain won't come to Mohammed? I feel for you. I really do. And as far as the money goes, the burden of proof is on you to show such, not just a bunch of assumptions. I know plenty of charities that could use that money.

Troy? If you feel lonely if you spend time on a forum that is not very active at all, I think you should reexamine your priorities in life not to be controlled by how busy a forum is, lol. Since the Proof has no assumptions, it does not have that problem. But that is the problem you have since the burden of the proof is on you and you are unable to answer for your stance of calling Jesus a liar. Charities always need money, but I am sure no charity would want to receive funds under false pretense. Mohammed called Jesus a liar that He is not God and that He did not die on the cross. I wouldn't go to the mountain Mohammed went to, for that will deliver you right to hell; nor would I want to seek the mountain he desired to come to him. That would be a work of the flesh. Nah. I know God's will for the Church is Biblocality and everything is moving as it should, slowly but surely. Patience. One day you might be amazed to see the organization of the church: Biblocality. Jesus not only entered into His creation, but He also gave His life on the cross for your sins. Now that is what I call going directly to the people to provide salvation and eternal life. Christians point to Christ, but you think in terms of gaining mountains. Christians don't think that way. We pray and discover what God's revelation is to do His will and to give Him glory. This is true joy, not the self-pleasing mountain building you are talking about. If God wants a child of God to give up what he was doing, then the believer should have no problem doing so because he could sense God's guidance in his spirit, and with reason for doing so. Biblocality is slowly working in peoples' hearts and minds. It will take decades to unfold. After all it has been forsaken pretty much since the first century. Sounds reasonable. Jeremiah preached 40 years and noone listen, but Jeremiah was spared, and His reward would be great I am sure. Wow! I am looking forward to one day to speak with Jeremiah, David, Abraham, Paul, Peter, and various prominent women in the Bible. After all we have an eternity to live out in the new city and new earth. There will be lots of time to do so. Amen. But you can't go where Christians are going. God would not allow it. It would make Him unrighteous and unholy to ever let you speak with His sons and daughters ever again after He casts you into hell forever. How sad for you.

old comment by Rime

Since the Proof has no assumptions, it does not have that problem. But that is the problem you have since the burden of the proof is on you and you are unable to answer for your stance of calling Jesus a liar.
Umm, read the comment again. Where does it say that I'm pointing out assumptions in the Proof? I didn't. I was pointing out that you were making assumptions about why people are arguing with you. Please, just try to stay on topic. As far as my quip about feeling lonely, you assert in comment #220898 that you weren't going to monitor this quote further, because we were dull and repeating ourselves. Then, 4 days later you're trying to restart the arguement with some quote you hadn't linked. And then began taunting people to reply to you again. How else should I read that you "kick the dust from your heels" on one comment, and then bait people for the next 4? That's okay. Eventually, we'll stop arguing with you not because you're right, but because we really understand that it's not about proving your theory wrong. What it's really all about proving it wrong to you, a fallible human being. And although we should know better, but we all just love a good arguement.

old comment by A Friends

@Rime

Umm, read the comment again. Where does it say that I'm pointing out assumptions in the Proof? I didn't. I was pointing out that you were making assumptions about why people are arguing with you. Please, just try to stay on topic.

As far as my quip about feeling lonely, you assert in comment #220898 that you weren't going to monitor this quote further, because we were dull and repeating ourselves. Then, 4 days later you're trying to restart the arguement with some quote you hadn't linked. And then began taunting people to reply to you again. How else should I read that you "kick the dust from your heels" on one comment, and then bait people for the next 4?

I have found new renewed time to help you out which I thought I did not have before, so it looks like I will be here indefinitely to help you out with your mistaken assumptions, to get you to see you still have no problems with the Proof and explain why you have to go to hell for calling Jesus a liar. A reasoned person would realize that the Proof is solid, so she has no reason to reject Christ. May you come to the cross and receive God's gift of salvation. This is my prayer for you, for I would not wish upon my worse enemy what is going to happen to you when you enter into hell which by the way you have a foretaste of even now. Even though you are dull and repetitively mindless, and this is a valid reason to move along, if the Lord sees fit to continue to help you by freeing up time to do so, who am I to argue with our Lord and Savior? I can see how lost you are, so though I want to go, the Lord wants me to stay to help you having very recently given me additional time to help you. I hope you don't mind. The quote I gave you you can search for on the Internet its source which I fully explained. You know how to search right through the Internet? The reason I am responding is because I can see I am being called back to help you, through various taunts in about 5 or 6 other threads where there have been more than a dozen additional posts calling for me to respond. Having kicked the dusts from my feet for 4 days as you say, through prayer, I discover due to the many responses, that there is much work yet to do to help you reexamine yourself by getting you to look at your overassuming. See that you still can't find anything wrong with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible. Why not then repent? That would be the reasonable thing to do.

That's okay. Eventually, we'll stop arguing with you not because you're right, but because we really understand that it's not about proving your theory wrong. What it's really all about proving it wrong to you, a fallible human being. And although we should know better, but we all just love a good arguement.

A fallible human being does not make the Proof infallible. Just as you are infallible, this does not to diminish the fact that 2+2=4. You are using an ad hominem technique, but it is not based on reality. The causal relationship between you being faulty does not hinder the validity of the Proof, but if anything improves it, because you admit you are faulty, that you sin, and you would still not be sinning by now if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects (Step 1). Even though you are a bad person who is going to hell, your testimony for the Proof of God is most wonderful! So the reason why you would not fess up to the facts and you may prefer to hide yourself is because you have shut your mind down, not because you don't want to argue. By shutting your mind down, what you are really doing is getting lost in the world and Satan is the god of this world whom you are lost in. In fact, you should not want to argue in the first place, but seek after the truth. And the truth is, still you can't find anything wrong with the 4 Step Proof for God. Therefore, respond accordingly; don't shut your mind down. It is no theory, but proven fact which does matter, because it reveals something so vitally very true. And the fact finding is that the uncreated created who is God of the Bible. Amen. Awomen.

old comment by Rime

Nah. You are just trying to be cunning to cover up your mistaken assumption that the Proof assumes God first. You said, "And as far as the money goes, the burden of proof is on you to show such, not just a bunch of assumptions. I know plenty of charities that could use that money," and never mentioned anything about any assumptions why people argue with regard to this quote. Now you are just changing your tune by sinning the sin of a doubletalker. The Bible says, be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8). You should be embarrasssed.
Umm, you're the one who jumped to the conclusion that I was talking about the Proof after your quip about why we're arguing with you (#226411). I think we should both be ashamed in that case. A fallible human being does not make the Proof infallible. Just as you are infallible, this does not to diminish the fact that 2+2=4. You are using an ad hominem technique, but it is not based on reality. The causal relationship between you being faulty does not hinder the validity of the Proof, but if anything improves it, because you admit you are faulty, that you sin, and you would still not be sinning by now if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects (Step 1). You offer your first assumption. You assume that I would not be sinning right now if there was an eternity of past effects. I think it's quite absurd to theorize that I would be a sinless human being if time were infinite, especially since the concept of sin only seems to involve humankind, which appeared here at one point in time. In fact, it a rising global conscience doesn't relate to the idea of time being infinite. Unless you want to get into all that quantum mechanics stuff. As an aside, this doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. It only shows that your proof is just a theory. The casual relation that you too are fallible and your convictions might ignore the truth was all I was trying to point out. Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

old comment by David B.

@A Freind

First you have to show Bell's theorem agrees with you, but you haven't shown it. You haven't even shown you understand Bell's theorem. Then I would be happy to respond to what you claim you identified, since you brought it up, not me.

In its simplest form, Bell's theorem states: "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics." Bell's inequality rests upon just three fundamental assumptions; (a) logic, (b) causality, and (c) locality. As the inequality has been shown to be violated experimentally, one of those assumptions is wrong. If it is (a) then logic is not universal and neither your nor anyone else's proof has any basis. If it is (b) then effect may preceed cause and your proof is wrong (step 1 "an eternity of the past of cause and effects"). If it is (c) then quantum effects like the collapse of superpositional states have non-deterministic outcomes, the resulting state of a quantum action are without cause and your proof is wrong (step 2 "nothing in nature happens all by itself").

old comment by David B.

@A Friend

@David B.
Actually, I quoted it. You may define a particular group of actions as 'sin', I do not. But clearly the actions are occurring, hence - as shown by my proof - have a natural cause.
Now you are forced to invent supporting opinions in your opponents to get your evidence. What next, magic pixies?!
Actually you said, "we know that sin derives from a natural cause," and you didn't quote anything there. Ok, you changed your mind again, and this time you don't believe what you said before about sin, but believe now there is no such thing as sin. Crazy stuff!

Actually I said @David B.

Therefore, we know there was a natural cause and since we still 'sin', we know that sin derives from a natural cause.

As I said, I quoted it, using your definition without accepting it. So I am right and you are lying. Which is a sin.

old comment by A Friends

@Mime

Troy, if i believe black is white and ask you to disprove it can you use logic to do that? flipper wrote "You can also prove that the flying spaghetti monster is the supreme being, Harvey (the giant bunny rabbit) truly exists and Lithuanian is most spoken language is the universe using this proof!" My point exactly, if i can prove that black is white you can prove god exists

Since you can't prove black is white and it can be proven white is not black, then your theory fails. You can't prove the flying spaghetti monster even exists, nor Harvey or the most common langauge in the universe is Lithuanian as the evidence is contrary. Again, since you have no evidence like the evidence in the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible, you lose and sad to say, you are going to hell.

old comment by A Friends

@David B.

In its simplest form, Bell's theorem states: "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics." Bell's inequality rests upon just three fundamental assumptions; (a) logic, (b) causality, and (c) locality. As the inequality has been shown to be violated experimentally, one of those assumptions is wrong. If it is (a) then logic is not universal and neither your nor anyone else's proof has any basis. If it is (b) then effect may preceed cause and your proof is wrong (step 1 "an eternity of the past of cause and effects"). If it is (c) then quantum effects like the collapse of superpositional states have non-deterministic outcomes, the resulting state of a quantum action are without cause and your proof is wrong (step 2 "nothing in nature happens all by itself").

If there is anything to Bell's inequality theorem (admittedly an unproven theorem), the finding in the same article said... ..."spooky action at a distance" suggested by the famous Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) thought experiment do in fact occur. Therefore, there is still a cause but at a distance. Why so careless to read into it what you want to see? How silly to say effects cause the cause, lol. You are still saying there is a cause to the cause which you label the effect, lol. You are getting utterly mindless! How silly you still believe in fairy tales of puff the magic dragon that things happen all by themselves when the evidence says there are trillions of things we see have a cause and in the most difficult areas such as quantum physics. You really have no basis for believing something happens all by itself. That's goofy! Time to grow up!

old comment by Brian X

Troy, you've already been told what's wrong with your four-"step" "perfect" "proof". Many, many times. (Hint: "That looks about right" is not equivalent to "exponential" -- ask a math professor.) You steadfastly refuse to admit defeat, not that anyone really expects you to. Ridicule got old, so we're pretty much left with abuse. Your threats of hellfire are meaningless; I'd wager that the majority of people on this board don't believe in hell to begin with, and of those who do, they aren't likely to believe that your idea of hell and theirs are in any way the same.
Frankly, the fact that this thread has topped 600 posts is more a testament to your "deranged Serdar Argic" copy-and-paste mass-posting than anything anyone else in this thread has said.

old comment by A Friends

@David B.

Therefore, we know there was a natural cause and since we still 'sin', we know that sin derives from a natural cause.

That's why I said, "Actually you said, 'we know that sin derives from a natural cause'," to indicate that you are admitting there is sin. I am glad you admit that; just don't change your mind again.

As I said, I quoted it, using your definition without accepting it. So I am right and you are lying. Which is a sin.

You admit ther is such a thing as sin. Since we know there is still sin and the fact that there has been an exponential progression in conscience these past 6000 years, we know it will not take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved and we would not have needed an eternity of the past of cause and effects therefore! In other words, we would still not be sinning now if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects. The natural man sins; sin has a natural cause-the flesh. Man is not only natural with body and soul, but he also has a spirit and we know this by its functions of intuition, communion and conscience. These abilities exist, such that we have words for them and people can talk about thes attributes and how they work. All I wanted to do was to get you to admit (1) there is sin (you have done that) and now, (2) exponential progression in conscience. Once you realize the second part, you realize the uncreated created. And once you realize nothing happens all by itself, then the only possibility is the uncreated created. The question then becomes who is the uncreated? We find God of the Bible always wins that discussion. Amen.

old comment by A Friends

@David B.

The 4 step proof is invalid logically, incorrect factually and even (remarkably) contradicts scripture. If this were the best reason for believing in God, no Christian on Earth would be anything but the lowest grade of moron. Clearly most are not, and so must have more sophisticated reasons for their beliefs. They leave this proof to the liars and fools like 'A Friend'.

There is nothing you can show in the Proof that contradicts Scripture. You would have done so by now. There is nothing illogical in the Proof, otherwise you would have been able to show it. Because this is the best Proof for God of the Bible logically speaking, this is why Christians believe. It is not difficult, because God wants to save everyone, not only save those who have an IQ over 150 or who are scholars in a particular field. That is why the word of the cross is effective, because God is no respecter of persons. If God was going to save only one class of people based on certain qualities, that would make Him unrighteous. He provides salvation to all, so that everyone is accountable. Everyone knows what they must do, but some choose not to come to the cross as helpless sinners. Using your words, it is a moron, who believes something happens all by itself and that there is an eternity of the past of cause and effects, which could not be the case considering the exponential progression in our conscience. This is the most sophisticated reasoning possible, and we see Jesus is the uncreated because He was resurrected and proven by multiple attestation, fulfilling 62 prophecies. The odds of this are impossible for mere man. David B. knows he is a liar. Deep down inside he knows it is ludicrous to believe something happens all by itself like puff the magic dragon and that there could be an eternity of the past of cause and effects despite the exponential improvement in conscience shows it just can't happen. The more one discusses this with David B. the more one realizes how evil a man this is. Let us be grateful that God contains him forever away from us when He sends him to hell. I tell you the truth nobody will get into heaven unless through Christ. You can count on that! As Jesus was resurrected so will every living soul be resurrected. The question becomes where? David B. chooses hell. He knows that. That's why he doesn't get embarrassed by how absurd his arguments are. Christians choose the new city on the new earth by receiving God's only Son for eternal forgiveness. Amen.

old comment by A Friends

@Brian X

Troy, I'm going to be as blunt about this as humanly possible. Shut the fuck up and go away. Nobody is buying what you're selling, and you've made yourself look like a braindead windbag in the process. You are an idiot. Go away.

The reason nobody is going to buy what I am selling is because I have nothing to sell. Just as I received a free gift from God's eternal love and so have other Christians, in return we tell you the truth and want nothing in return. We sell you nothing! I am glad people can see you are getting more violent to show how unruly the unsaved can get. Your crassness and profanities do expose you. I am grateful that people will come to Christ when they compare us in these words we have exchanged in which you still can't find anything wrong with the Proof for God. I think I'll stay. I look forward to talking to you more to help lead you to Christ. I forgive you for your hatred for you know not what you do.

old comment by A Friends

@Hawker Hurricane

Troy:see
http://www.fstdt.com/forums/thread.asp?t=36885 16. Whatever your opponent accuses you of doing, turn it back on them. Perfect example. UberLutheran has your number, and so do I. And as for the question "is Troy insane, stupid, or lying" it is quite clear that you are lying. Thank you for settling it. You are a athiest who doesn't believe the crap you spout, and are doing your damndest to discredit Christianity. A perfect example of Poe's Law.

Poe's law is speaking against fundamentalists. I am speaking in favor of Christ and the Proof of God for Him that He supplies. It's amazing the kind of fancy terms, like Poe's law, the unsaved will use to to reject God. Satan loves your assumptions; that gives him ground to work with. It's amazing the number of different things, all shown to be false, that Satan will use to twist your mind in a bundle of nonsense to reject Jesus' death on the cross to save you. I assure you I believe every word I say and can't understand how you cannot believe it too since you still can't find anything wrong with the Proof for God; neither can I, so of course I believe in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and this is why I was born-again with His grace. Therefore it is insane and stupid using your words to reject Christ. When you call Jesus a liar, He will make a liar out of you. Let us all give thanks to Jesus for entering into His creation and God's perfect Proof of Himself that no one is able to find fault with. I think those comments in that link are all strong points, but this thread is about the strongest proof of all-The 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible. In other words, if you can't accept any evidence for God, then realize there is nothing to convince you, not even the best proof of all which is the 4 Step Proof. Ask yourself what would convince you to believe in the uncreated creator who is the Trinity? Many will answer, NOTHING! There you have it. This is showing those who answer thsi way want to go to hell because they admit there is nothing to convince them. Ask yourself this question, and share what evidence would convince you since you don't accept the evidence already established which was very gracious of God in the first place. A comment about lutherans. Most lutherans today are not saved, because they believe in amillennialism, a false fruit not of God, and that you can lose eternal life after being born-again. This shows they don't have faith in God's grace to have infinite foreknowledge to give eternal life at new birth. They worship some god, but not God of the Bible. God says we shall know them by their fruit in such signs. This doesn't mean everyone who is Lutheran is unsaved, just a high proportion relative to others who do not believe such things. Make note though not all Lutherans believe in non-OSAS. One lutheran site says "We, therefore, cannot endorse the idea once saved always saved which claims a person can never permanently fall from faith." One of the reasons used for this having no faith in God's infinite foreknowledge is misreading Hebrews 6 when the writer says, "Hebrews 6 is perhaps the strongest because it speaks of those who fall as having been enlightened and having shared in the Holy Spirit. It seems to refer to those whose fall is final because they commit the sin against the Holy Spirit. We also have the example of David who fell from faith and was restored." If one is saved and is fallen, he can't fall so far as to to lose eternal life, since it is eternal. What he can do is lose rewards for loving the world. This is how lutherans misundertand: what is deemed loss of rewards, they turn into losing eternal life. The Bible never teaches that. Regarding Hebrews 6 nobody alive today can blaspheme the Holy Spirit; you can yet be saved. And also, those who say they were Christians then they are not, were not saved to begin with. They were just pretenders to start. This is what is meant coming so close to the Holy Spirit and reaping some benefits in the midst of the body of Christ, but not actually being born again. Evidence for these claims are in these two links: Hebrews 6 & 1 Timothy 4 The Unpardonable Sin Lutherans have a doubletongue. They say you can't lose salvation but you can lose salvation. The reason they have this doublemind and don't have a conscience to realize it is wrong is because Luther himself was confused. Luther originally belived in limited atonement, then changed his mind to unlimited atonement. He could never let go of the idea of total depravity which is unBiblical. Yet he believed in resistible grace which contradicts total depravity. He tried to stay away from the subject as a result. He did not have clarity in his writings. Clarity is osas arminian! Consequently, his view of election as being conditional or unconditional was undecided. Now you can see why Lutherans are left with nothing but a doubletongue on the matter of way of salvation. Many do not truly know God's way of salvation and have believed the false idea of calvinism called total depravity, which means they would have to be robots, because they could not choose the cross for being totally deprave. The Bible does not teach total depravity, yet they puff themselves up on the idea they are premade robots. The Bible though says we are fallen. We are still made in God's image to have the choice to come to the cross and be drawn by God.

old comment by Mime

Hey Troy, google pseudoscience and read the first page, especially "Assertion of scientific claims that cannot be falsified in the event they are incorrect, inaccurate, or irrelevant (see also: falsifiability" "Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (see: Argument from ignorance" and "Reversed burden of proof. In science, the burden of proof rests on the individual making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.[28]". The point is i can not prove you wrong ,but i dont have too, you have to prove yourself right.

old comment by David B.

@A Friend

There is nothing you can show in the Proof that contradicts Scripture. You would have done so by now.

And have done.

There is nothing illogical in the Proof, otherwise you would have been able to show it.

And have done.

Using your words, it is a moron, who believes something happens all by itself and that there is an eternity of the past of cause and effects, which could not be the case considering the exponential progression in our conscience.

There is no exponential progression of conscience, you made that up. You also admitted it. Quantum spin is determined all by itself. It has been experimentally determined that there is no intrinsic 'hidden variable' that causes spin to collapse to a particular value. When this happens the resulting value of the spin has no cause. There is no enternity of past causes and effects because (a) not everything has a cause, and (b) cause does not invariably preceed effect. Your logic is flawed, you proof is flawed. I do not have to convince you that this is so, you have to convince me that it is not.

Here we have the 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible. If you can't isolate anything wrong with it, it proves God of the Bible.

I have isolated innumerable things wrong with it, therefore it proves nothing. Fin.

old comment by David B.

@A Friend

If there is anything to Bell's inequality theorem (admittedly an unproven theorem), the finding in the same article said...

Proved by Freedman and Clauser (1972), Aspect et al. (1981, 1982), Tittel (1998), Weihs (1998), Pan et al (2000).

..."spooky action at a distance" suggested by the famous Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) thought experiment do in fact occur. Therefore, there is still a cause but at a distance. Why so careless to read into it what you want to see? How silly to say effects cause the cause, lol. You are still saying there is a cause to the cause which you label the effect, lol. You are getting utterly mindless!

The action at a distance is between the first particle and the second particle, hence causing the above expected correlation between their measured spins. What it is not is a secret determination of the spin of one particle prior to measurement. Glad you accept 'spooky action at a distance' (SAAAD), if that's your interpretation of the Bell experiments, let's go with it. Under the SAAAD interpretation, you are presumeably proposing that the act of measurement is the cause of the particle's spin. That is, some non-understood interaction between the superposed particle and the detector causes the particles spin to be determined as a particular value. From quantum entanglement we now that this exactly determines the spin of the other particle too, that some 'spooky action at a distance' causes the first particle to be measured's spin to be communicated to the second, creating the perfect correlation we observe in Bell experiments (when the detectors are aligned). Unfortunately, Bell experiments are constructed so that the two particles' spins are measured almost simultaneously, but at a great distance apart. In fact they are dilerberately measured to close together (in time) for any signal travelling at the speed of light to pass between them. This SAAAD must, if it exists, move from the first particle to the second at faster than the speed of light. This is what is meant by non-local reality, communication between entities outside of their 'light cone' (look it up). But why should this matter? It matters because only events connected inside the light cone have a consistent causality. By communicating outside of the like cone, spooky action at a distance allows different observers to see different sequences of cause and effect. Depending on where you are standing, A causes B or B causes A. If you think Bell experiments are explained by 'spooky action at a distance' then causality is not universal, and the statement "eternity of the past of cause and effects" is meaningless.

old comment by David B.

@A Friend

If there is anything to Bell's inequality theorem (admittedly an unproven theorem), the finding in the same article said...

Proved by Freedman and Clauser (1972), Aspect et al. (1981, 1982), Tittel (1998), Weihs (1998), Pan et al (2000).

..."spooky action at a distance" suggested by the famous Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) thought experiment do in fact occur. Therefore, there is still a cause but at a distance. Why so careless to read into it what you want to see? How silly to say effects cause the cause, lol. You are still saying there is a cause to the cause which you label the effect, lol. You are getting utterly mindless!

The action at a distance is between the first particle and the second particle, hence causing the above expected correlation between their measured spins. What it is not is a secret determination of the spin of one particle prior to measurement. Glad you accept 'spooky action at a distance' (SAAAD), if that's your interpretation of the Bell experiments, let's go with it. Under the SAAAD interpretation, you are presumeably proposing that the act of measurement is the cause of the particle's spin. That is, some non-understood interaction between the superposed particle and the detector causes the particles spin to be determined as a particular value. From quantum entanglement we know that this exactly determines the spin of the other particle too, that some 'spooky action at a distance' causes the first particle to be measured's spin to be communicated to the second, creating the perfect correlation we observe in Bell experiments (when the detectors are aligned). Unfortunately, Bell experiments are constructed so that the two particles' spins are measured almost simultaneously, but at a great distance apart. In fact they are dilerberately measured too close together (in time) for any signal travelling at the speed of light to pass between them. This SAAAD must, if it exists, move from the first particle to the second at faster than the speed of light. This is what is meant by non-local reality, communication between entities outside of their 'light cone' (look it up). But why should this matter? It matters because only events connected inside the light cone have a consistent causality. By communicating outside of the like cone, spooky action at a distance allows different observers to see different sequences of cause and effect. Depending on where you are standing, A causes B or B causes A. If you think Bell experiments are explained by 'spooky action at a distance' then causality is not universal, and the statement "eternity of the past of cause and effects" is meaningless.

old comment by David B.

As if to underline the matter, this just went up on Scientific American
@Scientific American

Update of classic experiment finds that "spooky action at a distance" goes hand in hand with unreality By JR Minkel Reality just got a one-two punch. A new experiment has tried to suss out which of two counterintuitive ingredients is more basic to quantum theory, only to find that they go hand in hand. Einstein was famously bugged by what are now well-established facts of quantum theory: the randomness of a particle's choices and the possibility of instantaneous linkages between far-flung light or matter. Experimenters now conclude that Einstein cannot even pick his poison, because allowing for instant links kills any simple notion of reality, too. The team updated a classic 1982 experiment in which researchers measured the polarizations, or spatial orientations, of twin pairs of photons. In quantum theory, photons and other particles do not have definite values for properties such as location or polarization but rather acquire a specific property randomly when measured in an experiment. "The big question always was whether one can go beyond this probabilistic description," says physicist Markus Aspelmeyer of the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information in Vienna. Perhaps Einstein was right that "God does not play dice," and a photon has a true state that is somehow hidden from experiments. Researchers learned that they could test a related question using photons that are entangled, meaning they are instantaneously connected over any distance in such a way that the measured property of one depends on the otherlike a pair of dice that always comes up doubles. In the 1982 experiment, if the photons "rolled doubles" more than a certain fraction of the time, it meant that particles violated something called local realism: the idea that influences between particles ripple through spacetime like waves (locality) and that particles have hidden nonrandom properties (realism). But which assumption might be wrong? "It could still be possible," Aspelmeyer says, "that you maintain realism and that you just relax this locality condition." So he, along with team leader Anton Zeilinger and colleagues, tested a proposed antiquantum model in which influences travel instantaneously but particles have real properties (no locality but realism). They split red laser photons into entangled pairs and sent the twinned light particles along separate paths. They then measured the polarizations of the photon at different angles to see how often they scored "doubles," called correlations. Aspelmeyer says the group's hunch was that "if you allow for nonlocal interactions, anything goes, [so] you can recover quantum physics completely" without losing a grip on reality. But, as in the older experiment, they once again saw more correlations than nonlocal realism allowed. In other words, Aspelmeyer says, nonlocality is not enough to save realism from quantum theory. "You have to pay a price," he says. In effect, quantum naysayers like Einstein would have to swallow the spider to catch the fly. "I'm still amazed [at the experiment's outcome], I have to say."

<Polkadot Shorts>Coincidence? I think not!</Polkadot Shorts>

old comment by A Friends

@Mime

Hey Troy, google pseudoscience and read the first page, especially "Assertion of scientific claims that cannot be falsified in the event they are incorrect, inaccurate, or irrelevant (see also: falsifiability" "Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (see: Argument from ignorance" and "Reversed burden of proof. In science, the burden of proof rests on the individual making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.[28]". The point is i can not prove you wrong ,but i dont have too, you have to prove yourself right.

Since the Proof is proven, the requirement is met. Now the burden of the proof is on you to show otherwise. It should also be noted that thousands of people have tried to disprove the Proof, but they have all failed. This gives more power to the Proof.

old comment by A Friends

@David B.

And have done. And have done. I have isolated innumerable things wrong with it, therefore it proves nothing. Fin.

Where? Waiting.

There is no exponential progression of conscience, you made that up. You also admitted it. Quantum spin is determined all by itself. It has been experimentally determined that there is no intrinsic 'hidden variable' that causes spin to collapse to a particular value. When this happens the resulting value of the spin has no cause. There is no enternity of past causes and effects because (a) not everything has a cause, and (b) cause does not invariably preceed effect. Your logic is flawed, you proof is flawed. I do not have to convince you that this is so, you have to convince me that it is not.

I never said I made up the exponential progression in conscience, but that this is what we discover is true as a result of finding certain things like there use to be many nations that partook in child sacrifices, but that does not happen today. That theorem, and just a theorem, says there is no locally identifiable and immediately known cause, but it does not rule out a more distant cause it says as I quoted it. Why overlook that? So you misinterpret this theorem, and it is admittedly a thought experiment anyway which open to change. Since there is no hard evidence that something happens all by itself like puff the magic dragon, your approach fails. However, Christians and scientists and reasoned souls have trillions of examples in every area of life of cause and effects. Not once has there ever been shown an effect precedes a cause. What a goofy thing to suggest! The odds are against you more than a trillion to 1. You lose. I think you have a gambling problem. This is a lowsy bet. And as Pascal's wager says, the reward of you being right is virtually meaningless, but the risk of you being wrong is immense behind all the evidence we have here. The risk of me being wrong is virtually meaningless, but the gain for my being right is everything! The 4 Step Proof remains unchallenged.

old comment by A Friends

@David B.

Great, we can add "ignorance of grammar" to your list of short-comings. I never admitted that there was sin, so I never changed my mind. That you have resorted to quote mining says it all, quite frankly. And we can add "no sense of humour" too.

I'll just repeat what I quoted about you and let people see if you know that sin: Actually you said, 'we know that sin derives from a natural cause'," to indicate that you are admitting there is sin. I am glad you admit that; just don't change your mind again. I caught you in a contradiction because now you say, "I never admitted that there was sin". That was a recent post, so it didn't take any mining to show. This phrase of yours, "there was sin" is exchanged many times already between us. I agree there is sin. Grammatically there is no way around it. The natural man sins. You're right, it is hilarious how hard you try to cover up you are contradicting yourself, lol.

old comment by David B.

@A Friend

Where? Waiting.

On this thread and the other you spammed.

I never said I made up the exponential progression in conscience, but that this is what we discover is true as a result of finding certain things like there use to be many nations that partook in child sacrifices, but that does not happen today.

You said the progression is exponential, which means the rate of increase of conscience is proportional to the current amount of conscience, then admitted that you knew neither the rate of increase of conscience nor the current amount of conscience. You made a very specific claim and admitted that you had no way of knowing it.

That theorem, and just a theorem, says there is no locally identifiable and immediately known cause, but it does not rule out a more distant cause it says as I quoted it. Why overlook that? So you misinterpret this theorem, and it is admittedly a thought experiment anyway which open to change.

"Theorem" is as good as it gets in science, saying "just a theorem" is a clear demonstration that you do not know what you are talking about. The distant cause is not ruled out, in fact I specifically treated it as ruled in as you had suggested it. The point is that now you have no way of knowing what is a cause and what is an effect. If you see A happen, and then B happen, B can have caused A. Your spooky action at a distance is outside the light cone, it is outside of the volume of spacetime in which a consistent causality can be constructed. If you want action at a distance, fine, but you have given up rigid causality to get it. Also it is not a 'thought experiment', Bell proposed it as a thought experiment because he had no way to actually perform it at the time, it has since been performed many times and the result is always the same; you can't have logic, causality and local realism. Unfortunately your proof claims all three.

However, Christians and scientists and reasoned souls have trillions of examples in every area of life of cause and effects. Not once has there ever been shown an effect precedes a cause.

Nearly all cause and effect is instantaneous, one does not preceed the other. Push on an object and it accelerates, not after you push on it, instantaneously you push on it. It's 'F = ma', there's no '(after a very small time dt)'.

old comment by David B.

@A Friend

I'll just repeat what I quoted about you and let people see if you know that sin: Actually you said, 'we know that sin derives from a natural cause'," to indicate that you are admitting there is sin. I am glad you admit that; just don't change your mind again.
I caught you in a contradiction because now you say, "I never admitted that there was sin".

Actually, I said "Therefore, we know there was a natural cause and since we still 'sin', we know that sin derives from a natural cause." Missing out the first half is a lie by omission. You are a liar. Don't think so? @A Friend

humans have been around forever

@A Friend

we had had an eternity of the past to exist

@A Friend

God willing to stop evil but not able

@A Friend

Hitler is a Christian

These are all things you said, are we to take them to be things you meant, or have you 'changed your mind'.

old comment by A Friends

@David B.

As if to underline the matter, this just went up on Scientific American
Scientific American wrote: Update of classic experiment finds that "spooky action at a distance" goes hand in hand with unreality By JR Minkel Reality just got a one-two punch. A new experiment has tried to suss out which of two counterintuitive ingredients is more basic to quantum theory, only to find that they go hand in hand. Einstein was famously bugged by what are now well-established facts of quantum theory: the randomness of a particle's choices and the possibility of instantaneous linkages between far-flung light or matter. Experimenters now conclude that Einstein cannot even pick his poison, because allowing for instant links kills any simple notion of reality, too. The team updated a classic 1982 experiment in which researchers measured the polarizations, or spatial orientations, of twin pairs of photons. In quantum theory, photons and other particles do not have definite values for properties such as location or polarization but rather acquire a specific property randomly when measured in an experiment. "The big question always was whether one can go beyond this probabilistic description," says physicist Markus Aspelmeyer of the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information in Vienna. Perhaps Einstein was right that "God does not play dice," and a photon has a true state that is somehow hidden from experiments. Researchers learned that they could test a related question using photons that are entangled, meaning they are instantaneously connected over any distance in such a way that the measured property of one depends on the otherlike a pair of dice that always comes up doubles. In the 1982 experiment, if the photons "rolled doubles" more than a certain fraction of the time, it meant that particles violated something called local realism: the idea that influences between particles ripple through spacetime like waves (locality) and that particles have hidden nonrandom properties (realism). But which assumption might be wrong? "It could still be possible," Aspelmeyer says, "that you maintain realism and that you just relax this locality condition." So he, along with team leader Anton Zeilinger and colleagues, tested a proposed antiquantum model in which influences travel instantaneously but particles have real properties (no locality but realism). They split red laser photons into entangled pairs and sent the twinned light particles along separate paths. They then measured the polarizations of the photon at different angles to see how often they scored "doubles," called correlations. Aspelmeyer says the group's hunch was that "if you allow for nonlocal interactions, anything goes, [so] you can recover quantum physics completely" without losing a grip on reality. But, as in the older experiment, they once again saw more correlations than nonlocal realism allowed. In other words, Aspelmeyer says, nonlocality is not enough to save realism from quantum theory. "You have to pay a price," he says. In effect, quantum naysayers like Einstein would have to swallow the spider to catch the fly. "I'm still amazed [at the experiment's outcome], I have to say." <Polkadot Shorts>Coincidence? I think not!</Polkadot Shorts>

This underlies the fact that you are trying to find too simple a notion of reality: Experimenters now conclude that Einstein cannot even pick his poison, because allowing for instant links kills any simple notion of reality, too. I love how God makes it so complicated there is some things we just will never figure out, like how the inanimate became animate to create a helix. Perhaps Einstein was right that "God does not play dice," and a photon has a true state that is somehow hidden from experiments. Indeed he is right. But which assumption might be wrong? Who knows. Aspelmeyer says, nonlocality is not enough to save realism from quantum theory. All this means is they don't know what elements are involved that are causing the differences. It is not a claim of puff the magic dragon or randomness since nothing in existence is ever shown to be random. So the 4 Step Proof remains unchallenged.

old comment by David B.

@A Friend

He wins again! He's always winning with you isn't He? You are always losing to Him.

It just looks like 'He' didn't pick the sharpest tool in the box. Every post you have made on this subject has just contained more fundamental errors. You are arguing QM with zero knowledge of the subject and merely repetitively demonstrating your ignorance of the subject. You lose, because you are wrong. You lose because you lack even the knowledge to know you are wrong. With you on 'His' side, 'God' is always losing. An experiment demonstrates a result that is logically inconsitent with any hidden variable theory and you say "but it could still be hidden variables though"? :LOL: Sorry, you fail at QM.

old comment by David B.

@A Friend

Perhaps Einstein was right that "God does not play dice," and a photon has a true state that is somehow hidden from experiments.

Yes, that was the question they asked, then they did an experiment to test it, and the answer (given two paragraphs later) was "no". @Scientific American

Aspelmeyer says the group's hunch was that "if you allow for nonlocal interactions, anything goes, [so] you can recover quantum physics completely" without losing a grip on reality. But, as in the older experiment, they once again saw more correlations than nonlocal realism allowed.

That is even with spooky access at a distance (nonlocal), there are no hidden variables (realism). The results of quantum collapse are not determined by anything, they have no cause.

old comment by A Friends

@David B.

Wait, so AF respond to a post that points out that a characteristic of pseudoscience is claiming that if something hasn't been proven false it must be true, by saying that it's not the same because no-one has disproven his proof so of course it's true?! I call Poe!

I already responded and said in post #228255, Since the Proof is proven, the requirement is met. Now the burden of the proof is on you to show otherwise. It should also be noted that thousands of people have tried to disprove the Proof, but they have all failed. This gives more power to the Proof. There comes a point when something is proven like 2+2=4 and thousands can't disprove it, then we can be fairly certain it is true. Poe can't help you here.

old comment by David B.

@A Friend

@David B.
Wait, so AF respond to a post that points out that a characteristic of pseudoscience is claiming that if something hasn't been proven false it must be true, by saying that it's not the same because no-one has disproven his proof so of course it's true?!
I call Poe!
I already responded and said in post #228255, Since the Proof is proven, the requirement is met. Now the burden of the proof is on you to show otherwise. It should also be noted that thousands of people have tried to disprove the Proof, but they have all failed. This gives more power to the Proof. There comes a point when something is proven like 2+2=4 and thousands can't disprove it, then we can be fairly certain it is true.

And then does it again!?! LMFAO!

old comment by A Friends

@David B.

On this thread and the other you spammed.

Sounds vague. I am glad you can't show it specifically or any spamming. I think you approach of vagaries is spamming.

You said the progression is exponential, which means the rate of increase of conscience is proportional to the current amount of conscience, then admitted that you knew neither the rate of increase of conscience nor the current amount of conscience. You made a very specific claim and admitted that you had no way of knowing it.

The current amount of conscience is better now than before. That's all you need to know by comparison. For example, for a long stretch of time women could not vote, now all of a sudden in the last century they can. See that curve rising!

"Theorem" is as good as it gets in science, saying "just a theorem" is a clear demonstration that you do not know what you are talking about. The distant cause is not ruled out, in fact I specifically treated it as ruled in as you had suggested it. The point is that now you have no way of knowing what is a cause and what is an effect. If you see A happen, and then B happen, B can have caused A. Your spooky action at a distance is outside the light cone, it is outside of the volume of spacetime in which a consistent causality can be constructed. If you want action at a distance, fine, but you have given up rigid causality to get it. Also it is not a 'thought experiment', Bell proposed it as a thought experiment because he had no way to actually perform it at the time, it has since been performed many times and the result is always the same; you can't have logic, causality and local realism. Unfortunately your proof claims all three.

A theorem before was that the earth was flat, then we find out it is round. The theorem we are talking about is not proposing things happen all by itself, but that they can not find the missing link to differences in models proposed. You will just have to live with the fact that you won't be able to know what is the cause all the time, because you did not create this system we are in. You would not even have the ability to understand everything anyway since you are not made that way to understand all things. From one perspective we see some kinds of causes to the effect and other perspectives we see other kinds of causes to effects. Though these two perspectives can't be reconciled, does nothing to suggest something happens all by itself. A can happen to cause B, and residual B can influence back upon A. It's very complicated, but A still has its cause apart from B. Suffice it to say, it is far more complicated than you could have ever imagined. The 4 Step Proof makes no comment about local realism as the necessary element to the cause. Logic states you can have a cause that is not local realism. Why be so rigid?

Nearly all cause and effect is instantaneous, one does not preceed the other. Push on an object and it accelerates, not after you push on it, instantaneously you push on it. It's 'F = ma', there's no '(after a very small time dt)'.

There is nothing instantaneous all by itself. As I type, my muscles move to cause it affected by by brain and my brain functions because I feed my body with food and that food comes from somewhere and on and on. That you admit things appear nearly instantanteous is still admitting there is a cause since nearly is not enough to happen all by itself. There is resistance that causes something to slow down after the initial push. This didn't happen all by itself. So as we have seen the 4 Step Proof remains still unchallenged.

old comment by Mime

Begging the question in logic, also known as circular reasoning and by the Latin name petitio principii, is an informal fallacy found in many attempts at logical arguments. An argument that begs the question is one in which a premise presupposes the conclusion in some way. Such an argument is valid in the sense in which logicians use that term, yet provides no reason at all to believe its conclusion.
Formally speaking, the simplest form of begging the question follows the following structure. For some proposition p: p implies p suppose p therefore, p. However, the following structure is more common: p implies q q implies r r implies p suppose p therefore, q therefore, r therefore, p. You get it?szenah wrote "Is this one of those "Prove that I am wrong using my bogus initial assumptions" arguments? " He is right, you built an argument on an assumption. you cant do that.Begging the question is proving what is not self-evident by means of itself. The following argument is a standard example of begging the question: "The Bible says God exists, and the Bible must be right since it is the revealed word of God, so God exists." A Friends wrote : "Jerry wrote: it's funny how he uses steps from the proof, to prove the proof... will this ever end? It's actually funny how you misread the Proof. The steps are not to prove the proof, but to prove God of the Bible." If the proof proves the proof it is circular logic.

old comment by A Friends

@David B.

Actually, I said "Therefore, we know there was a natural cause and since we still 'sin', we know that sin derives from a natural cause." Missing out the first half is a lie by omission. You are a liar. Don't think so?

Yet you are still admitting there is sin even though caused by natural, so that is why I said... That's why I said, "Actually you said, 'we know that sin derives from a natural cause'," to indicate that you are admitting there is sin. I am glad you admit that; just don't change your mind again. Just because something natural causes sin does not change the fact that there is this sin; then you change your mind. You're a flipflopper. That's lying if not unstable. "The proof never said humans have been around forever"-but, you still say there is sin by natural cause so you still say there is sin even though by natural cause. "What is established is that if we had had an eternity of the past to exist we would have had an eternity to be perfected to be without sin"-but, you still say there is sin by natural cause, even though by natural cause, lol. "Is God willing to stop evil but not able?"-but, you still say sin is caused by natural, not denying sin is caused by something. "so to claim Hitler is a Christian is utterly mindless. "-but, you still say sin exists except that it is naturally caused. Since you admit that sin exists, then we have a point to agree as long as you don't change your mind again. That is the point, sin exists whether by natural or other means is irrelevant for the Proof. Since there is an exponential progression in conscience and you admit sin exists obviously since you go to jail if you murder, then there can not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects because you would not still be sinning by now if you had an eternity of the past of cause and effects.

These are all things you said, are we to take them to be things you meant, or have you 'changed your mind'.

Since you admit you took these things out of context, as I showed you, how does this help your case where you contradict yourself when you say sin does not exist, but yet say it does exist caused by natural. Coocoo! Coocoo for cocoo puffs! The unsaved ideas get more bizarre by the day.

old comment by A Friends

@David B.

It just looks like 'He' didn't pick the sharpest tool in the box. Every post you have made on this subject has just contained more fundamental errors. You are arguing QM with zero knowledge of the subject and merely repetitively demonstrating your ignorance of the subject. You lose, because you are wrong. You lose because you lack even the knowledge to know you are wrong. With you on 'His' side, 'God' is always losing. An experiment demonstrates a result that is logically inconsitent with any hidden variable theory and you say "but it could still be hidden variables though"? :LOL: Sorry, you fail at QM.

I am glad I don't have to be a dentist to know that things have a cause, nor do I need to be a quantum physicist to know things have a cause. It's really quite disingenuous to discuss things that are far beyond your understanding and most scientists to claim some puff the magic dragon when you have trillions of other things you can examine even in quantum mehanics that show us a causal relationship. You don't show you understand quantum physics, for what we have discussed they are not saying something happens all by itself, but rather they don't know how to resolves some apparent contradictions. I have received the atonement of Christ's death on the cross for my sins, and you have not, so hell is for you. It speaks of your character that there is a man who was put to death for no reason, and you call Him a liar, when He had shown no fault and was resurrected with multiple attestation. Since Jesus is proven since none can compare to Him, and the uncreated is necessary since nothing is shown to happen all by itself and trillions of things have been shown to have a cause, you are playing the worse gamble in history. God has this perfect Proof of Himself, so anyone on His side has His life. Back to QM...If an experiment says there is no hidden variables that are local, then the variable can be some other means. You are just narrow mindedly (not a very sharp tool at all) focused on a certain kind of cause, for there could be other kinds of causes that are spooky and far out as is suggested and which Einsten would agree. He often said some very Christian things.

old comment by David B.

@A Friend

Correlations as you know in statistics are not necessary causal relationships as they could have other causes involved. Therefore, Bell's theorem does not help you.
Proof & Reality 1 Bad Statistics 0.

@Scientific American

They split red laser photons into entangled pairs and sent the twinned light particles along separate paths. They then measured the polarizations of the photon at different angles to see how often they scored "doubles," called correlations. Aspelmeyer says the group's hunch was that "if you allow for nonlocal interactions, anything goes, [so] you can recover quantum physics completely" without losing a grip on reality. But, as in the older experiment, they once again saw more correlations than nonlocal realism allowed. In other words, Aspelmeyer says, nonlocality is not enough to save realism from quantum theory.

Even with spooky action at a distance, there is no hidden cause in quantum collapse. Reality 2, your poor reading comprehension 0.

old comment by David B.

@A Friend

Since you admit you took these things out of context, as I showed you, how does this help your case where you contradict yourself when you say sin does not exist, but yet say it does exist caused by natural. Coocoo!

Sin does not exist, what you define as sin has a natural cause. Clearly you define somethings to be 'sins', whatever these sins are they have natural causes. I have not defined sin, nor accepted your definition of it as anything more that a noun you apply to a set of behaviours. You quoted me out of context and used it to bear false witness against me, this is one of the things you have claimed is a 'sin', ergo you are a sinner, and a liar. If you do not think quoting only half of a sentance and misrepresenting its meaning is wrong, then when exactly did you change your mind about Hitler being a Christian?

old comment by A Friends

@David B.

Yes, that was the question they asked, then they did an experiment to test it, and the answer (given two paragraphs later) was "no".

That's not what the experiment says. The experiment says, rather, that they can't explain some seemingly contradictory findings.

That is even with spooky access at a distance (nonlocal), there are no hidden variables (realism). The results of quantum collapse are not determined by anything, they have no cause.

Again what is being shown is there is some contradictions as you would expect in the most difficult things known to mankind, because man is limited in his understanding. He needs to gather more information, before making crazy claims such as assuming the world is flat or saying something happens all by itself when in trillions of examples nothing is shown to happen all by itself, so the odds are against you.

old comment by A Friends

@Jerry

pretty much like your god... don't you see the paradox of a creator? for the creator to create something as complex as the universe he himself must be infinitly more complex...so what created him? occams razor cuts deep...

I do not believe in some god, but God of the Bible since He proves Himself. That is why I have faith and why I know you are going to hell, because you call Jesus a liar. That God would be infinitely more complicated than anything else means nothing caused him. Occam's Razor is faulty since by definition if something has to be uncreated it does not create itself, but was always existing. Be careful, you are going to cut yourself of false reasoning with that razor.

old comment by A Friends

@Jerry

pretty much like your god... don't you see the paradox of a creator? for the creator to create something as complex as the universe he himself must be infinitly more complex...so what created him? occams razor cuts deep...

old comment by CT

Remember me Troy?

Self-declarations don't count.

Good... so we can discount every single one of your self-declarations then? Things like... "due to the exponential progression in conscience there can not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects" and "nature can't ultimately create itself" Not only are those self-declarations, but they've also been shown to be false declarations. Two things that are VITAL to your proof are things that are false... and even if they were true, YOUR OWN RULES DISALLOW THEM! All you've been giving is a load of self-declarations worked into some illogical, contradictory mess... and when people point out what you've done, you claim they're just spouting self-declarations and they don't count. You are a hypocritical, two-faced liar who claims that his God created everything but also claims there's something he didn't create... If you can't spot the contradiction then you have less thinking ability that my pet cat... and are about as likely to make any sense. (and yes, my cat is as thick as a doorknob) After over 400 posts from you in this thread alone, most of which are repeated spams of your garbage while the remainder are unintelligent attempts at defending the indefensible, I'm leaving this thread to die. Troy can keep on dumping his shit here as long as he likes... knowing full well that's all it is. A great big steaming pile of crap. :edit: Proof that it's crap? The Proof depends on there being an uncaused creator... aka God. But what has Troy just said the proof says?

What the Proof says is that we have trillions of examples of things that have a cause and not even one example a concrete proof for something that is without a cause.

He's got not even one concrete proof for an uncaused... he's saying his proof shows his proof is wrong! Troy... you're a complete idiot. Have you no idea what you said?

old comment by A Friends

@Jerry

how do those 4 steps prove the god is the god of the bible? the way I see it, those steps prove Odin exists.... step 1: a source please... All I see is "crimerates" going down and "morality" increasing..sin is defined by god/church step 2: if nothing happens by itself god is just a complication of the problem..occams razor yet again step 3: not even 'proof'..just a game-rule stepm 4: same as 3..not even a logical reasoning..just a proposed idea of yours, another "rule" by which we should play..

Odin is not God since the qualities God of the Bible are greater than that of Odin. Crime rates going down is an improvement in conscience. This helps show the exponential progression in conscience. Sin is not defined by the church alone. Since if you go to jail for murder this is a sin. Sin is doing anything wrong the society as a whole recognizes as wrong. Since nothing in nature happens all by itself and the uncreated by definition is eternally existing then that which is eternally existing does not create itself but was always existing which proves occams razor is false. Step 3 is a vital game rule, since more often than not someone will argue against some quality that not God of the Bible so you would be arguing against an irrelevant point. Step 4 is not like Step 3 at all. While Step 3 is a vital game rule, Step 4 is like Step 1 regarding the exponential progression of conscience but dealing with the supernatural or gods creating gods realm if such a thing were to exist.

old comment by A Friends

@David B.

Sin does not exist, what you define as sin has a natural cause. Clearly you define somethings to be 'sins', whatever these sins are they have natural causes. I have not defined sin, nor accepted your definition of it as anything more that a noun you apply to a set of behaviours. You quoted me out of context and used it to bear false witness against me, this is one of the things you have claimed is a 'sin', ergo you are a sinner, and a liar. If you do not think quoting only half of a sentance and misrepresenting its meaning is wrong, then when exactly did you change your mind about Hitler being a Christian?

The natural cause to sin is your flesh. What we are talking about here is what I have defined as sin. For example, if you murder someone you go to jail for sinning due to the natural cause of your flesh. I think we can all agree that murdering is wrong and so are child sacrifices. The definition I give for sin is a set of behaviors that are wrong which is the defintion the dictionary gives too. By accepting that murder is wrong you are accepting the sin of murder as wrong. Using the minimal facts approach we can establish this is wrong universally. Therefore, what you said was true in context, you said that sin has a natural cause, and I agree that sin exists with its natural cause. Since I have always said Hitler is going to hell, how does this help you solve your problem of saying these behavior patterns of sin have a natural cause then changing your mind you don't believe that it is a sin. You are contradicting yourself. The Bible says be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8). Realize you are just being mindlessly belligerent because to accept there sin which you do, but then change your mind, is motivated by something. You are motivated because you know an essential part of the Proof is that there is sin still now such as a murder, so yo mindlessly argue against it. Who thinks murder is not wrong? How seared your conscience has become.

old comment by A Friends

@CT

Good... so we can discount every single one of your self-declarations then? Things like... "due to the exponential progression in conscience there can not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects" and "nature can't ultimately create itself" Not only are those self-declarations, but they've also been shown to be false declarations. Two things that are VITAL to your proof are things that are false... and even if they were true, YOUR OWN RULES DISALLOW THEM! All you've been giving is a load of self-declarations worked into some illogical, contradictory mess... and when people point out what you've done, you claim they're just spouting self-declarations and they don't count. You are a hypocritical, two-faced liar who claims that his God created everything but also claims there's something he didn't create... If you can't spot the contradiction then you have less thinking ability that my pet cat... and are about as likely to make any sense. (and yes, my cat is as thick as a doorknob) After over 400 posts from you in this thread alone, most of which are repeated spams of your garbage while the remainder are unintelligent attempts at defending the indefensible, I'm leaving this thread to die. Troy can keep on dumping his shit here as long as he likes... knowing full well that's all it is. A great big steaming pile of crap. :edit: Proof that it's crap? The Proof depends on there being an uncaused creator... aka God. But what has Troy just said the proof says?He's got not even one concrete proof for an uncaused... he's saying his proof shows his proof is wrong! Troy... you're a complete idiot. Have you no idea what you said?

God created everything including your free-choice, but He does not cause you to choose as a sovereign being, for that is your choice. Don't blame God for your choice to call Jesus a liar, for that is your fault. Distinguish between everything that God creates directly and that which flows righteously from that direct creation such as when He breathed His Spirit to directly create the spirit life of man. When the spirit made contact with the body the soul life was created with free-will made in God's image. You are then a sovereign being, and God stands back and will not unrighteously encroach. Since nothing in nature happens all by itself, as nothing has ever been shown to be so, and we have trillions of examples of causes and effects, we know nature could not have caused itself. Therefore the only possibility is the uncreated created. And don't try to say there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, because you would not still be sinning if that were the case. due to the exponential progression in conscience such as no more child sacrifices. You're just spamming, so you get the same response of the truth of your mistaken assumptions. I think your reviling words are projecting your own condition such as when you use the word idiot.

old comment by Rime

Brian X, I admit I should have known better, but I want to make one or two more moves, because I feel my reasoning makes sense and I'd like to share it.
Step 1 of The Proof states that there is a chain of events, where God started the initial event and therefore time is finite. He tries to reinforce his arguement with the notion of the rise in global conscience and that the "saved" would effectively be Jesus if this trend continued as shown in the graph below. With this, he claims he's proven Step 1. image But has he? People are as fallible now as they have always been, it is the knowledge we have gained over generations that allows us to make fewer mistakes and a less barbaric species as a whole. So, it is difficult to argue that the "saved" are closer to being Jesus now than they were 500 or 1000 years ago when the Christians were recording stories about the fantastic miracles performed by their brothers and sisters. I know someone will say otherwise, but I will let others decide that for themselves. So, I took a look at it and thought this: image and said, "why not?" Brian, I hope you'll forgive me for continuing to feed the troll. I'm going to stop very soon.

old comment by A Friends

@Rime

Brian X, I admit I should have known better, but I want to make one or two more moves, because I feel my reasoning makes sense and I'd like to share it. Step 1 of The Proof states that there is a chain of events, where God started the initial event and therefore time is finite. He tries to reinforce his arguement with the notion of the rise in global conscience and that the "saved" would effectively be Jesus if this trend continued as shown in the graph below. With this, he claims he's proven Step 1.

I think you should have known better too not to make these many mistakes you make. Step 1 does not say there is a chain of events of cause and effects in the eternity of the past, but says, IF there was why it wouldn't work out, why it would not be possible in fact, due to the exponential progression in conscience, we could not have been derived from an infinity of the past of cause and effects because we would not still be sinning by now. It is because we find the exponential progression in conscience that we come to this finding about the uncreated created only feasible known possibility, not the other way around. We do not first posit the idea, then look for rationalizations, but first notice this is exponential progression in conscience to discover what it points out to us according to the laws of calculus. It is very free-flowing in discovery. Christians don't believe "the 'saved' would effectively be Jesus," for Jesus is the only uncreated being, and we are His children, because He saved us. You are not a child of God because He has not saved you. And you know what that means. You are going to hell with your father Satan. How sad for you. This is a chart of exponential progression. Good for you, you are catching on! Though even Satan knows God exists, but rejects Him. Even once you realize God of the Bible exists, you still have to come to the cross to receive Him to be saved. It is not enough to just know He exists.

old comment by A Friend

@Rime

But has he? People are as fallible now as they have always been, it is the knowledge we have gained over generations that allows us to make fewer mistakes and a less barbaric species as a whole. So, it is difficult to argue that the "saved" are closer to being Jesus now than they were 500 or 1000 years ago when the Christians were recording stories about the fantastic miracles performed by their brothers and sisters. I know someone will say otherwise, but I will let others decide that for themselves. So, I took a look at it and thought this:

Whatever the cause it doesn't matter, the fact remains, our conscience has improved both by common grace and the perfecting of the saints in Christ. The miracles performed by Jesus are many, and there are many more miracles like these performed today with miraculous healings, coming back from the dead after being clinically dead for several hours. There are some miracles though that only Jesus can perform like turning water into wine, walking on water, and feeding 5000 thousand with a few loafs of bread and some fish. These require direct interventions. Gary R. Habermas has done lots of work on this to show there tons of miracles going on. I have benefited from one of them. You're actually the troll, because you post to bait with nonsense and as a result, of course, you are always wrong in your opinions. If I held your opinions I would be ashamed and embarrassed.

old comment by A Friend

@Rime

For added fun, I'm going to post these links to make things a little easier for visitors to determine for themselves whether Troy has his convictions in the right place. I know someone would claim they're just vague web searches that don't prove anything, but I didn't want to be showing a slant against him, just the links so people could determine for themselves. 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible http://www.google.ca/search?q=4+step+perfect+proof&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official Four Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible http://www.google.ca/search?q=four+step+perfect+proof&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official Troy Brooks the Apostle http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Troy+Brooks%22+the+Apostle&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=32a&start=10&sa=N

I don't think people buy your idea you are not trying to be slanty, since your links point to fstdt so you are really just trying to be sneaky. If you want to show it, then do so; no need to be cunning and couth. In reply the fstdt rebuttle was shown to be false here, http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/responsestoperfectproof.htm You can actually link to this page from here, http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm How do you know if someone is an apostle or not if they say they are? Well they have to agree with several things in the Scriptures otherwise, they could be false teachers. If you say you are an apostle and agree with the questions at Biblocality Forums (presently 37 questions), then nobody has a say against you, for you have been directly commissioned by God as an apostle. To understand this further, read here

old comment by A Friend

@Skeptical

I know there's a bazillion comments but I just tried to read through that proof and it's completely incoherent. C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" it ain't. He ought to try reading that sometime. And why the hell did he post it on JREF? JREF is a reputable organization dedicated to healthy skepticism about the occult and the paranormal - the charlatans like Uri Geller and Sylvia Browne. Why did this Troy guy post that incoherent babbling there? Oh Troy - it may remain unchallenged but only because it makes no sense to begin with. None. It proves nothing. It isn't even coherent. Please try reading something reputable like C.S. Lewis. Or Josh McDowell. You are no apologist, trust me. And this is coming from someone who does believe in the God of the bible.

I happen to have read Mere Christianity and it does not provide a proof for God as good as the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible. The 4 Step Proof has been posted at JREF many dozens of times, but they ban, many times now. I think it has something to do with the fact it was submitted for the $1,000,000, but Randi is a fraud and refuses to pay up, even though he could find nothing wrong with the Proof. The Proof makes such clear sense, you can't even beging to find fault with it. Praise be to God! I love how you give glory to God unwittingly. I don't think you are a Christian because I have never met a Christian that ever had any problems with it. Christians are in complete agreement nature does not happen all by itself (Step 2), that there can not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects (Step 1) because of the exponential progression of our conscience. And logically if you are going to try to disprove God of the Bible, don't argue against some god for that is not the attribute of the God of this Proof (Step 3). And finally, while Step 1 deals with the natural, Step 4 is treated in the same way, but deals with the supernatural.

This guy can't be for real. He's got to be some type of plant deliberately trying to make Christians look like blabbering morons. Troy, there's enough stupid pseudo-Christians making enough stupid comments - you don't need to pull such a stupid stunt to hammer the point home.

God's truth is not a hammer, but a sweet savor when He proves Himself through this 4 Step Proof and His children can impart that truth. Notice the point of this whole thread after hundreds of posts that still nobody is able to find fault with the Proof. Yet you still don't believe, because you don't care about pure logic. You care more about something else which is called self-exaltation. How wonderful it is that you can't find anything wrong with the Proof for God of the Bible, so as to unwittingly give Him glory on your way to hell. Since what I have said is true, and you can't find any fault with it, why flail vague accusations, for that is the playground of the devil not dealing specifically. Christians simply don't talk like you do, we would feel guilty if we flailed mindless unsupported and vague reviling accusations because we have a conscience in Christ; you're not a Christian. I know you are going to hell. It's so easy to know by the Holy Spirit in agreement with the Word. I know for a fact God has not forgiven you your sins. Wow!

old comment by CT

*pops back in*
Troy states that there is no evidence for anything that is uncaused. Troy then states that there MUST be something uncaused. Troy provides no proof for this, other than the declaration that there MUST be something uncaused. Troy admits that there is an unbroken chain of causes back as far as time goes... and says that is proof that there MUST be an uncaused. If Troy would start thinking, Troy would realise that the proof he gives shows the opposite of what he claims. Troy... when your proof uses the claim that there MUST be something uncaused, when you have NO evidence that there is anything uncaused, your proof fails. When your proof claims that Nature cannot cause itself without any evidence at all other than your claim, your proof fails. Your proof is no such thing... all it is, is an "If/Then" exercise where the "If" contradicts the evidence. (and the "Then" is wishful thinking) Your proof isn't perfect, nor is it proof... and the way you try to defend it, with such idiotic claims as "everything is different to everything" shows that you are, indeed, an idiot.

old comment by A Friend

@Mime

Begging the question is proving what is not self-evident by means of itself. So if you make 4 proofs for God he is not self evident. a friend wrote "The Bible does not use that argument." so either the bible says God does not exist or it says it is not the word of God

Since the 4 Step Proof is not begging the question, then it doesn't have this problem. What the 4 Step Proof does do is provide the best evidence humankind has ever seen which is most convincing and to make us very confident, the uncreated creator must exist and that He would be God of the Bible. The Bible most certainly says God is true, but the way in which God is proven is not by self-declaration, but God provides the essence of the 4 Step Proof that is undeniable, and that is why you can't find anything wrong with it. I love that!

old comment by A Friend

@Jerry

and why would that be? ever heard of "logistic growth"? The only person claiming our conscience is progressing exponentionally, is you... as for that matter, you still haven't proven we are sinning less than in 1100...we commit less crimes (like your lovely jail-example) and crimes are (mostly) punnished...but what about the 7 deadly sins..aren't people just as arrogant as they were in 1200. Are people less lustfull? can you prove it? BWAHAHAHAHA he's going to hell for not agreeing with you? heaven must be deserted...

I have no power to send him to hell because he disagrees with me, for it is God's doing not mine; I am merely agreeing with God's proven Word. Since God is proven and He says grungust is going to hell according to the Bible and testified by the Holy Spirit, then it will happen, because he is already condemned according to John 3.18. He has already decided that is what he wants. So be it then, for he is made in God's image to have the choice. Why would heaven be deserted because he and you are going to hell? Don't you think there are other Christians? For we all agree since we have all been regenerated by the Holy Spirit with God's life, something you are without. When heaven and earth come together in the new city on the new earth, we will be the pillars, and even, some of us will get to reign on earth with a rod of iron with Christ for 1000 years before the new city commences. The 1000 years is the time of recompense and reward for overcomer believers to reign over the nations. Imagine a time when those who are presidents of countries, ministers of provinces, governors of states, mayors of cities will be the ones with the purest of consciences'. That is what is going to happen in the millenial reign of Christ. Voting is out; people will just intuitively know this person is right for the job because Christ has set him up and they can sense his authority. Hence, the precursor which is Biblocality since God tends to move in long periods of transition. Even a logistic growth chart is effectively exponential approximating infinity; however there is no evidence for this flattening out near the top anyway. That would be blind leap of faith. I don't know anyone who thinks child sacrifices are as prevalent today as they were in ancient times, so this is an exponential improvement in conscience. The crime rate and murder rate down per capita, women can vote now, single spouses is the norm now, slavery is less popular--all these things show an improvement which are things that can be compared to the past. All these things show us an improvement in conscience of mankind. I don't know anyone who would disagree unless they were totally obnoxious, belligerent and obstinate. Statistically crime is down. I even know this within my own lifetime as you see the reports on tv. Crime does not go up with the rate of increase in the population. I don't have a jail example for the exponential progression in conscience. The flesh is lustful and that will never change, which is why the flesh can not be fixed or refined and must die. So you have a choice, you can die in your flesh or die today on the cross with Christ. You're going to die no matter what, so it is better to die now and receive eternal life. What we can say regarding conscience and lust is that people are less prone to take that lust to extremes like having sex with children under age. Previously in societies it would be acceptable to have sex with a 12 year old, but today it is forbidden and we put in laws to prevent it. This is an exponential progression of conscience that mankind would do this.

old comment by Morpheus

Cute graph. Damn shame it defies even the Biblical accounts.
1) I see no jump when Adam and Eve went from being unable to sin (due to no knowledge of good and evil) to where they defied God and were cast out of the garden. 2) There is also the jump where God wipes everyone off the Earth except for the only righteous man on Earth and his family. If I didn't have a life, I go through the Bible and find more inconsistencies. However, I do, so I'll just leave you with this: since the so-called "saved" need only to believe in Jesus to go to Heaven, I don't really see them becoming increasingly better people because they have no incentive. At least the Catholics say you have to be a good person too. Have a nice day. *tips hat*

old comment by A Friend

@Jerry

don't skip math class! logistic growth never aproaches infinity! assumign exponentional growth is just as much a leap of faith...you either want it to be so, or pulled a self-drawn statistic out of your ass... even from your own statistic, you can't just extrapolate the result to infinity, as you can see in a basic logistic-function, we might as well be at it's bending point... or near it, or just past it... but thank you for agreeing with me not all sins fade away...good job...

Since the exponential progression of conscience is witnessed in things like no more child sacrifices, this is solid evidence which you can't show otherwise. Since there is no basis for thinking logistic grow pattern, then this idea is disregarded, but notice even that pattern approaches infinity in the first part of its curve. You can't claim logistic growth pattern by first assuming logistic growth pattern. So we know that there could not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects because of the exponential progression in conscience; since sin still happens, you know you were created by the uncreated. Amen.

old comment by A Friend

@H.H.

If I'm reading the chart correctly, it seems the farther we get from God the more moral we get. Excellent work, Troy! You've covered it in a nutshell! Keep up the good work, you're driving the Fundamentalists into a more rational belief where the Bible is a metaphorical concept, written by men to attempt to understand God, not the literally true word of God.

Just because time precedes along does not mean someone gets farther away from God. Since God is is omni-present, you don't get away from Him as you might wish. Just as your computer goes through time, it seems to get farther away from you with more and more stuff in its files, you are still right there hovering over it like an angel. Since the Bible shows real people with real experiences claiming real specific things and real bodily resurrection, then it is not metaphorical, but very literally. Paul really believed that regeneration of your spirit by the Holy Spirit (the 3rd Person of the Godhead) is need to receive God's life through His Son. Jesus said there is no other way. All 66 books of God's Word are inspired by God Himself through men to write on paper. God loves to work through people and see them manifest His glory!

old comment by A Friend

@Morpheus

Cute graph. Damn shame it defies even the Biblical accounts. 1) I see no jump when Adam and Eve went from being unable to sin (due to no knowledge of good and evil) to where they defied God and were cast out of the garden. 2) There is also the jump where God wipes everyone off the Earth except for the only righteous man on Earth and his family. If I didn't have a life, I go through the Bible and find more inconsistencies. However, I do, so I'll just leave you with this: since the so-called "saved" need only to believe in Jesus to go to Heaven, I don't really see them becoming increasingly better people because they have no incentive. At least the Catholics say you have to be a good person too. Have a nice day. *tips hat*

Cute graph. Isn't it though. Since it agrees with Biblical accounts, we can have more confidence in the exponential progression in conscience. 1) Your sample size is too small, for one day to the next day. The universe is 13.7 billion years. Adamic man has been around 6000 years. Don't pick small sample sizes to rationalize yourself. What do we see in early accounts? We see in Gen. 1.2 God flooded the earth and made it desolate because of the sin of the inhabitants of earth's earlist ages. Then God restored creation in the 6 summary days. Man was created in His image. Man sinned. He was locked out of the garden, the one place in the world he was protected. But guess what. The next flood in Noah's day was not a flood of the whole world, but a local flood, and God even said, He will never do that again to that level. So you see there is an exponential improvement in conscience, because God does not have to cause a global flood like in Gen. 1.2, nor a massive local flood to the degree found in Noah's day. As well, what we whom are saved have now, which is eternal life (resurrection life and an ability to know God) through Christ as typified by the tree of life, this is something Adam never had, for he did not eat of the tree of life in the garden. 2) Since the flood was a local flood, it was not wiping everyone off the face of the earth as in Gen. 1.2. Scholars agree there was not a global flood about 4000 years ago, and the Bible is only indicating their known world, not the whole world. Since your attempt here shows no inconsistences in the Bible, it shows you still have no life, that is, eternal life. Since salvation is a free-gift, nothing you need do yourself to receive it except believe in God's only begotten Son as your Lord and Savior who died on the cross for your sins so you may be forgiven, this is the initial point of new birth. You may try to work yourself to be better in your "good self" but that won't save you one iota, because you are a sinner. A sinner can't save himself. It is like trying to eat soup with chopsticks. Silly. But Christians do have consequences after this, not to lose eternal life, but lose the reward of reigning in the millennial kingdom with Christ. It is a great loss to lose this reward of reigning. If a Christian wants to be tied down to the world like a balloon, he will lose this reward. A Christian is already a good person, because they have received God's life; nothing is better. The Roman Church though has a problem, because it teaches a false faith in which its god claims you can be saved, but then lose that salvation tomorrow and need to get reborn again again. It is an afront to God's infinite foreknowledge to know whom to give His life to who He has infinite foreknowledge to see remains in with His life. But the Bible says just as you are born physically only once, so too, if you are saved, are born-again only once. You can't be born-again AGAIN. The Popes are evil men going to hell, rejecting God's living Word. There is no precedent in God's living Word for one man in charge of all except Christ. That's why Biblocality teaches apostles are for a region of churches, not like the eastern orthodox teaches, which says there can be a man in charge of the whole continent; they have man in charge of all of Africa. Apostles work in regions of like the churches of Lybia or churches of Ethopia, etc. Like the church of Ephesus is in the churches of Asia Minor or the church of Jerusalem is in the churches of Judea, the church in Dallas is in the churches of Texas. God does this because he knows man's flesh, that no such greater power is given to the apostles. There's a false incentive to control you in the Roman system, their worldly system, under the Roman Church. So the Bible speaks about them in Revelation 17 and Revelation 3 and Matthew 13 and says she the woman who sits on the beast of nations that makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications (14.8). She is none other than religious Rome. To be lost in the "good self" is not salvation, but pretending. So the Bible says, we shall know them by their fruit. I liked the Matrix just as much as the next person, but Neo does not represent Christ since Neo was reincarnated over and over, and the Bible is against reincarnation, since you are not coming back as a dog if you sin so you have no motivation to get rid of sin, because you always get another chance. By the way the Matrix falsely throws in the idea that you have been reincarnated but have no memory of your reincarnation like those in the various different Matrix verisions. Nah, you are not coming back as a human if you shape up after you become a dog for sinning, because you are never going to become a dog if you sin. You are going to hell for refusing God's love through His only begotten Son. Just know you have no reason to doubt Him, alas, you still do because your spirit is dead to God and you prefer in your flesh to be independent from Him. Thank you Jesus for this discernment!

old comment by A Friend

@Rime

Thank you, Troy, for the interesting challenge. You made me think for a minute, but your rebuttal is unconvincing. Good day.

This is not about challenge, but salvation from your sins and the gift of eternal life that only Christ Jesus can give! Since you don't know of anything specifically in my response that you found unconvincing which is why you can't identify or isolate it by showing it, but remain vague and coy as Satan would have you, know that in actuality nothing was, in fact, unconvincing at all. Rather, it is that you are bound for hell, because you like your sin nature that leads to death and the second death which is a conscious existence eternally separated from God, forever aware of your wrong choice. Your choice. Amen.

old comment by A Friend

@Rime

So, I took a look at it and thought this: image and said, "why not?" Thank you, Troy, for the interesting challenge. It's sad your rebuttal was so unconvincing. Good day.

I am glad you could not specify anything wrong with the Proof to show how convincing it is. Why not an oo infinity of the past? Because nothing in nature happens all by itself (Step 2), therefore, it can't ultimately create itself. And since there is an exponential progression in conscience (Step 1), there would not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects if you were still sinning, because it would not take that long to reach sinlessness in the saved. oo is your false assumption proven wrong and it is your idol for your father Satan, the father of lies.

old comment by A Friend

@Skeptical

For crying out loud, this is blatant spam. And he wants a million dollars for it lol. (From JREF that is.) He ought to have to pay for the moderation time required to delete the massive spamming of their site. At least I wish he'd come up with some new material :(

You just can't win with unsaved accusers. I am accused for not giving the Proof to JREF and I am accused for giving it to JREF. Suffice it to say at any rate, the owner of JREF, nor anyone else, can find fault with the Proof. There is no better proof than the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible. Even so, I have lots more material, but the Holy Spirit wants you to see the Perfect Proof for God over and over, to show you that when you are resurrected to Great White Throne and judged you will know you belong in hell, because God more than amply proved Himself while you were still in the flesh. The owner of JREF won't pay up the 1 million dollars for the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible, because he is a fraud. He is going to hell just like you because he also calls Jesus a liar. Spam is posting something irrelevant and inappropriate, like you just did. Just know that you can't find anything wrong with the Proof for God of the Bible, otherwise you would have done so by now. Just be intellectually honest with yourself.

old comment by Skeptical

just like you say you have no evidence for God of the Bible

Liar. (That's what Satan does too, lie.) What I said is I already believe and I don't need any FURTHER proof. It's already been proven to me satisfactorily.

There are 2 billion people on earth who call themselves Christians. Not all of them are. In fact very few of them are

One thing we do agree on. My accusations have not been vague - I said your proof is incoherent, meaningless, and spamming it all over a forum makes you sound like a crazy person. All quite true. I've also pointed out heresies in your doctrine and posted sound doctrine to counter it. What have you done but cut and paste?

old comment by A Friend

@Skeptical

Liar. (That's what Satan does too, lie.) What I said is I already believe and I don't need any FURTHER proof. It's already been proven to me satisfactorily.

In the Bible God says look at the mountains and the stars to ask yourself, did you do that? The answer is obviously NO. So what God is saying is that it doesn't happen all by itself (Step 2). Furthermore, we see an exponential progression of conscience in the Bible (Step 1) so there could not have been an eternity of the past of cause and effects. God treats one dispensation differently than the next in that progression: from the law of the OT period of animal sacrifices to the dispensation of grace with the veil now rent. After that, there will be the millennial reign of Christ in which there is no more war. You can't ask for a better Proof, but you disagree with this Proof of God, so there is a problem. You disagree with God's Proof of Himself, and you say you have other proof, though you have not given it and seem to be coy about it. This is what is not right about you. This is what is not Christian about you. If you directly reject the proof of God includes the fact nature doesn't happen all by itself, and you accuse this of being incoherent, but don't show it, you are acting like the great accuser. This remains your sin and why you can't ever prove your accusation. It is like you are sitting on a pedestal declaring yourself against the Proof, but have no means to back it up. Christians don't behave this way. We prefer to be non-overassuming and humble before our Lord. This being God's primary proof of Himself, and you say the "proof is incoherent, meaningless" and a "ridiculous proof," you give me no reason to believe you are a Christian as you can't even back up your accusation. You reject God's best proof of Himself.

One thing we do agree on. My accusations have not been vague - I said your proof is incoherent, meaningless, and spamming it all over a forum makes you sound like a crazy person. All quite true.

I am not spamming but continuing to respond to replies. You ar spamming, because you accuse but never even try to back it up. There is no incoherency for you don't show any. Again, this is not Christian of you, for Christians don't mindlessly accuse like Satan the great accuser. Any reasoned Christian would conclude that you are not a Christian, because your fruit is false. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder, and it is likely to do with the fact that I am able to prove you are not a Christian, but a pretender. Why not just give your life to Christ for real this time? Any person that rejects miracles, deliverance from demonic spirits, healings and who rejects the apostles is someone who is not a Christian. That person is you. Praise the Lord for this discernment!

old comment by A Friend

@Hawker Hurricane

Hey, Troy, do you remember saying "a Christian does not call a Christian brother a non-Christian"? So, saying this "I know you are not a Christian" To a admitted Christian is a no-no under your own rules. But that's good! By continuing to show the hypocracy of your (faked) belief system, you'll drive more people toward the truth. So, keep on spamming away. I figure that for each ten times you repeat your nonsense proof, you drive one person a step further away from that literal Biblical nonsense. Thanks!

Hawker, you're always looking for an angle to reject Christ and call Him a liar, but He will make a liar out of you, for He is totally proven in two main ways: (1) 4 Step Proof proves the uncreated created, and (2) By comparison, nobody fits that position better than does Christ. Saying someone is not a Christian who says they are a Christian and is not is the right thing to do by showing why they are not. People are drawn to the Word of God by the Proof because they can see you can't find any fault with it. Praise be to God that you give Him glory!

old comment by A Friend

@Hawker Hurricane

Brian X Aristotle once proved that women are inferior to men because they have fewer teeth. Too bad Aristotle never looked, he might have discovered that men and women have the same number of teeth. The false persona Troy has adopted in his effort to reduce Literalist Christian Fundamentalism is similar: he never looks. (I'm quite sure Troy, himself, has looked and looked hard. And he has made it a personal goal to destroy Biblical Literalist Christianity by assuming the persona of a hypocritical idiot)

For the reader who may have just read this, I am sure you are not unwise enough to assume these kind of statements about Aristotle are true. The burden of the proof is on the person who accuses Aristotle, and since they show no proof, we need not give it much consideration at all. False persona? How so? Reducing the literal facts? How so? I think Hawker is just projecting his own condition when he uses the words of "hypocritical idiot," because yet still, he finds no fault with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible, but continues on his reviling rampage and hate towards those who have resurrection life. He sounds jealousy that He has not been forgiven by God and of the joy in the body of Christ.

old comment by A Friend

Since the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible was placed here, I believe no less than a thousand people have put their two cents in about it to try to disprove it, but none could.
1000 x $10,000 = $10,000,000. If the $10,000 was to be given out to anyone who could disprove the Proof and 1000 people disproved it, 10 million would be given out, but not even $10,000 has been given out since not even one person could disprove it! When this Perfect Proof was submitted to JREF, Randi refused to award the $1,000,000 even though he could not find anything wrong with the Proof. May this then be proof as well how unethical and immoral an unsaved man is such as Randi, the owner of JREF. Since 2004 when it was submitted to Randi (and multiple times since then), that has been almost 4 years now. Just so you know, his response has been that of censorship and silence about it, for then his problem goes away he thinks silently into the night, and he is able to keep the $1,000,000 like a selfish old man. What he doesn't realize though is that since God is proven, none of us get away with anything, not even the smallest of sins. Everything is judged according to God's testimony. What's the interest cost of denial on that anway at say 5%? $1,000,000 x 1.05^4 years. Randi would not be judged by God for the interest accumulated on the 1 million, if he had paid it when the Proof was shown to him. He is just digging himself a bigger hole in hell. He is looking for a premier spot at its lowest levels in the dimension God created called Hell. Those who want to go to hell consider the best spots to be awared for the most cunning deception. Soon he would be bankrupt, because spiritually he is already bankrupt and senses his foretaste of hell even now. One could make a case as well that everyone who responds as he does ineffectively (with denial, deflection, obfuscation, avoidance, shutting one's mind down, censorship, misreading, overassuming, and petty self) to the Proof, or affiliates with Randi or commends him (e.g. one forum poster here that goes by the nickname of "Skeptic") and his forum, they shall each incur the same expense and debt accumulated and owed to God of the Bible for His Church. Wow! Powerful stuff!

old comment by A Friend

@Skeptical

Yet you lied about the purpose of JREF. You LIED about it. Their purpose and their methods do not include presenting a "proof." If your proof is so wonderful, (and it isn't) then go meet the actual clinical qualifications of JREF, PROVE it, and you will be a millionaire! Surely if the proof is perfect, it can meet those simple clinical standards? I triple-dog-dare you - GO PRESENT THE PROOF TO JREF in the manner prescribed and WIN THE MILLION DOLLARS! Do it.

You are just trying to be cunning, for you are into doublespeaking which is contradicting yourself, for you said, "anyone who can show" and now, "do not include presenting a 'proof'." Anything that can be shown is that which is proven. Are you lying in your doubletongue? I think so, for the Bible says be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8). Since the condition has been met for the "actual clinical qualifications" at JREF, the fact that the 1 million has not been paid out for the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible shows us that Randi, the owner of JREF, is a liar, and as you try to defend his lie, you make yourself a liar. I love how God makes a liar out of you. The 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible was already presented to JREF according to its requirements many times over several years. Their response is to ban, censor, avoid and cut off communication about it from the presenter. I am confident though God judges all things, and as much as he/they think they have circumvented, deflected and got away with something by breaking their promise, it is not the case at all. As you are a proponent of this behavior at the non-Christian and anti-Christian JREF site, it would be very difficult for a Christian to think you are a Christian along with your other false teachings of rejecting the very 4 Step Proof of God, the apostles, miracles, deliverance and healings. How sad for you. We can all be glad though that while you adamantly and ferociously reject these truths, you can't find any reason for doing so other than you want to go to hell. Wow! As such, you unwittingly give glory to God of the Bible. Amen. I believe your hell will be worse than others because you profess to be that which you are not to be sneaky to reject authority in God's kingdom for your own selfish self-exaltation. I have told you the truth. Now what you may do with it is up to you.

old comment by A Friend

@Hawker Hurricane

Well done, Troy! Keep on spamming the same things again, no matter how often they've been shown wrong. Continue with the non-sequitors, the psychological projections, the hypocracy and lies! You'll get more and more people to realize the emptiness of the Biblical Literalist position, and they'll grow and learn and become better human beings from abondoning the false teachings that you're mocking!
Well done indeed!

The irony of it all. This thread is about the 4 Step Proof for God (not about how many times you can say you disproved it, but never reproduce your claim by being coy) and any that might want to try to disprove it, but instead of your trying to disprove it, you accuse of spamming. I guess that is all you can do considering you can't find anything wrong with the Proof for God. Some might say then, you are spamming irrelevant and inappropriate stuff. Suffice it to say if you could show it wrong, you could reproduce it here just once. I am glad you can't show any non-sequitors, nor can you show any doubt about the fact that child sacrifices are not so prevalent anymore (as you call it, a psychological projection). What is it really more specifically? Exponential progression in conscience. I hear even women can vote now in the past century when it was hardly the case before. It makes one think about how the evil spirit will work in the unregenerates hostile to Christ. Perhaps they might reinstitute child sacrifices to try to disprove the exponential progression in conscience; like in the recent movie, The Reaping about the ten plagues. Go see it and you will see what I am referring to. Since you show no hypocricy or lie in myself, then what must be going on here is God is making a liar out of you in your accusations which we can all see you can't make a case for because you merely self-declare them. Don't you know this is the exact working of the Devil? He is called the great false accuser, and he likes to be vague too. Whereas God is specific in the Scriptures and through His Proof of Himself. Consequently, seeing your reaction, people will be drawn to Christ because the Bible is literally proven (and you can't find a single thing wrong with it): Jesus really lived, said He is God, died, predicted His resurrection, was multiply attested in His resurrection (which only God can do), and promises He will return again in Person to reign over all of earth. He also spoke of Hell more than anyone else, in which He said if you do not receive what He did for you on the cross, there is no other way to be saved and be forgiven for your sins and receive eternal life. All sin needs to be judged, and it is judged by death and the second death, which is hell, where you are going. This desire of yours wanting to go to hell will be done to you as you requested, and by your non-acceptance of Christ, for those who are empty inside such as yourself with jealousy who revile their creator Jesus Christ show their real condition. I trust people will abandon the faith of the agnostic/atheist, for they will be convinced as we mock the ARDENT HARDENED agnostic/atheist more and more about how ugly their lives are by how they respond to Christ. You have a habit of always giving glory to God of the Bible (oops! you did it again!), though in the wrong way, because you can't find fault with Him and the Proof of Him in the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible. Well done indeed! Thankyou for giving power to the church-body of Christ. Satan does the same thing by finding he was powerless against Christ by the power of the cross. When Christians died on the cross with Christ, the flesh was put to nought and in that flesh Satan depended on for his deceptions, he finds he can not move against God's children. Wow! Praise the Lord! Amen.

old comment by Jerry

Don't worry CousinTed...basically, these faults are found (in short)
-there's no exponentional progression in our conscience (not proven) and even so: we're not sinning less than before (step 1) - without god there is no sin, and otherwise...it's circular (step 1) -sin is a choice, and the word choice doesn't exist in the causality-scenario of this incoherent proof (step 2) -there've been shown some examples of things that dó happen by themselves, without a cause..like sinning ;) (step 2) steps 3 and 4 have not been argued...because theyré game-rules made up by Troy/ A Friend...or now, as it seems "FriendlyA" (typing your name over and over can be difficult..)

old comment by FriendlyA

@Jerry

Don't worry CousinTed...basically, these faults are found (in short) -there's no exponentional progression in our conscience (not proven) and even so: we're not sinning less than before (step 1) - without god there is no sin, and otherwise...it's circular (step 1) -sin is a choice, and the word choice doesn't exist in the causality-scenario of this incoherent proof (step 2) -there've been shown some examples of things that dó happen by themselves, without a cause..like sinning ;) (step 2) steps 3 and 4 have not been argued...because theyré game-rules made up by Troy/ A Friend...or now, as it seems "FriendlyA" (typing your name over and over can be difficult..)

CousinTed, don't let Jerry lead you astray. -since child sacrifices, murder rate per capita, crimes per capita are going down exponentially, this certainly constitutes a proof. I even hear women can vote this past century when they couldn't before (Step 1 remains true!). Because of the exponential progression in conscience, we are sinning less. Since this is the case, there would not need to be an eternity of the past of cause and effects to reach sinlessness in the saved, and since we still sin, you know we were created by the uncreated. It won't be much longer till when those who are being perfected in Christ will be without sin in their resurrection; but, the unsaved shall be resurrected for hell. -if you go to jail, without any mention of God, its because you sinned, to take an obvious case. If you don't think it is wrong to murder someone, then why do people go to jail for it? -sin is a wrong choice and so is doing that thing you ought not to do and not doing that which you know you ought to do. To have a choice is given to us by the cause of our existence, that which caused us. Since Step 2 observes that nothing in nature happens all by itself, then nature can't cause itself, but would have been caused by the uncaused creator who gives us the choice. It does not seem reasonable to assume an example exists of something happening all by itself. -there has never been anything ever that was shown to have happened all by itself; if it was so, it could have been shown by now you would think. Sin has a cause, which is the choice to sin. -Step 3 is important, because more often than not, you will find a person arguing against some facet of some god, but this is not the quality of God of the Bible, so why argue against something that is not what the Proof is about? You can call this a game rule if you like. A game rule such as this identifies those who make things up. The qualties of God of the Bible are agreed upon by Christians received by revelation of the Holy Spirit, not made up. This revelation is given for those who are in Christ. If you are not saved you would not be privy to this information by it touching your innerman or innerwoman deeply. There is something wrong with fstdt. When I tried to post as A Friend it didn't work, but then I tried AFriendly, and it did. Is anyone else finding that fstdt is doing this?

old comment by FriendlyA

@Gnomist

There are, have and will be other gods. You lose.

Step 4 covers this matter. It does not say if there are gods or not gods, but that if there were gods in the eternity of the past of cause and effects, you have to ask the question like in Step 2, what caused them initially, since they don't just happen all by themselves. And, if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the supernatural of gods creating gods, then your existence derived from it. You would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin, yet you still sin. Since the exponential progression in conscience is something we do observe, it shows that we would not still be sinning by now if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects. Since people clearly do still sin, it shows then the only possibility is the uncreated created. By comparison, we know Him to be our Lord Jesus in the Trinity. The Father spoke it, the Son created, an the Spirit executed and renews creation. There is perfect accord reached in the council of the uncreated Triune Godhead.

old comment by A Friend

@Jerry

that's gotta be at least the 30th time you posted that BS...are you that bored? as for the rest... You seem to refute the entire big-bang/strign theory's in one sentence "nothing happens by itself"? sorry dude, science beats unbased claims..

I thought BS was something that could be shown to be BS. Are you that ignorant and obstinate? Where is this post posted 30 times in this thread? Why is it at the forefront? Because, this is what you have to deal with-the Perfect Proof for God without your mistaken assumptions about it. The big bang and string theory don't say they happened all by themselves, but are explanations of some theories. Therefore, scientifically speaking, since nothing in nature has been seen to happen all by itself, we should not blindly assume these things happen all by themselves either. The weight of the evidence tells us that they had a cause too. Appreciate how disingenuous and unethical you are to pick the most complicating things to make up an opinion about your puff the magic dragon theory, even though in nature we see trillions of things with causes and effects, but nothing is observed to happen all by itself (assumptions don't count). Therefore, you lose, and this mistake assumption of yours in puff the magic dragon it happened all by itself is proven false by the weight of the evidence to the contrary. Science beats your unbased claims. It is not that the truth is unreasonable, but it is unloved. What is unloved? The truth that Jesus Christ provides you salvation. And he is the only way to be forgiven for your sins by accepting what He did for you on the cross. What love! What grace! What mercy! You are sinner, who needs to be saved, otherwise, you are going to hell. Knowing this, you are without excuse. Your choice. Praise the Lord!

old comment by A Friend

@spinetingler

>supernatural events causing supernatural events in the eternity of the past, because they do not cause themselves proof? By definition supernatural events do not follow the rules of nature (or cause and effect). That's what makes them "super"natural.

What makes them supernatural is that they are not natural, not that they don't follow laws of cause and effect. That would be your overassumed opinion without evidence. In everything we observe of the supernatural, like near death experiences and supernatural timing upon the natural in miracles, there was always an intervening cause and reason. It is an atheist/agnostic that do not rely on reason, but just assume arbitrary existence. That's goofy. If I were to use one word to describe the atheist/agnostic, it would be "goofy". How sad it would be to take on such a goofy position to end up in hell. Actually, the goofy position is not the reason you are going to hell, but the symptom. One assumes a goofy view because of their heart condition. You're an unregenerate. Since there is no reason to think the supernatural does not have cause and effect, then it also renders the same conclusion as Step 1 in Step 4, which says... If there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, then you would have had an eternity of the past to be perfected without sin. Given the exponential progression in conscience, we would not need an eternity of the past of cause and effects of gods creating gods, or supernatural creating supernatural. Obviously, then, since there is still sin, you were created by the uncreated supernatural, who is God of the Bible, because none can compare to Christ, which you admit, since you find nobody that you know of who said they were God that can trump the Trinity. Amen. Awomen.

old comment by ArchmageDB

Oh, I nearly forgot...Troy, it's easy to point out a trend. Yes, society has gotten better in this past century, but you have failed to back up (and before you say it, no, your 4-step proof didn't back it up, merely stated it) your assertion that this is a direct response of Christianity.
In fact, social change began because of questioning of the bible. We have a greater understanding of society because we trust in knowledge, not faith in some all-knowing father figure. Are you familiar with the ice cream statistic? The sale of ice cream skyrockets during the summer, as does the violent crime rate. Does this mean that ice cream is a cause of violent crime? As for sins, looking at a woman that one is not married to with lust is, in fact, a sin, yet the amount of pornography the average American looks at has exploded upwards during the time period in which you claim we sin so much less.

old comment by Logos Invictus

There's one problem here.
Proof is the burden of the claimant. You're the one claiming that God has caused a decrease in sinfulness among the faithful, so where's your proof? I'd like to see statistics, actual statistics verified by a neutral third party that actually in any way indicate that people are "sinning" less. The broad declarations you've made so far don't count, since there's no statistical underpinning to any of them that I've seen - except possibly numbers produced to bolster your own fantastic claims. Secondly, even if the first request could be met, it's still your burden to prove that God is causing it. This should prove difficult, because your entire argument is built to prove God's existance, so in order to prove your argument, you have to find some other way to prove God's existance. Verify your "facts", please, otherwise your argument comes down to "God exists because God exists because god exists", and that kind of circular logic really annoys me. As to steps 3 and 4, those aren't steps, they're cop-outs. You're trying to limit the field with silly caveats so that you can discount logical arguments on a technicality. Also, I'd like to point out that that graph really needs some touching up. Didn't God used to bless His prophets with quality workmanship? I mean, I'm no Moses but I don't need a staff that turns into a snake to spend a few hours with Microsoft Works Suite to at least make my idiocy look professional.

old comment by A Friend

@CousinTed

Except you forget to take mathematical limits into account: The idea that something can increase exponetially, but never actually reach a certain number. And I thought that high school calculus class would never come in handy.

I took university calculus, but for purposes here, calculus in grade 12 is enough to know that an exponential progression of something approaches infinity to be deemed as infinite. You don't, actually, even need to take a calculus class to know that as something increase faster and faster, by projecting it forward would reach a certain state, e.g. without sin in the saved. Looking backward, you can also say there could not be an infinite regress, because the saved would not still be overcoming sin and self. Knowing this about the exponential progression of conscience, we know that we could not have been derived from an eternity of the past of cause and effects. This is further proven by the undisputed fact that sin is still present, and would not be if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects. So simple. Not so simple for the unrenewed mind of the unregenerate.

old comment by A Friend

@ghost

how can one person be this stupid??
it boggles the mind

Christians are not just one person, but we are many people who make up the body of Christ in agreement, indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Why does this offend you? Is it not because you are going to hell, reviling like Satan, even though you have no just cause for doing so? I can think of nothing more stupid, using your words! Truly it boggles the mind to reject something, but have no reason for doing so. Crazy stuff! God, on the other hand, has perfect reasoning and righteousness according to His holiness why you have to live consciously aware forever of having made the wrong choice: calling Jesus a liar. Our Creator chose a people for Himself to come out of the world. You are not one of those people, because you are lost in the world. However much it frustrates you that God has chosen us, to be called-out ones, it makes no difference, because there is not a thing you can do about it. No matter how much your rage and jealousy increases, your hands are tied. You will be resurrected for hell because you don't want to be saved. Alas, you are adamant about it! Make no mistake about it! You do have the evil spirit in your spirit, because your spirit has not been quickened with God's life; so, you are bound for hell as John 3.18 says, you're already condemned. How sad for you.

old comment by A Friend

@ArchmageDB

Your proof fails to demonstrate how the decreases in murder, child sacrifices, etc. are a result of Christianity.

Christianity is a life in Christ, and since Christ is proven as being the uncreated creator, since none can compare to Him and by the 4 Step Proof, we know He is the ultimate cause. Since He is the cause of perfecting the saints towards sinlessness, His design ought to meet what we witness in the exponential progression in conscience with various examples of dispensational improvements in the Scriptures to show He meets the requirement.
e.g. Dispensation of grace is an improvement over the dispensation of the law. Similarly, the millennial dispensation far exceeds even man's responsibility in the garden and to be master over all the earth's creatures. In the millennial reign of Christ there is no war. Israel was told by God to get rid of nations that conducted this child sacrifice ritual. So yes, Christianity is the cause. All 66 books of the Bible are God's Word of Christianity, that is, being in Christ. Since the exponential progression in conscience is undeniable, it would not require an eternity of the past of cause and effects to reach sinlessness in the saved. Hence, you were created by the uncreated Trinity.

old comment by A Friend

@CousinTed

Look buddy, I'd love to sit here and argue with you, but the comments forum really isn't the place to be doing this. If you're this intent on proclaiming your insanity to the masses, then please take it to the forum.

I don't think we are buddies, since you are going to hell, and I am saved, going to the new city in the new earth. You can keep preaching to the masses through the internet your hostility to Christ, but that won't save you one bit. I am saddened to hear that you want to go to hell because you call Jesus a liar when He died on the cross for sins to give you eternal life. Using your words, could anything be more "insane"? This is the place to talk, as well as at Biblocality Forums, where the offer for rebuttle to the 4 Step Proof is open to all; or the acceptance of the Proof to give your life to Christ, as well as give glory to God that He proved Himself perfectly.

old comment by A Friend

@Jerry

mathematically speaking, it is véry possible to "always have existed" try the formula for growth: Y= e^X (e being the natural logorithm..rough translation) you can clearly see the growth appears to be exponentional, but it's very possible to "always" have existed..Thus has an eternity of past causes... Though, I know this won't get throught to you. But lemme explain this slowly: -You say the universe couldn't have always existed, it needs something to make it. -you say god has always existed, and made the universe. Now: the reasoning part: you invent a greater cause to explain the universe..Occams razor at it's best...

It is only possible for God to have always existed, not for us or nature since we still would not be sinning by now. God never sinned (Step 3). I am having a good chuckle because some non-believers say they don't believe in an eternity of the past of cause and effects, but here you are saying this is what you believe. Each to his own faith, but only Christ prevailed. An exponential progression that approximates infinity is deemed as infinity; therefore, you would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin, yet you still sin, which shows that you were created at some point by the uncreated. We don't invent God, but we first establish the cause is the uncreated. Then we look to see if any claims of their being God exist. Jesus said He is God, and proves Himself better than any other, so He is well substantiated as being God. So no Occams razor applies here in the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible; rather, it is just the fact of the matter that we attest to. Where is your mistake? It is in failing to see the exponential progression in conscience (Step 1) that is our proof which is also the grounds for dealing with all things in the supernatural as well (Step 4). You can further verify this by the fact that nothing in nature is ever without a cause (Step 2), so it can't cause itself. Therefore, it was caused by the uncaused.

old comment by Jerry

you don't know y=e^X..do you? might be because it's above 7th grade calculus...
it ís exponentional growth, but wíthout a starting point...so, if global conscience was growing exponentionally by y=e^X (simplified, offcourse) there're wouldn't be a god. so how can you prove to me global conscience ís rising exponentionally, but wíth a starting point?why woudl it nót be e^X? and a side note

It is only possible for God to have always existed, not for us or nature since we still would not be sinning by now

Thát is your assumption...Because with or without god, human kind has only been around for ~100.000 years...so it mgiht as well be a growth formula with a peak after 300.000 years..

old comment by Jerry

I am having a good chuckle because some non-believers say they don't believe in an eternity of the past of cause and effects, but here you are saying this is what you believe. Each to his own faith, but only Christ prevailed.

okay, three things 1) those non-believers are called "atheists". Non-believer makes you sound like you know the thruth and they don't...that's conceided.. 2) the "past and cause effects"..I was giving you some leverage, so a normal discussion was possible... I dón't believe is endless past causes and effects...because time itself wasn't there before the big bang. Might wanna read up on that ;) 3) Christ hasn't prevailed...were's the rapture?

old comment by A Friend

@Jerry

you still don't prove why the global conscience (exponenional, if you will) growth ISN'T with y=e^X because it might be, and that means there isn't nescacerily a startingpoint (which would "prove" your god...by your reasoning)

As you read, see how it is proven the exponential growth in the progression in global conscience doesn't follow y=e^X; rather, it has a starting point. Since we do observe an exponential progression in conscience (as proven by various examples), this tells us that it won't take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved in the near future due to the formula you provide based on its forward looking aspect. But, we also know that your formula fails because if there was a near flatline of the past of cause and effects to derive the exponential progression in conscience, there would not still be sin, yet there is. In other words, the exponential progression part is true, but it has a starting point and could not have been derived from an eternity of the past of cause and effects. Hence, you were created. Praise the Lord!

old comment by A Friend

@Jerry

okay, three things 1) those non-believers are called "atheists". Non-believer makes you sound like you know the thruth and they don't...that's conceided.. 2) the "past and cause effects"..I was giving you some leverage, so a normal discussion was possible... I dón't believe is endless past causes and effects...because time itself wasn't there before the big bang. Might wanna read up on that ;) 3) Christ hasn't prevailed...were's the rapture?

1) My point being, some atheists contend for an eternity of the past of cause effects (disproven by the exponential progression in conscience), while others contend for puff the magic dragon it happened all by itself (though nothing in nature does). There are still others who have a third doubletongue, by contending for both which contradicts themselves. It is true I know the truth. It may seem conceited to you, but since I have fully proven it, there can be no conceit as I have shared this truth to you with an open heart. A non-believer does not accept the proof even though he can't find anything wrong with it. That is conceited. To know the truth that you are going to hell, is just the fact of the matter given the evidence. 2) I think you misquoted me, because I don't recall saying, "past and cause effects".. I think you meant "the past of cause and effects".. Nobody can show if time existed or did not exist before the big bang, so why assume either way? That is as though you know, when you don't. Don't be conceited by overassuming. Whether time existed before the big bang or not does not mean the big bang happened all by itself, for it still requires a cause as do all things in nature. You might want to read up on that. Since you admit that there is not an eternity of the past of cause and effects, why argue for it and give false impressions? You sound like you are merely conveniently changing your tune as the flesh is so apt to do when it loses. Secondly, in your world-view the only other possibility is it happened all by itself, but that is not possible either (as Step 2 indicates to us). That leaves us with only one choice, the uncreated created who by comparison we know to be God of the Bible. 3) Christ is already raptured. That is why the Bible calls Him the firstfruits. During the consummation of this age we will be raptured too, even you will be as well, but after the 1000 year reign of Christ. Our rapture precedes your rapture by a 1000 years because we are going where you are not going. Enoch was raptured (representing first rapture before the first trumpet, Rev. 3.10, Luke 21.36, Matt. 24.37,40-41,42, Rev. 7.9, Matt. 13.32). Noah went through the flood to be raptured at the last trumpet (1 Cor. 15.23, 50-52, 1 Thess. 4.15-17). Jesus was taken, the Saints were left. Philip was taken, the Enoch was left. Elijah was taken, Elisha was left. Both the taken and the left are saved and raptured, but during the 7 year Tribulation and parousia of Christ, the taken are those who are first received according to readiness, whereas the rest of believers alive and waiting in rest are raised up at the last trumpet when Christ returns from the clouds. (Note: some resting believers are raptured at the first rapture as well, such as martyrs and virgin Christian firstfruits of at least 144,000 as spoken of Rev. 14.1-5).

old comment by A Friend

@Morpheus

CT: I'm afraid so. I don't think he plans to stop any time soon. In fact, I fear he might even be planning to train Troy Jr. (when/if he exists) to take his place, much in the style of a Capetian monarch. Or a Sith lord.

All parents should help lead their children to Christ, so as not to go to hell where you are going, and if you have kids, so as to teach them not to be like you. I think your movie characters would not accept Jesus Christ either, so aren't they like you? The reason there is a hell is because you won't stop your reviling. The Pharisees behaved the same way as they tried and succeeding in killing Jesus. You're not so disimilar from them. You're just too selfish to give up self for Christ and you know it.

old comment by A Friend

@Jerry

no weirdass..he means if you wnat to make a nice discussion, take it here: http://www.fstdt.com/forums/default.asp eitherway, I'm done..had a good laugh, bye now

You're brutal and crass. He is insisting on it, but of course I won't. I don't insist that he come to Biblocality Forums, but give him the choice if he wants to try to formerly try to disprove the 4 Step Proof for God. Since nobody has been able to do so here at the fstdt cult anywhere, I am sure those who tried here won't succeed at Biblocality Forums. If your discussion is not nice here, I don't think it will be nice on other fstdt forums. Funny. Try to keep your promise not to post again since you said you were done. You are free to laugh all the way to hell. How pathetic!

old comment by A Friend

@Jerry

ghehhe..sure...you know me, you can see right through your computer and tell what person I am.. at least I don't go around the internet 12 hours a day trying to keep up the "perfect proof" in what might very well be at least 4 different forums, and the fstdt-comment boards... Can't you see what you're doing?

So much for your promise not to post again. Your word is not very good and you're not in control of yourself, for the flesh controls you. Of course I know what kind of person you are when you say Jesus is a liar and when you don't accept the Proof for God even though you can't find anything wrong with it. That says everything. You don't need a reason to be mindless, obstinate and belligerent. The only place for you is hell. You are a bad guy. I spend very little time on discussion forums. For example, presently the only place I am posting is here at fstdt and at Biblocality Forums. That's not 12 hours at all. It's not even one hour. You are always wrong it seems. Can't you see what you are doing? You are babbling with mindless accusations to deflect from the fact that you can't find anything wrong with the Proof for God of the Bible. You're being disingenuous and frankly, unethical. Why shut your mind down?

old comment by HypnoToad

Brilliant graph there, dude. And please, give it a rest. You've created nothing new, and nothing that can't be undone with simple logic.
1. You assume a lot here: first, we've only been here about 10,000 years, so even if the universe is eternal, that's how long we've had to "raise our conciousness." The age of the universe has absolutely nothing to do with our species' behaviour. 2. Zuh? "nature" is a pretty all-encompasing word. Certainly some apects of nature created other aspects, but you're using too broad a word to have any real meaning. Plus, you jump to a conclusion with no basis. The thing reads like this: If A then B. Assume A Therefore Q. 3. I'm just curious why this is on the list. Is somebody out there trying to prove Odin exists, and you didn't want to ? 4. Why not? Like you said, everything must have a cause, and there's nothing in your Bible or anything we've observed that suggests that the supernatural can't affect itself. (or even exists, for that matter.) I mean, if there was a god, and he was truly omnipotent, he would be able to affect himself. Oh! and look at Jesus! That's an instance of a super natural entity (god) creating another supernatural entity (jesus). So yeah, give it up and stop trolling our boards. Go back under your bridge.

old comment by CT

I know it's hard for you to keep track of all the stuff you've spouted here, but I'm sure you remember saying about how you'd done what you had to do here and that you were leaving... and that anyone who wanted to continue the debate could go to your forums.
If you don't remember, then try looking back through the garbage you posted... and realise that you broke a promise. (in Biblical terms, you are an Oath-Breaker... hell-bound with no possible way to avoid it) On the other hand, if you DO remember, then you've just lied... again. (in Biblical terms, that makes you a non-Christian... since Christians don't lie. Thus you are hell-bound with no way to avoid it) Either way, you're taking people to task for what you've done, which makes you a hypocrite... which is a sin according to the Bible, making you hell-bound with no way to avoid it. How do we know you've no way to avoid it? Because you've shut your mind down to the possiblity of any of us being right and you being wrong... That is PRIDE, yet another sin in the eyes of your God. Troy, in your time here all you've done is prove that you don't care about God, the Bible, or Christianity... you just care about being RIGHT! Jesus had a lot to say about people like that... and none of it was good. Oh, and could you try to use English properly... preferably without the convulated garbage designed to disguise the fact that you're saying nothing of sense?

old comment by A Friend

@HypnoToad

Brilliant graph there, dude. And please, give it a rest. You've created nothing new, and nothing that can't be undone with simple logic.
1. You assume a lot here: first, we've only been here about 10,000 years, so even if the universe is eternal, that's how long we've had to "raise our conciousness." The age of the universe has absolutely nothing to do with our species' behaviour. 2. Zuh? "nature" is a pretty all-encompasing word. Certainly some apects of nature created other aspects, but you're using too broad a word to have any real meaning. Plus, you jump to a conclusion with no basis. The thing reads like this: If A then B. Assume A Therefore Q. 3. I'm just curious why this is on the list. Is somebody out there trying to prove Odin exists, and you didn't want to ? 4. Why not? Like you said, everything must have a cause, and there's nothing in your Bible or anything we've observed that suggests that the supernatural can't affect itself. (or even exists, for that matter.) I mean, if there was a god, and he was truly omnipotent, he would be able to affect himself. Oh! and look at Jesus! That's an instance of a super natural entity (god) creating another supernatural entity (jesus). So yeah, give it up and stop trolling our boards. Go back under your bridge.

What I have shared with you in the Perfect Proof for God in 4 Steps is something that has always been known. It is nothing new under the sun. I didn't do the graph, but some unsaved soul did it. 1. Since we are derived from the "dust" (Gen. 2.7) of the universe in which our body is formed, then it is true we come from it; and if it had been existing for an eternity of the past of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin, yet you still sin. Therefore, given the exponential progression in conscience, we would not still be sinning by now if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, because approximating eternity is deemed as eternity. Hence, there are no assumptions in Step 1. All is proven. Your assumption is false that the dust of the universe has nothing to do with the formation of our body. If the stars did not explode and the elements created, you would not exist. The Bible even uses the term, "soulical body". 2. Since one can fathom a trillion things that have a cause and not even one thing that is without a cause, the odds are against you. 3. You don't define your terms what A and B and Q are, so your vagueness is disregarded. Step 1 deals with nature, that is, all things in nature. Whereas Step 4 deals with all things supernatural. In both instances we are covering all things having cause and effect. Not "certainly some," but certainly ALL things have a cause to them. 3. Step 3 is important because a person more often than not argues against some quality, which is not the quality of the Bible. How silly that is! This is due to misunderstanding what the qualities of God of the Bible are. 4. Since the Proof proves the uncreated created, and the Bible never says a being can create himself, for that would just be silly. How can one who does not exist cause himself? That's goofy. Jesus said He is "from everlasting". Period. That is uncreated. If the Bible says God from everlasting, then this is not causing oneself. That's impossible. For example, you did not cause yourself to be born. The council of the Godhead of the Father, Son and Spirit are co-equal and co-inherent. They always existed from everlasting. The Father did not create the Son, nor did the Spirit create the Father. What Step 4 is saying is that if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the supernatural realm and of gods creating gods, similar to Step 1 we know this can not be possible because of the exponential progression in conscience. You would not still be sinning by now. This proves various faiths like mormonism to be false, reincarnation gods, and other gods of endless pasts. I am having a good chuckle because some atheists tell me that atheists don't believe in the eternity of past of cause and effects, but here you are arguing for it, while at the same time arguing for some things not having a cause. This is your doublespeak. All your points have already been answered in this thread, so the fact that you don't realize this, shows you are trolling by being so unconscientious. I gave the same answer as I gave before. I am repeating myself because of belligerency of responses. Try actually responding.

old comment by A Friend

@Jerry

[So much for your promise not to post again] yeah nevermind...this is too funny to let it rest.. for the greater part because I know you can't let this rest...which is highly amusing. just as fun as it is to see an exponentional progression in the number of fstdt submissions credited to you (counting about six different quotes were your 4-step stuff is being discussed) all of which you feel the need to hold down the fort of your 'proof' fstdt is onyl getting funner because of you, thanks!

Hey Jerry, you're back after you said you would not post again! I love the truth, so that is what I am here for, to share the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Ask yourself a solemn question. Since you can't find anything wrong with the Proof and you have no reason to doubt Jesus when He said He is God, then why remain independent and disobedient to your creator? The consequences will be eternal.

old comment by CT

Troy... just a simple set of questions for you.
Is this a real challenge? Do you have independent judges overseeing all the posts claiming errors in your proof? Do you have the prize money set aside. Do you even HAVE the prize money? Do you consider what is said or do you reply within minutes of reading posts, before you could have even thought through their points? Would you be able to accept it being proven wrong? Considering you've been able to reply to posts within minutes, with replies that don't even touch on the points raised, I doubt you consider them at all... Since you are at financial risk if it is proven wrong, and since YOU are the one judging if such proof is given, and since you have been twisting like a tornado to deny that there are any errors... (up to and including contradicting your own proof) it's fair to say that your "proof" and your "challenge" is about as honest as Kent Hovind's was. You are a cheat, a fraud, a liar, a fake... and you can't let it go here because you NEED to "win" so that you can continue being a false Christian, giving false proof to those looking for it. Go ahead... try to deny it. The proof is all over this site now.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Troy... just a simple set of questions for you. Is this a real challenge? Do you have independent judges overseeing all the posts claiming errors in your proof? Do you have the prize money set aside. Do you even HAVE the prize money? Do you consider what is said or do you reply within minutes of reading posts, before you could have even thought through their points? Would you be able to accept it being proven wrong? Considering you've been able to reply to posts within minutes, with replies that don't even touch on the points raised, I doubt you consider them at all... Since you are at financial risk if it is proven wrong, and since YOU are the one judging if such proof is given, and since you have been twisting like a tornado to deny that there are any errors... (up to and including contradicting your own proof) it's fair to say that your "proof" and your "challenge" is about as honest as Kent Hovind's was. You are a cheat, a fraud, a liar, a fake... and you can't let it go here because you NEED to "win" so that you can continue being a false Christian, giving false proof to those looking for it. Go ahead... try to deny it. The proof is all over this site now.

Indeed, you are projecting yourself onto others with all your railing accusations, yet none you can show. Still you can't find anything wrong with the Proof for God. Nothing you just said in various many self-declarations disproves the Proof, nor do you deal specifically with any aspect of the Proof. If you would like to try you are welcome to do so. Who is more qualified than one whom the Proof would give authority to! A child of God. I think this is a glory to God that you don't even try, because you know you got nothing.

old comment by CT

So... the person who stands to loose the most if it's proven wrong is the same person who gets to decide whether it's proven wrong or not...
You are as honest as Hovind was... and you know what happened to him. Now... you once promised to never return here... you broke that promise. You claimed you never made that promise... you lied. You continue to post the same message over and over again... spam, pure and simple. You are breaking God's laws left, right and centre... and believe yourself qualified to judge?? You are arrogant, judgmental, closed-minded, hypocritical and suffering from a Holier-than-thou attitude. If you read the Bible, you see that Jesus railed against people like that, about how they were the people who would cry "lord! lord!" yet be denied heaven. Everything you do, everything you've posted, says the same thing... you are no Christian... you're a Pharisee.

old comment by Brian X

CT:
Pharisee? Eh. More like obsessive-compulsive. Troy: The existence of heaven and hell cannot be proven. YHWH as portrayed in the Bible is impossible, given the sheer size and complexity of the universe; if the concept of God were to be salvaged at all, we would have to deal with either a local God (a concept, by the way, that the people of the Bible had no problem with -- to them, YHWH was the most powerful of many, and the only one to be respected) or a God who is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. The Bible is not a reliable source, especially given that its current form was shaped by at least two major political currents (the Deuteronomic reforms of King Josiah and the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church by Emperor Constantine). There is nothing original about any of Jesus' miracles, virtually all of which have been attributed to any number of would-be Messiahs over the centuries. Paul founded the Christian church and much of what he said contradicted the words of Jesus, if not in the letter than in the spirit (if you don't believe me, why does such an obviously important character as Maryam of Magdala get such a small role in the Gospels, which were written under a strong Pauline influence?). And in any case, Jewish people don't see the Bible in anything like the same light that Christians do -- if the Christian Bible was everything it's claimed to be, surely Judaism would have died out by now. You won't believe any of the above things I've said, and you will continue to hang the nonexistent threat of eternal hellfire over the heads of myself and anyone else in this thread who disagrees with you. You've obstinately determined that nothing, but nothing will shake your faith, and every response to you will be interpreted in that light. But that does not change the fact that the God you preach cannot exist, and that promises of heaven and threats of hell cannot be backed up by real-world proof. You lose, but you just haven't left the field yet.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

So... the person who stands to loose the most if it's proven wrong is the same person who gets to decide whether it's proven wrong or not... You are as honest as Hovind was... and you know what happened to him. Now... you once promised to never return here... you broke that promise. You claimed you never made that promise... you lied. You continue to post the same message over and over again... spam, pure and simple. You are breaking God's laws left, right and centre... and believe yourself qualified to judge?? You are arrogant, judgmental, closed-minded, hypocritical and suffering from a Holier-than-thou attitude. If you read the Bible, you see that Jesus railed against people like that, about how they were the people who would cry "lord! lord!" yet be denied heaven. Everything you do, everything you've posted, says the same thing... you are no Christian... you're a Pharisee.

Pascal's wager says says about Christianity that the risk of a Christian being wrong is minimal, but the risk of a non-believer is great, with eternal consequences. Naturally a Christian discerns since the Proof, you would agree, points to God of the Bible, because you can't find anything wrong with it. I love that, how you give glory to God of the Bible unwittingly as you reject Jesus. Hovind had a false teaching of young earth creation. It has been my experience in noticing those who have such false teachings are also false generally. If I said I would never return here, why don't you just simply quote it? As each time a person repeats themselves, each time do I respond. Why not respond to my response by how I showed you how you misread the Proof and what mistaken assumptions you have. Those who have authority are God's children. Make no mistake about it. Though we are not reigning now because the god of this world is Satan, your god, this reward is given to believers, and there is nothing you can do about it. I have broken no law of God that I am aware of, and you don't point it out either. Why the railing accusations? Moreover, that you mention God's law, whatever that means to you, is implying that you acknowledge the laws of God. How do you reconcile this contradiction while at the same time calling Jesus a liar? As far as your other accusations, I think you are just projecting your already known condition onto others. Since you do not have the Holy Spirit in your spirit, obviously you are incapable of discerning and judging who is a Christian and who is not, since your spirit is dead to God and you are going to hell for calling Jesus a liar. Don't you think it is disingenuous to argue from the standpoint of a faith when you don't have that faith? Crazy stuff! Once-saved-always saved! Anyone born-again can not lose that life. It is eternal, and we are a new creation who have been chosen before the foundations of the world. You sound jealous. Let me tell you that you still live in your old man, which has not died on the cross with Christ, nor have you received the precious blood to wash away your sins.

old comment by CT

In simple terms... Pascals Wager is a false argument. Like your proof, it presumes Christianity is true.
Your posts are very wordy, yet boil down to "I'm right, so there!" You claim to be able to discern who is Christian and who is not... That is a claim to be able to judge peoples hearts. The only being known in Christianity who can do that is GOD! Are you God? Do you have his knowledge? No, you don't. Every time you judge someone as a Christian or not, you are placing yourself in Gods place. You are proclaiming yourself, essentially, God. If you remember the very first commandment... Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. You break that commandment every time you judge someone on their faith. You break that commandment every time you come out with how holy you are. Jesus had a name for people like you... people who were convinced that THEY could do what only God could do... people who would proclaim that they were holy, proclaiming it far and wide. He called them Pharisees. Jesus also has a place for people like you... and no amount of self-declarations to the contrary will change your final destination. Or do you deny your claim to have brought forth something perfect? Do you deny that you constantly judge peoples faith? Do you deny that you regularly proclaim your holiness, your God-like abilities? Do you deny that you are, in fact, a Pharisee, trying to convince others that you are worthy of God's mercy? Do you deny that you argue, over and over, about how you are so much better than anyone else here... with only your own word to show it is true? Deny any of those, and you show you are a liar, bound for hell... admit any of those, and you prove you are a Pharisee, bound for hell. Refuse to answer any of those, and you prove that you have closed your mind... and that would make you dead to God. Oh, and I can very easily argue your belief structure without agreeing that it is true... it's called a Hypothetical. Look it up sometime.

old comment by A Friend

@Brian X

CT: Pharisee? Eh. More like obsessive-compulsive. Troy: The existence of heaven and hell cannot be proven. YHWH as portrayed in the Bible is impossible, given the sheer size and complexity of the universe; if the concept of God were to be salvaged at all, we would have to deal with either a local God (a concept, by the way, that the people of the Bible had no problem with -- to them, YHWH was the most powerful of many, and the only one to be respected) or a God who is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. The Bible is not a reliable source, especially given that its current form was shaped by at least two major political currents (the Deuteronomic reforms of King Josiah and the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church by Emperor Constantine). There is nothing original about any of Jesus' miracles, virtually all of which have been attributed to any number of would-be Messiahs over the centuries. Paul founded the Christian church and much of what he said contradicted the words of Jesus, if not in the letter than in the spirit (if you don't believe me, why does such an obviously important character as Maryam of Magdala get such a small role in the Gospels, which were written under a strong Pauline influence?). And in any case, Jewish people don't see the Bible in anything like the same light that Christians do -- if the Christian Bible was everything it's claimed to be, surely Judaism would have died out by now. You won't believe any of the above things I've said, and you will continue to hang the nonexistent threat of eternal hellfire over the heads of myself and anyone else in this thread who disagrees with you. You've obstinately determined that nothing, but nothing will shake your faith, and every response to you will be interpreted in that light. But that does not change the fact that the God you preach cannot exist, and that promises of heaven and threats of hell cannot be backed up by real-world proof. You lose, but you just haven't left the field yet.

The atheist/agnostic is certainly obsessive-compulsive in his quest to call Jesus a liar. The Bible is clear that God of the Bible is not one god of many, but the only uncreated God. These many gods the Bible says are really just idols people set up in their hearts, caused by the people for selfish purposes. What is important about Step 2 is that since nothing in nature happens by itself, no matter how complex it is, this shows that it can't cause itself. Hence, the uncreated created. Because God is uncreated, always existing, there is nothing more powerful. He truly is omnipotent and omniscient, as you would expect of the uncreated: "from everlasting" the Bible says. Constantine did not develop the Roman Church, but Constantine represents the Eastern Church and these two factions separated. God warned us these problems would arise even before they happened. In Rev. 2 & 3 you can think of Thyatira as the Roman Church (4th church period), because that is exactly what it is pointing to; whereas, Constantine was derived from the 3rd church period of Pergamum. Regarding Mary, you are confused. The Roman Church is pointed to in the Bible as the great harlot of religious Rome in Rev. 17. She sits on the beast of nations to make them drunk with the wine of the wrath of her fornications (14.8). This shows a lot of integrity for the Bible to speak against this false system that was derived from one of its own church periods. Mary was born into sin like you and me. The Bible says all that is born of the flesh is flesh. There are no exceptions. Flesh is sin of the body and selfishness of the soul. There is no indication the Gospels were written under strong influence by Paul, because they are so different. All the Gospels are quite different from each other. Where some left stuff out others included. Judaism would not have died out, for the Bible says it will remain until Christ returns in Person. He says that the Jews will not accept Him until He steps down on the mount of olives. So that explains why Judaism is still here. Read Isaiah 53. This depicts Jesus perfectly. Who has believed our message? To whom will the Lord reveal his saving power? 2 My servant grew up in the Lord's presence like a tender green shoot, sprouting from a root in dry and sterile ground. There was nothing beautiful or majestic about his appearance, nothing to attract us to him. 3 He was despised and rejected-a man of sorrows, acquainted with bitterest grief. We turned our backs on him and looked the other way when he went by. He was despised, and we did not care. 4 Yet it was our weaknesses he carried; it was our sorrows [fn1] that weighed him down. And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God for his own sins! 5 But he was wounded and crushed for our sins. He was beaten that we might have peace. He was whipped, and we were healed! 6 All of us have strayed away like sheep. We have left God's paths to follow our own. Yet the Lord laid on him the guilt and sins of us all. 7 He was oppressed and treated harshly, yet he never said a word. He was led as a lamb to the slaughter. And as a sheep is silent before the shearers, he did not open his mouth. 8 From prison and trial they led him away to his death. But who among the people realized that he was dying for their sins-that he was suffering their punishment? 9 He had done no wrong, and he never deceived anyone. But he was buried like a criminal; he was put in a rich man's grave. 10 But it was the Lord's good plan to crush him and fill him with grief. Yet when his life is made an offering for sin, he will have a multitude of children, many heirs. He will enjoy a long life, and the Lord's plan will prosper in his hands. 11 When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish, he will be satisfied. And because of what he has experienced, my righteous servant will make it possible for many to be counted righteous, for he will bear all their sins. 12 I will give him the honors of one who is mighty and great, because he exposed himself to death. He was counted among those who were sinners. He bore the sins of many and interceded for sinners. Jesus spoke about hell for you more than anyone else. Since you can't disprove His case and have every reason to believe Him, know you belong in hell because you won't repent to the cross. John 3.18 says you are already condemned. Since nothing in nature happens all by itself and the exponential progression in conscience is obvious to all, there is no other possibility than the uncreated created. Who is He? He is none other than our Lord Jesus Christ, for He said He is God, and He proved it. -62 prophecies fulfilled which no man could fulfill. -witnesses resurrected by 12 different group settings -necessarily, He said He is God -agreement of 40 writers inspired by the Holy Spirit -no known sin existed within Him. -His ministry for three and a half years touched many lives with such profound teachings. Christianity today is the largest religion in the world, even larger than the religion of atheists/agnostics. Though only a small percentage are actually saved, it shows how guilty people feel for rejecting Christ. The Church is the saved body of Christ. The Kingdom of Heaven today also includes those who appear to be saved, but are not. Outside the Kingdom of Heaven is someone such as yourself, who is a dog, the Bible says. You have already lost, because Jesus already proved Himself, and you reject Him; so Jesus said He will make a liar out of you.

old comment by A Friend

@ArchMageDB

I'm starting to think Troy is really just a very persistent troll. The ad hominem attacks are just a little too neatly placed for a normal fundie defending a plagiarized religion.

Think of yourself as a persistent troll, for that is what you are. You can't find fault with the Proof for God, yet you still call Jesus a liar. God revealing Himself in His Word and our receiving His gift of salvation is not plagiarizing, but God's will. Satan never ceases with his mindless acccusations in his pawns. That's why you are going to hell, for only hell can contain you and you can't be in the new city because God is righteous and would never allow it. There is no sin in the new city. Your ad hominem attack is just you projecting your own condition onto others. But Christians are not like you.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

In simple terms... Pascals Wager is a false argument. Like your proof, it presumes Christianity is true. Your posts are very wordy, yet boil down to "I'm right, so there!" You claim to be able to discern who is Christian and who is not... That is a claim to be able to judge peoples hearts. The only being known in Christianity who can do that is GOD! Are you God? Do you have his knowledge? No, you don't. Every time you judge someone as a Christian or not, you are placing yourself in Gods place. You are proclaiming yourself, essentially, God.

Pascal's wager doesn't assume anything. It says IF THEN. Similarly the Proof is also non-assuming. That's why you can find no assumptions. Your assumption it has some is your unbacked assumption. All Christians have the mind of God by His Holy Spirit in our spirits. Though we can not always know if someone is saved more often than not we can know. That is why we break bread with brothers and sisters because we know they are members of the body of Christ. We don't break bread with the unsaved, for the unsaved do not know what this is about or don't care, for it would be pretentious and not of the Lord's supper to be undertook in thanksgiving and remembrance for them, since they have not receive Christ. When a Christian receives from God knowledge of another person's salvation, this does not mean the person is God, but that they have received revelation from God.

If you remember the very first commandment... Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. You break that commandment every time you judge someone on their faith. You break that commandment every time you come out with how holy you are. Jesus had a name for people like you... people who were convinced that THEY could do what only God could do... people who would proclaim that they were holy, proclaiming it far and wide. He called them Pharisees. Jesus also has a place for people like you... and no amount of self-declarations to the contrary will change your final destination.

It is not a Christian who judges, but receives revelation from God about another person's salvation or unsalvation. The first commandment remains intact as a result. If you say there is an eternity of the past of cause and effects, then you place a god before God. Your idol god would be this false premise of an eternity of the past of cause and effects, or it may be puff the magic dragon it happened all by itself. Either of these are placed above God in your sin. All God's children have eternal blessing. Are we holy? Only God is truly Holy. Yet, by His grace and glory He has made us sons and daughters. Not you; you're going to hell because you call Jesus a liar. How truly just God is! Christians do not describe themselves more than what we are. We remain within the bounds as members of the body of Christ. This is true humility. Whereas you try to self-exalt yourself above God by calling Jesus a liar. You still have your problem of rejecting Christ, but accusing by abusing what He said, for your own selfish gain, as indicated by the fact that you call Him a liar. Talk about a contradiction.

Or do you deny your claim to have brought forth something perfect? Do you deny that you constantly judge peoples faith? Do you deny that you regularly proclaim your holiness, your God-like abilities? Do you deny that you are, in fact, a Pharisee, trying to convince others that you are worthy of God's mercy? Do you deny that you argue, over and over, about how you are so much better than anyone else here... with only your own word to show it is true?

God reveals His perfect Proof of Himself, just as we know 2+2=4. Is it a sin because we know this is perfectly true? He finds no fault in it, nor do you. In this, you and God agree, except that He created you; you did not create Him. You are a sinner. He is not. Salvation is needed for you, not for God. Everyone is worthy of God's mercy, though not everyone receives it. Since you call Jesus a liar, you can't receive His eternal blessings. God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10.34). We are all created equal in His image, though we have many differences. The Proof of 4 Steps for God of the Bible is the issue for why you ought not to call Jesus a liar. I won't argue with you as you are prone to do, but simply give you the truth to help lead you to Christ.

Deny any of those, and you show you are a liar, bound for hell... admit any of those, and you prove you are a Pharisee, bound for hell. Refuse to answer any of those, and you prove that you have closed your mind... and that would make you dead to God. Oh, and I can very easily argue your belief structure without agreeing that it is true... it's called a Hypothetical. Look it up sometime.

Of course I deny your false accusations as you emulate your father Satan. I am glad I was able to answer all your questions, and show again, that your hypotheticals are really just misreadings of God's Word and the blocking out your mind to the Perfect Proof for God in 4 Steps. Do you not realize you are going to hell? God is willing save you if you are willing to come to the cross.

old comment by Zeniel

Real or not I will not Kowtow before any god! If he actually thinks he has power over the hells, the abyss, or any of the lower planes then hes a walking propaganda machine! Man damns himself no god can! SO he created me? Big whoop! What? I need to thank him for for the rest of my life doing so?! The entity who apparantly slew my mother! In fact about 1/2 of my entire family! Gee thanks god! If you do have the power to damn me to hell I am gonna scratch and crawl my way to heavens gates and tear out your heart for what you did to me!!!! Man would be better off if you'd just fuck off and die! Then people would be nice outta sheer kindness rather than outta fear of going somewhere to burn for all eternity! I'd endure the pain if i had too! I'd find satan and tear out his heart Too! There obviously no reasoning with either of you because its like shouting at a brick wall! If the brick wall existed. But just in case I thought I'd let you know. Fuck you 10000 US I've got plenty of money. I don't want it anyway. The fact you actually believe 10000$ is worth more than your beliefs however unknowledgable they may be based on proves you are a fool indeed! May the winds of pandemonium roar and wail till your sanity breaks! I'll be in Limbo shaping my environment of sheer will! You'll be kissing some giant entitys ass for all eternity! Oh and I don't get too? darn! Condemn to the abyss I care not! I've seen enough of "compassion" from your god. At least the demons are honest in their hatred.

old comment by A Friend

@Zeniel

Real or not I will not Kowtow before any god! If he actually thinks he has power over the hells, the abyss, or any of the lower planes then hes a walking propaganda machine! Man damns himself no god can! SO he created me? Big whoop! What? I need to thank him for for the rest of my life doing so?! The entity who apparantly slew my mother! In fact about 1/2 of my entire family! Gee thanks god! If you do have the power to damn me to hell I am gonna scratch and crawl my way to heavens gates and tear out your heart for what you did to me!!!! Man would be better off if you'd just fuck off and die! Then people would be nice outta sheer kindness rather than outta fear of going somewhere to burn for all eternity! I'd endure the pain if i had too! I'd find satan and tear out his heart Too! There obviously no reasoning with either of you because its like shouting at a brick wall! If the brick wall existed. But just in case I thought I'd let you know. Fuck you 10000 US I've got plenty of money. I don't want it anyway. The fact you actually believe 10000$ is worth more than your beliefs however unknowledgable they may be based on proves you are a fool indeed! May the winds of pandemonium roar and wail till your sanity breaks! I'll be in Limbo shaping my environment of sheer will! You'll be kissing some giant entitys ass for all eternity! Oh and I don't get too? darn! Condemn to the abyss I care not! I've seen enough of "compassion" from your god. At least the demons are honest in their hatred.

If deity A causes person B, then this does not demand he be a propaganda machine. He is merely the truth. God condemns the man who condemns himself, by refusing salvation. God never killed your family. Man did it. Man is a sinner. I don't damn you to hell; you damn yourself. So don't blame me for your choice. That is what Jesus is saying in John 3.18 in which you are already condemned for hell, because you admit you never want to receive the cross of salvation by the precious blood for forgiveness of sins. No matter how much your crawl and scratch, you will never be able to get out of hell. It is a one time deal. New birth is a one time deal also. Once-saved-always-saved! Man will indeed die. Most men are unsaved going to hell. Not only will you die the first death, but you will also be resurrected for the second death which is hell. Christians don't get saved for fear of hell, but because of the mercy, love and grace of Jesus Christ in which He fully proved Himself God and when He said He is God. The only One! He draws us. Hell is simply the fact of the matter where you are going because you are a bad person who does not love God who created you. You said, "Man would be better off if you'd just fuck off and die! Then people would be nice outta sheer kindness rather than outta fear of going somewhere to burn for all eternity!"-There would be nobody left if everyone died. God's mercy saves people from the first and the second death. Even some will be raptured alive and never see death at the consummation of this age, like Enoch and Elijah were raptured...the only two people in the Bible who did not die. They will return as the two witnesses to die in the Tribulation. We are appointed once to die in the flesh. You're not a kind person. You're an evil person. Jesus gave His life for you and you call Him a liar. What kind of nice person does that? Money is worthless to me. It is not more valuable than my faith, so why accuse so? Bearing false witness is right up there next to the worst of sins. I don't think you would endure anything to sacrifice yourself as like the apostles who were all martyred for their faith and testimony in the resurrection of Christ. You're a brick wall. The 4 Step Perfect Proof remains unchallenged, yet you still call Jesus a liar. Why remain in your sick mind? If you have lots of money, remember, it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven, than a camel to go through the eye of a needle. A nice person does not say "fuck off and die". You're a bad man through and through, with no reedemable quality. The pandemonium is coming soon. It is called the Great Tribulation, and Revelation says about it that those such as yourself will hide in caves because of your shame. One third of the people of earth will die (Rev. 9.18) and an army of 200 million machines will congregate in the middle east over oil (v.16). After this Christ will return to set up His kingdom which you are without even now. I think nothing is more insane than going to hell, but that is your choice. My prophecy for you, before you could come near to receiving Christ, is you will need to get some illness like cancer and endure significant other loss before you consider what is going on for real. When you are in hell, you will be subjected to God for hell was created by him for you. The abyss is not the same thing as hell. For example, when God made the earth desolate and waste in Gen. 1.2, he sent the demons to the abyss. Satan will be in the pit or abyss for 1000 years during Christ's reign, before he is finally thrown into hell where the Antichrist and False Prophet will be at the end of the Great Tribulation. The demons are honest in their hatred (so they go to hell, for they are still very bad), but you are not even being intellectually honest with yourself since the compassion of God is as pure and perfect as anything (as is always shown when discussed specifically), so what you perceive falsely about the compassion of God is by your own selfish misinterpretation. However, I think you are being honest with yourself in this regard when you sum up those who don't want to be saved when you said, "Condemn to the abyss I care not care". You just don't care! You like being a bad person, misrepresenting and emulating Satan as the great accuser. You get off on it. That is that. What else can someone say? You have no excuse, for you are made in God's image and have a spirit of God-consciousness, except that now it is indwelt by the evil spirit, not the Holy Spirit because you don't want to be saved. You know better, but you like your sin just a little too much.

old comment by Brian X

Troy:
Jesus himself does not seem to have been a liar. However, the same cannot be said of a great number of her followers. Incidentally, not only did you prove my second paragraph entirely correct, much of your response is either unintelligible (your comments on Maryam of Magdala can best be described as nonsequiturs) or based entirely on idiosyncratic interpretations of the Bible (3d and 4th church periods? What are you, a numerologist?) As for your quoting of Isaiah 53, it could just as easily have applied to the coming of Isaiah's fellow prophet Ezekiel, who certainly took an extraordinary amount of crap (which, IIRC, he used to bake bread) from YHWH and man alike in his prophetic career. (Incidentally, I have recently realized how horribly hamstrung Christian theology is by the division of the Bible into chapters and verses. It tends to militate against understanding it as a whole, which explains the insane reliance on prooftexting to prove Biblical points. It seems many Bible "scholars" know nothing of context.) As for your six summary points, the first five of them are entirely reliant on the Bible for their verification (cite some third-party sources for your assertions), the third one is irrelevant as it's indistinguishable from the ravings of many an egotistical madman, and the last one starts out as a truism and turns into a mixture of guilt trips, wrong assumptions, insults, and empty threats and is of no consequence. (IMHO Thomas the Apostle is way underrated.)

old comment by A Friend

@Brian X

Troy: Jesus himself does not seem to have been a liar. However, the same cannot be said of a great number of her followers. Incidentally, not only did you prove my second paragraph entirely correct, much of your response is either unintelligible (your comments on Maryam of Magdala can best be described as nonsequiturs) or based entirely on idiosyncratic interpretations of the Bible (3d and 4th church periods? What are you, a numerologist?) As for your quoting of Isaiah 53, it could just as easily have applied to the coming of Isaiah's fellow prophet Ezekiel, who certainly took an extraordinary amount of crap (which, IIRC, he used to bake bread) from YHWH and man alike in his prophetic career. (Incidentally, I have recently realized how horribly hamstrung Christian theology is by the division of the Bible into chapters and verses. It tends to militate against understanding it as a whole, which explains the insane reliance on prooftexting to prove Biblical points. It seems many Bible "scholars" know nothing of context.) As for your six summary points, the first five of them are entirely reliant on the Bible for their verification (cite some third-party sources for your assertions), the third one is irrelevant as it's indistinguishable from the ravings of many an egotistical madman, and the last one starts out as a truism and turns into a mixture of guilt trips, wrong assumptions, insults, and empty threats and is of no consequence. (IMHO Thomas the Apostle is way underrated.)

Jesus was a male, not a female. Since Jesus did not lie when He said He is God, and you don't believe him, wouldn't that make you a doubletalker? There are 7 church periods noted in Rev. 2 & 3 these past 20 centuries. Why don't you read it to see? "He bore the sins of many and interceded for sinners" (Isaiah 53.12)-No man can interecede for another man for all men are sinners, so it is speaking of the coming Messiah who died on the cross. The Jews rejected their Savior in their own writings. The addition of chapters and verses was devised by men, but it is not cumbersome at all. When something is written centuries earlier and its prophecies come true centuries later, that is worth noting. Since the resurrection is of no concern to the unsaved, you would not expect early documentation except by believers who were eyewitness accounts or near eyewitness accounts. Since there is this perfect agreement across 1500 years by 40 writers, this is no small thing in compiling the complete Word of God in 66 books. The documentation of their experiences is most noteworthy to get the testimony of God straight. It's difficult to deny the impact of Christianity in the world with 1 in 3 people saying they are Christian. The 5 most popular early accounts from non-Christian sources are Josephus (Jewish), Tacitus (Roman), Lucian (Satirist), Mara Bar-Serapion (highly regarded document in the British Museum) and the Talmud (an important Jewish document). The best evidence for the life of Christ is not someone who does not believe and does not receive Him. Similarly if someone wants to know about Christ, they ought not ask you because your spirit is dead to God. You don't go to the Pharisees to ask about Jesus for they will lie about him and pretend he is of no significance. What we have established is that there must be an uncreated creator. So you can compare to any who said they were God. Jesus said He is God. Do you know any others with considerable following worthy of mention? By comparison specifically, you will find Jesus exceeds them all. Let me know.

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Hmm... descernment, receiving God's knowledge, revelations, Holier than thou attitude... You a Pentacostal Troy?

A pentecostal is someone who does that gibberish babble thing (which anyone can do, but it is mindless and induces passivity), but this is an alteration of the word tongues. Tongues just refers to other languages or languages the speaker knows, but the hearer does not. Study Acts 2 on tongues to understand its usage. Pentecostalism is using a ancient technique of mystery religions such as Montanism in the 2nd century. It is not Christian at all. However, don't you think God gives revelation? Certainly God reveals truths in agreement with the Word, for how else would you propose we receive His guidance by the Holy Spirit? Is it holier than thou or is it just common sense, for Christians are in agreement about certain truths. Why does this offend you? You sound jealous actually. Don't you realize your spirit is still unquickened by the Holy Spirit? You sure want to go to hell. Still you have not receive God's life, because you are not forgiven by God since you reject His Son in what He did for you to atone for your sins. Because of your exalted holier than though attitude, God does not save you. He brought all the sins of the world upon Himself as the perfect sacrifice. What a glorious thing! Such mercy. He does this as a free gift, nothing of yourself. No good works, nothing can save you but receive Christ's death on the cross as your own.

old comment by Jerry

Is it holier than thou or is it just common sense, for Christians are in agreement about certain truths. Why does this offend you? You sound jealous actually. Don't you realize your spirit is still unquickened by the Holy Spirit? You sure want to go to hell. Still you have not receive God's life, because you are not forgiven by God since you reject His Son in what He did for you to atone for your sins. Because of your exalted holier than though attitude, God does not save you. He brought all the sins of the world upon Himself as the perfect sacrifice. What a glorious thing! Such mercy. He does this as a free gift, nothing of yourself. No good works, nothing can save you but receive Christ's death on the cross as your own.

that's quite counterproductive to saying you're not the "holier than thou" type... and for god's sake stop spammign your 'proof' we know it by now..

old comment by CT

A pentecostal is someone who does that gibberish babble thing (which anyone can do, but it is mindless and induces passivity), but this is an alteration of the word tongues. Tongues just refers to other languages or languages the speaker knows, but the hearer does not. Study Acts 2 on tongues to understand its usage. Pentecostalism is using a ancient technique of mystery religions such as Montanism in the 2nd century. It is not Christian at all.

Don't know many Pentacostals then, do you Troy?
Just so you know... the Speaking in Tongues? Not a requirement. The Discernment? Not a requirement. Revelations direct from God? Not a requirement. Receiving God's knowledge? Not a requirement. However... very very few Christian cults/sects accept that people receive God's knowledge. Very very few accept revelations from God. Only one accepts discernment. Can you guess which sect accepts all of those? Yep... it's the Pentacostals. By claiming that those in that sect, the ONLY sect that accepts the "gifts" you claim to possess, are not Christians... you claim that you yourself are not a Christian. Oh, and the way you post? It's the text equivalent of "gibberish babble thing" Yes Troy... you post in tongues!

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Don't know many Pentacostals then, do you Troy? Just so you know... the Speaking in Tongues? Not a requirement. The Discernment? Not a requirement. Revelations direct from God? Not a requirement. Receiving God's knowledge? Not a requirement. However... very very few Christian cults/sects accept that people receive God's knowledge. Very very few accept revelations from God. Only one accepts discernment. Can you guess which sect accepts all of those? Yep... it's the Pentacostals. By claiming that those in that sect, the ONLY sect that accepts the "gifts" you claim to possess, are not Christians... you claim that you yourself are not a Christian. Oh, and the way you post? It's the text equivalent of "gibberish babble thing" Yes Troy... you post in tongues!

I don't know any Christians that believe that revelation from God is not permitted in our spirits. Just so you know the Bible says we can know who is a Christian by observing their fruit. So I have given various indicators that flow from new birth. Pentecostals don't accept revelation from God, but they believe in mediums and psychics of gibberish babble as their mode of communication. This is not revelation. All Christians accept the gifts of the Holy Spirit. When speaking of gibberish babble, this means non-words. Tongues refers to languages you don't know and other languages. You understand English that I am speaking to you. Rather, what your problem is is that your spirit is dead to God so you have these various twistings in your thoughts from your spirit indwelt by the evil spirit that causes you to misintrepret things. God has given me revelation about you in agreement with the Word of God that you are going to hell unless you receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior by coming to the cross as a helpless sinner. Amen.

old comment by Irratio

Quick refutation of step 1.
There are a number of mathematical functions with lim(x-->infinity) f(x)= 0, but f(x) >0 for all real x. Examples are 1/|x|, e^x, and all similar functions. Therefore, even if global consciousness is greater than in the previous moment at any moment, there can be an infinite regression. When not claiming infinite regression, this argument also holds. A lower growth rate of global conscience would still be possible. Also, note that this step assumes the existance of global conscience to every given point in time. If we assume that the universe expands and contracts, in turn, there is no reason to assume that global conscience always grows. Also, the existance of an uncreated does not imply the biblical god. I have no problem deriving a taoist god principle that allows for this. Also note that you have the premise of the growth of global conscience. Just a couple of things worth thinking about. Irratio.

old comment by A Friend

@Irratio

Quick refutation of step 1. There are a number of mathematical functions with lim(x-->infinity) f(x)= 0, but f(x) >0 for all real x. Examples are 1/|x|, e^x, and all similar functions. Therefore, even if global consciousness is greater than in the previous moment at any moment, there can be an infinite regression. When not claiming infinite regression, this argument also holds. A lower growth rate of global conscience would still be possible. Also, note that this step assumes the existance of global conscience to every given point in time. If we assume that the universe expands and contracts, in turn, there is no reason to assume that global conscience always grows. Also, the existance of an uncreated does not imply the biblical god. I have no problem deriving a taoist god principle that allows for this. Also note that you have the premise of the growth of global conscience. Just a couple of things worth thinking about. Irratio.

Since an infinite exponential regress in conscience presupposes no beginning, you would have approximated an eternity of the past of cause and effects to approximate reaching no sin, yet you still sin. Therefore, an infinite regress is not possible in conscience, but you had to have been created by the uncreated, since no other possibility exists, nor have any been considered. Whether lower or higher, the exponential progression exists, so you would not still be sinning. You can't mindlessly assume the universe expands and contracts, since these are just more causes and effects, which don't follow the observation we witness of the exponential progression in conscience (Step 1). As well, you need to ask yourself what caused these things, since they don't happen all by themselves (Step 2). Realizing the uncreated created, we are led to Christ because none can compare to Him. Compare Him to taoism and what do we find? There can only be one God, not many, for then you have to ask yourself who caused these others? Also called Hsüan Chiao. A popular Chinese religion, originating in the doctrines of Lao-tzu but later highly eclectic in nature and characterized by a pantheon of many gods and by the practice of alchemy, divination, and magic. There is no premises to the proof, but our findings are discovered through observations. For example, we know the exponential progression in conscience is true because we observe such things as significantly less per capita child sacrifices, single spouses, murder rate, crime rate and other deplorable behavior like homosexuality. Just some things for you to think about regarding your misunderstandings.

old comment by CT

Pentecostals don't accept revelation from God, but they believe in mediums and psychics of gibberish babble as their mode of communication. This is not revelation.

Troy... I was married to one. Pentacostals accept revelations from God... you are mistaken. Pentacostals do NOT believe in mediums... you are mistaken. Pentacostals do NOT believe in psychics... you are mistaken. What they call Tongues is the Holy Spirit moving through them. According to them, that's how the Holy Spirit is communicating... you are mistaken. Such communication is, according to them, a revelation from God... you are mistaken. You denounce them, while knowing so little about them. You claim to know much about them, but what you know is mistaken assumptions.

When speaking of gibberish babble, this means non-words. Tongues refers to languages you don't know and other languages. You understand English that I am speaking to you. Rather, what your problem is is that your spirit is dead to God so you have these various twistings in your thoughts from your spirit indwelt by the evil spirit that causes you to misintrepret things.

No Troy... gibberish babble means just that. Things that are gibberish don't have to be non-words, they can be normal English words that are strung together in such a way that the lack sense... like the majority of your posts. Babble... if you try checking the definition, you'll find it describes your posts perfectly. So... gibberish babble matches what you post. Troy, you post in tongues! Oh, and guess which major sect also accepts the indwelling of spirits as a reason why misunderstandings happen? Yep... Pentacostals. So far, you match ALL of those, and Pentacostals are the only sect that match all of those. You are Pentacostal in all but name Troy...

old comment by A Friend

@CT

Troy... I was married to one. Pentacostals accept revelations from God... you are mistaken. Pentacostals do NOT believe in mediums... you are mistaken. Pentacostals do NOT believe in psychics... you are mistaken. What they call Tongues is the Holy Spirit moving through them. According to them, that's how the Holy Spirit is communicating... you are mistaken. Such communication is, according to them, a revelation from God... you are mistaken. You denounce them, while knowing so little about them. You claim to know much about them, but what you know is mistaken assumptions.

I am sorry to hear you could not keep your marriage if "was" means no longer by divorce. There is a saying. 50% of marriages end in divorce. But two Christians married, only 1 in a 100 end in divorce. And if they pray virtually every night together it is 1 in 1000. The mediums of pentecostals is that of the gibberish babble itself they use in place of tongues. The Bible even says not to accept mediums. Pentecostals also believe in psychics, that is to say, interpreters (not Biblical gifted interpreters) that give a reading of the gibberish babble that was just spoken. But to prove it false all you need do is ask for a second, third, fourth reading from 1, 2 or 3 other people and you will find you get various different intrepretations showing these are false psychics. The Bible is against psychics. This is constituted as revelation by Pentecostals, but it is not. It is all false because it is based on altering God's word on tongues. Therefore, this is not the Holy Spirit working through them, but it is some spirit not of God, perhaps a demon: call it the demon of pentecostalism false tongues. You are mistaken on your view of what is really going on. What I have told you is the truth, knowing them quite well. Your assumptions about them are false. Perhaps if you were loving and tried to help your spouse with the truth you would not have been broken up. Instead you seem to feed their lie. Study montanism in the 2nd century. They did the exact same thing.

No Troy... gibberish babble means just that. Things that are gibberish don't have to be non-words, they can be normal English words that are strung together in such a way that the lack sense... like the majority of your posts. Babble... if you try checking the definition, you'll find it describes your posts perfectly. So... gibberish babble matches what you post. Troy, you post in tongues! Oh, and guess which major sect also accepts the indwelling of spirits as a reason why misunderstandings happen? Yep... Pentacostals. So far, you match ALL of those, and Pentacostals are the only sect that match all of those. You are Pentacostal in all but name Troy...

The type of gibberish babble regarding Pentecostals though we are talking about is that of non-words. Ask any Pentecostal to say aloud their false tongues, and you will see it is not words at all. Certainly gibberish babble can also be your kind of words, but we are specifically talking about the non-words type of gibberish babble that pentecostals use to alter the word on tongues in the Bible. Since you could not show any problem with this assessment, then it stands; therefore, you must be speaking gibberish babble. The Bible says the Holy Spirit indwells the believer, which make sense since spirit makes contact with spirit. The soulical does not touch spirit. You sound jealous that I can sense God's Spirit in my spirit within by such inner registrations and movements in that "still small voice"-yet another term the Bible uses to explain this happening. All Christians believe the spirit is indwelt by either the Holy Spirit or the evil spirit. You have the evil spirit in your spirit, because you are an unregenerate bound for hell-already condemned. The evil spirit came into Adam from the fall, and the Holy Spirit never came in because Adam did not eat of the tree of life in the garden. Ever since then the spirit of man has been indwelt by the evil spirit; and only through regeneration with God's uncreated life does the evil spirit get removed and the Holy Spirit enter. The reason for misunderstandings by you is that you don't know your actual condition is deplorable and needs to be quickened first in your spirit. When this happens the Holy Spirit will enter through window of your conscience and seat Himself within your spirit's intuition so you will be able to commune with God for the first time in your life. Remember, Pentecostals speak non-word gibberish babble which causes their word-type gibberish babble. Similarly, your word-type gibberish babble is also caused by an untruth, which is, you call Jesus a liar, so God does not give you His life and you remain living selfishly, even by the "good self" that can't save you. My prayers go out to you that you yet may be saved!

old comment by CT

Good grief... you really do come out with a load of garbage to try and convince yourself that you don't spout garbage.
Troy... your beliefs match Pentacostal beliefs to a T. You are a Pentacostal. All you protestations to the contrary are wordy nonsensical babble that require an interpreter to make any sense of. Note please that if you ask others for an interpretation, you get a different answer... that is proof, by your argument, that you are a false interpreter... because if you were a true interpreter, it'd be the same answer. Notice how your own standards and your own "proof" of these things works just as well against you. That would be because you are self-declaring them... which you make a big noise about denying from any arguments. So, you are a Hypocritical, holier-than-thou, arrogant, lying, sinning, prideful, oath-breaking pentacostal fraud... Oh, almost forgot... Pentacostals also believe in OSAS, just like you.

old comment by A Friend

This is one of the questions at registration to Biblocality Forums to show how powerful the 37 questions at Biblocality Forums are for apostles and the church, so if one says he is an apostle for the church we may be able to have confidence that it is so. These 37 questions ought to be a minimum standard for apostles in their understanding of God's design that the apostles have agreed upon as authority given by God. Hence, because they know these things, this proves they have been directly commissioned by God for the work for the universal Church (Eph. 4.11). Apostles are placed first in the 4-fold ministry: "and He has given some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some shepherds and teachers". Shepherds and teachers are one group, since all teachers should shepherd and all shepherds should teach well.
Biblical tongues are languages only 15. Do you believe today's popular Pentecostals' tongues is not Biblical tongues, nor a language of men or angels, nor one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, nor linguistic or discernible syntax by the hearer or speaker, nor a personal prayer language? Do you believe its mediums of babble and psychic gibberish of non-words are devised to induce passivity by confusing emotion of the soul for their spirit's intuition, communion and conscience? Thus, it can not be what took place at Pentecost (Acts 2.3,4,11) or the testimony of faith to magnify God in different languages-speaking in tongues (Gen. 10.20,21; Isa. 66.18; Mark 16.17; Acts 10.46, 19.6; 1 Cor. 12.10,28,30, 13.1,8; 14.5,6,18,21-23,39; Rev. 7.9, 10.11, 11.9)? Do you accept that tongues are known by the speaker though may be unknown to the hearer if the latter does not know that particular language? And have you been able to distinguish between the non-utterable non-words in the still small voice and inner registrations and movements within our spirit's intuition (and tongues of angels which is the language of spirit) from the utterable gibberish babble non-words of Pentecostal's?

old comment by A Friend

@Jerry

good lord... no wodner this thread is voer 800 posts...at least 300 are you cut&pasting your proof... you really have an urge to debate with people, don't you?

Good Lord indeed! Where are all these plethora of cut and pastes you refer to? Do you always make things up to debate mindlessly and deflect from the issue at hand? You're arguing and debating right now instead of realizing the fact that you still can't find anything wrong with the Proof for God in 4 Steps. Why shut your mind down? Don't be a pawn of the devil, for he is the one that wants you to shut your mind down like that to be controlled by him. God wants you to have a a spiritually active mind, renewed thoughts and quickened spirit, and fresh new emotion that glorifies God.

old comment by MM

Troy ... let's chat.
You seem to have a strange definition of cult -- namely, that a bias indicates a cult. I have seen no definition of a cult that is based on biases. Can I ask where you got that from? And you do not count as a cite. Also: can you try a new argument approach? Argumentum ad nauseam is really, really annoying. And not a proof. And finally: I'd like to argue with you, but I can't. I have no idea what your sentences mean. Have you been looking up words and meshing them together just to prove how smart you are? Because there's no need to do that. Oh, and: It has been my experience in talking to the unsaved, they are unsaved because they want to be, so no reason will work with them, no matter how beautiful and true. Then why have you posted in this thread hundreds of times? I see two reasons: either you are trying to save us (despite your assertion that it's not going to work), or you're trying to convince yourself you're not wrong (a possibility), or you want to show off (a sin). Which is it?

old comment by A Friend

@MM

Troy ... let's chat. You seem to have a strange definition of cult -- namely, that a bias indicates a cult. I have seen no definition of a cult that is based on biases. Can I ask where you got that from? And you do not count as a cite. Also: can you try a new argument approach? Argumentum ad nauseam is really, really annoying. And not a proof. And finally: I'd like to argue with you, but I can't. I have no idea what your sentences mean. Have you been looking up words and meshing them together just to prove how smart you are? Because there's no need to do that. Oh, and: It has been my experience in talking to the unsaved, they are unsaved because they want to be, so no reason will work with them, no matter how beautiful and true. Then why have you posted in this thread hundreds of times? I see two reasons: either you are trying to save us (despite your assertion that it's not going to work), or you're trying to convince yourself you're not wrong (a possibility), or you want to show off (a sin). Which is it?

If the bias is so egregious, then it is a cult. Why think otherwise? There is no better proof than the Proof for God, so if you still can't find anything wrong with it, then it stands. So ask yourself what is wrong with you that you don't need a reason to reject the truth? It is at nauseam that you continue to act this way. I don't know what sentence you are referring to that you are having difficulties with and why for you didn't give a reason and you don't post the sentence you are talking about. The reason I have posted here is to show you that you want to go to hell, so that if at some future date you change your mind, you will remember that you couldn't find anything wrong with the Proof for God. The only reason I am posting here is to help lead you to Christ. Though you will not receive Him immediately, we are talking years down the road in which you may reconsider and remember you couldn't find anything wrong with the Proof for God. As this word of truth is spread, in leads to the soone return of Christ, because the point of first rapture will have been attained. This information I provide aids in that process in more ways than you can imagine through the riffles of information that flows through the Internet. Amen.

old comment by MM

If the bias is so egregious, then it is a cult. Why think otherwise?
Because that's not what makes a cult. Or do you even know what a cult is? I suspect you're just making up meanings for words again. There is no better proof than the Proof for God, so if you still can't find anything wrong with it, then it stands. So ask yourself what is wrong with you that you don't need a reason to reject the truth? Except many, many others have already shown you the error of your proof. The fact that you stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la, I can't hear you!" changes nothing. It just means you're not willing to own up to anything. It is at nauseam that you continue to act this way. The post to which you refer to was the first of mine in this thread. I suspect you don't know what ad nauseam means, either. I don't know what sentence you are referring to that you are having difficulties with and why for you didn't give a reason and you don't post the sentence you are talking about. It's pretty much all of them ... I know what each individual word means, but together in a sentence, they make no sense. Language was not meant to be abused the way you have abused it. The reason I have posted here is to show you that you want to go to hell, so that if at some future date you change your mind, you will remember that you couldn't find anything wrong with the Proof for God. The only reason I am posting here is to help lead you to Christ. Though you will not receive Him immediately, we are talking years down the road in which you may reconsider and remember you couldn't find anything wrong with the Proof for God. Two things: These seem to be at odds with each other. Besides that, once again, people have found multitudes of errors. You don't want to accept them, but that is of no concern. As this word of truth is spread, in leads to the soone return of Christ, because the point of first rapture will have been attained. This information I provide aids in that process in more ways than you can imagine through the riffles of information that flows through the Internet. I think you put far too much importance on your tripe. Amen. I think you meant to type Ramen. For I have been touched by His Noodly Appendage!

old comment by SethMac2

Of course no one is ever going to win this $10,000. I have never met an apologist willing to admit there are contradictions in the bible, and, along the same lines, this guy will never admit to any flaws in his proof. He will require any disproof to be within the bounds of his presuppositions and that will work to ensure he can always concoct justification with which to adjudicate against critics. It is identical to how, working from a presupposition of Biblical inerrancy, apologists always judge contradictions in the Bible to be only apparent and skeptics wrong, and any cockeyed rationalization they cobble together to explain away those contradictions is perfectly logical and correct (in their minds) so long as the result is sufficient to maintain the pretense of inerrancy.

old comment by A Friend

@SethMac2

Of course no one is ever going to win this $10,000. I have never met an apologist willing to admit there are contradictions in the bible, and, along the same lines, this guy will never admit to any flaws in his proof. He will require any disproof to be within the bounds of his presuppositions and that will work to ensure he can always concoct justification with which to adjudicate against critics. It is identical to how, working from a presupposition of Biblical inerrancy, apologists always judge contradictions in the Bible to be only apparent and skeptics wrong, and any cockeyed rationalization they cobble together to explain away those contradictions is perfectly logical and correct (in their minds) so long as the result is sufficient to maintain the pretense of inerrancy.

How can you expect people to admit there is a contradiction in the Bible or the Proof of the Bible if you can't show it? Since there are no presuppositions for the Bible or for the Proof of the Bible, then why think so? Since there is no pretense of innerancy, but it is through the examination of the text we discover inerrancy, why take issue with this if you can't prove otherwise? Looks like you got a big problem on your hands in speaking vague accusations, but unable to show anything specific. You're exhibiting the condition of shutting one's mind down and falling into passivity. I love how you know you can't find anything wrong with the Proof for God of the Bible, so you don't even try. This indicates you're admitting that God of the Bible is true.

old comment by SethMac2

“How can you expect people to admit there is a contradiction in the Bible or the Proof of the Bible if you can't show it?”
What basis do you have for making the claim “you can't show it”? Just because I didn't provide a specific example in my general statement above, does that mean I can't provide one? That is /argument from ignorance/. “Since there are no presuppositions for the Bible or for the Proof of the Bible, then why think so?” No presuppositions? We'll see. “Since there is no pretense of innerancy, but it is through the examination of the text we discover inerrancy, why take issue with this if you can't prove otherwise?” How do you “discover (in)errancy”? My position on this is simple. You compare the Bible with empirical data and determine whether a straightforward reading of the Bible leads to the conclusion it contains error. For example: A reasonable, straightforward, reading of the Bible indicates the ancient author(s) believed the earth to be immovable (1 Chronicles 16:30). For apologists that is an odious possibility because they can't reconcile literalism here with the supposedly nonexistent presupposition that the Bible is inerrant. To paraphrase myself, they, working from a presupposition of Biblical inerrancy, will desperately cobble together excuses to explain away the obvious meaning of passages like this or (laughably) claim THIS one is supposed to a be metaphor, but, what ever they want taken literally, isn't. Another example is Matthew 17:20. Again, if the apologists take this verse straightforward and literally they have a serious problem. It makes a testable prediction. Whoa boy, it's excuse time. You can start to see a pattern here. Where: Bible = Testable = Falsifiable = Apologist Excuses ("It's a metaphor" or “You're interpreting incorrectly” etc...) "Looks like you got a big problem on your hands in speaking vague accusations, but unable to show anything specific." Is that better?

old comment by A Friend

@SethMac2

“How can you expect people to admit there is a contradiction in the Bible or the Proof of the Bible if you can't show it?” What basis do you have for making the claim “you can't show it”? Just because I didn't provide a specific example in my general statement above, does that mean I can't provide one? That is /argument from ignorance/. “Since there are no presuppositions for the Bible or for the Proof of the Bible, then why think so?” No presuppositions? We'll see. “Since there is no pretense of innerancy, but it is through the examination of the text we discover inerrancy, why take issue with this if you can't prove otherwise?” How do you “discover (in)errancy”? My position on this is simple. You compare the Bible with empirical data and determine whether a straightforward reading of the Bible leads to the conclusion it contains error. For example: A reasonable, straightforward, reading of the Bible indicates the ancient author(s) believed the earth to be immovable (1 Chronicles 16:30). For apologists that is an odious possibility because they can't reconcile literalism here with the supposedly nonexistent presupposition that the Bible is inerrant. To paraphrase myself, they, working from a presupposition of Biblical inerrancy, will desperately cobble together excuses to explain away the obvious meaning of passages like this or (laughably) claim THIS one is supposed to a be metaphor, but, what ever they want taken literally, isn't. Another example is Matthew 17:20. Again, if the apologists take this verse straightforward and literally they have a serious problem. It makes a testable prediction. Whoa boy, it's excuse time. You can start to see a pattern here. Where: Bible = Testable = Falsifiable = Apologist Excuses ("It's a metaphor" or “You're interpreting incorrectly” etc...) "Looks like you got a big problem on your hands in speaking vague accusations, but unable to show anything specific." Is that better?

The fact remains you haven't shown any contradiction in the Proof for God of the Bible or the Bible itself; and I am satisfied you continue not to do so because you can't, for as long as you don't, you haven't done so. Wow! You can keep saying "we'll see", but still we see. 1 Chron. 16.30 does not say the earth is immovable. 30 Let all the earth tremble before him. The world is firmly established and cannot be shaken. Since the earth is going to be around for billions of years more, that is pretty unshakable, don't you think? Scientifically, we know the earth will be burnt up as the Bible says also, "there was no more sea" (Rev. 21.1). Is the Bible contradicting itself or is it expressing in 1 Chron. 16.30 that it is going to be around for a heck of a long time? And as long as God wants to keep it unshaken, it will remain so to fulfill His purposes. I think the latter is a more reasonable explanation by not being a petty legalist. Several billion years more is quite an unmoveable thing in the grand scheme of things, don't you think? So, literally these matters are in complete harmony. Your petty self is not considered literal, but close-minded and odious. This is David's Song of Praise, "That day David gave to Asaph and his fellow Levites this song of thanksgiving to the Lord:" (1 Chron. 16.7). The whole Bible is not song, but some is anthropomorphic to explain a spiritual situation. Mostly it is events taking place chronologically, and some is remembrance, praise, worship and giving glory to God through song, parables, visions, promises; and there are parables to explain a spiritual fact. I realize you are crying out for help in understanding, so let me help you. Matthew 17:20: "And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." You don't think man can actually remove a mountain? Man can build the tallest buildings, pyramids; you don't think man can move a mountain? Surely, that is not so difficult. If man wanted to, he could take apart an actual physical mountain piece by piece and reassemble it somewhere. The Power of Faith, 17.19-21 The three verses in this section may be called the textbook in the Scriptures on the matter of casting out demons. v.19 The disciples, having failed to cure the lad, now come to the Lord secretly, for they are afraid of losing face before the people. The Gospel According to Matthew: Matt. 17.20 “Because of your little faith”Or their unbelief. Such unbelief, we must be careful to notice, comes from believers; therefore it does not refer to not believing the Lord Jesus as Saviour. Since the mentioning of the “mustard seed” is metaphorical in character, the mountain must also be metaphorical. The latter speaks of conclusive and deeply rooted difficulties. Although a mountain is most stable, faith has removed many mountains, many difficulties. Unlike wandering stars, mountains sit steadfastly where they are. Matters such as unbelieving children and unemployment are like mountains. Yet faith can remove such mountains and deal with all kinds of difficulties. Why, then, turn first to other people for help? v.21 mg. “But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting”Faith is different from prayer and fasting. The Lord shows us here the prayer after faith. We often say that after having faith there is no need to pray again, for all that is required is praise; for if more prayers are offered, faith will be shaken. This certainly is true with regard to asking God. But as towards demons, it is not so. There must be incessant prayer after faith is given. Having received the faith for casting out demons, we should then ask further for its execution. In Luke 18 the widow perseveres in prayer, asking for revenge on her adversary. The adversary, of course, is Satan, whom we must attack by means of prayer throughout our life. Having had faith, there needs to be prayer and fasting. These two are attitudes as well as acts of conduct. On that particular day, the Lord did not appear to have been praying and fasting, yet He could cast out the demon. This proves that He must have prayed and fasted. Furthermore, He doubtless always had the attitude of prayer and fastingfacets of attitude which signified dependence on God and self-denial. So that aside from such conduct, there must also be such an attitude. Every believer is required to have a long preparation. “This kind”The strongest kind of demons. The demonic world has both its powerful and less powerful ones. With the small demons, singing hymns and uplifting the Bible is sufficient to drive them away. Nevertheless, we should never underestimate them, but then neither should we overestimate them. Jessie Penn-Lewis once said that to despise evil spirits is reason for injury, while an exaltation of evil spirits causes the loss of our own dignity. We ought always to remember the word in 1 John: “Ye are of God, my little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world” (4.4). We should also acknowledge that we are helpless in ourselves, and that therefore we must give ourselves to prayer and fasting. The essential conditions for casting out demons are (1) Faithbelieving that the Lord’s name has been exalted by God above every name, that in the name of Jesus Christ every knee shall bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth (Phil. 2.9-10, Eph. 1.20-22, Heb. 1.2-4). Every demon knows Philippians 2.9 and 10. Let us ourselves firmly believe in Philippians 2.9 and 10. Sometimes simply declaring the Lord Jesus is quite sufficient because He is the emblem of victory, power, and authority. We declare that Jesus is Lord or that Jesus is Victor. (2) Boldnessif we are fearful, we either have no faith or have little faith. Since the name of Jesus is already high exalted, we ought to maintain our dignity. Remember well the word of 1 John 4.4, and we will not be defeated but the demon will surely be cast out. (3) Patiencethe demons are skillfull in delaying tactics. Do not doubt as to whether the name of the Lord is effective. If the demon tries to linger for 100 days, let us be determined to stay on for 101 days. For please be aware that “Beelzebub” means king of the flies: the demons are like flies: they go and come again: they themselves are very patient. Learn the lesson of a petty legalist who rejects the proof of something being a metaphor just as many times as he rejects the proof of when something should be taken literally. He gets things twisted and wrong all the time because his agenda is false in his assumed position.

old comment by SethMac2

“You don't think man can actually remove a mountain? Man can build the tallest buildings, pyramids; you don't think man can move a mountain? Surely, that is not so difficult.”
Does Jesus say that faith will allow you to hire an earth moving crew with backhoes and bulldozers to move a mountain? No. Why would he as you don't need faith “as a mustard seed” or faith at all for that. He says faith will enable you to “say” to the mountain move and it will move. Seems pretty straightforward to me what he's saying. You command to the mountain to move and, through your faith, miraculously, it moves. So why do you not just take Jesus at his word? Say it with me “testable prediction”. And when a Christian apologist is asked to explain a testable prediction in the Bible what does he do?... “Danger! Will Robinson, Danger! Falsifiability alert! Must equivocate! Must prevaricate!” “1 Chron. 16.30 does not say the earth is immovable. 30 Let all the earth tremble before him. The world is firmly established and cannot be shaken.” Depends what translation you use. Your quote appears to be from the “New Living Translation“. The “New English Bible” says “The world is established, it cannot be moved.” And earlier versions of that Bible did use the word “immovable”. “Young's Literal Translation” reads “established is the world, It is not moved!” which matches more closely with the NEB than your NTL. Other translations also use “immovable” in the translation of similar passages. Such as: Psalm 93:1 (“The Message”) “...And yes, the world is firm, immovable” I wonder if you didn't go translation shopping to find a translation to suit your purpose. Clever tactic, but how ever you translate it the verse is false. The world IS movable and can be moved and can be shaken. The science is pretty clear on this. A person is entirely reasonable in seeing that passage (however translated) as indicative of a geocentric world view and conclude that is the simplest explanation. It would take a compelling reason to do otherwise. If one were to read a passage very like this in the literature of another ancient civilization would they reflexively try and make excuses for it? I think not especially considering all those early cultures were geocentric. It would take a presupposition about how it MUST be reconciled with otherwise contradictory facts to make such excuses and not just call a spade, a spade. (From here out you're quoting some book or website it seems) “Since the mentioning of the “mustard seed” is metaphorical in character, the mountain must also be metaphorical.” Not really. You do notice that Jesus says “as” a mustard seed (some translations say “like”), but he doesn't also say “as” a mountain or “like” a mountain. There is therefor no reason to think “mountain” is a to be taken metaphorically the same was “mustard seed” is. There is no qualifying “as”. “Matters such as unbelieving children and unemployment are like mountains. Yet faith can remove such mountains and deal with all kinds of difficulties.” To Paraphrase Matt. 17:18-21 you see the disciples unable to cast a demon from a child. Then Jesus rebukes them for their lack of faith telling them, if they had but the smallest bit, they could do things far more incredible than casting out measly demons they could even move mountains and, indeed nothing would be impossible for them. - Supernatural, but at least it makes sense. But whoever wrote this would have you believe it should instead be read “...Disciples, you couldn't miraculously cast out the demon because you lack faith. But I tell you, if you had just a tiny bit, you could do things far more incredible and wonderful than casting out measly demons, yes, you could even get a job!”... Ummm, what?... (Apparently getting a job must be a major miracle for a Christian) “Learn the lesson of a petty legalist who rejects the proof of something being a metaphor just as many times as he rejects the proof of when something should be taken literally. “ I have yet to see a thimble full of proof out of you sir/madam. And could you please provide me with some precise rules about what to take literally in the Bible and what metaphorically? I do have a theory of my own theory about what an apologist will and won't take literally and why and it seems to fit my observations splendidly. But please provide for me a set of rules for what you think should be taken literally and why if you would. After all you might just help a heathen find Christ!

old comment by A Friend

@SethMac2

“You don't think man can actually remove a mountain? Man can build the tallest buildings, pyramids; you don't think man can move a mountain? Surely, that is not so difficult.” Does Jesus say that faith will allow you to hire an earth moving crew with backhoes and bulldozers to move a mountain? No. Why would he as you don't need faith “as a mustard seed” or faith at all for that. He says faith will enable you to “say” to the mountain move and it will move. Seems pretty straightforward to me what he's saying. You command to the mountain to move and, through your faith, miraculously, it moves. So why do you not just take Jesus at his word? Say it with me “testable prediction”. And when a Christian apologist is asked to explain a testable prediction in the Bible what does he do?... “Danger! Will Robinson, Danger! Falsifiability alert! Must equivocate! Must prevaricate!”

Faith initiates actions. It gives action strength and ability to perform. Don't misread the Bible on this point. Don't read the Bible like a magic book. Be reasonable. Christians don't read the Bible the way you misreprsent it because the Holy Spirit does not guide us that way.

"1 Chron. 16.30 does not say the earth is immovable. 30 Let all the earth tremble before him. The world is firmly established and cannot be shaken.” Depends what translation you use. Your quote appears to be from the “New Living Translation“. The “New English Bible” says “The world is established, it cannot be moved.” And earlier versions of that Bible did use the word “immovable”. “Young's Literal Translation” reads “established is the world, It is not moved!” which matches more closely with the NEB than your NTL. Other translations also use “immovable” in the translation of similar passages. Such as: Psalm 93:1 (“The Message”) “...And yes, the world is firm, immovable”

It doesn't depend on what translation used. It depends on whether one is a petty legalist or one reads it accordingly. It's a way of saying a very long time. As far as several billion years go, in the grand scheme of things.

I wonder if you didn't go translation shopping to find a translation to suit your purpose. Clever tactic, but how ever you translate it the verse is false. The world IS movable and can be moved and can be shaken. The science is pretty clear on this. A person is entirely reasonable in seeing that passage (however translated) as indicative of a geocentric world view and conclude that is the simplest explanation. It would take a compelling reason to do otherwise. If one were to read a passage very like this in the literature of another ancient civilization would they reflexively try and make excuses for it? I think not especially considering all those early cultures were geocentric. It would take a presupposition about how it MUST be reconciled with otherwise contradictory facts to make such excuses and not just call a spade, a spade.

All the major Bible versions say can't moved or shaken to mean it is solidly in place and won't be shaken for a long long time. For eternity? No, not necessarily. But in the span of their consideration it is unmoveable. So there is no problem except in your petty legalism.

(From here out you're quoting some book or website it seems) “Since the mentioning of the “mustard seed” is metaphorical in character, the mountain must also be metaphorical.” Not really. You do notice that Jesus says “as” a mustard seed (some translations say “like”), but he doesn't also say “as” a mountain or “like” a mountain. There is therefor no reason to think “mountain” is a to be taken metaphorically the same was “mustard seed” is. There is no qualifying “as”.

That wouldn't make much sense to say "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto AS mountain". lol. The mountain can be anything within God's allowance, even a mountain. I wouldn't hinge your theory on a preposition when it makes the sentence sound funny.

“Matters such as unbelieving children and unemployment are like mountains. Yet faith can remove such mountains and deal with all kinds of difficulties.” To Paraphrase Matt. 17:18-21 you see the disciples unable to cast a demon from a child. Then Jesus rebukes them for their lack of faith telling them, if they had but the smallest bit, they could do things far more incredible than casting out measly demons they could even move mountains and, indeed nothing would be impossible for them. - Supernatural, but at least it makes sense.

Changes in the natural can be caused by the supernatural. An example is the parting of the red sea. This is a natural phenomenon at the end of narrow ocean corridors called wind set up and set down. The supenatural part was the timing of the event. And strength and ability given to men when not otherwise able, can grace us. There is no reason to discount the impact on the natural environment with the hands of men given the ability to move mountains.

But whoever wrote this would have you believe it should instead be read “...Disciples, you couldn't miraculously cast out the demon because you lack faith. But I tell you, if you had just a tiny bit, you could do things far more incredible and wonderful than casting out measly demons, yes, you could even get a job!”... Ummm, what?... (Apparently getting a job must be a major miracle for a Christian)

It is relatively easy to cast the demon inside you if you are a willing participant. Getting you a job is a bit more difficult, even if you are a willing participant. It may be many months before you find work, but I could cast a demon out of you in a day.

“Learn the lesson of a petty legalist who rejects the proof of something being a metaphor just as many times as he rejects the proof of when something should be taken literally. “ I have yet to see a thimble full of proof out of you sir/madam. And could you please provide me with some precise rules about what to take literally in the Bible and what metaphorically? I do have a theory of my own theory about what an apologist will and won't take literally and why and it seems to fit my observations splendidly. But please provide for me a set of rules for what you think should be taken literally and why if you would. After all you might just help a heathen find Christ!

Since a mustard seed is not literally taken, so should not a mountain, for how silly that we would specifically be talking about an actual mountain. What would be the purpose of moving a mountain anyway? lol. Try to be a little more practical. So you were wrong on that point and confused that which was figurative for being literal. Learn from your mistakes. Similarly, if someone says, they are going to be around forever, they don't mean they will never die. It just means it is a very very long time in the scheme of things. Don't let your petty legalisms mess you up, for you are only doing damage to yourself. Sin will beget sin. The proof is given. The precise rule you need to follow is reasonableness, not silliness. In Revelation there are about 30 symbols, but half of them are explained in the text itself, so what you find is Revelation is not really a symbolic book if it explains its symbols and the other half are relatively easy to discern from other parts of Scripture. Your need for rules is uncessary. Your being a petty legalist I can see your requirement for rules, but try to just read plainly. That will go a long way better than making up stringent rules for yourself. I love the phrase: "if you live by the law, you will die by the law. Don't live by the law, live by the Spirit of the law". Try to be a little more flexible, without agenda, and come into the reading without bias or edge.

old comment by A Friend

@SethMac2

“You don't think man can actually remove a mountain? Man can build the tallest buildings, pyramids; you don't think man can move a mountain? Surely, that is not so difficult.” Does Jesus say that faith will allow you to hire an earth moving crew with backhoes and bulldozers to move a mountain? No. Why would he as you don't need faith “as a mustard seed” or faith at all for that. He says faith will enable you to “say” to the mountain move and it will move. Seems pretty straightforward to me what he's saying. You command to the mountain to move and, through your faith, miraculously, it moves. So why do you not just take Jesus at his word? Say it with me “testable prediction”. And when a Christian apologist is asked to explain a testable prediction in the Bible what does he do?... “Danger! Will Robinson, Danger! Falsifiability alert! Must equivocate! Must prevaricate!”

"1 Chron. 16.30 does not say the earth is immovable. 30 Let all the earth tremble before him. The world is firmly established and cannot be shaken.” Depends what translation you use. Your quote appears to be from the “New Living Translation“. The “New English Bible” says “The world is established, it cannot be moved.” And earlier versions of that Bible did use the word “immovable”. “Young's Literal Translation” reads “established is the world, It is not moved!” which matches more closely with the NEB than your NTL. Other translations also use “immovable” in the translation of similar passages. Such as: Psalm 93:1 (“The Message”) “...And yes, the world is firm, immovable”

I wonder if you didn't go translation shopping to find a translation to suit your purpose. Clever tactic, but how ever you translate it the verse is false. The world IS movable and can be moved and can be shaken. The science is pretty clear on this. A person is entirely reasonable in seeing that passage (however translated) as indicative of a geocentric world view and conclude that is the simplest explanation. It would take a compelling reason to do otherwise. If one were to read a passage very like this in the literature of another ancient civilization would they reflexively try and make excuses for it? I think not especially considering all those early cultures were geocentric. It would take a presupposition about how it MUST be reconciled with otherwise contradictory facts to make such excuses and not just call a spade, a spade.

(From here out you're quoting some book or website it seems) “Since the mentioning of the “mustard seed” is metaphorical in character, the mountain must also be metaphorical.” Not really. You do notice that Jesus says “as” a mustard seed (some translations say “like”), but he doesn't also say “as” a mountain or “like” a mountain. There is therefor no reason to think “mountain” is a to be taken metaphorically the same was “mustard seed” is. There is no qualifying “as”.

“Matters such as unbelieving children and unemployment are like mountains. Yet faith can remove such mountains and deal with all kinds of difficulties.” To Paraphrase Matt. 17:18-21 you see the disciples unable to cast a demon from a child. Then Jesus rebukes them for their lack of faith telling them, if they had but the smallest bit, they could do things far more incredible than casting out measly demons they could even move mountains and, indeed nothing would be impossible for them. - Supernatural, but at least it makes sense.

But whoever wrote this would have you believe it should instead be read “...Disciples, you couldn't miraculously cast out the demon because you lack faith. But I tell you, if you had just a tiny bit, you could do things far more incredible and wonderful than casting out measly demons, yes, you could even get a job!”... Ummm, what?... (Apparently getting a job must be a major miracle for a Christian)

“Learn the lesson of a petty legalist who rejects the proof of something being a metaphor just as many times as he rejects the proof of when something should be taken literally. “ I have yet to see a thimble full of proof out of you sir/madam. And could you please provide me with some precise rules about what to take literally in the Bible and what metaphorically? I do have a theory of my own theory about what an apologist will and won't take literally and why and it seems to fit my observations splendidly. But please provide for me a set of rules for what you think should be taken literally and why if you would. After all you might just help a heathen find Christ!

old comment by A Friend

@Anonymous

Plain reading implies literal reading, because the Bible must be the inerrant, literal truth of God. How are we supposed to understand metaphor if the entire document is inerrant, literal truth?

Plain reading does not imply literal, but implies non-overassuming and letting the data render a conclusion. Hence, we find the Bible is inerrant and literal truth of God. If you are a petty legalist like a bad lawyer and say the whole Bible is literal therefore the parables, songs and proverbs can't be metaphorical, allegorical and figurative, I think you do yourself a great disservice, because the Bible being literal is referncing the fact that is not mythological, but is foundationally reality, the deepest truth ever known of our existence, purpose and future. When Paul walked from town to town. He really did that. When Jesus spoke a parable to express a spiritual truth, he really did that. The latter was metaphorical and representative; Paul's travels and teachings are not metaphors made up, but real events. He really was in jail. Jesus really did die on the cross. There were really 12 apostles. Judas really did kiss Jesus on the cheek. Satan really exists out there in 2nd heaven, the spirit being who is the god of this world. If I were you at this point, I would feel that all my reasoning was really lame and pathetic.

old comment by kosko

[fstdt=243910]
Never trust a Christian because a Christian does not give you $10K since you can't find anything wrong with the Proof? That's crazy reasoning. It is also with an evil eye that you accuse because you just assume the Christian won't pay, if he is wrong. Since you have no basis for this accusation, know you are emulating your father Satan as the great accuser by self-declarations. You should repent [/fstdt] I'm an atheist so i don't belive in your Christian creation called Satan, listening to Christians today is like listening to Hitlers speeches, you chistians cannot cover up that Hitler was a devout Christian, here is evidence of what Christians try to cover up, still till this day, all Christians should read hitlers speeches and look at the photos on this web page. http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm please browse the whole web site so you can become educated in the truth..

old comment by Anonymous

If you are a petty legalist like a bad lawyer and say the whole Bible is literal therefore the parables, songs and proverbs can't be metaphorical, allegorical and figurative, I think you do yourself a great disservice, because the Bible being literal is referncing the fact that is not mythological, but is foundationally reality, the deepest truth ever known of our existence, purpose and future.

You are deliberately misunderstanding my argument, Troy. Stop shutting your mind down.
If we are supposed to take the Bible literally, how are we supposed to know what is literal, and what is a metaphor? Is Genesis 1 literal or metaphor? What about Noah and the flood, as described in Genesis 5-9? Beyond the flood, was Noah really over 500 years old? What of the adventures of David? Was Goliath really three meters tall, as stated in 1 Samuel 17:4? The line between literal truth and what you insist must be metaphor is very narrow, and frequently difficult to discern.

old comment by SethMac2

Yet Another Reply to “A Friend”
“Faith initiates actions. It gives action strength and ability to perform. Don't misread the Bible on this point. Don't read the Bible like a magic book. Be reasonable. Christians don't read the Bible the way you misreprsent it because the Holy Spirit does not guide us that way.” and later you write “The precise rule you need to follow is reasonableness, not silliness.” Actually I think you have provided a really good principle for determining whether a verse should be taken literally or not. Many Christians could learn a lot from you. Let's call this the “don't be silly, be reasonable” principle. I couldn't agree more. Now, on to the application. Did Jesus walk on water? - No! “don't be silly, be reasonable” Did God make Eve from Adam's rib” - No! “don't be silly, be reasonable” Did Jesus ascend to heaven like Shaq never coming down from a jump shot? - No! “don't be silly, be reasonable” Did Jesus resurrect Lazarus from the dead? - No! “don't be silly, be reasonable” Did Jesus himself rise from the dead? - No! “don't be silly, be reasonable” and many, many more... By God, I think you're on to something! I can already hear you making excuses for why “don't be silly, be reasonable” doesn't apply to some or all of these verses. So the challenge for you here is to find a rational distinction for why a literal reading of Matt. 17:20 is covered by “don't be silly, be reasonable” but these verses are not. I'm sure you already know my answer as to why. - The verses above are not open to empirical test. The proposition they are literally true is difficult, if not impossible, to falsify. A Christian can gleefully maintain that these verses are literal truth knowing that, short of someone inventing a time machine and going back to document that they never happened or happened differently than the Bible records, there is no way to prove them categorically false. They are buried in the mists of time safe from scientific scrutiny. - Taking Matt 17:20 literally however would allow you to put the Christian in a lab and see just what faith would allow him to move around by commanding it. What “don't be silly, be reasonable” really means when you say it is “don't take anything literally that is open to verification, but have a ball if there is no way to test it. All THAT stuff is true!” “That wouldn't make much sense to say "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto AS mountain". lol. The mountain can be anything within God's allowance, even a mountain. I wouldn't hinge your theory on a preposition when it makes the sentence sound funny.” I can see you're going to play dumb here and make me spell this one out in the most explicit terms otherwise you'll misrepresent what I'm saying. - Like Anonymous said about your response to him, ”You are deliberately misunderstanding my argument”. The part of the of 17:20 under discussion (from the New Living Translation since you seem to like that one) is . “... if you had faith even as small as a mustard seed, you could say to this mountain, Move from here to there,’ and it would move ” There are two phrases here: (1) “ if you had faith even as small as a mustard seed” (2) “you could say to this mountain, Move from here to there,’ and it would move” One - is a simile. The word “as” or “like” tells you with certainty that he is not talking about an actual mustard seed but some property thereof, something mustard seed like. The phrase “even as small as a Mustard seed” is just there to modify ”faith” and could be left out entirely and the sentence would still make sense. Two - is not a simile. One and two are not symmetrical. There is no simile in the second phrase, and the word “mountain” is not modifying anything. If Jesus had intended the second phrase to be taken figuratively, the natural thing would have been to make smilies of both phrases as in - “If you had faith even as small as a mustard seed, you could solve a problem as big as a mountain.” The fact that there is not a symmetry between these phrases is telling, and argues against the latter being taken other than literally. “It doesn't depend on what translation used. It depends on whether one is a petty legalist or one reads it accordingly. It's a way of saying a very long time. As far as several billion years go, in the grand scheme of things.” If I were to make the the statement - “If taken literally, 1 Chronicles 16:30 is false” - I would be correct in doing so. Whether or not the verse can be read figuratively so that it is not false is not the issue. (One could read "Alice in Wonderland" as true given enough license for allegory and metaphor.) The question is whether a compelling argument can be made for why 1 Chronicles MUST be read figuratively. If such an argument cannot be made, one is justified in: reading it literally, concluding it is false, and concluding the Bible is not inerrant. Troy will never admit it, but his compelling reason for reading 16:30 metaphorically is (contrary to his claim that one “discovers” inerrancy by by reading the text) the presupposition of inerrancy, which he applies by interpreting scripture with what ever license for metaphor is required to make it inerrant, which then justifies his presupposition. This is all I really have the energy to write in a reply to someone who is probably never going to read it. But I do have to say this guy Troy is yet another example typifying my worst perceptions of Christian apologists. He's an intellectually dishonest, self important, spin doctor for Christ. The very first sentence of his response to my first post contained a fallacious argument. He is a sophist who doesn't care if he is making real arguments because he already has a monopoly on the “truth”.

old comment by A Friend

SethMac2,
Looks like your "probably" turned out to be not true. Eve was taken from Adam's rib, for what is a rib, but something that comes from "dust" (Gen. 2.7), so Eve too was taken from dust to form her body. Ascension is more like being released out of it like how gravitons somehow escape our universe. Regarding 1 Chron. 16.30, has the world moved? Nope. Not for a long long time. It is still where it has always been moving around the sun. Even when it is burnt up in a couple billion years it will still be moving around the sun. You have only been on earth a few decades. Many billion years is effectively immovable. Why would you think it impossible, if there is a creator, for Him not to be able to enter into His creation and ascend out of it? You can do something similar with your own computer say playing a computer game and have a player character in the game. Similarly, a character in the virtual world could walk on water if it is devised that way if that player had special abilities. How much more for God who created the universe and your computer game. Regarding Matt. 17.20, try to construct a sentence with an "as" or "like" in front of the "mountain" part. It doesn't sound right. Just because you read one verse falsely, does not mean other verses need to be read the same way. Don't let your petty self go on a rampage with horribly legalistic requirements you make up which are really just smokescreens to cover up the fact that you call Jesus a liar without reason for doing so. Don't aspire to be like a bad lawyer. If you watch the movie The Perfect Stranger, you will find it agrees perfectly with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible. This is the best Christian movie I have ever seen and I have seen maybe a hundred.

old comment by Morpheus

A Friend wrote:
Even when it [the earth] is burnt up in a couple billion years it will still be moving around the sun.

If I can say that I've taught you one thing in our time together, it will have been a worthwhile experience for me. I did some research and while the folks at Cornell don't think the Sun will explode in a few billion years, it will turn into a red giant so large that it'll envelop the Earth. Before that happens though, the Sun's gravity will increase. This increase will likely suck the Earth in before it is “burnt up,” as you say. In short, if the Earth is being scorched by the Sun, then either the ever-expanding Sun will consume it or the fluctuations in gravitational force will lead to the Earth being drawn in. The Earth doesn't just get burned and keep spinning like nothing ever happened. I don't know who told you that, but I doubt they know thing one about astronomy. Well, I'm done. Here's hoping you learned something. *tips hat*

old comment by A Friend

Morpheus,
I never said the Sun or the Earth would explode. I did say the Earth would be burnt up. You're not understanding what burnt up means. Essentially Mercury is burnt up. Look at its temperature. It is without the sea, and this is what the Bible means that Earth will be without the sea. Earth will be without the sea, before it is pulled into the Sun. It will get so hot it can no longer sustain water. My time here is to show you how you always misread and overassume what someone says. This is arrogant. I have have never seen you actually post with understanding yet. Something is defintely wrong with you that you would act like that. It is a hostility and reviling that only hell can handle. Take pleasure in being humble, not your arrogance. And it is to encourage you to watch this movie The Pefect Stranger since the very thing you need is to be emotionally connected back to reality. The reason your reasoning is so horrible is because your emotion is smothered with Satan's deceptions. So I am pointing you to not just Christian music to soften your stony heart but also this movie. Have you listened to the music yet quitely and have you seen this movie yet? I have heard that before, when you said you were done, you posted immediately again. Try not to make promises you can't keep. Just some helpful advice.

old comment by SethMac2

“A Friend” You have still never addressed the central point of my argument. You have never provided a principle or set of principles for why one verses in the Bible should be read figuratively and another literally and why that is necessarily so. If the Bible is God's word, as you claim, then it seems extremely likely to me that it should follow an inherent logic. I think you would agree that God is not arbitrary in what he does, so it follows to reason it should be possible for you to construct some principle sufficient to explain what directs you in interpretation since you claim to be interpreting correctly. But you haven't provided one. The principle that you did give on when not to read literally can be as easily applied to verses that you take literally, like the resurrection, as well as the ones you don't. The other explanation you gave “Christians don't read the Bible the way you misreprsent it because the Holy Spirit does not guide us that way ” actually goes to show that you were being false when you claimed you read the Bible without presuppositions since you have essentially admitted you presuppose the Holy Spirit.
The strength of the theory I am an adherent of (that Christians interpret literally or figuratively based on whether a verse is testable and falsifiable or not) is that it makes a very succinct statement that suffices to explain a wide variety of verses in terms of how a Christian will interpret them. It is a very good candidate for the simplest, most inclusive explanation with the greatest predictive power. Until someone can show something better, I feel Occam's Razor entirely supports this explanation. When you explain that the ascension is Jesus passing off the brane like a graviton, or that Jesus walking on water is something like overriding the usual rules that apply to characters in a video game and so on, these are all interesting explanations. But all they do is demonstrate how a creative mind can construct pseudo-scientific rationalizations for supernatural tales. Let me try my hand at it if you don't mind. When the Cheshire Cat disappears, the reason his smile stays behind and slowly fades away is that he has gone through a wormhole which slowly closes after his departure. His image, as Alice observes it, remains there just outside the event horizon seemingly frozen in place due to time dilation until the closing hole obscures the smile last. So you see. The fact that you can find an account that is analogous to things theorized about in science does nothing in itself to make the story more plausible. And the fact that I say “pseudo-scientific” and “analogous” is no mistake either since you haven't provided anything more than a loose conjecture and certainly not a rigorous scientific account. For instance, Jesus was presumably made of open strings like me and you and would therefor be bound to the brane unlike gravitons that are closed strings that can leak off. So you would have to account for this in your conjecture, and that even presuming string theory is correct.

old comment by A Friend

I have tried to find time to post. I might be able to just stick to this one thread and not any others at fstdt if you don't mind.
I can't think of a better place to post on the Internet to help those who are unsaved such as yourself. And I can't think of anything better than the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible to help lead you to Christ. Have you not questioned yourself that you can't find anything wrong with the Proof? SethMac2, Context is your guiding principle. You don't need a set of rules; nor would even be able to always know all the rules for that is like knowing every method God uses. No man can know that for there are some things God will keep to Himself. Take each specific situation and compare Scripture with Scripture. Never take one verse isolated on its own an draw a conclusion, but find comparable references through the Word of God. The surrounding context garners greater weight, but also keep the whole Bible in view. I have already said as much, but you overlooked it. The reason the Holy Spirit exists is because He is revealed in the Bible, and the reason the Bible is true is because none can compare to the Word of God, Jesus Christ, of any who might claim to be the uncreated. And of course, the reason the uncreated is true is because the 4 Step Proof proves this fact. Jesus has no challengers. Every time you think there is some fancy rule to live by, you'll find that you likely have restricted God in some fashion, so don't be concerned about these vague rules you demand, but be specific and examine the text. Since you can't find anything specifically wrong with the Bible, then know that it is true. We have discussed specific contexts and found your view to be legalistically restrictive not according to the original. Often Jesus spoke in parables as Christians give you comparisions to help you understand the facts. If Jesus is God, He would have no problem entering into creation through strings as well as escaping like gravitons. This is the most personal act of our creator. It doesn't get more personal than that. Watch the movie The Pefect Stranger so you can understand this point emotionally and intellectually to set the stage for your soul to be cracked open to let God's Spirit reach into your spirit and quicken it with His life. Keep the 4 Step Proof for God in view as you watch it, and listen to Jesus Christ speak in the movie. Let me know when you have seen it.

old comment by Wolf

Troy: Possibly the longest thread at fstdt happens to be this discussion of the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible with over 800 posts. Obviously, it is affecting fstdt adherents bound for hell for calling Jesus a liar.
Except: A) We're not going to hell. B) The reason your proof is "perfect" is because you're incapable of understanding logic in the first place. C) This thread is the longest because you keep it alive. Not because you're "affecting" us in any sort of "positive" way. In fact, you would be a prime example of how NOT to attract people to religion. (And yes, I realize you'll deny everything I said.....but go ahead, I know you need some reason to exist.)

old comment by Morpheus

Ok, ok. I was a tad brain-fried when I last posted (was on the road for about ten hours today). Let me try this one more time.
The reason I mentioned the Sun exploding at the beginning is because 1) that's what the page is about (Will the Sun ever explode?) and 2) this was actually new knowledge for me. Apparently our sun isn't large enough to ever get to the stage of fusing carbon (which causes instability and then it gpes supernova). It was superfluous, but an interesting debunking of a common misconception. Now onto the "burnt up" thing. I understand that when the Sun gets large enough, the earth's oceans will boil away and so forth. But it is possible that the Sun's gravity will pull the earth in before it is large enough to start boiling the oceans. At some point I did wind up equating being "burnt up" with "being engulfed by the Sun." My bad. I'm arrogant? You claim that my entire reasoning is defective and I'm arrogant? I tried to calmly explain the history of my country and its impact on domestic policy to you. Granted, I have gotten frustrated at times and it may have shown in my words, but I've never intended to be arrogant. Also, I would like to question the credibility of such a statement coming from someone who has labeled his own proof as 'perfect.' Nextly, over-assuming... let me see. Here are some things you've said about me that aren't true. *I'm an atheist *I'm a bad person *I've called Jesus a liar *I hate Jesus *I hate you *I... point to myself, even though I have yet to claim responsibility for any decrease in crime. Ever. *I'm arrogant *I knew who James Randi was before I went and looked him up *I lack basic reading comprehension *I'm trying to be sneaky >_> <_< :P *I have defective reasoning that only Jesus can cure *I'm male (even though I dropped a hint to the contrary, but apparently it was too subtle. Sorry) The last one I'll cut you some slack on, because my rule on the Internet has become "male until proven female" as well (I was hooked on MMORPGs for a while). But that still leaves eleven things that you've assumed that are untrue, and this is just about me. One more thing, "I'm done" doesn't mean I'm through speaking to you forever. It just meant I was finished with that one post. Typically, regardless of how much I disagree with you or the occasional bit of venom that slips into my reply, I always try to end with a polite farewell and a hat tip. I've forgotten a few times though (last time included). I'm only human. Random Fact: Did you know Mercury can have as many as three noons in a single day? Have a wonderful Friday and an even better weekend. *tips hat*

old comment by SethMac2

Just curious “A Friend”, how do you explain Mark 16:17-18 - “And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." - I'm almost certain you are going to say “deadly poison” means something other than what it says, but I'm just curious to see what you're going to say it really does mean.
If, however, you do take Jesus at his word (you're not going to call Jesus a liar are you?), I will offer you a $10,000 stake in a test of the veracity of the Bible. We'll get together, I'll hand off the $10,000 to a neutral stake holder who we'll agree upon, and you will drink a vile of poison that I will provide. The whole thing will be video taped for posterity. If it doesn't make you ill at all, as Jesus promises, then you get to keep the money. That simple. None of this stuff that you're doing where you get to be prosecution, judge and jury for any criticism of your 4-step proof, just a simple test with no possibility for bias. Either you get deathly ill or you don't. I think my $10,000 challenge will go far beyond yours in its impact to convert. I mean, wow! Could you imagine how many would be saved by such a graphic demonstration? P.S. I'll get around to watching that movie you suggested. I'll add it to my Netflix.

old comment by A Friend

SethMac2,
We are going to compare Scripture with Scripture to render a finding and give the surrounding context significant weight. Since drinking deadly poison is not done evilly on purpose, you ought not test your Lord Jesus Christ. Instead of thinking you are being judged, why not instead, realize the fact that you can't find anything specifically wrong with the 4 Step Proof for God? For where is your disproof? You never show it. If I were in your shoes, and I couldn't disprove something, and it had strong backing, I would reasonably accept it, but why don't you behave that way? It is because something else is going on with you. Your independency is taking over and doesn't care for having a sound mind with clear thinking and proper reasoning in its disobedience and hostility to his creator. How sad for you. I know you are not saved yet, because you have not yet watched the movie yet. It may be very difficult to bring yourself to do it. I think deadly poison is deadly poison, but somehow the believer is able to overcome it. The Bible has at least two usages in context of deadly poison when you assumed that I would take Mark 16 as figuratively only. So I guess you were wrong in your assumption? A snake is a snake. Let's look at this closer whether it is a an actual snake or a figurative snake, and whether the poison is actual poison or figurative poison. Compare this to, “If any man thinketh himself to be religious, while he bridleth not his tongue but deceiveth his heart, this man’s religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (James 1.26-27). “But the tongue can no man tame; it is a restless evil, it is full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we the Lord and Father; and therewith curse we men, who are made after the likeness of God: out of the same mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be” (James 3.8-10). These two Bible passages reveal how no man can tame the tongue. Yet God is able to save this untamable member of ours and keep it bridled. Someone once said, “Since James clearly states that no man can tame the tongue, it is therefore excusable for a Christian not to bridle his tongue.” What we should know is that James also declares emphatically in the same passage: “These things ought not so to be” (v.10). Moses was unable to enter Canaan because of one reason, which was that “he spake unadvisedly with his lips” (Ps. 106.33). He spoke as though he were uninstructed. In order to know how to speak, we need “the tongue of the instructed” (Is. 50.4 Darby) as well as the ears of the instructed. God can save not only our heart, thought and mind to perfection but also our tongue. If we cannot control it, I say again that we are not the possessors of a perfect salvation. Let God be praised, He is able to save our tongue whole. This is not only possible, it is also attainable. In Mark 16.18 we find actuay poison one can drink, whereas in James 1 & 3 we see reference to a poisonous tongue, figuratively. However, to drink any deadly think does not demand a restriction it only be physical. Pick up the snake as a symbol, but the poison can be from any source: "if they drink any deadly thing" (v.18). It does not say specifically the actual creature of the snake's poison, but certainly this may be included, able to overcome being poisoned by an actual snake. Now that the Christian is baptized, he needs to look back and assess the real meaning of baptism. “Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Rom. 6.3). “Having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col. 2.12). This is a looking backward, not forward. Remember that the words in Mark 16, Acts 2, Acts 22, and 1 Peter 3 were words spoken before baptism, while the words in Romans 6 and Colossians 2 were spoken after baptism. After baptism, we are notified by God that in our baptism we were actually baptized into the Lord’s death and were buried with Him, and so also we were raised with Him in resurrection. These signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. (Mark 16. 17-18) Blessed be Jehovah God, the God of Israel, who only doeth wondrous things. (Ps. 72. 18) Mark 16. 17-18 are words spoken by our Lord to His eleven disciples. They speak of their doing wondrous things. How do we look at these things today? One One thing we need to be reminded of, and that is, nothing in God’s word is for performance and none can perform it. Not only the words of Mark 16.17-18 are not open to man’s performance; all the words of God are not subject to human acting. God is willing to hear the prayer of Elijah on Mount Carmel and send down fire to prove that Jehovah alone is God, and not Baal (see 1 Kings 18. 30-39). Indeed, God will work wonders to prove himself to be God, but He will not allow any man to work wonders for the sake of performance. Some people think of using these two verses in Mark 16 to validate their performance, but God will turn away from them and let them fail. You cannot accuse such people of not believing in the words of Mark 16, for they do believe; yet God will not support their claim nor defend their supposed integrity. For God is God. He will only do what He wants to do; He will not act according to man’s idea. Two Let us well remember one spiritual principle: that faith is most natural and effortless. Some Christians do not understand much about faith, so having their prayers answered seems to require much labor. Each time they try to obtain God’s answer, they have to apply such a heavy dose of faith that they almost cry out, “I am here believing! I am here believing!” Although their prayers may be heard, they have believed to the point of exhaustion. After having enough experience and having learned more, they pray, they believe, and God hears them, but they now have no need to exert so much effort as before. They will pray quite naturally, and God will answer them quite naturally. Formerly, their faith was so forced that it nearly broke their heart. They wanted to believe but they could not believe. They believed till they were exhausted in their faith. Now their faith is something very natural; it is spontaneous faith. Three Faith is spontaneous, and wondrous works are natural. No one who works wonders fancies he is working wonders. To the one who truly believes in God, wondrous works are quite common. Only those who are far away from God deem them extraordinary. All who live before God and close to Him consider wondrous works to be something ordinary. At one time or another we must have all read the story of the children of Israel crossing the Red Sea. The first time we read it, we must have been amazed at the multitudes of people who crossed the Red Sea. Yet the Bible never recorded anything like shoutings by the people on this side of the Red Sea, saying, “How marvelous, the waters are divided!” or “Look, what a wonder this is!” No, they simply composed a song and sang only after they landed on the other side of the Sea. As they looked back, they realized what a great wonder it was. It is the same with the believers today. When the Lord works wonders in their lives, they have no idea that these are wondrous works. Only when they look back do they comprehend the greatness of God’s works. Recall, if you will, how many times God has healed your sickness. At those times, did you really think great things had happened? Many times you have encountered problems which were solved through God’s grace, but at those moments did you understand God as working wonders? No, not until you looked back did you realize what great things had happened. Even this looking back is natural, and not deliberate. Some people, viewing these verses from the human side, misconclude the words in Mark 16.17-18 to signify the things mentioned there to be quite extraordinary. Yet as we think upon God, we will not at all be surprised. Compared to the crossing of the Red Sea by the children of Israel these other things in Mark are quite insignificant. The words in Mark do not mean that a believer can drink deadly things every day without dying. No, if anyone should drink deadly things deliberately, he will surely die. On the contrary, the Mark passage simply suggests our knowing God and His power: we acknowledge that there is nothing He cannot do. For wonders do not come by believing with great effort; they are the manifestations of God’s mighty power. He is the God who works wonders. Whenever He works, wonders are performed. And furthermore, you and I will have no sense that doing wondrous works is difficult at all. The problem today lies in viewing these wonders from a great distance divorced from a true consideration of God. And thus wonders, within that kind of context, cannot help but become something very extraordinary. To those who are near to God, however, wonders are something quite commonplace in the house of God. Formerly there was a girl who lived by the seashore, since her family fished for their living. Later on, she got married to a man who lived in the mountain. Life on the mountain was very hard. Due to inconvenience in transportation, daily commodities were rare. One day her father-in-law was very angry at her, saying, “This daughter-in-law knows nothing about frugality. She is truly a great spendthrift. For she consumed a crab in three days.” He angrily went to her family in order to complain. While he was there, he was asked to eat with them. On the table were many crabs. Later he found in their yard piles of crab shells. He swallowed his complaint and returned home. Many believers look upon wonders in the same fashion as that gentleman of the mountain looked upon crabs. They may experience some wondrous work only once in ten years, or even only once in thirty. No wonder they consider wonders to be extraordinary. But to those who truly live close before God, wonders are very common phenomena. The hand of God is the source of all wondrous works, and He is always working wonders. Four Hence wonders do not require our effort. Wonders happen when the power of God is manifested in our lives. Paul was once bitten by a viper but he simply “shook it off into the fire” and “took no harm” (see Acts 28. 3-5). Watch how this wonder worked that day in Paul’s life. He had not said to the islanders of Melita, “Come, I am going to perform a wonder for you to see.” He blew no trumpet but simply shook off the creature into the fire. Those who do not know God glory in the wondrous works, but those who truly know Him never boast of them. (Of course, this does not mean that all who do not magnify wonders know God. For some of them do not believe in Him, and therefore they cannot believe in wonders.) In fact, those who know God will never brag of wondrous works simply because wonders are quite natural to them. Paul was bitten by a real viper. So in comparing Scripture with Scripture, there is no reason for you to doubt a physical viper in Mark 16, but nor should you exclude supernatural vipers either. Let me ask you: when your prayer is answered, do you feel you have done a marvelous thing. If so, this proves that your faith is yet immature. Were you truly to believe in the power of God, you would receive the answer to prayer unconsciously. Without knowing it, it would simply have been a case in which God had performed a wonder for you. Under such circumstances, wondrous works are natural, most effortless and common. Let us always remember that wonders are something done unconsciously. If we are conscious about performing wonders, they will not come forth. In other words, when we decide to work wonders, these very things distance themselves from us. It is almost as if it were a case of: “to will is present with me, but to do that which is good is not” (Rom. 7. 18). However, as we live before God and believe in Him, wonders will happen unconsciouslyjust like Paul, who on the occasion already mentioned, quite unconsciously performed the wonder of not being hurt by a viper. He could not repeat the act were it to be publicly requested; nor could we imitate Paul under the impulse of people’s persuasion. We can neither imitate others nor repeat ourselves. Here we touch one of the important principles in Christian experience; that is to say, God hearing prayers and doing wonders in our experience is something most natural and unpretentious. In the early days of our Christian walk, we might reckon ourselves as having great strength and unbelievable faith; yet as we progress in our walk and learn more, we will sense them no longer. We are not even aware of how we believe, but in simply committing ourselves to God, wonderful things are done. Five Many signs and wonders occurred in Paul’s life, yet he confessed himself to be “in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling” (1 Cor. 2. 3). God is willing to work through men, but He will not work through one who thinks he is able. People who do not know God proclaim that some particular person is able to do this or that wonder. Yet the one who truly knows God will concede that he does not know he is able. The person who is really used of God does not sense he can. What is done is done, that is all. Thank God, He is so powerful that He does everything without the need of us. The longer we are Christians, the simpler we should become. Whoever grows more complicated is being sidetracked. The more we know God, the simpler we are. Even believing becomes effortless. As we live before the Lord, we become simpler day by day. From the bottom of our hearts we shall readily acknowledge: “It is God, not we.” If we truly know the Lord, His works in our lives will be most natural. Let your words be filled with reverence and careful conscientious consideration.

old comment by A Friend

Morpheus,
The numbers are given. Yes, your terrible decision to call Jesus a liar is very ominous. Why shut your mind down, not to watch the movie? Why call the Bible fictional? Did Paul not travel from town to town in his work? Why then not call other books of history fiction? You're being disigenuous, and I think we both know that about you. Most scholars, including skeptical ones, would not take your position the Bible is purely fictional. You lose all credibility when you speak like that-belligerency and obstinacy! You don't need to know the numbers to look around and notice children are not being sacrificed on altars as human sacrifices. It doesn't happen anymore whence before it was quite prevalent and documented in antiquity. This is an exponential progression of conscience. I can't tell you how many women could vote in antiquity, but today in most societies women have a right to be treated equally able to vote. This is a new phenomenon just this past century or so. You have yourself given the numbers of the exponential improvement in the crime rate per capita this past half century, so why are you being disingenuous about that, saying you don't have the numbers. Historians calculate the population about 100 million around 1000 BC. It is hard to think deaths due to war have gone up 70 fold. Look at all the democracies on the planet when previously societies did not operate that way giving one vote to each person. Multiple spouses is frowned upon now when before it was apparently acceptable. Even mormons are letting go of it. Why are you a bad man Morpheus and belong in hell? Because you can't find anything wrong with the Proof for God of the Bible in the 4 Steps, yet still call Jesus a liar. Jesus said then He would make a liar out of you and cast you into hell to realize your wrong choice consciously for eternity. My only advice to you then is since you don't want to be saved from your sins and selfishness which you were born into, which you can't eradicate yourself from, then be intellectually honest with yourself that you like being a bad man and enjoy your foretaste of hell. Don't lie to yourself. Perhaps even Satan knows he is going to hell. But, if you do want God's loving mercy and grace in accepting what He did for you by entering into His creation to be the perfect ransom for your sin nature of sins that need to be paid, then you can receive the gift of salvation and eternal life. Eternal life is more than just eternal blessings in eternity future, but it is also an ability given to know God personally.

old comment by Andrew

Not this shit again...
Look, Troy, the reason that "we can't find anything wrong" with your not-a-proof is because you ignore every word we say, because you don't want to be wrong. You are a self-deluded fool. You are a troll. I've had less one-sided arguments with a two year old. Yes, yes, ad hominem attacks, I don't care. You are messed up in the head, man. And you keep on telling us that we accuse Jesus of being a liar, and yet nobody in this thread has ever done that directly. And I think I know why. I think you protest too much. Jesus was a liar. It's spelled out clearly in the Bible itself. He promised the apostles very clearly that he would return within their lifetimes. The apostles then modified and passed on that statement. They claimed, in their writings, that Jesus would then return in the lifetimes of their readers. That was about two thousand years ago. Jesus failed to return, as he promised. Jesus failed to return, as the disciples promised. Can you justify your own faith in a liar, Troy?

old comment by Morpheus the Pretty Pretty Princess

(I changed my user name for the interim in hopes that you'll at least start calling me a bad woman ~_^)
Troy, dear, the fictional book I referred to is not the Bible. Your precious movie is adapted from a novel written by Dave Gregory. I have a question. Do you play the fool just to get a rise out of people or are you so lacking in reading comprehension and common sense that you really thought I meant the Bible? In what book of the New Testament does Jesus go to dinner with the attractive female lawyer? As for your three examples (child sacrifices, women's suffrage, and polygamy), the first has been “replaced” by abortion according to your ilk, the second isn't Biblically acceptable and third is actually tolerated by God. So according to your own Holy Book, giving women the right to vote defies the doctrine and polygamy was actually practiced by some very godly men. So you might want to come up with some better examples. Regarding the decrease in violent crime in the US of A, I've given a far more reasonable explanation that has nothing to do whatsoever with your god. I might check out your movie. It seems kind of interesting, though doesn't the concept of Jesus coming back before the time of the Millenium sort of go against the Bible? *shrug* However, my boyfriend has a list of more than a hundred movies I need to watch at some point (he and his family have a lot of inside jokes I want to understand), and to be fair, he was here first. So it may be a few years before I even have time for The Perfect Stranger. Quelle dommage. Take care. *curtseys* *sashays off into the sunset wearing a ballroom gown* (You think he'll get it now? I hope so.)

old comment by A Friend

Morpheus,
The book that the movie is on is inspired by the Bible. If the Bible did not exist, then surely this movie would not be what it is. I am glad to know that you don't think the Bible is fictional, but it is true. Don't you feel embarrassed to accuse that the movie is pretending to be the Bible rather than a creative insightful approach which you don't see? Whatever you think is "replaced" makes no difference, since you can't compare clinical abortions to antiquity since there was no clinical procedure then that we have today. Try to stick with comparing apples to apples, not oranges to oranges. But you can compare things mentioned which show an exponential progression. This must really upset you that you can't show otherwise. For it indicates that there could not have been an eternity of the past of cause and effects, since we would not still be sinning by now. The godly men who did commit polygamy was acceptable in that day, but today no longer. Do you suggest it is more righteous to go back to polygamy? Funny. God tolerated polygamy for a short while but no longer. The key word you used was "tolerate". No matter the policies that make the cause, it is people behind policies that cause improvements, so the cause is the exponential improvement in conscience this past half century. Thankyou for the chart. Morpheus, I didn't realize you were a homosexual. You said you have a boyfriend, lol. Your being a fag was never tolerated in God's eyes. He burnt down Sodom and Gomorrah for just such a thing. Will he burn down your house too? Doesn't the Bible say in Zech. 14.4, Acts 1.11 and Rev. 1.7 that Jesus is going to come back to earth and Revelation 20.2-7 to reign for 1000 years? As you put off this movie, it is due to the fact that you don't want to be saved. Just be intellectually honest with yourself that you want to go to hell. Just admit you call Jesus a liar to accept what you are. That's my simple advice. How strange it is to go around rejecting God's Word but having no reason for doing so, and for rejecting the Proof for God, but having no reason for do so. Crazy stuff!

old comment by A Friend

Andrew,
You make the claim I have ignored something, but you don't show it or say what it is. Surely, you could repeat this mysterious thing you claim instead of just pretending it exists. Nobody wants to be wrong, but this is not the cause for why you can't find anything wrong with the Proof. The reason you can't find anything wrong with the Proof is because you haven't been able to. Otherwise, you could have presented it here. It's interesting though you admit you don't want to be wrong with your assumed belief that you are committed to come hell or high water. All your various other accusations are considered of no account, since you don't present any disproof or respond to the answer given to your mistaken assumption. Your loss. It is not so much a protest, but a fact you do call Jesus a liar. So Jesus said if you are not for Him, then you are against Him. Those against Him do call Him a liar, for He said He is God, and since you don't believe Him, then you accuse Him of being a liar. So He said He will make a liar out of you. We see that happening already in that you reject the Proof for God, but have no reason given for doing so. Praise the Lord, you're giving glory to God, though unwittingly. I see in your last post you have tried to find a disproof. You said that Jesus would return in their lifetime, that that is what you think Jesus said, but Jesus didn't return you think. But He did. Soon after He was seen on the mount of olives with Moses and Elijah by some of the disciples. And we can't forget that Jesus also retuned at His bodily resurrection in their lifetimes. However, this is not the second coming of reigning for 1000 years where the Bible says then the nations won't be deceived (and not war) in Rev. 20.3. It's interesting to note that you admit Jesus said this; do you also accept that He said He is God? Overlooking these facts does not constitute a valid argument on your part. Misreading the Bible is lamo! Don't be such dullard. You're being wrong, perhaps you would like to try another approach. Possibly even give your life to Christ to be saved, and receive by the Holy Spirit eternal life. This is my prayer for you.

old comment by Morpheus

Andrew: I swiped the name of a male deity. He controls dreams, which I always found to be pretty damn cool. It was just an online pseudonym, so I didn't think it was a big deal at the time. Now I know that if I ever want to admit to being female and have anyone believe me, I can't do things like that. *sigh*
As for you, Troy, I'm through with you. If I can't even get you to recognize that I know more about the intimate details of my life (e.g. my own gender) better than you, then clearly you are incapable of learning anything. Call me a fag all you like, but each time you do, you will be tarnishing no one's reputation but your own. T'is a shame, how a constant need to be right can make someone who possesses a modicum of intelligence look so utterly pigheaded. If I may offer one suggestion before I go, stop saying 'lol' in your replies. A grown man should have better ways of expressing himself than AIM speak. Best of luck to you, Troy. *waves*

old comment by A Friend

Morpheus,
I want to be honest with you. I consider you a bad person. Your being a homosexual does damage only to yourself. Since you still can't find any fault with the 4 Step Proof for God and seem to be going on about anything else but, I think this is disingenous in your need to be right in calling Jesus a liar. You're a bad man through and through. Hell is for you. Please forgive me if I don't take you at your word when you said this time not unlike last time and the time before, "I'm through with you". Let's see if you have the self-control to keep your promise and not post here again. Since the 4 Step Proof for God is without fault in your assessment since you don't find any, then realize God of the Bible created you. It's really not that complicated. You're just making it hard on yourself. You haven't watch that movie yet eh? Get to it. Then you will be saved. What are you so afraid of?

old comment by Andrew

*repost because the software is deciding to randomly relocate posts*

Morpheus, I want to be honest with you. I consider you a bad person. Your being a homosexual does damage only to yourself. [...] Seriously though, my advice to you is stop being a fag, lol. Stop thinking you're a woman Morpheus and your claim you have a boyfriend. Just accept your gender and date the opposite sex. Let God deliver you from this sin.

Wow. Troy, you just jumped the shark. Perhaps I'm a bit naive, but I tend to take people at their word. If Morpheus insists that she is a woman, then I see no reason to disbelieve this, despite the masculine name she has chosen for herself here on the internets. And let me tell you something... that word you used, "fag"... wow. Just wow. Troy, you have lost any possible polite response that I could possibly come up with. You've gone from net.kook to internet asshole. Congrats.

You make the claim I have ignored something, but you don't show it or say what it is. Surely, you could repeat this mysterious thing you claim instead of just pretending it exists.

How about post #244592? Feel free to respond here instead of there, if you choose to respond at all. It's about a literal vs figurative interpretation of biblical verse, and you were caught in a contradiction. Any response, should you make one, must include an explanation for your assertation that Genesis 1 and 2 are to be taken literally, yet you believe firmly in a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 2:7's statement that God created Adam from dust in the single day as stated in Genesis 1:23. Claiming subjective reading of the verses is an invalid argument, as you have stated in extremely clear terms in that topic that you are using a literal reading. If you fail to address the contradiction you made, you admit failure and may leave without causing further embarrassment to yourself. Feel free to ignore the rest of the post, however, as it was simply me giving a braindump on my sudden realization on your basis of morality. I doubt your answer would be very interesting anyway. Lemme see, arguments you're ignoring. Oh, how about this. How about all those requests for statistics on your alleged "exponential increase in morality"? I have never seen you cite any crime figures prior to the 70s, and then only for the US. Please give me concrete numbers that can demonstrate an exponential (or otherwise progressive, I won't split hairs over that term) increase in conscience over time by demonstrating a world-wide decrease in crime of all kinds. Not just violent crime. Those white collar embezzlers are just as guilty of theft as a cat burglar. Unfortunately I doubt you will ever be able to give historic statistics, because I'm not sure that they exist. Even the FBI only keeps stats online back to 1995 for all reports, and 1993 for a single report. The best you've been able to provide so far are numbers from war deaths. Unfortunately there are easily other explanations for a reduction in war deaths... how about no major wars in 50 years? How about the increase in technology changing wars from just throwing troops at each other into massive tactical affairs involving bombs, shells, planes, robots, and other man-made tools of destruction? How about no major wars since WW2 due to the superpowers having the ability to destroy the entire human race thanks to nuclear weapons? I dunno about you, but if I was the leader of a major country, I'd never want to provoke the wrath of a nuclear country. In fact, the figures you've sourced for wars are also entirely inaccurate, as you've artificially inflated the numbers to "account for population size", such that they reflect a percentage of the world's population. That's a completely dishonest and misleading thing to do, as it makes the numbers look far larger than they really are. The proper thing to do is represent the numbers both raw and then as an actual percentage of worldwide population. And then there's the puzzling fact that you stopped in the 19th century. Why not continue back to the 1700s? To the 1600s? Surely there are sources on war deaths from those eras as well. But perhaps they simply don't back up your assertation. Or you've never found the figures, perhaps. So then, why did you stop at the 1800s? And I know exactly how you're going to react to this one. You're going to, once again, claim that it's self-evident, or that facts and figures aren't needed, or make some other statement that simply dismisses our requests for evidence. (And you'll cite sacrifices. Child sacrifices, no doubt. Those seem to be a minor obsession of yours. Is there something you aren't telling us?) It's something that you simply don't understand, Troy. The burden of proof is your responsibility. If you can not provide proof of your claims, then your claims are invalid. It's that simple. Here's another one that you've dismissed entirely, Troy. I dare you to dismiss it again: Has any other God-believing Christian ever read your "4 Step Proof" and agreed with it, in full? The answer you have given every time this has been asked in the past is that they don't need to agree with it, because they already believe in God. But Troy, if they disagree with the "proof" and yet still believe in God, doesn't that imply that the "proof" is not needed? Or flawed in some way, as to cause the believer in God to disagree with the "proof"? Shouldn't it back up and reinforce the beliefs of a Christian? I have never seen a single Christian accept the "proof" without question. Quite the opposite. Indeed, I have seen many Christians attempt to point out flaws in it, and you have deflected each of those flaws in the same way that you have deflected each of our points -- you claim the point is invalid or stems from misunderstanding. Doesn't that concern you, Troy? Nobody agrees with you. Has it ever occurred to you that you might well be wrong with all this "proof" nonsense? Hell, I'll even extend the question... Troy, has anyone ever accepted the entire "4 Step Proof" without question? Anyone at all? Do not dodge the question. Answer it yes or no. Failure to give a yes or no answer will be an admission of failure, and you may leave without causing further embarrassment to yourself. If yes, please link us to posts demonstrating their agreement. If their agreement took place on your forum, it would also be nice if you could provide some proof that said user isn't a sock puppet of yours.

old comment by A Friend

Andrew,
You say there is some contradiction, but your misreading and overassuming doesn't count. Gen. 1, 2 and 2.7 are all taken literally. Where did I say otherwise? Gen. 1.23 doesn't say Adam was created in a single day from dust. It simply says on the 5th day (these are summary days) to sum up man's creation after the first 4 summary days which were days of restoration from that which was already there. The 4 Step Proof page posts a chart of numbers since the 70's of the reduction in the crime rate. Why are you so lazy to avoid it? It has been discussed many times here from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. FBI keeps figures all the way back to 1929 as well. Reduction of deaths due to no wars is itself an improvement in conscience. Don't try to rationalize it away, for it is happening right before our very eyes. I don't know what numbers you are citing that you said I manipulated. You might want to be a little more specific and quote me instead. In ancient literature we discover warring going on at a far greater pace than today. So it is not unreasonable to believe the murder rate per capita has decreased since then. Do you really think the murder rate per capita is up 70x times keeping pace with the population increase since 1000 BC? I don't think any credibile historian would. Don't obsess yourself with numbers, but keep to the minimal facts approach, that which most scholars agree on. Just know there are not child sacrifices today on altars, and the murder rate and crime rate per capita have gone down in our known recent history. Can women vote? Are there more democracies? Has polygamy been reduced? This burden of the proof has been met. Now the burden of the proof is on you to show otherwise if you don't accept the truth as proven. All my brothers and sisters in Christ agree that nothing in nature happens all by itself and we do indeed see an improvement in conscience, both global conscience and that of the saints. Lots of Christians have read the Proof and they all agree. I have never met a Christian who thought nature happened all by itself or there was not an improvement in conscience since antiquity. Why does this offend you? It should gladden you. The reason a person believes in God is because of the proof for God. Christians don't believe blindly as do atheists and agnostics in puff the magic dragon in denying the evidence. I have never read from any Christians who found a flaw in the Proof. Perhaps what you think are Christians are not really. Your spirit being dead to God don't be surprised by this. Nobody wants the Proof to be accepted without question, but since it meets the burden of the proof, that is why Christians believe in Christ. Why delude yourself that nobody agrees? All Christian agree with the Proof for God. The very proof of God is the proof that nothing in nature happens all by itself and an exponential progression in conscience which is clearly visible would indicate that there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effects since we still sin. We would not still be sinning by now. Understand your obsession and hostility against God of the Bible is the same nature of Adam's fall from grace and to be under Satan's control. You may say your hostility is a form of demonic possession. You know not what you do. My prayers go out to you Andrew that you may yet receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior so that you may be a pillar in the new city on the new earth.

old comment by CT

Troy, you said you weren't coming back...
You've come back... By returning, you've made yourself out to be a liar... and that's a no-no. Only if you repent of your sin will Jesus forgive you... but since you've committed that sin more than once, and since you show no sign of repenting for that sin, you're showing yourself to be an unrepentant sinner... Bear with me on this, since it's direct from the Bible... Someone who is unrepentant yet claims to be a believer, ie. someone who cries "Lord! Lord!" while still sinning without repentance, is someone who is a false believer and is NOT what they claim to be. In fact, the Bible states that such people would be part of the horde that serves the Anti-Christ and all his evil deeds. Troy... you repeatedly commit the sin of lying, you show no repentance, you crow about how you are better than others, you continually judge others... you are proving time and time again that you are in the "Lord! Lord!" group that gets drop-kicked into hell. The irony is, all the accusations you keep throwing at us, you are guilty of yourself... and I just guarantee you'll misread this and try to deny it, just like the unrepentant do. Oh, and if you want to carry on with this discussion... even though all you do is spam the same posts over and over again... take it to the bloody forums here. This is not for massive debates... this is for comments on the insanity of the quotes posted on the main page. If you are unable to use a service for what it is intended to be used for, then you are willfully disrupting the service. (which is classed as a Terroristic Tactic and punishable in the US... Bad Troy, you're a lawbreaker too. Make sure you're prepared for that nice hot seat in Hell... cos you're making bloody sure you've got one :) )

old comment by SethMac2

“Since drinking deadly poison is not done evilly on purpose, you ought not test your Lord Jesus Christ.” and later “I think deadly poison is deadly poison, but somehow the believer is able to overcome it.”
So does that mean if someone were to slip poison into your food or you were to ingest it accidentally it would not harm you since it is only when you ingest poison on purpose that you are testing God? I wonder how many cases there have been in the U.S. of foul play through poison or how many cases of accidental poisoning involving Christians, I bet there have been a few. Maybe you would say that shows those people were not true believers? Actually, I had predicted your response as one possibility. It still fits the pattern I laid out in my second post of “Where: Bible = Testable = Falsifiable = Apologist Excuses.” Only this time you aren't equivocating on the meaning of “deadly poison”, you are equivocating on the nature of the promise itself, and that brings me to my next point. “For God is God. He will only do what He wants to do; He will not act according to man’s idea. “ A question your response raises for me is the nature of God's promises. You say God promises believers may drink poison without harm etc. so long as that is His will. God, through Jesus, also promises us eternal life in exchange for our faith. That, presumably, is also contingent on His will. So God will give us anything he promises so long as feels like giving it to us, is that right? That doesn't sound like much of a promise to me. Suppose I made you an offer to do some work for me and promised to pay you $5,000 for the work contingent on my feeling like it. Would you do the work? I know I wouldn't were I in your position. You might know me to be an honest person who faithfully keeps his promises, but the nature of the promise is itself suspect, and, again, most people would hardly call it a promise at all. You accuse me of being a “petty legalist”, but now you give a description of God that could justifiably be said to tag Him as a “petty legalist” who can welsh on any promise because he has put a caveat in the fine print. I certainly wouldn't enter into a contract with someone who only has to uphold their part of the bargain if they felt like it. But that is what you want us to do with God. Maybe you should speak to God on my behalf and ask his to get back to me with better terms and maybe I'll consider it. As it stands, I think you've made a very good argument for not believing in God because the believer cannot trust God's promises. God is a petty legalist who puts loopholes in his promises so he doesn't have to keep them if he doesn't want, and that hardly inspires the will to faith. Concerning the 4-step proof, I will get around to that when I have enough time.

old comment by A Friend

CT,
Posting here is not lying, but finding time to post is simply time alotted to post. Unlike others who say they are done for good, then post again, not keeping their promise, I simply said I had not the time to keep posting for the time being. Though, now, I only have the time to post in this thread, and not in the others. No doubt Satan will accuse this of being a sin, but where is his basis for doing so? The reason we have the precious blood of Christ is because it covers us and protects us, even from being accused of the truth such as knowing Jesus is God. Just the fact of your hostility that I am posting here again shows me I should post here, because it is affecting you greatly. I am a sort of obsession for you. Many Christians were martyred in history for such obsession that turned into possession. Check yourself. Don't spam this thread, but realize you haven't found anything wrong with the 4 Step Proof for God, so you should give your life to Christ to be saved. This is my continual prayer for you. Try to stay on topic and not deflect from the Proof. Though there is no rule for this, I still don't think it is healthy for you to continue to shut your mind down to the fact you can't find anything wrong with the 4 Step Proof for God, yet still call Jesus and the Apostles liars. Hence, the need for hell for those such as yourself. Praise the Lord! God is a righteous God.

old comment by A Friend

SethMac2,
I agree, people poisoning people is not Christian. Deadly poison can be either physical, soulical or spiritual. I showed you where such usage is used in the Bible, whether it falls into one, two or all three categories. The reason was given, and you did not counter it. Whatever God promises it is according to His righteousness and holiness. Whatever God's mind and feeling it is bound by these two qualities of righteousness and holiness by the Holy Spirit. Why does that offend you? God doesn't break His promises at all. Why think so? Nor is He a petty legalist such as yourself. Again, why think so? While you accuse God of many things, you aren't able to prove them. But God remains consistently doing His will with perfect accord within the Godhead. Praise God! Since the central issue is the 4 Step Proof and the very topic of this thread, I am glad you at least admit you are unethically trying to be evasive when you said, "Concerning the 4-step proof, I will get around to that when I have enough time." Clearly people can see you are shutting your mind down like a zombie for Satan. Hey, that's a new phrase I think we can use to describe your condition..."Zombies for Satan".

old comment by A Friend

Rime is offended because I didn't have the time to post at the fstdt cult as I had other pressing matters. But I have been able to fit into my schedule to post on only one thread now at fstdt instead of several as before. I find this is a nice balance now to post just in this one thread of the $10,000 offer for the 4 Step Proof disproof (which still needs to be posted at Biblocality Forums to put in an official attempt). Still no challengers have been forthcoming at fstdt and as best as I can tell, in the longest thread of all of fstdt. Obviously, because a perfect proof for God is the central issue of all of the conversations at fstdt, that would explain why this thread is the longest of all the threads to date that I am aware of.
Since there is not a single woman in the world whose name is Morpheus, which is clearly a guy's name, then there are only two possibilities. Either Morpheus is lying and he is not a man, or he is a man who has a boyfriend, because he says he has a boyfriend. This is just for starters. A long list of goofy things goes on in the mind of the unregenerate in their behavior, reflecting their condition of calling Jesus a liar even though they can find no fault with the 4 Step Proof for God. Crazy stuff! Shall we say more about this deflection from the Proof? We need not respond more than the evasiveness, deflection and obfuscation. If a person chooses to shut their mind down, that is their choice, and all we can do is give them the truth of their mistaken assumptions and leave it at that. Since Morpheus is a homosexual or a woman lying about her gender, why would this have any bearing on Step 1 on the 4 Step Proof? What a silly claim. Step 1 of the 4 Step Proof tells us that since in many ways we see the exponential progression in conscience, we would not still be sinning by now. Therefore, the uncreated created. Praise the Lord! I would agree with Rime's statement though, "the saved, such as Troy, should be head and shoulders above us in enlightnement." Yes, of course, since Christians have been regenerated with God's life, and an unregenerate still has the evil spirit in his spirit.

old comment by SethMac2

_{“I agree, people poisoning people is not Christian.”}
That's not what I said, and I think you know that. I was asking you, were a Christian accidentally poisoned (for instance) would God keep his word to that Christian that “it will not hurt them at all”? You said that, if a Christian were to test God by purposely poisoning themselves, God would not support them in that. But how about an accident? And, if I were to show you a case where a self-proclaimed Christian died of an accidental poisoning, what would your answer be as to why? _{“Deadly poison can be either physical, soulical or spiritual. I showed you where such usage is used in the Bible, whether it falls into one, two or all three categories. The reason was given, and you did not counter it.”} I'm pretty confident that when you said “I think deadly poison is deadly poison”, that you meant Mark 16:18 can be correctly interpreted as referring to a believer consuming a literal poison like cyanide, and I'm addressing that point specifically. Whether “deadly poison” has other meanings in the Bible or not is a red herring. It is the literal meaning of “deadly poison” I am concerned with. _{“Whatever God promises it is according to His righteousness and holiness. Whatever God's mind and feeling it is bound by these two qualities of righteousness and holiness by the Holy Spirit. Why does that offend you?

God doesn't break His promises at all. Why think so? Nor is He a petty legalist such as yourself. Again, why think so?

While you accuse God of many things, you aren't able to prove them. But God remains consistently doing His will with perfect accord within the Godhead. Praise God!”} God may not break the letter of his promises, but his promises, as you explain them, are so qualified that they hardly count as such. In John 14:14 Jesus said that “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.”. But you read this as “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it so long as I was planning on doing it anyway”. So why bother with prayer? God's will will be done whether you ask for it or not. _{“Since the central issue is the 4 Step Proof and the very topic of this thread, I am glad you at least admit you are unethically trying to be evasive when you said, "Concerning the 4-step proof, I will get around to that when I have enough time.} I'm unethical for not having enough time lately to write a full rebuttal to your 4-step proof? Funny, I thought it meant something good like I have a life. _{“Clearly people can see you are shutting your mind down like a zombie for Satan. Hey, that's a new phrase I think we can use to describe your condition..."Zombies for Satan".”} Troy, I question all my beliefs constantly. I am a firm believer in applying the Socratic method in my life both to my own beliefs as well as those of others. You, on the other hand, have this compartment of your life called belief in God that you, to the best I can tell, have totally isolated from any sort of skeptical examination, and it works as an unalterable program directing all your thinking. Who is the zombie?

old comment by Rime

Troy, Morpheus is a nickname. How it is used in context with the user is not lying because you have failed to prove that Morpheus who has been responding to you is a man. How that person chooses to be recognized over the Internet is their choice. How many more times do you have to be wrong?
Me, offended? Stop bearing false witness and repent! Can you do that? By demonstrating your obstinance all over the internet when it comes to anyone who isn't OSAS Arminian, you have indeed shown that you aren't any more enlightened than the unsaved. I apologize for you missing the point. I should have known you would have missed my point. So point 1 has been shown invalidated because of your attitude. And even better, I'll even go as far as to say that even though I've proven a flaw with your perfect proof, it doesn't prove that God does not exist. Wow! Put your movie up on YouTube and I'll think about it.

old comment by A Friend

SethMac2,
Again, you are resorting the same old lame approach of a petty legalism. I'm embarrassed for you. The Scripture does not say every kind of poison if ingested can be overcome. But, there would be a certain strength by the Holy Spirit to be able to overcome many than would otherwise be the case. I didn't realize you meant something other than what you said: "I wonder how many cases there have been in the U.S. of foul play through poison or how many cases of accidental poisoning involving Christians, I bet there have been a few. Maybe you would say that shows those people were not true believers?" I agree, if a person poisons another person, they are certainly not Christians. Since overcoming some poison ingested is not always going to be possible, you can see how I read what you said accordingly. Previously, you had thought I believed that Mark 16.18 was figurative only. You did say, "I'm almost certain you are going to say 'deadly poison' means something other than what it says." How do you reconcile your mistaken confidence with your "red herring" accusation? First we needed to know if this verse was figurative OR figurative and literal OR only literal to proceed, so it would not be a red herring as you say. To know, for you I compared Scripture with Scripture. What if this verse was only figurative? Then your theory could not even be considered. Moreover, you have sinned, for you assumed I would only think this verse was figurative by your accusation, then accuse again mindlessly after I gave you the explanation of this verse. I am reminded by such antics of being like the great accuser who is Satan who is without the love of the Lord. Regarding John 14.14, why assume I read it the way you said? What grounds did you have for your assumption? You said, bearing false witness, by putting quotes around it as if I said this, “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it so long as I was planning on doing it anyway”. Since I do not hold this false view, where do you get your accusation from if not from Satan? God is not going to do something anyway if a condition is not fulfilled first. How silly. God has infinite foreknowledge of all things. He foreknows all our free-choices, but it is not Him who is doing it, but those who have the choice. He simply foreknows our choices. Why does that offend you such that you need to bear false witness? The reason why I know you are a bad guy, is because you are always wrong. You have never been right ever in your interpretation of things of God's Word or the Proof for God. God's will is done when you fulfill the condition. The reason we pray is to commune with God in a relationship with His Son through the Holy Spirit indwell His believers. Speaking with God personally through prayer fulfills the necessary reverence for God to receive revelation and a spirit of wisdom to understand what He wants for us in any particular situation, even now. Do you see how your warped thinking causes you to come up with strange ideas. These stange ideas about God to bear false witness against Him is the exact reason for Step 3 of the 4 Step Proof for God. Don't argue against some quality of some god, but we are talking about God of the Bible here. Wake up! After all these posts, you have not identified even one thing wrong with the Proof. You're not required to write a full rebuttal, but to disprove it, all you need do is find one fault with it. Yet you can't do that. Nor do you spend the time to do so. Yet you still call God a liar, but why? You say you have a life, that's why. I don't think you have a life. Is it life to reject something without reason? There is no no life in that, only death, and you will die a little more each day by that lie you live. Therefore, you will be resurrected for hell. Praise God that He doesn't allow you to go where we are going. You don't even apply the socratic method of learning and teaching, for if you did, you would question yourself, since you can't find anything wrong with the Proof for God, when then do you shut your mind down to the fact that you call Jesus a liar without having a reason for doing so? I know the reason why you act like this. It is because you're a bad person going to hell. Since the 4 Step Proof is offered up for examination and to critique, yet you don't, then aren't you shutting your mind down as a zombie for Satan? Think about it.

old comment by A Friend

IB90,
Yes Jesus is fully God. That's why the Bible says He is the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Zombies are self-induced shutting their minds down, like you, for you assumed the uncreated is a zombie, but where is your evidence? Moreover, zombies are created beings which contradicts your theory the uncreated is a zombie. I can't comment on fornicating states on a per capita basis, nor can you, since you don't have any data for this. But to show how decrepit your thoughts are, you think eating peoples' brains is progress. There is a lot more worship today. For even if only a small percentage of the 1 in 3 people who say they are a Christian on the planet worship, this is an increase from antiquity. Tell me when in antiquity for everyone on the planet planet where 1 in 3 people said they were Christians? Just be honest with yourself, since you can't find anything wrong with the Proof for God, even with your number one attempt, know that you would rather be a bad person (and a zombie shutting your mind down) and call Jesus a liar. That's just the type of person you are. Don't lie to yourself. Know for sure that hell was created for you.

old comment by IB90

1. Zombiehood is not self-induced. One must recieve it from another zombie. So, yes, you are correct that zombies are created. However, there must be an original source for zombiehood. This source is the original zombie, Jesus Christ.
2. You think eating brains is not progress. This shows how decrepit your thoughts are. Tell me Troy, do you fornicate? Zombie Jesus sees all, Troy, so don't lie and say that you don't. 3. Worship? I see a whole mess of people who claim to be Christians, but are in reality Protestants or Catholics. Christianity is neither. These so-called "Christians" don't even uphold the sacrament of flesh and blood, but instead use wine and wafer. They refuse to consume the brain as Jesus has commanded. They want to keep their brains! You know who like knowledge? Lucifer likes knowledge. Troy, are you a servant of Satan? 4. Troy, it is you who are calling Jesus a liar by refusing to consume brains.

old comment by IB90

1. Zombies are indeed created. Their zombiehood is not self-induced. It is given by other zombies. Therefore, there must be an original zombie. Therefore, the Uncreated Zombie created.
2. You think eating brains is not progress. This shows how decrepit you are. Tell me, Troy, do you fornicate? Don't lie and say you don't, Jesus sees all. 3.There are few real Christians left. Do you perform Communion as Jesus intended, using real flesh and blood? If not, then you are not Christian. When you pray, do you use proper English or do you groan vaguely about brains? If you're using proper English, you're not praying right. 4.You call Zombie Jesus a liar. You seem to think owning a brain is not a sin. You know who has a brain? Lucifer. Do you worship the "Bringer of Light" and his evil sorcery, Science? Hell is made for people like you.

old comment by Brian X

It's sort of funny about Troy. He accuses Morpheus of being a gay man, even though she insists up and down that she's a woman who just happens to be using a somewhat odd nick. And he accused me of being not Christian, which is in fact true, but the way he said it, he seemed to think that telling me that was somehow an insult, like I thought I was a Christian but I'm not.
Oh, and IB90, take your zombie heresy somewhere else please. The Dread Cthulhu is not happy with you and is seriously considering having you for dessert after he chows down on Troy's bunch. Please come to the Great Old Ones so that you may recieve the merciful fate of antipasto rather than the miserable horror that is the dessert course.

old comment by Brian X

Well, you logged in
To FSTDT Like you were walking into a church Figured you'd save some souls Convert the crew But we left you in the lurch Spend so much effort to advertise And no one wants the merch But you're gonna keep trying Cause there's clouds in your thinking Clouds in your thinking, and... (chorus) You're so vain, you probably think this post is about you (you're so vain) I bet you think this post is about you, don't you, don't you? Well, I hear you claimed you had an airtight proof About the Son of God And they handed you your head Over and over again And still you won't pay out And you keep this thread bumped all the time Lest anyone forgot That everyone knows that you don't have a clue, Friend You don't have a clue, Friend (chorus) (guitar solo) And they're all just laughing Cause you don't have a case, Friend You don't have a case, Friend (chorus and fade out)

old comment by A Friend

This thread is about God of the Bible. Hence the need for Step 3. If you don't have anything against God of the Bible, then don't post in vain mindless banter. Keep the topic focused to help yourself see that since you can't find anything wrong with the Proof for God, yet still reject it, shows something is wrong with you. I for one don't behave that way and reject things without reason. That could be the definition of insanity to believe in something without a reason. You believe in puff the magic dragon it happened all by itself without a cause and clearly forsake the exponential progression in conscience showins us that we would not still be sinning if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects. I think your approach is utterly crazy!
Such is the faith of the agnostic/atheist. Crazy to the end! @CT

why do you keep posting the same post?

I don't have any duplicate threads if that is what you mean. Why do you keep avoiding the post of the Proof for God in 4 Steps which this thread is about?

old comment by Rime

Rime,
In context, no woman, not a one, on the planet is named Morpheus, for this is a man's name. Why deny this context? If a woman misrepresents herself this way she is lying, so I think Morpheus' boyfriend would take exception to Morpheus being afraid to admit in public he is a homosexual. That's his conscience speaking. I love how you can be wrong in so many ways, even fabricating lies to cover your mistakes. It doesn't matter what she calls herself online. Stop bearing false witness and repent! Can you do that? Have you noticed you are always wrong? When have you been right even once yet? I love how you can only point your finger at me with flailing accsuations. Every word you've written gives strength to inability to "discern spirits", but your prideful convictions tell you otherwise. A sad way to live! I am glad you can accuse me of obstinacy, but you can't show it. A saved person, yes, is osas arminian. In other words, eternal life is eternal at new birth and God foreknows our free-choice: a conditional election, unlimited atonement, resistible grace, for preseravation of the saints. Why does this offend you? How am I offended? Stop bearing false witness and repent! Can you do that? You said you found some flaw with the 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible. Where is it? Why so afraid to say it? Your being coy about it, reflects upon you as a person in that you are being unethical, since you really don't have a disproof. Praise the Lord that you don't! The guy you look at in the mirror. That's my proof. Your obstinance, your insistence that Morpheus is a homosexual man, or that she's a lying woman. That's all I need, although I could give you a much longer rap sheet. How low can you go? You can download the movie at your leisure. Let me know when you have. After you watch it, you will give your life to Christ possibly-the very thing you are so afraid of, to give up self. Know as you are watching The Perfect Stranger it will be your highest probability to date of possibly being led to Christ. Give yourself this opportunity. You haven't watched it yet because you are so into your sin nature. Satan is working his miracles in you. He keeps you from watching it. Put it up on YouTube. Can you do that? Do you realize that by keeping your movie on some unknown server in RAR format, that you're in fact saving far fewer people than you could be? It's as if you don't want people to be saved! So you would be, in fact, giving glory to Satan! Wow!

old comment by CT

*ahem*

A Friend #244618 5/10/2007 8:12:11 AM I find the posts from non-Christians are increasing to such a high degree of mindlessness that it is not God’s will to help save them further. So God is telling me to leave this place and kick the dust under my feet.

What do you call someone who goes against God's will? What do you call someone who disobeys God? What do you call someone who tries to defend their choice to disobey God and go against his will? To go against God's will is to sin... To disobey God is to sin... To defend your choice to disobey God and go against his will is to be unrepentant. Troy... you go against God's will, you disobey God, you try to defend you choice. You are an unrepentant sinner... your words in this comment thread condemn you. Have a nice day, Sinner.

old comment by IB90

1. No, I chose to be a zombie by allowing myself to become bitten. The mind shut down is automatic.
2. a. I'm not a person. I'm a zombie. b. When someone is eating your brain, alive becomes dead rather quickly. c. Any sex is fornication, unless it involves bananas or sodomy. Jesus damns all liars. 3."And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." - Leviticus 26:29 "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." - John 6:54 I think the Bible is clear enough. 4. Because the brain is the organ that causes you to sin. Without it, you are pure like Zombie Jesus intended. 5. Science is indeed sorcery. It tells us such unBiblical things like: a.The universe is billions of years old. b.We evolved from apes. c.The world is round. d.The earth revolves around the sun. 6. I am a Zombie-4-Jesus. You are a human for Satan. 7. Don't call me a person you filthy, stinking human. 8. Thinking? I lack a brain for I am as Sweet Zombie Jesus intended. Toxic? Yes, yes I am.

old comment by CT

Actually Troy... this thread is all about your fuckwittedness, and everything I've posted has been very much on that topic. To be honest, everything YOU'VE posted has demonstrated your fuckwittedness too... makes it easy for us, I suppose.
Meanwhile, since you're trying to deflect away from the fact that you are an unrepentant sinner... you assume that you know better than God what God means, then you try to rationalize your assumption, thus manifesting your disobedience to God, so this is why you are going to hell. You remain unforgiven for all your sins; alas, you may not even realize you are a sinner because you have chosen to shut your mind down, or if you do know you are a sinner, you don't care anyway and would rather go to hell. Someone like that is a bad person. Very sad way to live! What you accuse us of being, you are yourself... and you mock your God every time you post here now. You sure must be desperate to get sent to hell... *snigger*

old comment by A Friend

IB90,
1. Yes, you choose to shut your mind down causing you to zombify yourself. 2. Fornication in the Bible is not any sex, but unrighteous sex. Obviously John 6.54 is figuratively speaking since there is no record of physically eating by Jesus, Israel or Christians, so why misread the Bible? Understand all your problems revolve around misreading the Bible. Try not to be such a zombie. 4. Don't be a zombie and shut your mind down to why your brain sins. It is because you were born into sin and thus, in need of salvation. The soul is defined in the Bible as your mind, will and emotions. Whereas your spirit has the functions of intuition, communion and conscience. When God saves, He first regenerates man's spirit. 5. It is not socery that the universe is billions of years old. Why think so? Since we share a similar genetic code to apes, we have the same ancestor, but the Bible treates this as the body from dust (Gen. 2.7). Why is it socery to you the world is round? Why be a quak? Why don't you believe the earth revolves around the sun? 6. You are a human who chooses to be a zombie for Satan since you call Jesus a liar. I, on the other hand, have received my Creator's personal work of redmeption. 7. You're a person. 8. You worship a false Christ which you call a zombie god and you admit you are toxic. You're a bad guy. Hell is for you.

old comment by A Friend

CT,
I am glad all you can do is swear and self-proclaim whatever, but the bottom line remains you can't find anything wrong with the 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible. Since I repented as a helpless sinner to come to the cross and receive Jesus as my Lord and Savior, in God's eyes I am no longer considered a sinner like you are, because all my sins have been paid for by the precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. This forgiveness allows a Christian to come before God with the robe of righteousness of Christ and by baptism in appeal for a clean conscience. This is not possible for you, because you call Jesus a liar. Thus, you have no ability to commune with God. Christians don't believe we know better than God, for we accept His Proof of Himself and walk therein. But you think you know better than God because you reject the Proof of Him, yet don't have a reason for doing so. So this is why you are going to hell. Since I am not like you in that I don't call Jesus a liar, God will treat you differently than me. He will send you to the place of perdition to keep you eternally separated from His sons and daughters. This is God's standard. You don't meet His standard. You're too selfish to give your life to Christ. How sad for you.

old comment by A Friend

Jerry,
This is not too much. If children can be saved, so can you. Since I addressed everything CT said, and you didn't show otherwise, why be like Satan the great accuser? Yes it is gay to be a man who has a boyfriend. Morpheus should repent. Yes, you are born into sin and call Jesus a liar, so you are not saved. Thus, you are going to hell. What vow did you think I said you broke? Quote me. I don't have any of these problems so why would God judge me for them when I point out these are in fact sins as the Bible shows us. Again, still, you are not finding fault with the 4 Step Proof for God, but attempting to deflect away from it. I think that is disingenuoous, intellectually dishonest and morally corrupt. Unwittingly, though, you are giving glory to God. Charles, My advice to you is don't worship some false Christ, like Rapture Jesus, for a raptor is a created thing, whereas Jesus said He is uncreated and proved it. That's why you can't find fault with the Word of God and the Proof for God. That must be frustrating for you. Praise the Lord!

old comment by Rime

I've wasted my time with evangelicals who made the exact same promise you did.
So I downloaded part 1 of the movie. And, being the evil guy you claim that I am, I used my expired copy of WinRAR to extract it. Here's what happened: ! C:\\Documents and Settings\\x.y\\Desktop\\PS.part1.rar: Unexpected end of archive ! C:\\Documents and Settings\\x.y\\Desktop\\PS.part1.rar: Unexpected end of archive ! C:\\Documents and Settings\\x.y\\Desktop\\PS.part1.rar: Unexpected end of archive ! PS.part1.rar: Unexpected end of archive ! PS.part1.rar: Unexpected end of archive ! C:\\Documents and Settings\\x.y\\Desktop\\PS.part1.rar: Unexpected end of archive ! C:\\Documents and Settings\\x.y\\Desktop\\PS.part1.rar: Unexpected end of archive ! C:\\Documents and Settings\\x.y\\Desktop\\PS.part1.rar: Unexpected end of archive ! C:\\Documents and Settings\\x.y\\Desktop\\PS.part1.rar: No files to extract Now, will you upload that awesome movie to YouTube so I can be saved?

old comment by Rime

CT, it took a while, but I realize that you're correct. This is no place to have a debate, and I'm as guilty as Troy for continuing to argue with him in a place reserved for comments. Hats off to you for reminding me.
Troy, if you want to debate your four step "perfect" proof, please start a thread at the discussion forums. This is no place for debate, but we're just too eager to argue with people who never admit they're wrong. I, for one, will stop polluting this section with arguements from now on, because this isn't the place for debate. Start a thread at the forums and stop spamming the comments section. What are you so afraid of? You won't get banned, you're far too entertaining. I'll even post the flaws I found with your proof because that's debate and that's what the forums are for, not the comments section of the quotes.

old comment by IB90

Wow, I never thought about it that way. You make a really valid point.
I am of course speaking of Charles's post about Raptor Jesus. Charles, despite the differences in our faiths, can we at least agree that Jesus was not a human, but did enjoy eating them? ~~~ 1. You have it reversed. I chose to become zombiefied, which caused by mind to shut down. 2. Yes, that is what I said. Unrighteous sex being any sex that does not involve either bananas or sodomy. I am glad that we agree. 3. Figuratively? I think the message is quite clear. 4. Yes, we all need salvation! I am so glad you are agreeing with me. By removing the brain, the soul and spirit are cleansed of sin. 5. I base my knowledge on the Bible. What do you base yours on? 6. Am not. 7. You also called Morpheus a gay male. Should I really trust your judgement? Also, am not. 8. I worship Sweet Zombie Jesus! God lacks physical form, and thus can not be a zombie. Do you never read the Bible.

old comment by SethMac2

5/20/2007 2:22:03 AM
_{"SethMac2,

Again, you are resorting the same old lame approach of a petty legalism. I'm embarrassed for you. The Scripture does not say every kind of poison if ingested can be overcome. But, there would be a certain strength by the Holy Spirit to be able to overcome many than would otherwise be the case.”} Jesus says “...if they drink anything poisonous, it won’t hurt them.”. That sounds to me like “every kind of poison”. No wonder Christians consider finding employment to be a miracle... “anything” only means “some things”, “mountain” means “job” etc... If the boss tells the Christian to have a report on his desk, he probably ends up with a parrot sitting there. _{"I didn't realize you meant something other than what you said: "I wonder how many cases there have been in the U.S. of foul play through poison or how many cases of accidental poisoning involving Christians, I bet there have been a few. Maybe you would say that shows those people were not true believers?" I agree, if a person poisons another person, they are certainly not Christians. Since overcoming some poison ingested is not always going to be possible, you can see how I read what you said accordingly."} I can see how it might have been possible for you to misread what I was saying. I had though I was being pretty clear, but, no matter, you know what I was saying now. I'll try to make myself more clear from now on. Of course, anyone who wants to can read that post and see if they arrive at the same misunderstanding. _{"Previously, you had thought I believed that Mark 16.18 was figurative only. You did say, "I'm almost certain you are going to say 'deadly poison' means something other than what it says." How do you reconcile your mistaken confidence with your "red herring" accusation? First we needed to know if this verse was figurative OR figurative and literal OR only literal to proceed, so it would not be a red herring as you say. To know, for you I compared Scripture with Scripture. What if this verse was only figurative? Then your theory could not even be considered. Moreover, you have sinned, for you assumed I would only think this verse was figurative by your accusation, then accuse again mindlessly after I gave you the explanation of this verse. I am reminded by such antics of being like the great accuser who is Satan who is without the love of the Lord."} You notice that in responding to your first post concerning the different Biblical meanings of “deadly poison”, I said nothing about you making a red herring; because, at that point, you weren't. But when the further course of the conversation centered on deadly poison in the literal sense, and you started bringing up other senses without even showing how they were remotely applicable to the context of the conversation, that is when I accused you of engaging in a red herring. It was at the juncture where you said “Deadly poison can be either physical, soulical or spiritual. I showed you where such usage is used in the Bible, whether it falls into one, two or all three categories. The reason was given, and you did not counter it.” that the red herring accusation came in. I never claimed to have countered other possible senses for “deadly poison” or even mentioned them. And you never made any clear argument for how Mark 16:18 was not referring to literal poison. _{"Regarding John 14.14, why assume I read it the way you said? What grounds did you have for your assumption? You said, bearing false witness, by putting quotes around it as if I said this, “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it so long as I was planning on doing it anyway”. Since I do not hold this false view, where do you get your accusation from if not from Satan? God is not going to do something anyway if a condition is not fulfilled first. How silly. God has infinite foreknowledge of all things. He foreknows all our free-choices, but it is not Him who is doing it, but those who have the choice. He simply foreknows our choices. Why does that offend you such that you need to bear false witness?"} Troy, you had specifically said “God is God. He will only do what He wants to do; He will not act according to man’s idea. ”. So, if one asks God in prayer for something God doesn't want to do, will He do it? According to you, He will do “what he wants to do” which is, indeed, what He was planning on doing anyway since “He will not act according to man’s idea.”. It seems to me, my altered version of John 14:14 expresses exactly your views. Maybe I'm wrong on this. Maybe you believe if you pray tonight that every sick person on planet Earth be miraculously cured by morning, and pray it in Jesus' name, it will happen? And, if you don't believe that, please explain why. When you say God “foreknows all our free-choices” and “ God has infinite foreknowledge of all things”, then God also foreknew all things prior to creation, and, when He created the world, He selected for us all of the choices we would ever make since he actualized those choices by making the particular world he made. That hardly seems to me to be in the spirit of libertarian free will, and it turns “free-choices” into merely a label since any other choice I might possibly make or have made only exists in some potential world that I can never have access to and I can never actualize any counterfactual through my own agency but only through the will of another being. _{"The reason why I know you are a bad guy, is because you are always wrong. You have never been right ever in your interpretation of things of God's Word or the Proof for God."} I'm a Bad guy (in your mind) because I don't agree with you Troy. I read the Bible in a way that doesn't presume it to be inerrant, and doesn't make excuses for it. I'm a bag guy because I don't buy into the rationalizations you provide when a verse runs counter to empirical fact. I think you are a bad guy too. You are a bad guy because you are arrogant and intellectually dishonest, and you don't own up to it. Instead you hide behind Jesus. You think if you pretend to be doing all you're doing in Jesus' name, then you aren't doing it for self glorification. But that is not the case. You are using Jesus; using him as a glorification for yourself and a dumping ground for your hubris. You are not working for him at all. If you were, you would use methods that might actually work to convert. And being an insufferable, conceited sophist will not convert anyone. _{“God's will is done when you fulfill the condition. The reason we pray is to commune with God in a relationship with His Son through the Holy Spirit indwell His believers. Speaking with God personally through prayer fulfills the necessary reverence for God to receive revelation and a spirit of wisdom to understand what He wants for us in any particular situation, even now.”} But Jesus promises “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it”. It sounds like you are saying that is not the case? _{“Do you see how your warped thinking causes you to come up with strange ideas. These stange ideas about God to bear false witness against Him is the exact reason for Step 3 of the 4 Step Proof for God. Don't argue against some quality of some god, but we are talking about God of the Bible here. Wake up!

After all these posts, you have not identified even one thing wrong with the Proof. You're not required to write a full rebuttal, but to disprove it, all you need do is find one fault with it. Yet you can't do that. Nor do you spend the time to do so. Yet you still call God a liar, but why? You say you have a life, that's why. I don't think you have a life. Is it life to reject something without reason? There is no no life in that, only death, and you will die a little more each day by that lie you live. Therefore, you will be resurrected for hell. Praise God that He doesn't allow you to go where we are going.?”} Would heaven really be heaven if I have to spend eternity with “A Friend”? _{“You don't even apply the socratic method of learning and teaching, for if you did, you would question yourself, since you can't find anything wrong with the Proof for God, when then do you shut your mind down to the fact that you call Jesus a liar without having a reason for doing so? I know the reason why you act like this. It is because you're a bad person going to hell.”} Absolutely, I question myself, my beliefs and my thinking critically and skeptically. Let me ask you Troy, do you ever question your God belief? Do you ever critically examine it on the basis that you might be wrong? _{“Since the 4 Step Proof is offered up for examination and to critique, yet you don't, then aren't you shutting your mind down as a zombie for Satan?”} Like I said, I'll get around to it when I have the time. For now, I've been critiquing what you yourself say is the basis for it anyway: the Bible. _{“Think about it.”}

old comment by A Friend

The Bible tells us Jesus was fully man, that is fully human, as well as fully God. This makes sense since to be in the likeness of flesh and atone for sins, Jesus would need to make Himself exactly like men to be the perfect sacrifice for us. In other words, a chimpanzee or a giraffe would not suffice. He has to be a perfectly sinless man who was also God. Why accept anything less? Why lower your standards?
What a bizarre claim by IB90, when he said, "Jesus was not a human, but did enjoy eating them". Where is it recorded in history Jesus ate people, lol. Isn't it odd one can believe in something without reason or basis? I guess IB90 needs no evidence for his claims because he has no humility and likes being a mindless zombie. He doesn't care for the truth and he doesn't seem to get embarrassed by his comments. He needs to get a conscience. Let us pray for him that God may regenerate his spirit with eternal life. IB90, 1. You said, "You have it reversed. I chose to become zombiefied, which caused by mind to shut down." But, I said, "Yes, you choose to shut your mind down causing you to zombify yourself." You can't say you want to be a zombie then all of a sudden become a zombie. Just like you can't say you are a murderer when you haven't murdered yet. You must perform the act to be that thing. You chose to shut your mind down, then shut your mind down; consequently, you are a Zombie for Satan. What you don't realize is that Satan also wants to destroy you, not just passify you for his control. What an odd thing for you to worship. I think this shows how bad a person you really are. You're using words that reflect your sick and perverted mind. Your full of contradiction, for you said, "zombiehood is not self-induced". You say you chose to be a zombie and that you did not choose to be zombie. On top of not being embarrassed for such goofy thoughts, you're also not afraid to blatantly contradict yourself. 2. Did you really agree when you said, "Yes, that is what I said. Unrighteous sex being any sex that does not involve either bananas or sodomy. I am glad that we agree." Sex between man and a woman in marriage to procreate and for pleasure is not considered fornication, so you would be wrong that any sex besides use of a banana and sodomy is fornication. I don't think we agree as you think, for I said, "Fornication in the Bible is not any sex, but unrighteous sex". Not all sex is unrighteous. You're kinda slow eh? You're easy to see through your mindlessness. 3. Physicall, it is clear, we never see Jesus eating people, so it is figurative. Why misread the Bible? Don't you feel bad when you do that; it's very selfish you know. Let me know where your assumption comes from, for surely it is not founded on just your self-proclamation, as that would be arrogant. Don't be such a dullard. 4. Am I agreeing with you when I impart that salvation through Christ is the only way to the Father, yet you call Jesus a liar when He said He is God? Upon death, when the brain ceases to function, there is still sin in the person that needs to be dealt with still. For example believers who lose the reward of reigning for the 1000 years shall be disciplined int what the Bible terms, "outer-darkness" which is not hell and has no fire or furnace about it. Sin and selfishness don't just go away all by themselves when man is resurrected. The exponential progression of conscience continues. Though war stops in the 1000 years, there is still yet some hidden sin. That is why Satan is let out one last time to reveal he will never repent, man still has some hidden sin, and to show the good pleasure of God to finish off Satan and throw him into hell where the Antichrist and False Prophet were sent to 1000 years earlier. During the 1000 years Satan is held in the pit so he can't cause war again. Think of this place as another dimension, perhaps if you are into string theory. The way the soul and spirit are cleansed is through regeneration with God's life. You'll need to be born-again if you want to be saved. You say you want to be saved, but not God's way. That's selfish, self-centered and arrogant to want to do it your own way. 5. You don't base your knowledge on the Bible, for you base your knowledge on misreading the Bible as was shown. Tell us where in Christian history there is cannibalism in Christianity? You're goofy and a Zombie for Satan. 6. Yes, You are a human who chooses to be a zombie for Satan since you call Jesus a liar. I, on the other hand, have received my Creator's personal work of redemeption. Hell is for you, heaven is for God's children. Get use to it; you can't overturn this revelation. 7. Morpheus is not a woman's name, for not a single woman has this name in history. Morpheus said he has a boyfriend, so that makes him a fag. Unless of course if a woman she repents from using this false persona to misrepresent herself. 8. You admit the Jesus you worship is a created being by being a zombie, but Jesus of the Bible said He was uncreated, "from everlasting". So, you don't worship the same Jesus of the Bible. God is spirit, but He doesn't lack physical form, since He entered into creation. You admit God...can not be a zombie", so why do you worship what you consider to be a created being which you call Zombie Jesus when said, "I worship Sweet Zombie Jesus! God lacks physical form, and thus can not be a zombie.". Why worship the created zombie above the uncreated? Why worship a false Christ rather than THE Christ? Because you hate Jesus. Since God can enter into His creation, and Jesus said He is God, then you call Him a liar, yet where is your justification for doing so? Why shut your mind down like a zombie? Ah yes, you admit you shut your mind down willingly to be a zombie. I am glad you could at least be honest with yourself you chose to be a zombie when you said that you "chose to become zombiefied" and to want your "mind to shut down". I read the Bible daily; why don't you read the Bible without misreading it? Because you don't care for the truth. To you it is a casuality of your faith, something you have give up.

old comment by A Friend

Nah! SethMac2 instead of dealing with the fact that he can't find anything wrong with the 4 Step Proof for God is going to scurry into his borough to help assist the further shutting of his mind down. What else can he do if he doesn't want to accept the truth as proven?
There is no trick in the fact the 4 steps of the Proof are given, and since it meets the burden of the proof, it is incumbent on you to accept it, or if you whant to retort you may do so, but since you don't, your approach to deflect and circumvent it by periphery items is quite unethical and disingenuous. I for one would feel guilty if I behaved that way, so I could not treat others that way. Where's the synthesis in the approach of deflecting? A good approach to take if you are not sure is to look at Step 1 of the 4 Steps and ask yourself if this is reasonable in the various examples of the exponential progression of conscience whether such a curve would indicate we would still be sinning now? If not, then you know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effects. That being established, consider Step 2. Does anything in nature happen all by itself? We have observed trillions of cause and effects, but nothing leads us to believe in a puff the magic dragon theory something happened all by itself, so reject that big fat assumption. Hence, we know the only other possibility is the uncreated created. But Who is He? Jesus said He is God. Do any compare to Him? Not any presented in this thread as contenders. Ergo, Jesus wins the claim on being God. And this is the thought process one goes through in being saved. Look at SethMac2's blind accusations always without substance. e.g. He says there is a complete lack of synthesis, but doesn't show it. He says there is some rhetorical trick, but again, doesn't show it. Should we take him on his word in his self-declarations? Or do we look to the Proof for God and then encourage anyone to see that it proves God and if you don't have anything to counter it, then know the reason you still call Jesus a liar is because you are a bad people who don't want to be saved. Just be intellectually honest with yourself that that is what you want. Don't lie to yourself to cover up what you really are. If hell is for you then accept it. Don't fight it. It's what you want. Come to terms with your self and your desire to remain in your sin nature. I for one think to make that decision is lunacy, but to each is own. Hell is quite vast. Where are you trying to go with this conversation? You can't rationalize a lie, it is futile. Let it go. Since I always respond specifically to each of your posts, then I encourage you to do the same in response to the 4 Step Proof for God instead of avoiding it for other matters which you can discuss in other threads. It's time to get real!

old comment by Raewyn

"Morpheus is not a woman's name, for not a single woman has this name in history. Morpheus said he has a boyfriend, so that makes him a fag. Unless of course if a woman she repents from using this false persona to misrepresent herself."
I'm sorry but as a WoW player who spent two years grinning and bearing it as I was referred to as a "he" by everyone (the player base is mostly male and guys like to make female characters because they're more aesthetically pleasing), I must protest. In accordance with your rules, Morpheus isn't a man's name either! Unless you've admitted to yourself that the Greek gods are real and given up Christianity, meaning you won't be back to spam your proof. Doubtful, but a girl can dream, can't she? With that Morpheus out of the way, that leaves... no one else. No real man had, has, or (likely) will have that name. Given the information I've produced and your rule for concluding the gender of a name, Morpheus is neuter. So why all the fuss? Provide evidence of a formerly/currently breathing man named Morpheus or shut the hell up. image And just in case you really are that delusional, he doesn't count. Have fun!

old comment by A Friend

Raewyn,
Nah! You are just being goofy. If you want to misrepresent your gender that is your unethical choice, but it doesn't change the fact that you are misrepresenting yourself. However you want to rationalize yourself, you're still being deceitful. In mythology, Morpheus is the son of Hypnos and the god of dreams. A son is male gender, not a female goddess. Of course Greek gods are not real, but that doesn't change the fact that Morpheus is a male god's name. And, don't you know one who is a Christian can't give up Christianity. That's impossible, because to be a Christian is to be a Christian forever! It was a choice that authentically made enters one into the new creation through new birth by being regenerated with God's uncreated life. Do you see your misconception when you said, "given up Christianity". That's why Step 3 of the 4 Step Proof is so important, because you misrepresent God of the Bible for some god that causes one to lose salvation. It is not possible with God of the Bible, because that goes against His infinite foreknowledge of our free-choice for authentic life; once given eternal remains eternal. That which is eternal can never be lost. You're spamming the shutting of your mind down to the proof so as not to investigate it and remain unsaved. In response, of course, I simply point you to the fact that you can't and haven't found fault with the 4 Step Proof for God, so calling Jesus a liar, will certainly place you in hell. How sad for you. There are lots of evil women who shut their minds down to the Proof for God of the Bible, but not the woman you can see in these videos. She is a true blue believer. Isn't she beautiful? You can really sense her love for God. Compare that to you, how you need to misrepresent yourself, even your gender, to achieve some aim. A girl certainly can dream in something evil, but how will that help her receive God's forgiveness? So you sin with the the delusion: " No real man had, has, or (likely) will have that name." Of about 7 billion people on the planet, to think not one is named Morpheus is a bit arrogant don't you think? And don't you think this petty discussion is off topic from the thread about the 4 Step Proof? I think you are being unethical, avoiding the Proof for God by shutting your mind down. I don't recall Morpheus in the movie Matrix as being female do you? If Morpheus wants to have a boyfriend that is his choice to be a fag. If he is a girl, that is her choice to misrepresent herself. Either way, it is a loser's way of behaving. In not one of these instances is Morpheus a name used by a woman, so to do so is quite bizarre. Where speaking of a person or even possibly a god, it is male in gender. Hopefull this guy who has a boyfriend or girl who is confusing her gender will repent from such odd behavior.

old comment by CT

CT,
It remains God's will that I am here to help you. You may not like it, but He wants me to help lead you to Christ. That is a fact and certainty as anything you have ever known.

then the post you made where you stated that...

it is not God’s will to help save them further.

...was a lie then. You are going against God's Will... that makes you a Sinner by your own argument! You are an unrepentant sinner... you assume that you know better than God what God means, then you try to rationalize your assumption, thus manifesting your disobedience to God, so this is why you are going to hell. You remain unforgiven for all your sins; alas, you may not even realize you are a sinner because you have chosen to shut your mind down, or if you do know you are a sinner, you don't care anyway and would rather go to hell. Someone like that is a bad person. Very sad way to live! Oh, and repeating your sin shows full well that you are unrepentant... and the unrepentant sinner is NEVER forgiven. So says Jesus... by claiming that you ARE forgiven, you call Jesus a liar. Repent of your sin... do God's Will and leave, never to return. Only then will God forgive you of your sins. This is a quandry for you Troy... you stay, keep posting, and prove that you are unrepentant thus unforgiven. (which makes you a liar every time you claim you ARE forgiven and Repentant) Or, you leave, stop posting altogether, and have to leave you obbsession with this thread alone. (also meaning you can't try to prove us wrong anymore) Your choice is to lose, but do what God Wills... or stay, convince yourself that you've won, but continue to sin against God. (which means you lose) :)

old comment by Raewyn

A Friend,
My WoW character's name is Raewen and she is female. I misrepresent nothing. What you would have noticed if you could read is that a lot of guys also play female characters, so everyone ASSUMES I'm male. If I corrected everyone who made this mistake, I would have never had time to play. Oh and I found this picture of Monica Dennington, one of your “lovely” ladies in Christ. image What a looker. I want to convert right now, so I can go around looking like that. You think women don't have enough problems already? Give it up, Troy. Rather than bringing people to Christianity with compassion, you're sending them fleeing in droves with your obstinance and hatred. I bet even some Christians would be fearful of guilt by association. You don't give a damn about anyone beside yourself, and when this thread is ultimately abandoned, you'll claim "victory" over FSTDT and go somewhere else. If I prayed, I would pray for that day. I'll help you speed up the process. *Raewyn exits, stage left*

old comment by SethMac

_{"What is said is that any poison can be overcome (always within reason, of course). Any is referring to a great many things "}
Poor Troy, when he can't come to terms with the errancy of the Bible he resorts to his usual tactic of equivocation. This time "any" is the victim. _{"Since I need not do so because it is both literal and figurative, then your argument fails."} Sounds like a bunch of vague silliness to me. "oh, it's both literal and figurative you see? It's literal when that supports what I want it to say and figurative when that is what I want, and, since you can't prove otherwise..." lol... excuses, excuses. Sophistry for Jesus. _{"So you are suggesting if one pray unrighteously then God should still heal everyone tomorrow. That's twisted thinging."} Yup, twisted thinking that an all good God might want to heal the sick... "Suffering is all part of God's plan you see..." _{"Libertarian free-will is false since 1) free-will is compatible with determinism and 2) determinism is true. Determinism is cause and effect in all things.

All available choices you are allowed to make is within God's perfect righteousness and design in making you a sovereign being made in His image. In other words, you can't be made any more perfectly; thus, you have not libeterian free-will, but actual free-will. This free-will exists in the real world right now!"} Do you even have a coherent concept of free will Troy? Why don't you explain to me what "actual free-will" means. How do you define it? How does it function? What are its limitations? Why don't you explain exactly how free will functions in light of determinism? Why don't you also explain how free will is applicable in the context of God's perfect foreknowledge? What you are saying here sounds like a vague pseudo-philosophy of the kind you find in those new age "metaphysics" books. _{"God does not coerce this will, but let's you have the choice"} "I'm not going to coerce you" says God. "You just either do my will or I will torture you for all eternity!" Nope, no coercion there. _{"Don't blame me for your choice to call Jesus a liar".} Do you need a remedial reading course? Or are you just being intentionally dense? I never said I didn't believe because you are a lousy apologist, just that you are one. And isn't your falsly claiming so a rhetorical trick? _{"Would heaven really be heaven if you could spend eternity with me and all my brothers and sisters in Christ, as you keep calling Jesus a liar? That will never work. That's crazy! God will not let a sinner go where we are going."} Even were I to become a Christian, I wouldn't consider heaven that heavenly if I had to spend eternity with you Troy. You're a jerkoff. _{"Do you still question 1+1=2? I think that is arrogant of you if you did."} Of course I question 1+1=2, and it is arrogant not to. I question whether it expresses a deduction or whether it is merely tautological. I question whether mathematics is a necessary truth or a human construction and many other questions. There are all sorts of questions you can ask about 1+1=2. That is the difference between you and I. You arrogantly stop questioning. _{"...the 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible is the most important discuss for proving God...and please, get to it, because it is the actual topic of this thread" and later "don't you feel embarrassed at all since you carry on about so much periphery nonsense"} Notice how Troy is not happy merely discussing the Bible. That would be taking attention away from his "proof" and himself. Troy, do you think Jesus would approve of such vanity? And what about your calling the Bible "periphery nonsense"? Surely you will burn in hell for that. _{"You know God exists, but you just don't want to bow to Him"} I would say you are delusional Troy and you need help. It is insane to think others must share your delusion just because you are so sure of it.

old comment by A Friend

CT,
It is not God's will to help save you further with the resources I had, but with the new information acquired, He wanted me to encourage you to watch the movie, The Perfect Stranger. Have you seen it yet? I haven't received your acknowledgement that you watched it. Are you putting it off for some reason? Don't misread someone. If God says not to do something further, does that mean for the rest of our lives? God never told me never to post here again. He is not so legalistic as you might think with such ardent rules like that. I don't think so, for that is too rigid and too legalistic. Satan accuses through you, when you said, "You are an unrepentant sinner... you assume that you know better than God what God means". Since I have received Jesus on the cross by coming to Him as a repentant sinner, then know that I am not like you-an unrepentant sinner. God does not view any Christian as a sinner as the unsaved. Since neither myself nor any Christian I know thinks we know better than God, why accuse like your father Satan? You don't have to take after him you know. Nobody is forcing you. However much you despise God's desire for me to stay here to help you, it makes no difference, for God's will presently is for me to remain here to give you the truth and continue to ask you, have you seen the movie, The Time Changer yet? There ought to be some common ground by which you can take a step forward into the discussion instead of being belligerent. The Proof for God is not an obsession but a fact; but, the avoidance of the Proof for God and not dealing with it while calling Jesus a liar certainly is an obsession. I think you have moved from obsession to being possessed by demonic spirits, which is why you shut your mind down to the Proof for God, can't find anything wrong with it, yet still call Jesus a liar. That's crazy! God loves you, and so you are challenged to examine the Proof for God that if you can't find anything wrong with it, then you have no excuse for rejecting His only begotten Son. So, if you do reject His love, you are required to go to hell, for where else can you go, since you can't go to where Jesus is at the right hand with the Father in heaven. "But to His Son He says, 'Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever. Your royal power is expressed in righteousness. You love what is right and hate what is wrong. Therefore God, your God, has annointed you, pouring out the oil of joy on you more than anyone else.' And, 'Lord, in the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. Even they will perish, but you remain forever. They will wear out like clothing. You will roll them up like an old coat. They will fade away like old clothing. But you are always the same; you will never grow old.'" (Rom. 1.8-12). Notice some things: - Jesus is called God. - He existed before the foundations of the world. - Jesus is unchanging. - Jesus created us. This Jesus is the One whom you hate and while you revile Christians and bear false witness against them by misreading what they said. That's disingenuous and couth, so you shall be judged, even now.

old comment by A Friend

SethMac,
Your legalism is to not understand language and the times that "if they drink anything poisonous, it won't hurt them" (Mark 16.18), which is speaking of poisons known to them at the time. It is not including poisons today that will definitely kill you without recourse, such as many man-made poisons. Your error in reading is always to do with your misreading some aspect or being so selfish to not consider the context and times in which they were speaking. My prayer is for your repentance from misreading the Bible. You're just equivocating your self-interpeted view which the Bible plainly says you can't do because it is self-generated. Because you don't have the Holy Spirit to discern correctly anyway, you have nothing to contribute. It is like you are trying to understand calculus without the foundations to understand it and rely on simple math principles. You don't have the tools necessary to understand spiritual truths, because your spirit is dead to God and you prefer to remain that way. Why is moving a mountain necessarily excluding actual mountains? Why do you make this silly rule in you sophistry for Satan? Again, you're acting like some corrupted lawyer with your bizarre legalisms. Your kind of logic is horrible. Certainly God wants to heal the sick, but not in a way that is ficticious or pretentious as you propose as if by magic tomorrow everyone is healed. This is not spiritual reality. God took 13.7 billion years to create man in His image; I don't think He is going to work according to your quick fix fantasy approach. The Bible is not some pseudo-philosophy or new age book. To have free-will is just as it says, to have your own volition and free-choice to decide. God doesn't coerce you, premake you with libertarian free-will, for free-will is authentically made in God's image. Hence we see some of the very first acts in the Bible, such as Abel giving God a free-will offering to be saved whereas Cain gave a false offering not pleasing to God, because Cain offerred by the fruits of His labor and not by that which is given by God Himself which is the Lamb. Your fantasy view of libertarian free-which teaches free-will is not being compatible with determinism is nonsense! God created us perfectly in His image. He is the determined cause, then our free-choice flows from this gift of being given the free-choice as sovereign beings. You're not a robot. Calvinism is a lie. Don't think of hell so much as torture, but it's essential feature is that it is an eternal separation from God and His people (which is tortute, but you said it is gain, which shows how demented you are), for how can you go where we are going since you continue to call Jesus a liar. You had more than ample opportunity to be saved but you refused God's eternal forgiveness. You're a bad person. The reason God describes hell in various ways with flames and such because He is trying to convince you within the scope of His righteousness not to go there, but obviously you can see how hellbent you are in wanting to go there. I have no respect for someone like that. You're very ugly to me. Take an example. Should a rapist be allowed around women? Similarly, you're not allowed around God's children in eternity future. You accuse God of coercing you then, but can't you see this is the righteous action for God to take? It is easy to see, but not so easy for someone as dead as you are to God. Since you find nothing wrong with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible, then I must be a good apologist, since you can't find anything wrong with it. So why continue to call Jesus a liar? All you do is deflect from it, but your avoidance is a sign of evil intent. You said of yourself, "Even were I to become a Christian". You're never going to become a Christian, so stop fooling yourself. May others be led to Christ by observing your evil words. Just because you hate me, shows this fact. You will always hate me, so that is why you have to go to hell. For God said if you hate any of His children you are hating Him. But I love you and would hate to see you perish and so would God, but that is the only option left since you will always call God a liar. How sad for you. How hardened your spirit is. Your accusations are considered of no account, for you can't even back anything you say. All you do is revile like the devil your father. Like father, like son. How goofy, mindless and arrogant to question whether 1+1 is true or not and whether it is a deduction or tautological. How can you deny it being a deduction, since if 1 is true and +1 is true, then how can you derive anything other than 2? Are you proposing it could be 3? You're goofy. Nor is it tautological for the conclusion being 2 is not a vacuous statement. e.g. this is quite unlike the statement, either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow since rain exists. Your rationales are utterly mindless. Once a truth is already known, Satan will have you question it in order to create confusion. He is the author of confusion can can never accept very basic truths. He is just manifesting his independency to God like you show your disobedience also. You're doing the work of the devil. Take another example, do you question whether you exist? If you did, then you are doing the work of the devil, for obviously, you are here. You're just a bad man with mindless reasoning, to show how ignorant, belligerent and obstinate you can be. I am glad God created hell though to cordone off people such as yourself. What mercy and grace for the saved to keep you away from us forever! The Bible is not periphery nonsense, nor have I ever said so. The 66 books of the Bible are the very Word of God, that is the embodiment of our Lord Jesus Christ expressed in words. Nothing is more important, and the 4 Step Proof for God is in the Bible and how we may know God of the Bible created us. But for the sake of the Proof so none can accuse of saying it first assumes the Bible, it makes no mention first of the Scriptures, but we are led to the Scriptures. Why does this offend you? God actually has put this spiritual knowledge in all of us in our God-consciousness. We all know God is. Even you know God is. You're just covering up this fact to deceive yourself to rationalize your sinful life. I am satisfied enough to know that you can't find anything wrong with the Proof for God of the Bible, so you are going to hell. This is your delusion that you can somehow overlook the logic of the Proof for God, yet still call Jesus a liar. That's crazy stuff! Unwittingly, you give glory to God by being the evil skeptic who can't find anything wrong with the Bible and Proof for God, but still call Jesus a liar. How embarrassing it would be to act that way, to say hold on, maybe 2+2 doesn't equal 4, lol. You need to get help from God! For only God can save you from your foretaste of hell.

old comment by A Friend

SethMac2,
I am so glad that you can only accuse of needing a psychologist but gave no basis for such accusation, so it is disregarded. Why pontificate with a self-declaration for that kind of behavior is itself narcissistic? A narcissistic person doesn't need a reason. You're just projecting yourself and your own self-acknowledged Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Don't rely on man's psychology, for it is just the soulical self trying to overcome without actually dealing with the sin nature and the old man. You're quite narcissistic when it comes to trying to self-exalt your self to point to you and your ideas in your hostility to God of the Bible, whereas Christians lead you to Christ (not ourselves) with the proof for God of the Bible. A narcissist such as yourself who is into excessive self-adulation and lacks empathy when the proof of God is shown to him, tries to circumvent it and avoid the proof by way of your petty self and other issues you bring up in your self-preoccupation that have nothing to do with the proof for God. This is likely due to your lack of self-esteem to cause you to think your conduct is acceptable behavior. But, oh, how our Lord Jesus Christ can fix that. I don't think a psychologist can really help you, for the only authority and power that can save you from this psychosis is our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, who is the only one who can redeem you from your sins and give you eternal life. You still don't realize your sin nature is the problem and the cause of your corrupted thoughts which you cling to desperately because you are so utterly selfish. Praise the Lord for this discernment!

old comment by A Friend

Anonymous,
Time to grow up. It's not about rubber and glue in your vague deflection, but the fact that you can't find anything wrong with the Proof for God. So it is quite mindless to reject something that you have no reason for rejecting. That is a selfish way to be. If you want to actually put in an official attempt at disproof to the 4 Step Proof for God, you'll need to do it at Biblocality Forums, but if all you want to do is talk about it here, you may do so. It looks like your post came at the end of the thread against your expectations. There is no need to break up this discussion by taking it elsewhere at fsdt as you want. That just creates more confusion. What I do recommend you do though is actually realize the fact that since you can't find anything wrong with the Proof for God, then know that you are going to hell, because you still call Jesus a liar. You're a bad person. I'd be anonymous too, because I would be embarrassed by your behavior. Tat is your conscience speaking, so listen to it. It is the minimal condition God has set for you, but you don't even heed your own conscience.

old comment by Sarah

"I am so glad that you can only accuse of needing a psychologist but gave no basis for such accusation, so it is disregarded."
How about your 20 page gloat fest of nonsense? Proof enough. Only an idiot with no self-esteem or life would waste his or her time arguing with random individuals on the internet. Apparently, you are extremely desperate for attention and are trying to get it by spamming a message board with known atheists and agnostic who will respond and debate with your nonsense. It's obvious you have some sort of mental imbalance and I pray you get professional help. If you are so sure of your faith, you wouldn't argue so hard for it. Those who are truly faithful do not need to prove it to others - they actually try to live by the words of their faith. Needless to say, I'm pretty much done dealing with you, you sorry sack of shit.

old comment by CT

Currently, Troy has made 433 posts in this comment thread... after going through and DELETING all the posts he's made spamming his "proof"... yes, the one with the meaningless graph. (best guess? About 50 of them...)
Meanwhile...

A Friend 5/22/2007 1:34:50 AM #250826 CT, It is not God's will to help save you further with the resources I had, but with the new information acquired, He wanted me to encourage you to watch the movie, The Perfect Stranger.

God doesn't change his mind... the Bible makes it clear that God is unchanging. Your claim is against God's Word... or are you saying the Bible is in error? Two choices Troy... the Bible is wrong or you're sinning again.

old comment by A Friend

Satan accuses falsely such as through CT when he said, "he feels he knows what God means better than God does," but not myself nor any brother and sister in Christ feel we know more than God. CT wanted to know "why he just can't stay away when he says he will," but where did I say I would stay away forever? Again, CT is relying on Satan's false accusations, because inside CT lies the evil spirit and this is just the way he wants it.
There were never 50 posts (perhaps a half a dozen, but now only one at the end of the thread so people can stay focused on the discussion and not deflect as CT does from the 4 Step Proof) of the exponential progression in conscience graphic, so again, CT is lying when he said, "About 50 of them". Did you notice that even though I had over 400 posts (500+ posts attributed to others), CT posted almost a hundred himself (he comes in second place) and he was the first poster to respond (maybe he submitted the copy and past also to start the thread), so obviously this is affecting him that he can't find anything wrong with the 4 Step Proof for God, yet still calls Jesus a liar. CT is a bady guy. Notice too, most of his posts are deflections and avoidances of the Proof, never actually dealing with it. That's disingenuous and a zombie for Satan shutting his mind down like that. It makes sense that I would have that many posts because I am responding to any attempts at disproving the Proof for God, though most are mindless banter from those 500+ postings of non-believers. Notice how obsessed CT is. He actually needs to count the number of posts I have made in this thread. He's desperate to rationalize himself through the petty self. CT is a bad guy, for he has nothing but false accusations. He even accuses of "Delusions of Godhead," but again, no Christian believes we are the uncreated godhead. Rather, CT acts as though he is God because he calls Jesus a liar and axalts himself above his creator Jesus, but has no reason given and does not address the fact that he can't find anything wrong with the 4 Step Proof for God. My question to him would be, why shut his mind down like a Zombie for Satan? Does anybody know what an "OCD" is that CT accuses of? Is that like a DEF, RCA or PGB? lol. You can see why the Bible says not to speak in tongues. CT remains an unrepentant sinner for the simple fact that God has not forgiven him for his sins, and CT doesn't want to enter into the baptism of repentance which was John's baptism to come to the cross as a helpess sinner and receive Jesus as his Lord and Savior. He is too selfish to do that, because he props himself up on a pedestal and doesn't think he needs a reason to reject the proof of God, for he can just mindlessly self declare whatever he wants and thinks that is not without consequence. You can see this CT is a bad guy and the need for hell to cordone him off away from God's own people. One thing we can say about CT, as has just been shown again, is that he is always wrong when it comes to God of the Bible. Check this misrepresentation out. CT says "God is unchanging" yet he rejects God. What a doubletongue! How can you reject God yet call Him unchanging? How can you even have any credibility in anything you say against the One who created you, yet still call Jesus a liar? It's illogical and mentally twisted. God's will for a person to do something in a certain time is for that moment in time. Does that mean God is saying never again do that thing? No. As Christians we appreciate this point that God will move us to do one thing for a time, then to do another, and we must be flexible enough in our spirits to move when God leads. This does not mean God is changing, but it refers to how God moves that once a burden has been lifted by being discharged through good works, a new calling emerges. My work was accomplished here with the information I had, but with the advent of this movie, The Perfect Stranger, God wanted me to impart this information to those in this thread. That is what I did. I didn't want to come back here to post, but it was God's will that I do so. But guess what? Has CT watched the movie, The Perfect Stranger yet? Let us pray for him that he does so. The Bible remains true, God moves, but not according to CT's petty self, twisted thinking and horrible legalisms. Praise the Lord!

old comment by A Friend

Jerry,
You asked if Christ sinned. None of those who were ever with him and recorded his teachings ever found even one sin in him. Nor do any skeptics find a single sin in him. That would make sense since Jesus said He is God, died on the cross for our sins selflessly knowing his whole life this was His calling. He fulfilled 62 prophecies which is humanly impossible, and He was multiply attested no less than by 12 different groups of His resurrection. None can compare to Christ. To assume Jesus sinned then is overassuming. Since there is not a single verse in the Bible that shows Jesus sinned, then it is misreading the Bible. You can't find a single verse, nor does your video, but misreads the Bible. For example, John 5.18 says "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." "But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work" (v.17). What applies to men does not apply to God. While man was not to work on the Sabbath, this is not required of God. He works even on the day of rest for people. Christ is continually working with the Father by the Holy Spirit always. Moreover, what did Jesus come to do? He came to fill up the law (Matt. 5.17). This means Jesus can to do away with the law, because the law was just for Israel. For example, do not murder, then Jesus says not only this, but do not hate, for hate leads to murder. The Sabbath was not for the Gentiles, but only for Israel as a sign of convenant with God that they were His chosen people, that is, the first nation He revealed Himself to. You can go through the rest of the video and do the same. If there is anything you want to ask me specifically, you may do so. Please show the same courteousy of actually dealing with the topic of this thread instead deflecting onto other stuff.

old comment by A Friend

I think we can all be certain, SethMac2, has issues that are deeply rooted in his hostility to God of the Bible, for why else would someone shut their mind down to the Proof for God and not deal with it objectively?
Emotionally there is something that ties a person down to Satan through some mistaken assumption in their past experiences. You find what that is, we can begin to help SethMac2 and find out the scenario he was in where he now subconsconsciously clings to some mistaken assumption that warps his present day thinking. I am fully aware that posts by unregenerates here are really cries for help, so I will do my best to help you isolate the source cause of your agitation.

old comment by A Friend

Jerry,
It is not so open to interpretation as you hoped. Don't think your misreading of the Bible constitutes valid reasoning, for I have shown you how you misread the Bible, which you don't respond to. There is the proof. It's fairly plainly stated what Jesus said, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3.16,18). You are condemned Jerry.

old comment by CT

CT is a liar like his father Satan who is the father of lies. Everything CT says is a lie.

Really? You sure of that Troy?

He says there were ten posts not responding to anyone ("most of them not answering anyone"), but notice he can't show it.

On page 11... you posted 10 times in succession. The people you replied to were (in order): Post #216246 - no-one. Post #216392 - me. Post #216407 - Mr Smith. Post #216465 - David B. Post #218150 - no-one. Post #220020 - no-one. Post #220898 - no-one. Post #224582 - no-one. Post #226341 - no-one. Post #225140 - no-one. That's 7 replies to NO-ONE Troy... the proof is there for anyone to see right now. (and I've got screenshots, so don't bother going and changing them to make me out to be a liar) Oh, and the bottom 5 on that page are ANOTHER 5 of yours, with only one of them directed at anyone... If I'm such a liar Troy, then how come I'm able to provide solid proof of my claims? Or are you caught out in a lie of your own? How can I call God unchanging? Well, Troy... YOU'RE BIBLE CALLS HIM UNCHANGING! If you say he ISN'T unchanging, then you claim that the Bible LIES! You are caught here... Either I'm right or the Bible is wrong. Which do you want to go for Troy? Oh, and while looking back over this thread, I found a post of mine showing a very nasty flaw in your proof that you STILL haven't answered...

CT 4/20/2007 10:49:12 AM #228609 *pops back in* Troy states that there is no evidence for anything that is uncaused. Troy then states that there MUST be something uncaused. Troy provides no proof for this, other than the declaration that there MUST be something uncaused. Troy admits that there is an unbroken chain of causes back as far as time goes... and says that is proof that there MUST be an uncaused. If Troy would start thinking, Troy would realise that the proof he gives shows the opposite of what he claims. Troy... when your proof uses the claim that there MUST be something uncaused, when you have NO evidence that there is anything uncaused, your proof fails. When your proof claims that Nature cannot cause itself without any evidence at all other than your claim, your proof fails. Your proof is no such thing... all it is, is an "If/Then" exercise where the "If" contradicts the evidence. (and the "Then" is wishful thinking) Your proof isn't perfect, nor is it proof... and the way you try to defend it, with such idiotic claims as "everything is different to everything" shows that you are, indeed, an idiot.

The only one trying to distract here is you... because you know that it blows your proof apart. Now, either answer it, and answer the points raised rather than going on a word-salad extravaganza that just avoids anything pertinent I posted... or admit that it's proven your proof wrong. (and posting a word-salad to avoid the posts will be taken as proof that you admit your proof is wrong)

old comment by A Friend

Come on now CT, just be honest with yourself. You're excited about the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God being the first thread in the history of the fstdt cult to get to 1000 posts. I bet you never thought after you made the first post in this thread that it would ever get to 1000 posts. This is quite an honor, because this thread will always be the first thread to get to 1000 posts. Sure, there may be others one day, but the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible will always be the first!
I think we can all confidently say the reason for this happening is because the whole discussion in all these threads is about whether God proved Himself or not. Since He has then all other discussions are periphery in nature if they don't first address the 4 Step Proof for God. God works in mysterious ways. He provides the perfect Proof of Himself for us to share with each other and it becomes the most popular proof in the history of fstdt adherents. Praise the Lord!

old comment by CT

I can't find what thread you posted #228609 on, but I remember seeing it and recall responding to it, but I don't recall you responding in kind.

Page 12, this thread... and no, you didn't reply to it.

Let's recap it. It is riff with mistaken assumptions for I did not say there is no evidence for the uncaused. I did not say that by declaration there must be an uncaused. I did not say there is an eternity of the past of cause and effects unbroken.

First...

What the Proof says is that we have trillions of examples of things that have a cause and not even one example a concrete proof for something that is without a cause.

Those are your words... you admit you have no proof for anything uncaused... thus you simply declare there MUST be something uncaused, which is the opposite of what your proof claims. Second... I didn't say you claimed an ETERNITY of unbroken cause and effect... I said as far back as time goes. (which would be, from your argument, the point of creation) You HAVE said, on many occasions that there is an unbroken chain of cause and effect all the way back to creation. So, once more... Troy states that there is no evidence for anything that is uncaused. Troy then states that there MUST be something uncaused. Troy provides no proof for this, other than the declaration that there MUST be something uncaused. Troy admits that there is an unbroken chain of causes back as far as time goes... and says that is proof that there MUST be an uncaused. If Troy would start thinking, Troy would realise that the proof he gives shows the opposite of what he claims. Your proof disproves itself... and you are lying to avoid admitting it. Oh, and the word-salad extravaganza you posted which avoided answering any pertinent points? Thanks for admitting your proof is wrong. *edit to add* that's the 3rd time this page you've posted your Graph and word-salad post... shows that your claim it's just been a half-dozen times to be a blatent lie, doesn't it?

old comment by CT

Post #216246 is in response to your post about a specific forum you were stalking me on where you also said you couldn't find fault with the 4 Step Proof for God.

First, I've been a member on that forum for longer than you ever were... so stop lying about that.
Second, I have never said that I couldn't find fault with your proof, so stop lying about that too.

I am banned from that atheist site when you said I wasn't.

You weren't at the time, as your posts here have shown... so stop lying about that as well.

It says I am temporarily banned till 2012. That's not very temporary is it?

Hmm... do you even know what Temporary means? Oh, and you were suspended for spamming after being warned to stop... make sure you tell the whole story, rather than lying by omission.

You know I was responding to you, so why do you think I am responding to nobody? You are the one who brought up the name of that particular atheist forum, so I responded to you about it.

You mentioned no name in that reply... you have stated that you name the person you are replying to, therefore a lack of name means it's replying to no-one. Which are you lying about now? About it being a reply to me or about you stating the name of the person you reply to? For anyone keeping count, that's 5 lies from Troy in just 3 lines of text... Meanwhile, since you lie almost continuously in your replies to posts that prove your proof wrong, (claiming you didn't say you had no proof for the uncaused when I had mentioned you had said there was no CONCRETE proof is changing my words into something they're not... it's lying Troy, and you know it) means that nothing you say in reply to any posts now can be trusted... After all, only someone serving Satan would lie so profusely while claiming they don't... yes? Oh, and Troy... this is post #69 from me in this thread. Most of my replies have been on the subject of the insanity of your proof and the rules of your forum... which is the subject of this comment thread. Your continued claims that a: I'm not posting about your proof and b: that the proof and whether it's proven or not are both lies which you continue to spout no matter how many times the truth is pointed out to you. By the way... OCD stands for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder... it's the standard Medical Acronym for it and you show all too many of the symptoms of OCD. Trying to make fun of that Acronym by comparing it to random jumbles of letters shows you are ignorant and have closed your mind to the truth.

old comment by A Friend

CT,
Did you notice your post on page 12 is totally out of place? The posts on that page range from #226425 to #228279, but your's is #228609. I just thought that was a bit strange. Even so, some posts I don't respond to specifically but through other posts if they are just belligerently mindless self-declarations as bad as yours was, for why would I need to respond to something I have already addressed many times or that which is just mindless self-declarations out of nowhere misreading? I recall thinking this at the time of seeing this post so I had responded to it, just not in the fashion your flesh needed. For where did I say, "there is no evidence for anything that is uncaused"? I never said that. For where can you show, "provides no proof for this, other than the declaration that there MUST be something uncaused"? See the 4 Step Proof for God in talking about the trillions of examples of things with a cause, yet not one without. You lose. Where can you show, "admits that there is an unbroken chain of causes back as far as time goes"? Since Step 1 of the Proof shows us there is not an unbroken chain of cause and effects forever in the past, even if time was forever in the past, then you are wrong again. Your self-declaration is of course disregarded and unbacked when you said, "when you have NO evidence that there is anything uncaused, your proof fails." See the 4 Step Proof for God, that which you keep avoiding. Trillions of examples exist, but not one example for your belief in puff the magic dragon. Again, you are mistaken when you said, "When your proof claims that Nature cannot cause itself without any evidence at all other than your claim, your proof fails." See the evidence provided in the 4 Step Proof where trillions of examples show us always that nature has a cause and there is nothing in the data that makes us think in puff the magic dragon. You lose, again. Furthermore, you said, "Your proof is no such thing... all it is, is an If/Then exercise where the If contradicts the evidence. (and the Then is wishful thinking)." Since your proclamation is not shown in any way whatsoever, why do I need to respond to it? Again, see the 4 Step Proof for God. Why keep avoiding it by misreading it? Lastly, you said, "Your proof isn't perfect, nor is it proof... and the way you try to defend it, with such idiotic claims as 'everything is different to everything' shows that you are, indeed, an idiot." The 4 Step Proof for God remains perfect and doesn't make a statement that everything is different from everything. Though, you don't show otherwise. Where are two things the same anyway? You still can't find anything wrong so as not to be able to show it. I don't recall saying everything is different to everything, nor do you show how such a statement has an bearing on the 4 Step Proof. So why put words in my mouth? Therefore, such an approach by yourself, using your words, shows you are being "idiotic" because you are an "idiot". You should repent. This is the very proof of the uncaused since "we have trillions of examples of things that have a cause and not even one example a concrete proof for something that is without a cause". Therefore the odds are against you more than a trillion to one. You lose, again! You're always wrong all the way to hell. Since the natural can't be the cause because it can't cause itself then that only leaves one possibility, the uncaused has to be the cause. That's logic, hard for you to swallow because of your pride and hostility to God. CT, you got to start thinking when you respond to me, because so far, you have been nothing but a dullard. The very things you keep arguing against are the very things that prove God of the Bible. Time is encapsulated in eternity. Firstly, Step 1 is quite clear, I never said anything about an eternity of the past of cause and effects, but Step 1 shows why this cannot be the case. As well, since we have seen trillions of cause and effects, then in time there can only be cause and effects, for this is what the evidence points to. You have nothing to counter this fact. Your word salad is therefore as usual rejected in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. He always wins. That's His nature. Those going to hell such yourself, always lose. My best estimate is I posted this graph perhaps a dozen times in this thread. I didn't say for the page alone, so why bear false witness? Why misread when you said, "that's the 3rd time this page you've posted your Graph and word-salad post... shows that your claim it's just been a half-dozen times to be a blatent lie". See how God makes a liar out of you when you lie by blatantly misrepresenting? God considers this a great sin because it is so deliberate on your part. You're being unethical and you know it, for you had said, "best guess? About 50 of them," referring to the thread, not to the page, so this was the context, not the page you admit. Your doubletongue is exposed! There are only 50 posts per page so it is not possible to be referring to the page only. Brain X said too, "I'd guess it's way more than 50, just on this thread alone". He said "thread", not "page", so you are calling him a liar too. In the end, you atheists and agnostics will kill each other like Hitler and Stalin. I had said, "There were never 50 posts (perhaps a half a dozen, but now only one at the end of the thread so people can stay focused on the discussion and not deflect as CT does from the 4 Step Proof) of the exponential progression in conscience graphic, so again, CT is lying when he said, 'About 50 of them'." It's amazing. No matter what you say, you're always wrong. I think this is the nature of someone bound for hell, because they consider truth to be a casualty in their own faith. God is constantly making a liar out of CT. CT, you're bad guy and I think you know it. But, you don't care. You like being a bad guy. Hell was made for you. My prayer is one day you actually read the 4 Step Proof for God as is to realize that you can't find anything wrong with it; consequently, you'll stop calling Jesus a liar. Don't wait for the Great White Throne for that to happen, because by then it will be too late. You will bow to Jesus one way or another one day. How you respond to Christ today is how you will live out in eternity and time. Make no mistake about it! It's not too alte for you, even you can be saved, so that is why keep praying for you. With love in Christ. Praise the Lord for this discernment!

old comment by A Friend

Jerry,
In the video that guy did sin. I gave you his opening sin. Jesus on the other hand never sinned for how could He? He is God. Since the Bible is not open to interpretation, then it is not. You have never shown two viable interpretations to anything in the Bible, nor can I find any. I won't personally attack you, but simply give you the truth. You're not helping your religion. I always have a good chuckle when some atheist and agnostic says atheists and agnostics don't believe the universe existed for an eternity of the past, then some atheist and agnostic comes along and says that the universe always existed. You guys can't even agree on your own faith, which shows how independent and self-induced each of your ideologies really are. Since there is the exponential progression in conscience, as given by many examples and none show otherwise, IF we were derived from an eternity of the past of cause and effects the exponential progression points to us being without sin TODAY, yet we still sin. This shows that you had to have been created by the uncreated. And we know this to be Jesus because none can compare to Him and almost nobody makes the claim they are God as Jesus did. You can take down your smoke and mirrors now Jerry. If you go to jail for murder it is because you sin. This is supported by you going to jail. Where is the support for your belief otherwise? The king of kings part is from verse 15, not verse 16, just to correct you. 1 Tim. 6.16 is not open to interpretation. It is very clear, "who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom [be] honor and power eternal. Amen." Only God always existed! It is very literal. You would be hardpressed to suggest Christians did not believe in the resurrection life given by Christ Jesus the firstfruits. I am not teasing you Jerry. But just know that God always existed and nobody else has. Now, if God wants to create us in His image and walk with those who love Him, what is that to you? If God wants to give us eternal life also, that is His perogative, and that is what He has done through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Resurrection life is eternal life. Though your spirit is permanently existing it is without eternal life, which is an ability to know God and receive eternal blessings. Because you are going to hell, you don't have an ability to know God or be with Him in eternal blessings in the new city and new earth. From "everlasting" means everlasting in the past. What God intends to do going forward is a whole different matter.

old comment by CT

For where did I say, "there is no evidence for anything that is uncaused"? I never said that.

And here we see Troy being caught in YET ANOTHER LIE!

Post #228354 What the Proof says is that we have trillions of examples of things that have a cause and not even one example a concrete proof for something that is without a cause.

Your words Troy... you posted them, you claim you didn't, you are a liar Troy!

For where can you show, "provides no proof for this, other than the declaration that there MUST be something uncaused"? See the 4 Step Proof for God in talking about the trillions of examples of things with a cause, yet not one without. You lose.

EXACTLY! You provide NO proof for anything uncaused... not even your "proof" since that would be evidence of something uncaused that you state DOESN'T EXIST!

Where can you show, "admits that there is an unbroken chain of causes back as far as time goes"? Since Step 1 of the Proof shows us there is not an unbroken chain of cause and effects forever in the past, even if time was forever in the past, then you are wrong again.

Yet you continually claim that there is an unbroken chain of cause and event right back to Creation... which is where everything, including time, began. Your own proof says there is an unbroken chain right back to the start of time... yet you are now saying there isn't??

For where can you show, "provides no proof for this, other than the declaration that there MUST be something uncaused"? See the 4 Step Proof for God in talking about the trillions of examples of things with a cause, yet not one without. You lose.

Troy... you say there are no examples of anything uncaused... WHICH IS WHAT I JUST SAID! How can I have lost when you AGREE WITH WHAT I JUST SAID??

Again, you are mistaken when you said, "When your proof claims that Nature cannot cause itself without any evidence at all other than your claim, your proof fails." See the evidence provided in the 4 Step Proof where trillions of examples show us always that nature has a cause and there is nothing in the data that makes us think in puff the magic dragon. You lose, again.

Again... nothing in nature that shows anything without cause... I've just said that, you've just agreed. There IS nothing in the Data that suggests something happened by itself... and that includes your uncaused cause. Congratulations Troy... in your heedless obsession with proving your proof wrong, you've just agreed with everything I said was wrong with it... and you didn't even notice. It's taken 1005 posts, but you've ended up arguing the EXACT OPPOSITE of your proof, and claiming to have won.

CT, you got to start thinking when you respond to me, because so far, you have been nothing but a dullard. The very things you keep arguing against are the very things that prove God of the Bible.

You just agreed with what I said... the things you say are arguing against the GotB. Sorry Troy, but that post of yours has shown that the one who's not thinking here, is you... Only a complete idiot would heedlessly rush into a post, not read what was said, try to argue against what they think was said, yet end up agreeing with what they're trying to argue against. Almost forgot...

I don't recall saying everything is different to everything, nor do you show how such a statement has an bearing on the 4 Step Proof. So why put words in my mouth?

Oh Troy...?

Post #212050 There are two kinds of everything. There is everything and then there is everything God created to a point which is deemed as everything.

Caught in another lie there Troy... or are you just unable to remember the sheer insanity you're spouting? Whatever... thing is Troy, you've just been shown to be the most incredible twerp seen around here... and in the process, your precious proof has been totally smashed. But you won't admit it, because you're convinced that you're right, even when you state something as fact that is the opposite of what your proof states. Anyway... call me a liar again... insist that I'm a bad man, that I'm going to hell, that I'm unrepentant, that I'm serving Satan... Call me all that, but realise that it's just you trying to stroke your ego and avoid admitting that you are wrong.

old comment by A Friend

Grungust,
What an evil thing to say. I would not wish this upon my worse enemy. You're a bad guy. Who cares what you say. You're going to hell because you call Jesus a liar even though you don't have a reason to, nor do you find fault with the 4 Step Proof for God. Your blind faith is going to take you right to hell. How truly sad for you. IB90, What you just said was nonsense non-words gibberish babble like a zombie for your false Christ, the zombie Christ you worship who is not Christ Jesus. Can you feel the scorching heat of hell that is so near to you yet? Is your mouth parched with your foretaste of hell like the rich man awaiting resurrection in the bad side of hades? Where you are going I would not wish my worse enemy to go there. How truly sad for you that you call Jesus a liar but have no reason for your reviling and can't find anything wrong with the Proof for God, yet your flesh won't let you accept the truth. My apologies for the late response a minute and a half after your post.

old comment by A Friend

IB90,
If you were truly speaking in tongues then you can tell us the language you are speaking. Since Christians don't believe in gibberish babble non-words, you sound like you are just cultic. Since there is nothing in the Bible that indicates Jesus is a "zombie" you say you worship, then you are not a Christian, nor can you find anything in the Bible that treats tongues as gibberish babble non-words. First you will have to indicate the exact language you are speaking since all tongues are languages and no tongues are non-languages. Hope this helps. Any interpretation you may have of your gibberish babble is selfishly concocted to deceive yourself and trying to deceive others for you apparently are the only only person that knows your own gibberish babble and is not a language. Praise God the Word exposes you! That is the power of the 66 books of the Word of God. You're just a goofy guy going to hell. Accept what you really are. Be honest with yourself that the real reason you call Jesus a liar and reject His Proof of Himself is because you hate your creator and His love shown you in His only begotten Son who gave His life to you on the cross to atone for your sins to redeem you back to Him and give eternal life. Since you don't want His loving mercy, where can you go but hell? If I were you I would be grateful to God that He is sending you to hell, because your conscience should convict you if you were allowed to be where the saved are going. If you were a murderer and a rapist, you should give glory to God that you spend your remaining days in hell. You should also be thankful to God that your soul is not annihilated, but that you will live forever in hell. Hell is a very righteous place to cordon off ugly souls such as yourself away from God and His people forever, not just a billion years or even a trillion years, but forever. Get your head around that! When you are in hell you'll forever be conscious of your wrong choice. It's an amazing revelation of the Holy Spirit. Since there is no reason for you to think Jesus is speaking of cannibalism, but is speaking figuratively to walk as He walks and live as He lives, then why misread the Bible? It just makes you look indolent and insolent. Since you can't find any evidence for your claim of cannibalism, why rely on your selfish fleshly imagination? How corrupted your mind reall is only God knows! Your brain is the outward housing of your soul, and English is not heathen. Why think so? Since nothing in the Bible indicates Jesus is a zombie, know then that your worship of some zombie is not the Christ and you're not a Christian. You never were a Christian and since you have decided forever, that is what you are telling the world, then Jesus said in John 3.18, you're already condemned. How truly sad for you. Since your link shows nothing about some language with non-words you gave like Brazzaz, zazzaz -- Zambahz! etc then it is your own gibberish babble that nobody shares with you. Apparently, you like your a's and z's in your gibberish babble. You're on your own all by yourself in reviling Jesus Christ with your own gibberish babble which nobody shares with you. Could anything be more selfish and mindless? You're a bad guy and you know it. You're certainly not shy about it. Why doesn't your conscience convict your for your mindless words? For one thing you don't feel embarrassment for being belligerent and so selfish because your spirit really is dead to God. In other words, you have no sense in you to appreciate the proper way to behave. All you have to wait for, and experience even now, is God's wrath. You're on the loser's team. Just be grateful you will be hell because this is God's righteous treatment of the bad people who call Him a liar. You wouldn't want to be in a hell designed by an evil god or a zombie god you worship, but one that is designed by the Almighty Creator to fulfill His purposes for those who don't want to be saved. Since your soul can never be annihilated, you got to go somewhere.

old comment by IB90

Brothers, sisters -- Zombies!
Jesus said -- (this) is my body! (lit. "carcass") Jesus said -- (this) is my blood! Eat of my flesh! (lit. Gobble gobble carcass!) Drink my blood! (lit. Absorb blood!) Amen! Jesus doesn't love (lit. amor) humans -- Jesus loves (lit. amor) zombies! Jesus gave His Flesh -- zombies eat Flesh! Humans don't eat Flesh -- Bad, bad humans! Zombie Jesus is the Resurrection! Amen, zombies, amen. Of course, some of the poetic language from the original is lost in translation, but this is the gist of it. Now that I have writen this in your heathen language, perhaps you will allow the words to wash over. Don't think with your sinful brain, think with your soul. As for your statement about me being the only person who knows my language: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Church_of_the_Resurrection There are many more true Christians like me, but I can see you are not one of us. I shall pray to Sweet Zombie Jesus that you stop hardening your heart to him.

old comment by IB90

Figuratively? You believe the Bible is not the literal word of God? Hell is made for you liberal Satanists.
The brain houses sin, the soul is contained in the stomach. English is not holy, thus it is heathen. Proof that Jesus was a zombie: 1. Jesus asked his disciples to eat flesh and blood. Jesus was not a hypocrite who would ask others to do something he would not do. Thus, Jesus ate flesh and blood. 2. Jesus rose from the dead. Now cannibalism is clearly a sin, but because Jesus is not a human, he can get away with it. This evidence, added to the fact that he rose from the dead, indicates zombiehood. On my own? I did not make that website, thus there are other who share my beliefs. It is not gibberish; others understand it. Those who understand it are Christians and you clearly are not one. But yes, "Z"s are nice. Bad guy? I am a Christian. The opinions of you secular, baby-killing, communist, Satanists matters not to me. After all, you are going to Hell while I will join my Lord in Heaven.

old comment by A Friend

IB90,
That the Word of God is literal does not mean it disallows figurative expressions. Why be like a petty legalist? Don't you feel embarrassed by petty legalisms? Is your heart so shallow that you must resort to such attempts? When people accuse the Bible of not being truly the Word of God they accuse by saying it is figurative only, not literal. That is what they mean in it not being literal, but they you try to twist even that with your petty legalism to disallow any parables of Jesus or psalms, proverbs and other figurative expressions. I would be embarrassed if I were. Try to muster that feeling, for that is how you should feel in your rationales. There is nothing about the soul being in the stomache in the Bible, so this is your own idea unsupported. The soul sins, hence, the brain sins. All languages have some sin in them, but English appears to be the language of God's design since it is the most prominent language on the planet and has the most depth. 1. Since Jesus was speaking figuratively and you find no cannibalism in the Bible, then you sin bearing false witness. You're a bad guy. 2. Jesus did rise for the dead. Since you find Jesus not partaking in any cannibalism, then why sin bearing false witness and make it up? Why do you avoid this question repeatedly? like a zombie. Rising from the dead is overcoming death. Zombies are still dead, such as yourself, since you are still dead to God. You're a Zombie for Satan. Resurrection life is eternal life; nothing is better. I did not say you made that website. I said you are on your own because you can't even find one other person on the planet that speaks your gibberish babble of "Brazzaz, zazzaz -- Zambahz!" nor on that website that you didn't make. Nobody shares your beliefs in your gibberish babble non-words. Since no Christian interpreters can interpret your non-words gibberish babble except to say that it is Satanic because it is totally unsupported, and the Bible does not treat tongues as such gibberish babble, then you are not Christian. You're a Satanist. The Lord in heaven does not teach gibberish babble z's and a's, so you are worshipping Satan, not God. Why just assume Christians partake in such nonsense? Since you can't find any support for your claim, know you are going to hell and be grateful for God's righteous treatment of bad people such as yourself. You also kill babies and you're a communist in your secular pursuits? Crazy stuff. So why just shut your mind down to these problems you have? Why be a Zombie for Satan? What else can one think other than you are a bad guy. Do people you know, know that you have this hidden life as a Satanist and conduct yourself in this fashion? Since you are so adamant to believe in some zombie Jesus, then give your testimony to all those in your vicinity, or are you embarrassed? Tell your mother, father, co-workers and other family members that you believe in a zombie Jesus. I am not embarrassed to express Jesus as my Lord and Savior wherever I go. You're pathetic. Can you feel the nearness of the scorching heat of hell upon you yet? Surely you do. Did you know that when you get to hell there will be no more opportunity for you to speak with anyone who is saved? You will remember all those times a Christian tried to help lead you to salvation from your sins and how you just wanted to remain a sinner.

old comment by IB90

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/KiZombie
Now, as great as the language is, I did not make it, nor am I the only speaker. Still, you flatter me. Flattery, of course, is a tool of the Serpent and I must ask that you cease it at once. Also, I notice you argue against my language instead of my language's content. This is a very brainless debating tactic. Perhaps you are a Christian. 1. You say he was speaking figuratively. I say he was telling the truth. 2. Zombies are undead, a perfect mix of the sinlessness of the dead with the evangelical ability of the living. Now, when did I say that I kill babies or that I am a communist? Why do you lie for Satan? If believing in Jesus is a problem, then I don't want to see the solution.

old comment by SethMac2

I now propose to examine Troy's theory of free will as derived from all he has said in our conversations. His quotes follow:
_{"Libertarian free-will is false since 1) free-will is compatible with
determinism and 2) determinism is true. Determinism is cause and effect in all
things.

All available choices you are allowed to make is within God's perfect righteousness and design in making you a sovereign being made in His image. In other words, you can't be made any more perfectly; thus, you have not libeterian free-will, but actual free-will. This free-will exists in the real world right now!"

next post

"The Bible is not some pseudo-philosophy or new age book. To have free-will is
just as it says, to have your own volition and free-choice to decide. God
doesn't coerce you, premake you with libertarian free-will, for free-will is
authentically made in God's image. Hence we see some of the very first acts in
the Bible, such as Abel giving God a free-will offering to be saved whereas Cain
gave a false offering not pleasing to God, because Cain offerred by the fruits
of His labor and not by that which is given by God Himself which is the Lamb.

Your fantasy view of libertarian free-which teaches free-will is not being
compatible with determinism is nonsense! . He is the determined cause, then our
free-choice flows from this gift of being given the free-choice as sovereign
beings. You're not a robot. Calvinism is a lie."} Troy's theory of free will and determinism seems to have these proposition as best I can ascertain from his (intentionally?) vague language: 1. Determinism is true 2. Determinism is cause and effect in all things. (this can only mean that all our actions, and choices in making those actions, are determined and we cannot act otherwise) 3. Free will is compatible with determinism. (in the manner described next in 4) 4. A free willed action is one made in the absence of coercion. (all actions are causally determined as #2 says, but are considered “free” if they do not have the added component of being coerced) 5. Human free will is in God's image. (our free will is of the same nature as God's free will) Now Troy says that human free will is made "in God's image". So, that is to say, human free will is of the same nature as God's. But that also means that God's free will is of the same nature as humans' (i.e. determined, but compatible with determinism). It then follows that, since our choices are determined, God's choices are determined, and, since we cannot act otherwise than we do, God cannot act otherwise than He does either. But what are God's choices determined by? If Troy were to say that God determines His own choices then that is a contradiction because if God determines His own choices then He can act otherwise and determinism is false. And, by extension, Troy's theory of free will is false. But, if Troy says God can't act otherwise, then something outside God must be acting to determine His actions (like physical law determines our actions) and that actually goes against Troy's 4-step “proof” since it means God cannot be an uncaused cause. However, if Troy denies that God can't act otherwise then God is again determining His own choices and we arrive at the same falsification of determinism (and Troy's theory) as in the preceding paragraph. Maybe Troy might say God's choices cause God's choices? There Troy would contradict himself yet again since an effect cannot be its own cause as that is the same thing as saying an effect had no cause, and that would falsify determinism and Troy's free will theory yet again. So, any way you look at it Troy's concept of free will is in contradiction of either his own 4-step proof or itself, and he must admit his theory of free will or his proof is debunked. ...Yeah right, or he'll just tell me I'm wrong while giving another vague description of his concept of free will that fails to say anything concrete and is just filled with weasel words.

old comment by CT

Post #254050[quote]You're lying, for I never said, "there was no CONCRETE proof". Since I didn't say this, your saying I did, is lying, bearing false witness. You're a liar like your father Satan, the father of lies.
Post #254169

Yes, I said, "the Proof says is that we have trillions of examples of things that have a cause and not even one example a concrete proof for something that is without a cause."

If I'm lying, why do you admit to saying that?

You said you quoted me with quotes, "everything is different to everything". Nowhere did I ever say that word for word. This is not to say such a statement is not true, only that you claim you quote me when I never even said that. So why make up quotes? That's wrong.

Bear that in mind Troy... not only are you daft enough to not notice it wasn't a direct quote but a summary of your quote, but you make the mistake of claiming I said something that I didn't! (emphasis added by me to point out your lie)

What did I say? I said, "There are two kinds of everything. There is everything [including God] and then there is everything God created to a point which is deemed as everything." This is in response to you saying everything has a cause even God

Troy... if you're going to lie, try to make it a little harder to notice. Right now, your lies are so obvious they scream out that they are lies. And before you ask why I'm not responding to the rest of your post... there's no point. The rest of your post is self-contradictory untruths, assumptions, self-declarations and logical insanity... which is not surprising since that's what your proof is as well.

old comment by CT

Troy, try to pay attention...

There are two kinds of everything. There is everything and then there is everything God created to a point which is deemed as everything.

Read that quote... pay attention to it... make sure you understand what it says. Now... is the "everything" that God created the same as the other "everything" in that quote? If it is, then how can there be two kinds of everything? If they are the same, then there's only ONE kind. If they're not the same, then they are DIFFERENT! This is simple English Troy... a short summary of that quote is "Everything is different to Everything" Now when I quote, it goes in a Quote Box... when I summarize, it's not. (simple enough, why are you unable to understand this?) Unlike you, I don't claim to quote things people haven't said... nor do I make my posts intentionally vague so that I can twist the meaning and blame others for not reading it clearly. Now, when you say

the Proof says is that we have trillions of examples of things that have a cause and not even one example a concrete proof for something that is without a cause

What does it mean? Well, for starters, something without a cause is uncaused... so no example of concrete proof for something uncaused. But! You provide proof that there IS something uncaused... your "perfect proof" is given as an example of concrete proof for the existence of something uncaused. The problem is, Troy... if the only proof you have is the conclusion of your argument, then you are using circular logic and your "proof" is no such thing. This was pointed out to you long ago, yet you denied that was the case. Another problem, Troy... is that even though you've given "proof" for an uncaused, you STILL claim there is NO PROOF for an uncaused. You base your argument, and your proof, on something that is self-contradicting... which proves your "proof" in error. Congratulations Troy... you've proven your proof wrong. Award yourself the $10,000 and pat yourself on the back. *edit to add* Time is a funny thing... without Time, Cause and Effect doesn't exist. Remember, without Time passing, nothing can happen. No Time means no cause and no effect. What does that mean though? Well, since there's an unbroken chain back to the moment of creation (according to Troy) and since Time came into existence at the moment of creation, then prior to Time being in existence, nothing could have happened. Troy like to claim that God started the whole shebang off... but, if God was around before Time, then God couldn't do anything... so God cannot have been existing before Time. But... If God came into existence AFTER Time, then God cannot have caused everything, since he cannot have caused something before he existed. Follow that line of thought through... if God was pre-Time, nothing could have been done so God cannot have created. If God was post-Time, then God isn't the creator, since something came into existence before he did. However, if God came into existence at the instant Time did... you still have the problem of something other than God being uncaused. The fact of Time is an unsurmountable problem for Troy... since it leaves him with 3 choices. Either God COULDN'T Create... or God came AFTER something was created... or God is not the only uncaused. There is, however, a 4th choice... one that Troy refuses to accept. That Time is the uncaused and that God is simply a result of that. (if God even exists... Time shows God isn't necessary)

old comment by A Friend

Grungust,
Since no scholars agree with you Jesus does not exist, you're all by yourself on that idea. Since these are real people in the Bible describing their real experiences, to say they don't exist is quite unethical. Even the most skeptical of scholars never say Jesus didn't exist or that Paul never existed, nor do they even suggest that Paul made up stories, but that he really believed in all he wrote. Since you can't find anything wrong with the 4 Step Proof for God, know you are going to hell for calling Jesus a liar. Using your own words, you are then just a "brainless idiot," "a clown," "full of delusion" as you live out your life as a pawn following Satan in all things. In point of fact, you can say you are demonically possessed that keeps you from being saved.

old comment by A Friend

CT,
You asked, "Now... is the 'everything' that God created the same as the other 'everything in that quote?" Most people will interpret a phrase like, everything is different from everything, as meaning no two things are the same. That's why I never said it the way you said I said it. Rather, I was specific, so you should offer the same courtesy so as not to be so vague in your misquoting. There is the everything that God created and there is the everything that includes God. It's like saying 1 is everything, but adding God to it is another one makes 2 kinds of everything. When I quote people I quote them whether using the quote box or putting quotes around what I quote. That's normal English. You should try it. If you want to quote someone summarily, then indicate it by saying "he seems to be saying 'this or that'" to not misconstrure him as actually saying that specifically verbatim. You wouldn't make a very good journalist. Try to have some common courtesy and be more conscientious when you type. So drop your bold face lie when said, "I don't claim to quote things people haven't said" and don't accuse others of this sin of yours when you haven't caught anyone doing what you did. You're mistaken when you said, "so no example of concrete proof for something uncaused." God of the Bible is uncaused as proven by the 4 Step Proof. This is the only case that will ever exist since you can't have two uncaused; otherwise, you have to ask yourself where did this other come from. You misread the 4 Step Proof when you said, "if the only proof you have is the conclusion of your argument, then you are using circular logic and your proof is no such thing. This was pointed out to you long ago, yet you denied that was the case." The Proof is NOT based on some conclusion as you mistakenly assumed, but through observation we come to a conclusion. You're violating Step 3 of the Proof. This was said many many times in this thread for those who try this approach. You should have realized your mistake by now. Yes, your misreading and overassuming is denied. Your misunderstanding is most apparent when you said, "even though you've given proof for an uncaused, you STILL claim there is NO PROOF for an uncaused." You're confusing between, as was said before which you failed to pick up on, the proof for the uncaused creator and that nothing ever suggests something is uncaused in nature. Since your misreading does not indicate any contradicting on my part, it is disregarded. And, therefore, you fail to gain the $10,000. Plus, you would have to put in an official attempt at Biblocality Forums, not at the fstdt cult. It is according to what we know and observe that there is only ever cause and effects in nature. Where do you find otherwise? Your false premise, "without Time, Cause and Effect doesn't exist" leads to a false conclusion, "prior to Time being in existence, nothing could have happened". The 4 Step Proof doesn't jump to conclusions like you just did, but only relies on what we can observe to know the truth. Your puff the magic dragon approach fails and it is like saying "God does not exist because God does not exist before time". Your conclusion is your premise. That's goofy. You admit, "Time came into existence". All things we know that have come into existence had a cause. Whereas God never claims to have come into existence. Since nothing in nature happens all by itself as we have a trillion examples and not one for the puff the magic dragon theory, then we know that time came into existence by the uncaused creator. Here is the lie I caught CT in. He said my statement was inaccurate when I said, "This is in response to you saying everything has a cause even God". Then he turns around and says, "That Time is the uncaused and that God is simply a result of that." Sure sounds like he is saying God is caused by time. That's why I said there was two everythings, because some where confuse the two definitions of everything. One everything includes God and the other everything is everything that God creates. Don't confuse the two everythings. While the nothing in the second everthing can cause itself ultimately, the first everything does have a component which is God that always would have existed then. The reason there can't be an eternity of the past of cause and effects (Step 1 & 4) in time is because of the exponential progression in conscience. You would not still be sinning now if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects. How perfect the 4 Step Proof is! Wow! I'm awestruck by how perfect it is, though not surprised for I wouldn't expect anything less from God. This Proof of God has always been known since the dawn of man. Even those who shut their minds down to it, know it is true deep down inside, but want to remain hostile to their creator because they don't want to give up their sin nature; and that is their choice which is why hell was devised by God.

old comment by CT

You asked, "Now... is the 'everything' that God created the same as the other 'everything in that quote?" Most people will interpret a phrase like, everything is different from everything, as meaning no two things are the same.

No Troy... most people wouldn't... You, on the other hand, will misinterpret it. Since you claim to have discernment, surely you wouldn't have misinterpreted it?

That's why I never said it the way you said I said it. Rather, I was specific, so you should offer the same courtesy so as not to be so vague in your misquoting. There is the everything that God created and there is the everything that includes God. It's like saying 1 is everything, but adding God to it is another one makes 2 kinds of everything.

Being very specific, removing all the chaff you like to spout, you've just said... again... that Everything is different Everything. Why Troy? Why do you insist on denying you said something, then stating that you said it? Why do you insist on reading things into posts that not only aren't there, but aren't even vaguely implied or suggested? Why do you insist on Quote-Mining in an attempt to accuse people of lying?

Here is the lie I caught CT in. He said my statement was in accurate when I said, "This is in response to you saying everything has a cause even God". Then he turns around and says, " "That Time is the uncaused and that God is simply a result of that". Sure sounds like he is saying God is caused. That's why I said there was two everythings. One everything includes God and the other everything is everything that God creates. Don't confuse the two everythings.

In Context, what I said was about possible options... Did I say that God was Created? NO! You have changed what I said into something I never said... You have deliberately altered the entire meaning of what I said just so you can use it against me. That is LYING! It is deliberate lying and you have been caught YET AGAIN! And you keep doing that just so you can avoid admitting defeat... Go on... prove me right by quote-mining and misinterpreting what we say some more.

old comment by CT

Oh, and Troy...

Your false premise, "without Time, Cause and Effect doesn't exist" leads to a false conclusion, "prior to Time being in existence, nothing could have happened".

You don't understand what I said there, do you? Definition of time: "A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future." (not quite the correct scientific definition, but it's close enough for now) Remove Time, and you have no events... since events require time in which to happen. Any cause OR effect is an event IN Time, thus without time you cannot have Cause or Effect. Something that happens is an event... no event, there's nothing happening. The premise is proven, the conclusion is proven... your attempt to claim otherwise is pitiful. Go learn what is being discussed before parading your ignorance around.

old comment by CT

*comes back after doing the shopping, housework and a little thinking...*
Something for Troy here... Troy likes to claim that the amount of sins, relative to the population, is going down... thus showing an increase in Global Conscience. Unfortunately for Troy, he bases this on a few rare and prominent crimes and extrapolates this to mean ALL crimes are going down. When you take into account that overall the number of crimes has been sustaining an increase above the rate of population increase, you see just how flawed Troy's argument is. However... not only is his argument flawed, but it also contradicts the Bible. According to the Bible, before the Fall, there was no sin. Using Troy's argument, that means the Global Conscience was at it's highest. From the point of the fall, the amount of sin increased to the point that God decided to do something about it... the Flood. Bear in mind that, by this point, the Global Conscience would have been taking a nose-dive... showing Troy's cute little graph to be at odds with the Bible. Anyway... God floods the Earth, wiping out all but 8 people... the most righteous he culd find. At that point, the amount of sin fell again... meaning the Global Conscience was at another high point. Again, Troy's graph paints a completely different picture... After the Flood, Humanity spread across the globe, the population going up and the amount of sin with it. Fast forward to the time of Jesus... Sin has continued to increase, to the point that God decides to send Jesus as part of a "salvation Package" deal... it doesn't get rid of Sin, it just forgives it. Sin is STILL increasing at this point... so the Global Conscience, according to Troy, would be reducing. Come to Revelations with me... the whole world is steeped in Sin... according to the Bible, there's never been as much Sin in the world as there is now. Troy's graph, argument and Proof, on the other hand, makes the claim that the amount of Sin is reducing. Then we finally come to the Afterlife... according to the Bible, there's no more Sin. Finally, Sin is gone... which means, according to Troy's argument, the Global Conscience is now at it's highest point... again. So, just what is Troy doing? Well, he's making claims that go against what is written in the Bible... which makes him an Heretic. He's also trying to prove something that denies what is written in the Bible... by doing so, he's denying most of what is the Word of God. Ultimately, Troy has, by coming up with his proof, managed to call God, Jesus and just about all the Bible liars... Ironic, when that's his primary response to those who don't believe in Christianity.

old comment by A Friend

CT,
I think you are reflecting your worldliness shopping. If I were to say to someone "everything is different to everything", a person would respond that's a reasonable statement for what two things are alike? That's why your false quote of me is inappropriate, because it is not what we are actually talking about. I did not even say this that you claim you quoted me, nor do you show any specific understanding of the subject on the "two everythings". People would have had no idea what was really meant specifically: "There are two kinds of everything. That's why it is wrong to misquote someone because you create these problems. There is everything [including God] and then there is everything God created to a point which is deemed as everything". This delineation was made because some people were confusing the two everythings to think since everything in nature has a cause then everything including God has a cause. You made the same mistake when you said that time caused God even though time could not actually cause God, for time does not cause itself and time can't exist in the eternity of the past because of the exponential progression in conscience, wherein you would not still be sinning by now. Since you were both sloppy in falsely quoting me to bear false witness (lying) and your false summary quote was lacking severely as noted above, you should repent. This discernment of your action should cause you to repent, but you won't because your pride is too great. It is too big a blow to your ego to accept these mistakes of yours. Your pride is also hit when you can't find anything wrong with the 4 Step Proof for God so that is why you carry on with various antics instead of dealing with the Proof itself. People would have to mine for quotes to realize I never once said what you said I said. In the paragraph that you gave this false quote it had no surrounding context, just this vague couple of words standing alone. Could you be any more vague? People could have no idea what it meant other than what it, as was said, can be easily understood to mean. I can't even find myself what thread the discussion of two everythings is on, but I know several exchanges took place about it as it became a hot issue for some. So in those simple few words to misrepresent, it has nothing to do with what I was actually saying, so your attempt to obfuscate is considered of no account. Furthermore, you're even hostile to this simpler view, yet have no reason for your hostility. You said it is an "idiotic claim" in that same paragraph, but why are you so against one thing being different from something else? Using your own words, aren't you being "idiotic"? I think your problem is you're hostile to Christians so no matter what a Christian says, you'll show your horns as a little devil and change your story on a whim. You're jealous of us because we were selfless enough to receive Christ and by grace eternal life, but you're going to hell because you are still too selfish to give up self. Another example is when you said if God exists He didn't create time in creating the creation along with time, then you turn around and say time created God. The Bible says be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8)! The reason you held both views is because you were arguing against me in both cases just because you have poisoned spirit of dissension and revile your creator. You don't actually have a principled position, but you seek only to argue against whatever is just said at the moment at the risk of forsaking the actual truth. You're quite unethical. Let me quote you as you actually said it: "That Time is the uncaused and that God is simply a result of that." This contradicts another situation where you responded to my words. I said you believe "everything has a cause even God". You responded saying, "but you make the mistake of claiming I said something that I didn't! (emphasis added by me)". So you're saying everything has a cause from the eternity of the past in time because time always existed, and then you also said time happened all by itself because you think when it commenced nothing can come before time. That is as convoluted a doubletalker's doubletalk I have ever seen. The attempted evidence for you saying time happened all by itself is when you said, "since Time came into existence at the moment of creation, then prior to Time being in existence, nothing could have happened...if God was around before Time, then God couldn't do anything... so God cannot have been existing before Time." Big contradiction! You can't have it both ways. Your scapegoat is everything is an option to you so you have no principled life. Though all your theoried options contradict each other, then how can they be options? All of them are wrong because they all contradict. The only consistent system is God of the Bible wherein we find no contradiction. Praise God for the 4 Step Proof of Himself! Again, same old puff the magic dragon and atheists not agreeing with each other when some say puff the magic dragon and others say there is an eternity of the past of cause and effects in time. Crazy stuff! You asked, "Did I say that God was Created?" No, you didn't say He was created. You said He is caused by time then you said he can't exist because you said nothing comes before time's inception all by itself like puff the magic dragon. Personally, I think you are crazy and a flip flopper like John Kerry. As you said, "Time is the uncaused and that God is simply a result of that." To you this is a acceptable casualty in your contradictory options, but again, the 4 Step Proof for God which you avoid, shows us there can not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects in time because you would not be sinning still, due to the exponential progression in conscience (Step 1). As well, you are misrepresenting God of the Bible (violating Step 3) because you are saying God is possibly caused, but this is not the God of the Bible we are talking about. You're talking about some god, but it's not God of the Bible. God of the Bible that you would need to disprove so as not to go to hell is the Uncreated One. You would have to disprove His being uncreated, but Step 1 destroys your argument as was shown. If you were to deal with Step 1 in the first place instead of going on a tirade of deflection, you would not have these various problems you cling to so desperately. So by lying in misquoting me, lying in contradicting yourself, lying when you avoid the 4 Step Proof for God, and lying when you call Jesus a liar (for you know He is God but won't bow to Him), then know you belong in hell. All I ask is you be honest with yourself. If you want to go to hell then go there; don't lie to yourself about it. A word for you CT who thinks himself wise in himself. I don't advise you to mine for quotes, because when you do, you produce false quotes, things I never said. Next time indicate you are paraphrasing so as not to mislead. But if you are going to attempt to paraphrase, don't paraphrase sloppily. Praise the Lord for this discernment!

old comment by A Friend

CT,
You don't understand what you are saying do you? Since you believe events can't happen without time, you propose puff the magic dragon it happened all by itself. Step 2 of the 4 Step Proof destroys this idea. Time can't happen by itself like puff the magic dragon, since nothing in nature, including time, is ever seen to happen all by itself, then you know that the uncreated created. Trillions of examples of things in time have causes, but not one ever is seen to be without a cause, nor time itself. It's like you are going to the biggest lottery in human history and telling everyone you are going to win. Goofy! Time itself always has a preceding event no matter how much you like to admit it or not; that has been the history of time. You just cling to the false premise, "Remove Time, and you have no events" to derive various false conclusions which we can disregard then. But you don't accept this because you still think time happened all by itself-a mere self-declaration! That is a non-humbled approach. Whereas the 4 Step Proof does not embark on any assumptions at all. The 4 Step Proof only comments on what is proven by observation. This is a radically different approach than the one you are taking. But how can time happen all by itself as an event for no events happen all by themselves? It's not possible. The only possibility therefore is the uncreated created. The event of time does not need time to be its cause. Out of time God can cause time. Since nothing in time can cause itself, not even time, then we are left with the only possibility as mentioned. And since none can compare to Christ, you know the 2nd Person of the Godhead created you. You know this. The problem is you are too selfish to receive the forgiveness of the Father and prefer to go your own way. That's your choice. Your free-will is in action made in His image. Just be grateful God deals with you righteously by casting you into hell and letting you know even now you're already condemned according to John 3.18. To overassume makes a what? You don't understand what you are actually saying is half the problem and how wrong it is to overassume as much as you do. Then when I quote you to help you see your confusion, you accuse of quoting you in hopes that I don't quote you in your lies to cover them up. You have created one heck of a mess for yourself which only Christ Jesus can solve.

old comment by A Friend

One of the reasons I like to answer all these queries even if they are almost always repetitions from previous posts in this thread is because it gives added strength to God's Word that none can find fault with the 4 Step Proof for God proving God's Word. By your own admission being unable to challenge the Proof, you are unwittingly giving glory to God if you still call Jesus a liar. The reason you call Christians liars is for the same reason you call Jesus a liar, because we are in the truth and you are not, so all you can do is emulate Satan the great accuser who is the father of lies. You're really quite jealous you know. You wonder why you are so selfish that you can't give up and give into Christ. Know the reason is purely by choice that you desire to remain in your sin nature and reject the loving forgiveness of God through His only begotten Son to have power over sin. You have nobody to blame but yourself. And this makes us Christians very sad for you because we know what must become of you, and we would not wish this upon our worse enemy. If I could go to hell in your stead, and it was God's will that I do so, to save your soul, then how could I refuse God? Of course, God would never ask me to do that, because God is righteous and holy and He would never send one of His own to hell.

old comment by A Friend

My advice to Andy would be as follows.
What's your issue with there being no sin before the fall? Before you answer, make sure you read my full answer, so I don't have to repeat myself and you show some semblence of consideration and responding to the answer given. Why is the fact that before Adam there is the body of dust which is deemed the pre-Adamic race funny to you? Try to explain yourself instead of acting as though you are on a throne, and you need no reason for your self-declarations because you are the center of the universe. You got that old nasty habit of self-exaltation and coyness by some non-descript response. Do take note how we don't actually see SethMac2 or CT actually dealing with the components of the 4 Step Proof for God, but they go on their own tangents which are proven false anyway. All the while, they don't deal with the Proof for God. Crazy stuff! At least they are thereby admitting they can't find anything wrong with the 4 Steps of the Proof. Would someone like to make a better looking chart for this page?

old comment by SethMac2

So Troy has clarified things for me concerning his position on free will in response to my “mistaken thinking”. (Thanks Troy!). Now let's examine his clarification:
He writes concerning God's free will: _{“He can act otherwise, but He never does, because He always abides in His holiness and righteousness. So, determinism remains true: that is, all things have a cause and effect compatible with free-will. So, free-will remains true and unchallenged just like the 4 Step Proof for God.”

and

“Always remember God can act otherwise, but because His free-will is perfectly pure, He never goes against that perfect righteousness and holiness.”

and

“He remains in consistently and unchanged. Righteousness is His nature. Holiness is His life. So, God remains uncaused as the 4 Step Proof reveals. “

finally

"God can't act otherwise not because of something outside Himself, since He is uncreated, but because he is the very righteousness and holiness which He remains in consistently and unchanged. Righteousness is His nature. Holiness is His life. So, God remains uncaused as the 4 Step Proof reveals."} Troy says that God's actions are dependent upon God's nature. Troy's description is that God's nature consists of a set of properties (perfect righteousness, holiness etc.) that determine God's actions. But Troy also says God has free will such that he can act otherwise than he does. But if God has free will such that He can, even in theory, act contrary to His perfect nature then that free will itself constitutes an imperfection in contradiction to God's perfect nature. The potential to act imperfectly is an imperfection. So, contrary to Troy's, claims, God can have no free will, and, since our free will is in God's image. Neither can we. Now suppose Troy were to counter that it is not an imperfection for God to have free will but, to the contrary, makes God even more perfect since, despite the ability to act against His own nature, He always practices admirable restraint and never does. (Troy might be alluding to something like this in the second quote above). The problem is that would entail that God possesses a motivation to act against His nature that he must restrain. But if God has such a motivation, that itself would run counter to his perfection. Finally, suppose Troy says that God having free will makes no difference in his perfection one way or another and that is is just a neutral property of God. In this case free will is a useless appendage and, again serves to make God less perfect because God does not contain useless things. In conclusion: Troy's theory is inconsistent garbage. _{“God can't act otherwise not because of something outside Himself”} First Troy says God "can" act otherwise, and then he says God "can't". So, he flatly contradicts himself right there. But, I guess, he felt he had to contradict my statement that God can't both be unable to chose otherwise and be the cause of his own actions, but I will address this in a subsequent post. _{“SethMac2's words are just weasel words, and he uses this term "weasel words" reflecting his own condition he knows all too well, so that is why he said he is like a weasel with his words.”} Did Troy graduate from the “Toddler Academy of Debate” ? -- “No, I'm not a doodie head! You're a doodie head!” --

old comment by A Friend

One by one, let's just go through SethMac2's mistaken assumptions and give the truth to help set his thinking right. Though we all know, he won’t repent, for his pride keeps him separated from God, sad to say.
Let's start with: "if God has free will such that He can, even in theory, act contrary to His perfect nature then that free will itself constitutes an imperfection that is in contradiction of God's perfect nature. The potential to act imperfectly is an imperfection." We can consider this an assumption without basis because God has never made a mistake ever after all this time, so this shows how perfect His free-will is. The potential to do wrong, yet never do wrong, shows how great God is. We can trust Him that He will never do wrong then. Proof is in the pudding as they say. Our free-will is perfectly made in God's image. If Adam chose not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and remained obedient to God, he would have pleased God with in his volition staying true to God. We all have free-will because we all come from Adam and Eve. Whether you want to be passive under Satan as a zombie, you still are a sovereign being made in God's image. Lot’s of people want to be zombies for some cause even the cause against your creator. Since it never ever even occurred to God to go against His will then we can't agree He "possesses a motivation to act against His nature that he must restrain". SethMac2 again mistakenly assumed. This is the common theme of error to overassume something and lack the humility not to do so. Since I would disagree with this statement, "God having free will makes no difference in his perfection one way or another and that is is just a neutral property of God," then it it is disregarded. God is very personal when He shows His will to us. Because there is simply no evidence for this claim of some ambivalent will, such an idea is thrown out the window. Again, what's the culprit? Overassuming! Generated by independency and hostility to your creator! That's pathetic. So nothing said by SethMac2 has any value for it is just misrepresenting God of the Bible. That's why Step 3 is so important, because if you are going to argue against God of the Bible, don't do so disingenuously by arguing about qualities that are not His Own. Check out this misreading. SethMac2 quotes a portion of a sentence, not the whole sentence (how odd): "God can't act otherwise not because of something outside Himself”. SethMac2 said, "God can't act otherwise, then something outside God must be acting to determine His actions". What did I say in response? "God can't act otherwise not because of something outside Himself, since He is uncreated, but because he is the very righteousness and holiness which He remains in consistently and unchanged. So SethMac2 tries to be sneaky by saying, "God can act otherwise, and then he says God can't. So, he flatly contradicts himself right there." Why leave out the portion in order to misrepresent? SethMac2 will try various unethical tactics to exalt himself and try come hell or high water to find fault with the Christian. SethMac2 is going to hell, make no mistake about it. My prayer is you don’t follow in his footsteps, for this hurts God’s heart to see you unsaved. By His Will He has done all He can to save you. The work is finished on the cross. Now it is up to you to choose rightly. Do you see how unethical SethMac2 tried to be? He knows full well what he is doing in trying to deceive, for he made the comment, I responded to it then he changed what I said by the error of omission. These are the kinds of things someone going to hell will do. They don't care to seek after the truth, but to just exalt themselves above their creator. Nothing could be more asinine. That's why they such an unethical tactic. It has no validity in reality. And their pin cushion is the Christian to try to misrepresent him somehow or to martyr him if they can. As a consequence of his unethical stratagem, he produces a false conclusion, from that misrepresentation, “God can't both be unable to chose otherwise and be the cause of his own actions, but I will address this in a subsequent post”. Yes, God can choose otherwise, but never does because of His righteousness and holiness. And yes, He is always the cause of His own actions as you would expect this, since He is uncreated, and the uncreated creator is proven in the 4 Step Proof. I am always happy to respond to an additional post. Lots of people say they will do something, but don’t end up doing it or can’t. As we have just seen in my response, the difference is it has just been proven SethMac2 is “doodie head!” Simple.

old comment by SethMac2

"That's why Step 3 is so important, because if you are going to argue against God of the Bible, don't do so disingenuously by arguing about qualities that are not His Own."
The reason why Step 3 is so important is, if you don't agree with Troy about everything he says, you aren't arguing against “God of the Bible” according to him. Yep, no one has ever disproved Troy's “proof”. They would have to completely agree with it and all he says or he will claim they are not arguing against “God of the Bible” but “some other god”. And if they do completely agree with him they won't argue against it anyway. You've really built a cozy little house of crap for yourself there haven't you Troy?

old comment by A Friend

Again, SethMac2 is misrepresenting Step 3. Step 3 doesn’t say vaguely “if you don't agree with” someone, then “you aren't arguing against God of the Bible according to him.” This is an ad hominem attack that does not deal with the specifics of the Proof. Satan likes his vague unspecific accusation, doesn’t he? The Proof speaks for itself. The qualities of God of the Bible are laid out in Scripture, so if you are going to argue against some quality that is not His Own, then doesn’t that sound foolish? We are talking abou the Proof for God of the Bible, not the proof for some god. You’re actually having a one way conversation about some god, but he is certainly not God of the Bible as Christians agree about.
Is the quality of God of the Bible to have a possible evil motivation as suggested by SethMac2? No, of course not! How silly. Where do we find that in the Bible? We don’t. The same goes for his other lame misrepresentations. SethMac2 knows he is up to no good, but he doesn’t care anyway. He just wants to maintain his reviling against God of the Bible, his creator, even though he has no reason for doing so. Crazy stuff! That’s like a child always rejecting his or her parents. Now talk about a contradiction. SethMac2 says, “no one has ever disproved” the 4 Step Proof for God, which I agree, but then he says, “They would have to completely agree with it” to disprove it.” How can you disprove something you agree with? Why would you agree with something you think you disproved? That makes no sense at all. What is better understood is that if you want to attempt a disproof of the Proof for God, then for starters, don’t misrepresent the Proof itself (hence, Step 3), and don’t argue against some quality that Christians all know is not a quality presented in the Bible. I know SethMac2 has a low IQ, but God is no respecter persons, so no matter how low SethMac2’s IQ these kinds of mistakes ought not to be made. I would recommend that SethMac2 realize that he has, using his own words, “built a cozy little house of crap” and he is sinking head deep into it. The only one that can extricate him is Jesus. There is none other. The very One that he reviles is the only one that can save him. Crazy person that SethMac2! Look at his lies. He does nothing but. He said, “I quoted your full sentence in the quotes at the top of the postSo what is this bullshit that I was being sneaky quoting only part of a sentence to misrepresent you?” Look what SethMac2 is doing. He is playing dumb and aloof and trying to deflect. I already explained he only quoted part of the sentence in post #255095 to render a false conclusion by misreading the cut off sentence; then, belligerently he asks for the same information about his error without observing the answer already given in post #255095. How pathetic! Can he be more ignorant? I dare say, using his words, he is full of “bullshit”. SethMac2 is a joke.

old comment by Brian X

Troy:
It is not egotistical to say that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God cannot exist given what we currently know of the universe (it's actually a simple statistical analysis based on the required complexity of such a being combined with a basic knowledge of the laws of physics (i.e. no matter how fast the local speed of light, an omniscient god is impossible on the scale of the known universe unless c(local) is infinite). It may not even be egotistical for you to deny it in the face of arguments to the contrary, though it does make you remarkably obtuse to do so. What is egotistical is trumpeting that your own pet thread has reached over a thousand posts, when it has only done so because you've been responsible for nearly half of the content of the thread, most of which is repetitive filler. Realistically, without your constant spamming of this one thread, it would probably have topped out at 100, maybe 200 posts max like practically every other thread on this site. The only thing keeping this going is that for some reason people like to perversely taunt you. Troy, they aren't debating with you. They're all laughing at you. In order for your proof to be even remotely valid, we would be forced to accept either a grossly distorted picture of the universe similar to that of the ancient Hebrews or a concept of God that is decidedly less than that preached in the Bible and the Koran. I'm sure you would agree that neither solution would be an acceptable one because one would invalidate observed reality (but perhaps an Omphalos paradox?), while the other would invalidate all of the Abrahamic faiths (except possibly Unitarianism). And I also have no doubt that you'd fail to agree that I've pretty much got you dead to rights on that, because you don't strike me as the sort of person who actually listens when things are explained to you.

old comment by SethMac2

“I know SethMac2 has a low IQ, but God is no respecter persons, so no matter how low SethMac2’s IQ these kinds of mistakes ought not to be made.”
Look everybody! The adult man with the imaginary friend is making disparaging remarks about someone else's IQ! “I already explained he only quoted part of the sentence in post #255095 to render a false conclusion by misreading the cut off sentence;...” Are you an idiot? This is what I quoted from post #255095: “That's why Step 3 is so important, because if you are going to argue against God of the Bible, don't do so disingenuously by arguing about qualities that are not His Own.” That looks like a WHOLE sentence to me. Look! It even has the capital first letter and the period thingie on the end! ”...then, belligerently he asks for the same information about his error without observing the answer already given in post #255095.” I had two posts subsequent to Troy's #255095 (i.e. 255123 and 255129) and in neither did I ask for information. Troy's obsession with this site is beginning to addle his brain. Go play with your imaginary friend now little Troy. You've been spending too much time on the computer.

old comment by A Friend

Brian X,
The Islamic god can’t exist because it comes along 600+ years later saying Jesus didn’t die on the cross, but it has no evidence for such an idea. The Judaism god is also false, since Jesus fulfilled all the pertinent prophecies for the Messiah from the Old Testament perfectly, yet they still rejected Him. Distinguish between Judaism today and the God of Israel in ancient times. Given the basic laws of physics, we know nothing in nature happens all by itself so that nature can’t cause itself. The only other possibility is the uncaused is the cause. Jesus fulfills this requirement and since none can compare to Him, then He trumps all other claims of being the uncreated creator. Statistically, none can compare to Christ in all His attributes. Put anyone side by side, and He always trumps any contenders. Statistically, Jesus has to be God because no mere mortal could fulfill all those prophecies. It would be quite egotistical and irrational to look at the complexity of the universe, to conclude it is too complex for the uncreated creator to have created it. Since God would exceed all known measures of the universe due to Him being immense, eternal, uncreated, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, etc. you can’t then limit God by the speed of light in any way. That is way overassuming and takes a lot of pride to think so. As many that post, I’ll certainly respond because I am here to help people by giving them the truth of their mistaken assumptions and it helps people realize what is most important in Christianity which is Biblocality. It is the least I could considering the free gift of salvation has been given to me to share it with others. Most of those posts are repetitive, so my answer will be the same response to their repititions. It is my hope though some actually look at those responses and begin to move forward in the conversation instead of repeating themselves. Of course people are laughing at me. For someone who is just laughing at me, you sure are trying hard to fight off our Savior Jesus Christ. Does Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy make you laugh this much. I think there is more going here, don't you? They spat in Jesus’ face then they killed him. After they killed him, they killed the apostles. And so has it been all through the centuries. What does Jesus say about this? "Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you.” (Matt. 5.11,12). Did you hear what Jesus is saying? What you are doing to me now, it was always done before to those who were saved and even more so to the prophets for speaking the truth plainly as I do for you. You are actually setting me up to receive the reward of reigning with Christ during the 1000 years. You’re actually admitting something is peculiar here, but you’re not sure what it is. You said “for some reason people like to perversely taunt you,” but you are not cognizant of what it is. Don’t you know the reason? I am an authentic Christian, the real deal, and they and you can sense that. There is a jealousy going on, so they and you need to find a way to self-exalt yourselves above me. You can sense I have God’s life. Since you don’t want to repent, all you can do is ridicule. You can’t find anything wrong with the Proof for God, so you have run out of options. All you have is hysterical laughter with a crazy man’s laugh. Think of it as your laughter of insanity since you are going to hell. Since you could find no distortion of the ancient Hebrews, nor could you find any problem with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible matching perfectly the proof of Himself, then what do you have to cling to in your calling Jesus a liar? The god of the Koran does not meet the standard of the 4 Step Proof because he can not compare to Christ who enters into His creation to atone for sins. The god of the Koran was too selfish and impersonal to do that. Additionally, the god of the Koran fails because a Muslim will tell you they will never know for sure if their scheduled prayers each day are good enough to get into heaven. This is a works based faith. Through Christ we have the perfect free-gift of salvation that is not based on what we do for we are sinners, but is based on what God did for us. The observed reality is that since nothing in nature happens all by itself, then it can’t cause itself. And since there is an exponential progression in conscience, it would not take an eternity of the past of cause and effects to reach sinlessness. Since there are still sinners sinning such as yourself then you know the uncreated created. Deep down inside you know this. You’re not fooling anybody. You just don’t want to give up your selfish center for the center in Christ. Christians don’t believe in the Omphalos hypothesis, so you can disregard such silliness. Regarding Abrahamic faiths that is a contradiction. There is only one Abrahamic faith. To have various faiths call themselves Abrahamic yet contradict each other is certainly problematic. That is why there is only one Abrahamic faith, which is the faith of Israel of old and the faith of Christianity today. What is your problem? You have a warped sense of what Christianity is. You have some assumptions that cause you to think falsely. Check those false assumptions at the door. Christians are not unitarians. We Christians are trinitarians. We do not deny the universe is 13.7 billion years. We do accept that the first Adamic man made in God's image was created about 6000 years ago when God breathed in the breath of life to give him God-consciousness. The spirit made contact with the body to create the soul life. I have told the truth. Since you are still unsaved, you are the type of person who shuts their mind down when something is explained to you plainly. But you don't have to remain this way. By the power of the Holy Spirit this bad behavior pattern can be overcome.

old comment by CT

Jesus fulfilled all the pertinent prophecies for the Messiah from the Old Testament perfectly

Oh boy... Troy... you do know that the pertinent prophecies rule Jesus out? And no, I'm not going to list them... if you're such a brilliant person you should be able to find them and realise just how few prophecies Jesus truely fulfilled. Just to give you a little tip... the most pertinent prophecy is that Jesus would be from the House of David. Since the Bloodline is passed down through the Father, and since Jesus had no Earthly father, he was not of the house of David and couldn't be the Messiah... *cue the "but it was passed through Mary" apologetic...* Sorry, but the Bloodline was passed through Males only, as ordained by God. Unless Mary was Male, that argument fails. Thanks for trying to play Troy, but the Bible proves Jesus wasn't the Messiah. By the way... why is it worldly to go buy food? You do that, so you must be worldly too... :)

old comment by IB90

Step 1 - There is an exponential progression in our brain eating and moaning these past 6000 years, so that it won't take much longer to reach full zombiehood in the saved. That being the case obviously there would not have been an eternity of the past of cause and effects. Therefore, the only possibility is the uncreated zombie created.
Global humanity becomes infected; the saints rise from their graves. The unsaved are cordoned off into pens for rejecting God's grace and gift of salvation. There, their brains are eaten by the saved. Step 2 - Since nothing in nature happens all by itself and always has a cause, then nature could not have caused itself. Thus, the uncreated zombie created. Step 3 - Don't argue against just any god for we are talking about Sweet Zombie Jesus of the Bible. Just stay on topic. Step 4 - There can not be gods creating gods or supernatural events causing supernatural events in the eternity of the past, because they do not cause themselves. Therefore, the uncreated zombie created. No need to thank me, Troy. I made your proof better.

old comment by A Friend

Since IB90 is wrong in thinking there is an exponential progression of brain eating in society, because he has no evidence for it, then this is just his fantasy. He is just mocking his own faith of zombiehood. It is because his conscience is dead to God that he likes to eat human brains. I guess nobody is real excited to go for dinner at IB90’s home. He is a crazy one that IB90. Since brain eating seems to be only prevalent in his own household which he promotes and not a global occurrence, I think it best he not blame the world for his problem but deal with his condition that is mostly just his own. The reason why IB90 likes to eat human brains is because he says he worships some zombie that is uncreated, but we know this zombie he worships is not uncreated because a zombie is dead, not alive. God is alive, living, present and personal. Zombies are the walking dead, just like IB90 is like a walking dead person to reality. No need to thank me for this clarification, just take it into consideration so that it may help you. Praise the Lord!
I think we can all agree IB90 is a bad person because he likes to eat human beings; I hope he doesn't murder them first. He probably needs to go to jail for his crimes.

old comment by A Friend

CT,
I looked at your chart and it is all wrong since the chart should be increasingly higher exponentially than before the fall since today we do eat of the tree of life as typified by Christ, but Adam never did. As well, the flood in Noah’s day was only a local flood, and God said He would never do this again. Compare this to the global flood that took place in Gen. 1.2 when God made the whole earth desolate and waste due to the sin of the inhabitants in earth’s earliest ages. Today, the veil is rent. We can commune with God directly by the Holy Spirit when before man could only commune with God by going through the Levitical priesthood. Today, we are in the dispensation of grace, whereas before it was the dispensation of the law. Today, child sacrifices are no longer performed when it was quite prevalent in antiquity. The murder rate per capita has continued to go down. Deaths due to war are not up 70x since 1000 BC-population of 100 million. Women can vote now. There are more democracies. Polygamy and slavery are outlawed now when before they were quite common. Violent crime rate per capita in USA is down exponentially this past half century. Everything we see tells us of this exponential progression in conscience, so you might need to go back to the drawing board with your chart. I do appreciate the effort though. It shows you’re trying. Keep trying. Then, after the Great Tribulation is the 1000 year reign of Christ, though there still remains some hidden sin, but no more war, for the nations will no longer be deceived (Rev. 20.3). The will be the most peaceful 1000 year period humans have ever seen since the first Adamic man. Then after that, there is the new city and new earth in which there is no more death and no more sin. There will be no more need of the throne above because at that point God and the Lamb will be at the center of the new city on the new earth instead. This is where heaven and earth come together. New Jerusalem will have come down all the way to the new earth. The temple in Jerusalem in the old earth will be gone since earth will be burnt up at that point without the sea and the new earth continues on. I have said most of this many times, which you failed to respond to each time by shutting your mind down to it. Hope this helps you redraw the chart. Try a brighter color. Try not to be a Zombie for Satan. It makes you look bad. My prayers are with you for repentance to receive Jesus on the cross for your salvation, that if you believe in Him, you may be forgiven for all your sins and receive eternal life. Otherwise, you are going to hell. Since you can’t find any verses in the Bible that rule out Jesus, know this is just your fantasy. If you would like to see the 62 prophecies Jesus fulfilled which no man could accomplish all if he was mere mortal, please read here. Scientists have done studies on these probabilities to show the probability of a mere mortal achieving them all just as predicted is impossible. Bloodline is passed down by either male or female. Take for example Ruth. Ruth is a woman, and Jesus comes from her. Mary was also from the line of David. Joseph is also from the line of David, so Jesus is fully covered on both sides, even though Joseph did not actually conceive Jesus, and Mary did. We notice that Mary is a virgin. The record does not say Joseph begat Jesus. In the genealogy now before us we see that one generation follows another generation up to Joseph. Then the grammatical structure in the record changes: it reads, “Mary of whom was born Jesus.” Clearly paternity is set aside here and a new maternity is brought in. The four re-married women represent sinners because their condition changes from one of badness to goodness as a consequence of their remarriage. This is how their names came to be listed in the book of generations. Only through the virgin, however, is the child born who fulfills “the seed of the woman” promised in Genesis 3.15. In the ordinary way of recording, it is the father, not the mother, who begets the son. But here God causes woman to bring forth the Son. Otherwise, there will continue to be only the seed of men, there will never be “the seed of the woman.” “Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ” (v.16). There is a sudden grammatical change here in this entire book of the generations of Matthew. All which precedes reads that so-and-so begat so-and-so; also, all is paternal in succession. Yet here it fails to say, “Jacob begat Joseph, and Joseph begat Jesus who is called Christ”; it instead says, “Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” This is maternal in succession. What is indicated here is that Jesus had no relationship with Joseph according to the flesh. His relationship with Joseph only came from Mary. How carefully does the Holy Spirit write the Scriptures. There is not a single word misused. The record clearly testifies that our Lord was born of the virgin Mary. He was not an illegitimate child of Joseph as modern man thinks. His being born of Mary solves all skepticism. The Greek word for “beget” is gennao. It is primarily used of men, wherein it denotes the thought of begetting or causing to be born; it is far less frequently used of women, and in that context it conveys the idea of bringing forth or delivering into the world. Individually speaking, woman sinned first. Representively speaking, man represents sinners, while woman represents mankind. Had our Lord been the seed of man, He would automatically have become a sinner. Yet being “the seed of the woman,” He is a man but not a sinful man. The prophecy God gave to Jeconiah (Coniah) was this: “no more shall a man of his seed prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling in Judah” (Jer. 22.30). Joseph is a descendant of Jeconiah. Had Jesus been born of Joseph, He could not have sat on the throne and ruled. For this reason, the Lord Jesus could not have been born of Joseph, but must be born of Mary. He is the only Savior, the One born of God. This is the One whom we serve and worship. Matt. 1.1-17 How is this section related to the Lord Jesus as King? How is it connected with the theme of this book? In studying the Scriptures, we need first to find out the theme and then connect every section to the theme. What is the relationship between the list of the generations and Jesus as King? (Jesus is not only the King of the Jews but also the King of the Gentiles. He is to redeem as well as to rule.) In the list of the generations given, it especially makes a point of mentioning “David the king,” thus indicating that the seed of David is to be King. Though in chapter 2 we see Herod as king in Jerusalem, the wise men nonetheless asked those at Jerusalem, “Where is he that is born King of the Jews?” (v.2) For the list of the generations already tells us how Jesus is the descendant of the royal family. The Son of David is to be praised. So, CT, you would be wrong when you said, “he was not of the house of David”. He was of the house of David, just not in the way you thought because of your male-centric view. Christians are not male-centric like you, so you will have to uplevel. You didn’t say go buy food, you used the word “shopping” in a more commercial sense which is worldly. Satan is always trying confuse. Next time you actually mean buying food, just say that. Don’t tell people you are going shopping which is a more commercial meaning. Hope this helps.

old comment by A Friend

Zombies really are dead IB90, that is why they are called undead. Undead dead does not mean not dead. It means according to the dictionary no longer alive but animated by some evil force such as a vampire, but of course there is no evidence for vampires and such, but is just fantasy life. Did you read lots of fantasy books? Such fantasy books never make the claim of being true, but they’re just entertainment. Any person on the street could tell you this. Don’t take it so seriously. It’s just fantasy.
Why overlook the fact that you can’t find any evidence for brain eating on the rise? How can you think your idea is better when you don’t have an evidence for it and these are just fantasy things? That’s goofy. Compare this to God of the Bible. He is spirit, which means He is alive. That is, He is living and present in us. He is actively working to His good pleasure. He is personal and He is covered in Christ. Just know that after you die in the flesh, you don’t get another opportunity to be saved. That is it! You’ll be resurrected for hell. My prayers go out to you. Whatever you do, don't start a group called "Zombies for Satan". By the way, when you get to hell, don't think you will be able to send me a postcard or say, Hey look at me! When you are in hell, there will never be any way you could ever contact me nor could I ever contact you. You will be one of the forgotten.

old comment by Irratio

As sorry as I am to say this: You have failed to even understand my criticism of your proof, and are either incapable of understanding or unwilling to accept the number of logical flaws.
First of all, your claim to the growth of global conscience is not measurable, nor sensible. This alone makes your entire (il)logical chain pointless. Second thing: Deriving a specific god from the general idea. Nonsense. Third thing: Impossibility of infinite regression. As I already explained to you, it's possible. Fourth thing: Your assumption of the necessity of infinite regression, which leads us directly to: Fifth thing: Necessity of cause. If you assume the necessity of a cause for everything, I will grant you that it is reasonable to assume some uncaused thing. However, this uncaused thing is not defined by this attribute. In other words, no necessity of a christian god is given. Your argument fails on so many other levels, but you haven't even given coherent answers to these problems.

old comment by A Friend

Irratio,
I am glad you couldn’t point out any logical flaws or any valid criticisms. Thank you for your testimony. Since the various examples and data given for the increase in global conscience is good evidence, measured and sensible, and you couldn’t show otherwise, it stands. Jesus is not derived from a general idea, but by a specific 4 Step Proof; by comparison we see that none can compare to Him. He fulfills the condition of being uncreated and also the condition that none can compare to Him in His attributes. He was the only one resurrected before copycats came along (their’s was fake and not well documented anyway). He actually said He is God, as would be required, and walked the walk and talked the talk. He gave His life to wash away your sins and give eternal life through THE resurrection. Since you couldn’t show any infinite regression in the past and Step 1 and Step 4 show it can’t be possible, then you have nothing still. You have misrepresented, since I have no “assumption of the necessity of infinite regression”. Quite the contrary. While you say “it is reasonable to assume some uncaused thing,” I would have to disagree, because I don’t think you should just mindlessly assume. We know God is uncaused because nothing in nature happens all by itself and due to the exponential progression in conscience it would not require an eternity of the past to be without sin, yet man still sins. The reason why the God of Christians is your God too even though you call Jesus a liar is because none can compare to Christ in His attributes. He wins! So He said, if you are not for Him, you’re against Him, and hell awaits you. I have said the same thing over and over in response, which you couldn’t find fault with, so why not respond to what I said instead of avoiding these truths of your mistaken assumptions. It is incoherent I feel to just shut your mind down to these things and repeat yourself like a clanging bell. It’s time to wake up! I have an interesting point. There are only two approaches of those who pronounce themselves unsaved. To say it happened all by itself or to say it has always been happening. In either case, it is an impersonal existence, for if it has always been happening or happened all by itself with no meaningful purpose. That's why when you talk to an atheist/agnostic/satanist, they always come across so belligerent and obstinate, because they don't know how to be human by walking faith in Christ. If it happened all by itself without any reason, it is mindless. If it has always been happening this is also mindless. And that is just what you you find in the atheist/agnostic/satanist lifestyle is mindless sinful ugly people, kinda like walking zombies. Call them Zombies for Satan. The reason why Satan needs this is because that is how he controls them by their shutting their minds down. You find this no more apparent than here, because instead of responding to the evidence given, they repeat themselves like a zombie. And they do this all for the purpose of independency and disobedience to God so they can remain in their sin nature. They are very bad people! To prove the point that this thread is mostly the unsaved driving it, know that I find talking to non-believers very boring because they are such dullards. By that indication know that my flesh doesn't even want to be here to help you. But even still, I do find joy in the Lord doing God's will by giving those unsaved the truth of their mistaken assumptions. You see over 600 posts by those who are unsaved with their belligerency, not wanting to accept the truth.

old comment by A Friend

Brian X,
A computer programmer can hack into His computer program going against the laws set up in the computer program to perform what may seem like a miracle to those units in the system. Why can’t God do the same thing in His creation? You also have to take into account the fact, you don’t know all the laws of math and science and physics, for there is a great many things man does not know. God may be appearing to circumvent some law, but it is really just your limited perspective. Another problem you have is science can’t prove itself. Since Step 2 shows God does not come from nature and there is not an eternity of the past of cause and effects as revealed by Step 1, we only have one possibility. He does not even come from any possible chain of supernatural cause and effects as shown in Step 4, then there is only one possibility. That only possibility is He is uncreated and He comes from nowhere because He always existed. There is just the Trinity. It is hard to get your brain around because you are thinking with the flesh-your sin nature and self. But if you could just come out of self for moment, only by being made a new creation by God, you could see that it is the only explanation. However, God put in you God-consciousness, so you do know He exists to receive Christ to then be saved; and become aware as it were! Since you can’t find anyone bigger than God of the Bible, I am glad you give glory to God even if only unwittingly. Your pride says it all: “your God is too small for my universe”. You aim here to self-exalt yourself above your Creator but don’t have even a single issue with God of the Bible because you haven’t shown any. You were never saved, since you misrepresent what salvation is. Salvation is forever and can’t be lost or given up. You said, “As for being saved, I was at one time.” I saved this quote here because it was a good one of the lie you have held in your heart. Salvation is a choice for forever! It is not a choice for maybe not tomorrow. How do we know salvation is a proven law of God? Simple. We all know we were born into sin because not a single soul has never not sinned. That’s strong evidence. Only Jesus in the likeness of flesh never sinned because He is uncreated God. We discover too just by observation that sin leads to death. Does it lead to annihilation of the soul or does this death in the body extend to a second death for eternal separation from God? How can we be sure? Well, Jesus said He is God and Uncreated. He spoke of hell as a real place to be resurrected to if you are not saved and forgiven for your sins by God because of rejecting Him. Since you can’t resolve your own sin nature as it will crop up again and again because you were born into sin then know that the perfect sacrifice is the only possibility that fits to atone for sins. Since all sin needs to be punished then unless you have the ransom paid, you will die in your sins and be resurrected for the second death. Only your Creator can provide such a ransom. Only His love and grace is strong enough to fix this problem. Only the computer programmer who knows the code can fix it. He creates a computer game. He enters His computer game as a player character and atones for the sins of the other player characters that fell from grace. Why doesn’t God annihilate you at death? Because you are intrinsic value to Him! You’re not some instrumental value tool! You are made in His image, and His image can never cease to exist. Why did Jesus speak on hell more than anyone else? Because it is a real place that you will be in consciously forever if you are not saved. Talk about playing with fire! So your mistaken assumption is false: “I realized the concept didn't mean anything in terms of anything that can be observed and proven. Again, not a concept I'd expect you to acknowledge.” What I gave you is the meaning, how it is observed and proven to you. How can I acknowledge your mistaken assumptions except to say they are wrong? I would be going against my clear conscience otherwise.

old comment by Brian X

I'm sorry, Troy, no punting to "he's God, he can do whatever he wants". Special pleading, "God of the Gaps", we don't accept that.
As for whether or not I was saved... I'm sorry, was that a false Scotsman you just brought in here for that answer? I do believe it was. You have neither the right nor the knowledge to tell me what I was or was not, especially inasmuch as you can't even tell the difference with a woman with an androgynous nick and a gay man. As for the programmer being able to change the game, the programmer is still limited to the instruction set and hardware capabilities of the platform, which essentially negates your attempt at a counterpoint. Even God has to be subject to rules, or God cannot exist. Trying to break the rules just on God's behalf is not an acceptable response.

old comment by A Friend

Brian X,
Since God is uncreated as proven in the 4 Step Proof, and you could find nothing wrong with this finding, then it stands to reason there simply will be some things the Almighty won't disclose to you. You'll just have to get use to it. Just like a newborn baby can't understand math, because the ability is not there, so do you not have the ability to know some things of God. There is indeed a gap because God is uncreated and you are not. This takes humility which I know you don't have because you refuse to receive salvation from God. So, there is no special pleading for it flows. But you are special pleading because you deny this finding which flows when you don’t have a reason for doing so. I never said, "Godcan do whatever he wants" as though without conscience. So why bear false witness? God does all He does according to His righteousness and holiness. This is not whatever He wants, but rather, always the right choice! By the way, Antony Flew who invented the No True Scotsman is no longer an atheist. Since what I said does not fall into the No True Scotsman fallacy, and you couldn’t show it, your accusation is considered of no account. So, it still remains a fact that once-saved-always-saved, and since you did not stay saved, then you were never really saved. You were what the Bible terms the “tares” trying to look like the saved wheat. Try to keep up! Matthew 13 is clear about this. If a woman calls herself Morpheus, she is lying about her gender. If this is a man who admits he has a boyfriend, then he is a fag. There is no two ways about it. This fact really has no bearing on you never being saved. The Bible teaches once-saved-always-saved. Every Christian I know teaches once-saved-always-saved, so you are really outgunned by truth. Jesus taught once-saved-always-saved. You lose! Yes, Jesus is limited by His creation design paramaters; that is why when He entered into creation, He emptied Himself of His independent attributes to be in the likeness of flesh. Since He is uncreated, who are you to say what that limit is or is not? You lack adequate information to make a determination what God can or can’t do. But Christians know better. What you can do is, is since the Bible is in perfect harmony over 1500 years by 40 writers (with no contradictions), you can observe the boundaries He places in His working or thereabouts. God is not breaking any rules He implements.

old comment by A Friend

Why is that statement about religions so confusing to you? This is what Christians believe.
If the 4 Step Proof is decimated why can't you reproduce any fault? The reason, therefore, Hypnotoad, those unsaved such as yourself resort to cheapshots is because you're frustrated you can't find anything wrong with the Proof for God. Since it is clear nothing in nature can happen all by itself and must always have a cause, then the only possibility is that which is uncaused is the cause. Not just anything must be without cause, but that which is the cause of nature Whom would be the Godhead of the Bible, because none can compare to Christ as you well know. You're confusing human consciousness with our conscience. Don't you know the difference? Though we just got here we are derived from the past. We did not just pop-in like puff the magic dragon. If there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, due to the exponential progression of conscience you would not still be sinning by now. So you know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effects, but you were created. Don't accuse of plagiarizing when you can't prove your accusation. That's called sinning bearing false witness. Don't be such a bad guy. The 4 Step Proof is not trying to prove some god, for we are talking about God of the Bible. Why is that so hard to understand? Step 3 constantly comes up. I have already given up to Christ, as you cling desperately to your flesh which is hostile to the Spirit of God. May you one day receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior. This is my prayer for you.

old comment by CT

Bloodline is passed down by either male or female. Take for example Ruth. Ruth is a woman, and Jesus comes from her. Mary was also from the line of David. Joseph is also from the line of David, so Jesus is fully covered on both sides, even though Joseph did not actually conceive Jesus, and Mary did.

In the Bible, it states very clearly that the Bloodline is passed down by males only...

The prophecy God gave to Jeconiah (Coniah) was this: “no more shall a man of his seed prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling in Judah” (Jer. 22.30). Joseph is a descendant of Jeconiah. Had Jesus been born of Joseph, He could not have sat on the throne and ruled. For this reason, the Lord Jesus could not have been born of Joseph, but must be born of Mary. He is the only Savior, the One born of God. This is the One whom we serve and worship.

Have you ever looked closely at the lovely geneologies given in the NT? You should try it some time... for instance:

Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, 14Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Eliud, 15Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, 16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

That's from Matthew... note how Jeconiah is in there... note also the names of the children afterwards and the wording. That is very clearly the lineage of Joseph.

23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel

That's from Luke... again, note the wording and the names... it is, once more, clearly a listing of Josephs lineage. Attempting to rewrite the Bible so that one of them is Mary's lineage is doomed to failure from the start... and I predicted you'd try that. People have tried to do what you've just tried to do for decades, and all have failed... including you. No matter which way you look at it, no matter what you try to claim the Bible really says, the fact is that there is no bloodline link between Jesus and David... hence Jesus was unable to be the Messiah. Yes Troy... Christianity is based on a lie... a lie the Bible itself exposes. Oh, did you know that Paul advises people avoid using geneologies? Seems the word from God is that people will use them to bolster the falsehood that is their Messianic claim....

old comment by A Friend

CT,
Jesus could not be born of Joseph because of that verse as a consequence of grave sin. But this does not circumvent being born of Mary to keep the most spectacular prophecy fulfilled. Bloodline is either male or female, but for purposes of ruling on the throne which is only given to men, this was denied along the male bloodline. So you are mistaken bloodline is only male. If it was not so, you would not be born of your mother. Hence, Jesus was born of Mary and along the line of David, but not along the line of David on the male side. If you ask me, that's kinda cool how that worked out! You are too proud. You don't realize all your issues are false and have already been handled by scholars. Why not consider the answers they give instead of misreading? You think you got a new angle. Not at all! In all the times you have posted and were always wrong, what makes you think you will be right this time? It's not likely. Reading the Bible with a dead spirit is vain. Upon comparing these two books of the generations, we find a most puzzling point: Matthew 1.16 states that “Jacob begat Joseph”; but Luke 3.23 reads: “Joseph, the son of Heli.” By reading the verses preceding that of Matthew 1.16 and the verses succeeding that of Luke 3.23, we come to know that Jacob and Heli were two different persons, not one person with two names. If that be the case, will not this give Joseph (nominal father of the Lord Jesus) two fathers? Yet it is impossible for one person to have two biological fathers. How, then, can this seeming discrepancy be reconciled? We know that after David the lines of succession given in Matthew and Luke differ: Luke records forty-two names while Matthew records only twenty-seven. Unbelieving commentators would naturally conclude that one of the two must be wrong. They deem error to be inevitable here because of the extensive number of years covered by the genealogy plus the same names shared by people. But is this really an error? If so, the enemies of faith in the early centuries would have certainly noticed it. These critics were mostly people of great learning, and skillful in critique. Yet they did not find these records to be erroneous, neither did they even cast any doubt on them. We can assume, then, that the records given by both Matthew and Luke must be highly accurate. The Jews, too, can be cited as a witness, for they would have doubtless voiced their own objections had there been any discrepancy between these two records. Since they offered no criticism of these two genealogies, this fact sufficiently proves that they accounted them to be truthful. (What we see here is the fact that contemporary people could have much more easily detected any error in these genealogical records than can today’s critics, yet the contemporaries said nothing against these records.) Here, then, are two different explanations which can be offered to resolve the problem: (a) Some regard Joseph as the actual son of Jacob, but he was also the son of Heli according to law, that is, as an heir. According to the custom of the Jewish people, if one died without having a son, his brother would marry the widow, and the first son born would succeed in the name of the deceased. According to this explanation, therefore, it can be assumed that Heli died without a son, so his brother Jacob married the widow and begat Joseph. With the result that Joseph was a son born of Jacob’s flesh but was also the legal son of Heli. So that this is why the Scripture says in Matthew, “Jacob begat Joseph,” and in Luke, “Joseph, the son of Heli.” Even so, we cannot prove the brother relationship between Jacob and Heli. (b) The second explanation, therefore, is seen to be more satisfactory. Some believe that Matthew in his Gospel gave the genealogy of Joseph, while Luke in his Gospel gave that of Mary. Since, according to this explanation, Joseph was a half son to Heli, he was deemed to be the son of Heli. We know without any doubt that the Lord Jesus was not really the biological son of Joseph, and thus He could not possibly be the Son of David unless there was clear evidence that Mary herself was a descendant of David. Otherwise, the Lord Jesus would not be related to David in the flesh. Who can deny that the Holy Spirit moved Luke to demonstrate that Mary came from David? Accordingly, He having come from Mary, the Lord Jesus was related in the flesh to David indeed. And hence, Jesus was called the Son of David and the heir of God’s promise to David. Isn’t that wonderful CT? Rejoice! For this is the truth. This is the answer you seek. I know this may seem too complicated to you, but it is not too complicated for God and I can understand it too. Each and every time you call the Bible lie (i.e., calling Jesus a liar since Jesus fully approved) based on a misreading, it causes you to look worse and worse. Know something. Each person’s hell is going to be different when they enter hell. Don’t make it worse for you than it already is. What does Paul say about genealogies? “Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies” (1 Tim. 1.4). Note he says “endless,” that is, carrying it too far and obsessing over it. You’re obsessing over it. You should repent. Since the explanation has been given and has been known every century since it happened, the reasonable explanation stands, so why continue to obsess over it with accusation when you don’t have a basis for your argument at all? A person is left with the thought Satan is the great accuser; he accuses day and night, but he is always wrong just as you are always wrong. Remember, your misreading doesn’t count for squat. It just makes you look bad that you resort to misreading.

old comment by A Friend

CT,
The chart of the exponential progression in conscience of the increase in global conscience is not based on increase of sin as you said, so you would be wrong. It is based on our observation sin is decreasing. Why think otherwise? You couldn't find any examples for your assumed belief, and you could find no problems with the examples and the data that I gave you. Why not respond to the answer I already gave in post #255515 to your chart? Well, here is the answer again. Don't blame me for posting it again if you failed to respond the first time. You know you are shutting your mind down. Don’t be a Zombie for Satan. That’s not healthy. Post #255515 - I looked at your chart and it is all wrong since the chart should be increasingly higher exponentially than before the fall since today we do eat of the tree of life as typified by Christ, but Adam never did. As well, the flood in Noah’s day was only a local flood, and God said He would never do this again. Compare this to the global flood that took place in Gen. 1.2 when God made the whole earth desolate and waste due to the sin of the inhabitants in earth’s earliest ages. Today, the veil is rent. We can commune with God directly by the Holy Spirit when before man could only commune with God by going through the Levitical priesthood. Today, we are in the dispensation of grace, whereas before it was the dispensation of the law. Today, child sacrifices are no longer performed when it was quite prevalent in antiquity. The murder rate per capita has continued to go down. Deaths due to war are not up 70x since 1000 BC-population of 100 million. Women can vote now. There are more democracies. Polygamy and slavery are outlawed now when before they were quite common. Violent crime rate per capita in USA is down exponentially this past half century. Everything we see tells us of this exponential progression in conscience, so you might need to go back to the drawing board with your chart. I do appreciate the effort though. It shows you’re trying. Keep trying. Then, after the Great Tribulation is the 1000 year reign of Christ, though there still remains some hidden sin, but no more war, for the nations will no longer be deceived (Rev. 20.3). The will be the most peaceful 1000 year period humans have ever seen since the first Adamic man. Then after that, there is the new city and new earth in which there is no more death and no more sin. There will be no more need of the throne above because at that point God and the Lamb will be at the center of the new city on the new earth instead. This is where heaven and earth come together. New Jerusalem will have come down all the way to the new earth. The temple in Jerusalem in the old earth will be gone since earth will be burnt up at that point without the sea and the new earth continues on. The Bible does not say sin will increase but will decrease as was shown. You could not show otherwise. Where did the Bible say Noah’s flood covered the whole world? They only had in experiential knowledge of their own local world. They had no idea of all the world beyond what they could experience so this was their world. You are putting words in their mouths. It helps if you try to be less selfish by putting yourself in their shoes and in those times. Hope this helps you.

old comment by CT

The chart of the exponential progression in conscience of the increase in global conscience is not based on increase of sin as you said, so you would be wrong. It is based on our observation sin is decreasing.

Don't read very well, do you? The Graphs are representations of what the Bible claims about Sin and what that means for any claim based on the amount of Sin. Since the Bible claims that Sin increased to the point of the Flood, then was wiped almost completely from the World, before increasing again... and continuing to increase all the way to the End Times when it will be at it's highest amount, where God will end all life as we know it (hence why it is called the Afterlife) and Sin will be removed as people partake of the Afterlife, my Graphs show accurately what the Bible is claiming. Now, since your argument is based on Less Sin = More Conscience, your claim that the Global Conscience is increasing is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the Bible. Claiming that the Bible says that which it does not is in direct violation of God's Law... that His Word is not to be altered in any way. Trying to claim that the Bible says what it doesn't, and that it doesn't say what it does, is a pitiful attempt to alter Gods Word... In closing, since your Data is in opposition to the Bible, we can only assume that either the Data or the Bible is in error... Any claims made that BOTH are correct is shown to be false. You claim both are correct, therefore you are in error... since you cannot admit that the Bible is incorrect, then you must admit that the Data is incorrect... but since you base your "proof" on the Data, if the Data is incorrect, your Proof must be incorrect. Thus, you must reject the possibility of the Data being incorrect, so you must admit the Bible is incorrect. You have forced yourself into a contradictory loop where one must be incorrect but you cannot accept that either could be incorrect...

Where did the Bible say Noah’s flood covered the whole world? They only had in experiential knowledge of their own local world. They had no idea of all the world beyond what they could experience so this was their world. You are putting words in their mouths. It helps if you try to be less selfish by putting yourself in their shoes and in those times.

Please try reading Genesis... it states clearly that the WHOLE WORLD was flooded and that only Noah and his family survived. That is Gods Word... that is what God said! (Gen 6:17... it's God talking to Noah) When you try to say it was just a local flood, you are altering the Bible and putting words in Gods mouth. Seriously... you are trying to say that you know better than God!

The Bible does not say sin will increase but will decrease as was shown. You could not show otherwise.

Please read Revelations... it states that Sin will increase until Jesus returns. If you are ignorant of the Bible, as your latest posts show, how can you ever claim that your proof shows the GotB is real? Please, go read the Bible before trying to claim what it says... it will stop you making a fool of yourself. *waits for the "you misread my posts, therefor you are a fool and a bad person* type insult*

old comment by A Friend

CT,
Since the Bible doesn’t agree with your chart about sin, your idea is false. Since the local flood in Noah’s day wiped out the people of that region where the flood hit, this does not show an increase of sin compared to Gen. 1.2 when God wiped out the whole earth due to the sin of the inhabitants of earth’s earliest ages. Your scope is too narrow. Since the time frames I have shown are longer than yours, yours are too small a sample size. The Bible doesn’t say anywhere “God will end all life as we know it”. Why misreading the Bible? Since the Bible does not say sin will increase, but there certainly will be buildup to the Great Tribulation, we can trust in God’s design where we see the exponential progression in conscience from the dispensation of the law to grace to the kingdom. That’s what the Bible says. Don’t just pick pockets of increase in sin to suit your fancy and rationalize your idea. If a greater time frame shows something, you will have to let go of your small sample size. Since you still can’t find a verse where the Bible is referring the whole world other than the local world that was known, you are misreading the Bible. There is no reason for you to think the people of this local region ever thought there were other areas of the world other than that which they were familiar with which they considered to be the earth. Gen. 6.17 is their understanding of what they thought earth was. They had no idea all the other areas of the planet existed. So God spoke to them according to their understanding. Hence, you’re misreading the Bible. That is always your approach to misread the Scriptures. The majority of scholars hold this view because it suits the perspective of ancient peoples and their understanding at the time. Sin in the dispensation of grace was less than the sin in the dispensation of the law. What Jesus is saying is that things will build up to the Great Tribulation, but then the 1000 years reign comes when there is no more war. You are arguing for sin increasing in a shorter time frame than I am looking at so the time frame I give you supersedes your small sample size. And even though conscience increases in the dispensation of grace too, there is also a cataclysmic event that lasts only 7 years (similar to WWI & WWII that only lasted a short while), so your sample size is just too small. The exponential progression in conscience remains steadfast. Try not to have too narrow a focus by your petty self. It makes you look silly. The Bible agrees with all those various examples I gave you of an exponential progression of conscience. To shut your mind down to the evidence of the Bible and the examples, plus data, given, tells us your are a Zombie for Satan. You might want to get the t-shirt.

old comment by CT

Gen. 1.2 when God wiped out the whole earth due to the sin of the inhabitants of earth’s earliest ages.

That is speculation... not held up by the Bible and requires the addition of great amounts of extra data not shown or implied by the Bible...
Do not add to God's Word, for to do so is a deadly Sin. (Duet)

The Bible doesn’t say anywhere “God will end all life as we know it”. Why misreading the Bible?

I don't say that either... nor do I claim the Bible says that. You are misreading what I put, or just plain lying about what I say/claim. Why do you do this?

Since the Bible does not say sin will increase, but there certainly will be buildup to the Great Tribulation, we can trust in God’s design where we see the exponential progression in conscience from the dispensation of the law to grace to the kingdom. That’s what the Bible says.

*ahem* Since the Bible states that Sin was increasing until it covered all below the Heavens, just before the Flood... and since the Bible states that Sin NEVER decreases from then until Armageddon, your belief that Sin will decrease is against God's Word.

Don’t just pick pockets of increase in sin to suit your fancy and rationalize your idea. If a greater time frame shows something, you will have to let go of your small sample size.

Since there is no evidence for there being anything between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, other than an apologetic used to explain why Gen 1 and Gen 2 contradict each other, (yes, that's where your "earliest ages" come from... someone who added to the Bible to correct a mistake in the Bible) any sample that relies on such speculation is trumped by what is known... And what is known is that, according to the Bible, Sin increases unless God takes action against it. In addition, should that Earliest Ages be true, all it would do is add a 3rd curve/peak/catastrophic drop-off in the sin/time graph... it STILL shows your graph and argument to be wrong.

Gen. 6.17 is their understanding of what they thought earth was. They had no idea all the other areas of the planet existed. So God spoke to them according to their understanding. Hence, you’re misreading the Bible. That is always your approach to misread the Scriptures. The majority of scholars hold this view because it suits the perspective of ancient peoples and their understanding at the time.

Really? So you know better what God meant that the people who were there, than the people who were inspired by God to write it down, and better than all those who believe the Bible? The majority of Scholars that you use to back up your claim are the same people who believe the Bible is repleat with errors... are you going to take their misreadings (since it must be misreading to find errors in the Bible, as you've pointed out to us on many occasions) over those who believe the Bible to be correct? You are arrogant in that... and you are adding to the Bible to make your claim work. Thus far, you use past data to support your argument that sin is decreasing NOW... yet argue that it is increasing. Just because it will be removed after armageddon doesn't mean that it's decreasing now. Future Data is inadmissible when refering to the present. By using Data from the Future to prove that future will happen is circular logic and falsifies your argument. Again, while trying to defend your proof you have proven it false.

The Bible agrees with all those various examples I gave you of an exponential progression of conscience.

No... the Bible disagree, since it's clear on how the amount increased, went back down, increased again and will keep on increasing until God finally ends it... That is nothing like a exponential progression... what it is, is a VARIABLE progression. How can you base anything off the Bible when you don't even know what it says??

old comment by A Friend

CT,
The Bible makes it plain in Gen. 1.2 that God made the earth desolate and waste in Gen. 1.2. Scientists today feel something similar happened before, not just once but possibly many times. The Bible even recounts this fact several times in the Bible. You’re just misreading the Bible, again. You said, “God will end all life as we know it”. The Bible never said that. Why misread the Bible? How else is one to take your words plainly? Why do you lie when you said, “You are misreading what I put, or just plain lying about what I say/claim”? Since you don’t show any alternative view of what you said, then you are lying. Since sin increased in the period just prior to the flood and this period is not a long period, your sample size is too small. The Bible tells us there is improvement for man can now go directly to God because the veil is rent in the dispensation of grace whence before he could not under the law in the Old Testament. The Gentiles are given the Gospel too. So this is an improvement. The Bible is saying, thus, in no uncertain terms there is an improvement in conscience. And the various examples and data we have covered show it as well. You’re still wrong. I have never seen right ever. I can’t wait for the 1000 years millennial peace. That is yet another improvement. Why does this offend you to misconstrue this fact? Gen. 1.1 tells us God created perfectly. Verse 2 tells us He had to make it desolate and waste, not for no reason at all. Through various Scriptures we know the reason is because of the sin of the inhabitants of earth’s earliest ages. Scientists agree, earth has very early ages and there were creatures and beings on earth then. The exponentially curve in conscience continues from then to today. And your chart is totally wrong, for there is not all of a sudden a dramatic change in a day when you drop the line on the chart. How silly. God works in long transitions. Do you see how you misread? God often speaks to people according to their understanding. How silly it will be if God speaks to people in a format that is beyond their comprehension. The scholars I am referring find no problems in the Bible. Why does that upset you? Skeptical scholars make their arguments against the Bible certainly, but each and every time they are shown wrong. Show even one time they are right. You can’t, no on any subject regarding God’s Word and the 4 Step Proof for God. You have tried to alter the Word of God in your heart by misreading it. That is disingenuous. You should repent. The reason you make these mistakes is because you are overassuming and arrogant. You know not what you do. The buildup of sin is in the latter days for a short period. During the dispensation of grace itself there is an exponential improvement in conscience and the Bible agrees with this because there is an improvement over the dispensation of the law. It was time for Jesus to come onto the scene because man was ready to listen, however few that would be. The OT talks about child sacrifices, but no child sacrifices exist today. Your problem is you take small sample sizes to form your argument, but the periods we are talking about are greater in scope. Why overlook this fact? This was mentioned several times already, but each time you shut your mind down. Wake up! 7 years or even a couple of hundred years is not the determining factor. You got to look at the big picture. Since the Bible doesn’t agree with you, Scholars don’t agree with you, Jesus does not agree with you, I don’t agree with you, my brothers and sisters in Christ don’t agree with you; and I showed you how you misread, why not then repent and give your life to Christ? Don’t be so selfish and clinging to your flesh. Otherwise, you are going to hell.

old comment by A Friend

Hypnotoad,
What consciousness raising thing? Nothing about that in the Proof. It is not strictly a cosmological argument as you assumed, for we are dealing with the matter of sin and conscience as well. How is it plagiarizing that God's Proof of Himself is for all and has always been known? It's just put in 4 easy steps for ease of understanding. Why does that offend you? You can't find anything wrong with the Proof. I love that! Step 3 doesn't say some gods can't be considered. Rather it says, if you are going to argue agains some quality of some god, how are you actually addressing the qualties of God of the Bible? Don't make this mistake by, for example, misreading the Bible on some point. All 4 steps involve comparing Jesus to anyone who may also make the claim of being uncreated. Jesus always trumps others as you will notice if you specifically compare. You will have to deal specifically with anyone who you might think is the uncreated. We know Jesus said He is God and uncreated. So who would you like to put up against Jesus in comparison?

old comment by Brian X

Maybe I'm invoking No True Scotsman here myself, but to me it seems unlikely that an atheist (at least one who arrived at that position by thinking rather than emotional response (i.e. "anger at God")) could ever become a Christian fundamentalist without some sort of mental illness or negative conditioning being involved. The fideist standpoint seems much more likely for an atheist getting religion.
Now I know Jerry Falwell claimed his father was an atheist, and I wonder how true that was. As for Madalyn Murray O'Hair's son becoming a minister, I suspect there may have been a fair amount of rebellion involved; after all, I've never really heard a positive portrait of O'Hair's personality, and almost all I've heard of her makes her sound like a terrible zealot. And I suspect that most Christian fundamentalists who claim they were once "atheists" more likely never gave much thought to faith (or really anything else) at all until they started going to Church.

old comment by A Friend

lastoff,
You asked why you should worship Jesus? This was the first time you asked me, for before you were talking about some jesus, a false Christ. I am glad to see you finally corrected yourself. You should worship God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit because the Trinity created you. And God wants to walk with you and desires after your worship of Him. He wants to walk with His creation. If you don't worship God, you will have no communication with Him, because it is through worship that God's grace is bestowed and revelation is given. If you don't have a heart of reverence for God, you won't be susceptible to hearing His voice.

old comment by CT

The Bible makes it plain in Gen. 1.2 that God made the earth desolate and waste in Gen. 1.2.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Please provide the verses that mention these earlier ages... you know, the ones where God created all the stuff, then noticed the sin, then wiped it all out... Considering Sin didn't enter the World until the Tree incident, you're assuming things happened that contradict the Bible. (and adds a heck of a lot to the Bible... a Deadly Sin according to God)

You said, “God will end all life as we know it”. The Bible never said that. Why misread the Bible? How else is one to take your words plainly? Why do you lie when you said, “You are misreading what I put, or just plain lying about what I say/claim”? Since you don’t show any alternative view of what you said, then you are lying.

I see... if I summarise your words into a short non-quote, it's lying... but when you do it, it's the Truth and any correction from me is lying. Fact is Troy, I NEVER claimed the Bible said that. YOU are LYING when you claim I said that. The rest of your garbage has been debunked already... just because you can't understand things doesn't mean it's wrong. In closing, you're having to claim things that show the Bible to be wrong, while you claim it isn't. If you ever realise just how much you contradict yourself, I'll be surprised.

old comment by A Friend

lastoff,
Since cheese is created, why worship a created thing? You may want to worship it because you are hungry, but that is no reason to worship it, for who is the giver of cheese? Did it create you? No. God is uncreated and He created you. Nothing is greater than Him. Worship Him because He wants communion with you to fellowship with you, to grow your spirit in His life to reach perfection, so He can walk with you as you become more like Him. He is like a Teacher wanting to have deep conversation with His prodigee. He wants you to advance spiritually so He can have great and joyous relationship with you out of the glory of Him. God totally proved Himself He said: "The message God delivered through angels has always proved true" (Heb. 2.2). If you would only watch the movie The Perfect Stranger, you could get a sense for this. Why don't you just do what I instruct, for I have never told you a lie. If you follow my instructions you will see that I am pointing you to Christ who created you, and all is well in Him. He is the answer to the deepest questions you will ever have. Fight no longer, but give up and give into your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

old comment by A Friend

CT,
Once this sinks in, we can move onto proving the inhabitants of earth's earliest ages. Let me know when you reached that point. The general concept among Christians regarding the first chapter of Genesis is that the very first verse is a kind of general introduction or premise, and that the works which are done in the six days to follow explain it. In other words, they take the words “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” as the subject of Chapter 1. The writer of Genesis, so they speculate, outlines what he intends to say in the first sentence and then proceeds to explain it in detail. Having mentioned when God created the heavens and the earth, he then continues by telling what condition the earth is in and how God day after day creates light, air, earth, plants, animals, and so forth. Such is the popular view as to how Genesis 1 narrates the creation story and how the universe was created out of waste and void. Yet those who study carefully the first chapter of sacred Scripture deem this interpretation to be erroneous. Due to this erroneous interpretation and not due to the Bible’s narration itself, a great controversy has arisen between the church and the world. Many young people, for example, doubt the accuracy of the Bible when they learn of such “discrepancy” in the face of particular geological evidences. In the original Hebrew, this initial verse of the first chapter of Genesis contains seven words which carry within themselves a sense of independence. These divinely revealed words do not say that in the beginning God “formed” or “made” the world out of certain raw materials. No, the heavens and the earth were created. This word “created” is “bara” in the original. So that in the beginning God bara the heavens and the earth. This word “bara” is used three more times in Genesis 1 and 2: (1st) “And God created [bara] the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that moveth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind” (1.21) (2nd) “And God created [bara] man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (1.27) and (3rd) “And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created [bara] and made” (2.3). To “create” is to “call the things that are not, as though they were” (Rom. 4.17). These sea-monsters and living things not only had physical bodies but also had an animated life within them. They therefore required a direct creative act of God. Thus it is only reasonable that the Scriptures should use the word “created” rather than the word “made” in these passages. In similar manner, though man’s body was formed out of the dust of the ground, his soul and spirit could not be made out of any physical material, and hence the Bible declared that “God created man in his own image.” In the first two chapters of Genesis three different words are used for the act of creation: (1) “bara”calling into being without the aid of pre-existing material. This we have already touched upon; (2) “asah”which is quite different from “bara,” since the latter denotes the idea of creating without any material whereas “asah” signifies the making, fashioning, or preparing out of existing material. For instance, a carpenter can make a chair, but he cannot create one. The works of the Six Days in Genesis are mainly of the order of “asah”; (3) “yatsar”which means to shape or mold as a potter does with clay. This word is used in Genesis 2.7 as follows: “And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground.” Interestingly, Isaiah 43.7 illustrates the meaning and connection of all three of these words: “every one that is called by my name, and whom I have created for my glory, whom I have formed, yea, whom I have made.” “Created” signifies a calling into being out of nothing; “formed” denotes a fashioning into appointed form; and “made” means a preparing out of pre-existing material. The words “In the beginning” reinforce the thought of God creating the heavens and the earth out of nothing. There is really no need to theorize; since God has so spoken, let men simply believe. How absurd for finite minds to search out the works of God which He performed at the beginning! “By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God” (Heb. 11.3). Who can answer God’s challenge to Job concerning creation (see Job 38)? “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This heaven is not the firmament immediately surrounding the earth; rather, it points to the heaven where the stars are. It has not undergone any change since it was created, but the earth is no longer the same. To understand the first chapter of Genesis, it is of utmost importance that we distinguish the “earth” mentioned in verse 1 from the “earth” spoken of in verse 2. For the condition of the earth referred to in verse 2 is not what God had created originally. Now we know that “God is not a God of confusion” (1 Cor. 14.33). And hence when it states that in the beginning God created the earth, what He created was therefore perfect. So that the waste and void of the earth spoken of in verse 2 was not the original condition of the earth as God first created it. Would God ever create an earth whose primeval condition would be waste and void? A true understanding of this verse will solve the apparent problem. “Thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the God that formed the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah; and there is none else” (Is. 45.18). How clear God’s word is. The word “waste” here is “tohu” in Hebrew, which signifies “desolation” or “that which is desolate.” It says here that the earth which God created was not a waste. Why then does Genesis 1.2 state that “the earth was waste”? This may be easily resolved. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1.1). At that time, the earth which God had created was not a waste; but later on, in passing through a great catastrophe, the earth did become waste and void. So that all which is mentioned from verse 3 onward does not refer to the original creation but to the restoration of the earth. God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning; but He subsequently used the Six Days to remake the earth habitable. Genesis 1.1 was the original world; Genesis 1.3 onward is our present world; while Genesis 1.2 describes the desolate condition which was the earth’s during the transitional period following its original creation and before our present world. Such an interpretation cannot only be arrived at on the basis of Isaiah 45.18, it can also be supported on the basis of other evidences. The conjunctive word “and” in verse 2 can also be translated as “but”: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but the earth was waste and void.” G. H. Pember, in his book Earth’s Earliest Ages, wrote that the “and” according to Hebrew usageas well as that of most other languagesproves that the first verse is not a compendium of what follows, but a statement of the first event in the record. For if it were a mere summary, the second verse would be the actual commencement of the history, and certainly would not begin with a copulative. A good illustration of this may be found in the fifth chapter of Genesis (Gen. 5.1). There the opening words, “This is the book of the generations of Adam,” are a compendium of the chapter, and, consequently, the next sentence begins without a copulative. We have, therefore, in the second verse of Genesis no first detail of a general statement in the preceding sentence, but the record of an altogether distinct and subsequent event, which did not affect the sidereal [starry] heaven, but only the earth and its immediate surroundings. And what that event was we must now endeavour to discover.* * G. H. Pember, Earth's Earliest Ages, New Edition, edited with additions by G. H. Lang (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1975), p. 31. (The original work of Pember, under the same title, was initially published in 1876 by Hodder and Stoughton. Later editions were issued by Pickering and Inglis and the Fleming H. Revell Co.) Over a hundred years ago, Dr. Chalmers pointed out that the words “the earth was waste” might equally be translated “the earth became waste.” Dr. I. M. Haldeman, G. H. Pember, and others showed that the Hebrew word for “was” here has been translated “became” in Genesis 19.26: “His wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.” If this same Hebrew word can be translated in 19.26 as “became,” why can it not be translated as “became” in 1.2? Furthermore, the word “became” in 2.7 (“and man became a living soul”) is the same word as is found in Genesis 1.2. So that it is not at all arbitrary for anyone to translate “was” as “became” here: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, [but] the earth became waste and void.” The earth which God created originally was not waste, it only later became waste. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1.1) and “in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is” (Ex. 20.11). Comparing these two verses, we can readily see that the world in Genesis 1.1 was quite different from the world that came after Genesis 1.3. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. In the Six Days God made the heaven and earth and sea. Who can measure the distance that exists between “created” and “made”? The one is a calling into being things out of nothing, the other is a working on something already there. Man can make but cannot create; God can create as well as make. Hence Genesis records that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but later on the earth had become waste and void due to a tremendous catastrophe, after which God commenced to remake the heaven, earth and sea and all the creatures in them. 2 Peter 3.5-7 expresses the same thought as well: the heavens and the earth in verse 5 are the original heavens and earth referred to in Genesis 1.1; the earth mentioned in verse 6 that was overflowed with water and which perished is the earth covered with water which became waste and void as mentioned in Genesis 1.2; and the heavens and the earth that now are as spoken of in verse 7 are the restored heavens and earth after Genesis 1.3. Hence the works of God during the Six Days are quite different from His creative work done in the beginning. The more we study Genesis 1, the more we are convinced that the above is the true interpretation. In the first day, God commanded light to shine forth. Before this first day, the earth had already been existing, but it was now buried in water, dwelt in darkness, and was waste and void. On the third day, God did not create the earth. He merely commanded it to come out of water. F. W. Grant has stated that “the six days’ work merely sets the earth into a new program; it does not create it out of nothing.” On the first day, God did not create light, He instead commanded light to shine out of darkness. The light was already there. Neither did God create heaven on the second day. The heaven here is not the starry heaven but the atmospheric heaven, that which surrounds the earth. Where, then, did all these come from if they were not created during the Six Days? The one answer is that they were created at the time of the first verse of Genesis 1. So that subsequently, there was no need to create but simply to remake. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Note that there is no detailed description here. We therefore do not know whether the original heaven and earth were created instantaneously or through many ages. Was it done in thousands of years or in millions of years? In what shape and how large? We only know that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. Neither do we know how many years elapsed between the time of the first verse and that of the second verse of Genesis 1. We do not know when God created the heavens and the earth, nor do we know how long was the period after the original creation that the desolation described in verse 2 occurred. But we do believe that the original, perfect creation must have passed through many many years before it became waste and void. Such a long period would be enough to cover the so-called pre-historic age. All the years which geology demands and all the so-called geologic periods which it distributes among those years can fall into this time frame. We do not know how long the earth underwent change nor how many changes there were before it became waste and void because the Scriptures do not tell us these things. Yet we can affirm that the Bible never states that the age of the earth is but six thousand years in length. It merely shows that the history of man is approximately six thousand years old. By understanding the first two verses of Scripture, we can recognize that there is no contradiction between the Bible and geology. The attack of geologists against the Bible is merely beating the air. How marvelous is the word of God. We do not present this interpretation in order to pacify science. For the revelation of God never yields to man’s reasoning. We will not forsake the authority of God’s word in order to make compromise with the conclusions of men. Nor do we intend to attempt to reconcile science with the Bible (for contradiction is to be expected since “the mind of the flesh is enmity against God”Rom. 8.7). For such an interpretation as we have presented here was put forward even in the early church, long before geology had become a discipline of science. What a Christian believes is not the wisdom of men but the word of God. Aside from the rock of the Bible, we need no other ground on which to stand. As long as the Scriptures declare it, that is deemed final to us. How lamentable it is that many so-called defenders of the faith too readily give ground and alter the Scriptures so as to reconcile them with human theories. An example of this is given by A. W. Pink, who noted that after the translation of a certain Assyrian tablet, people such as mentioned above enthusiastically reported that the Old Testament history was now being verified by that tablet. This is really turning things upside down. Does the word of God need any verification? Let us clearly understand that if the record on the Assyrian tablet coincides with that of the Bible, it only shows that the tablet has no historical error. And if they do not agree, it merely proves that the tablet is erroneous. In a similar way, if the teaching of science agrees with the Bible, the latter verifies the truth of science. But in case they do not agree, the Scriptures attest to the falsehood of science’s hypothesis. Natural man will of course laugh at our logic, yet this scornful attitude in itself ironically substantiates what the word of God declares when it states that “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged” (1 Cor. 2.14)! Let us therefore not compromise our dignity in order to agree with the world. Let us not alter the Bible to suit the taste of men. How marvelous is the first chapter of Genesis! One verse is used to proclaim the original creation, a single verse is called upon to pronounce the ruin of the world, and less than thirty verses are utilized to promulgate the remaking of the world! Who else in the universe could write a chapter comparable to Genesis 1? So difficult a topic, yet so clearly stated. So long a history, but so simply put. It is plainly not science, and yet it is scientifically accurate. If it was not written by God, then who was it who could write such a chapter? The reason why God does not say more is because He will reveal to men only that which pertains to men’s relationship with Him. As one Biblical scholar has observed: The revelation from God is not a history by Him of all that He has done, but what has been given to man for his profit, the truth as to what he has to say to. Its object is to communicate to man all that regards his own relationship with God. But historically the revelation is partial. It communicates what is for the conscience and spiritual affections of man. Thus no mention is made of any heavenly beings.Thus also, as regards this earth, except the fact of its creation, nothing is said of it beyond what relates to the present form of it.* * J. N. Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible (Kingston-on-Thames: Stow Hill Bible and Truth Depot, 1948), I:7-8. Indeed, what God has revealed is not for the sake of gratifying the curiosity of men, but for the purpose of expressing His divine character, the sinful nature of man, the way of salvation, and the future glory and punishment. How dangerous is worldly knowledge, for men out of their self-conceit will attack God with their limited knowledge. How difficult for the intellectual man to be humble! Men always seek after knowledge, but God is unwilling to enhance such pursuit with His revelation. Consequently, He says very little here about creation. What we now need is not more science but deeper spirituality which will last on into eternity. Let us praise God our Father for He is so merciful. He not only created us but also remakes us, that we may be a new creation in Christ. How sweet is the name of the Lord Jesus! What grace it is that God has given His Son to us!

old comment by Doom

Where is it documented a unicorn is ever real?

Here, using these papers in my hand. You can see them if you would like.

The color pink has a cause; it didn't happen all by itself.

All colors are the result of the way we perceive light reflecting surfaces. However, I fail to see how the invisible unicorn's pink nature being a debate topic.

Where are the eyewitness testimonies like that of the disciples?

Right here, in these papers that I have.

Admittedly, a unicorn would be a created creature which makes no claim of being uncreated in lore.

The invisible pink unicorn insists that it was not created, and that it has always existed. Who am I to question the invisible pink unicorn?

old comment by A Friend

Mr. Smith calls Jesus a liar. Those who are not in jail are better than those in jail for their crimes. Those in jail need to accept in humility they are worse, for that is why they are in jail. We are all treated equally in God's eyes, but a person who chooses to be worse is worse. No way around it. To call Jesus a liar when having no reason for doing so is worse. You're not better Mr. Smith for this, but you are worse. Hell is for you. You are a bad person and you know it. Just be honest with yourself. You belong in hell. This is God's jail for you for eternity! This is a slippery slope you go down when you want to be considered as good as those who are saved when you sit in your sin and call Jesus a liar and then still can't find anything wrong with the Proof for God. Crazy stuff!

old comment by A Friend

Doom,
Sure let's see your papers. We have over 5000 parchments of the Bible from antiquity, many in papryus. What do you have? The earliest known preserved one one is about 70 years after Jesus died. This is unprecedented in antiquity. The earliest known parchment for th Iliad is over 1000 years after the events. Since pink has natural properties with a cause, and your pink unicorn is pink, being of nature, then you worship that which is natural and created, not the uncreated. How can you still fail to see the unicorn's pink nature being a debate topic? You just shut your mind down for Satan like a zombie after it was already explained to you. That's why I repeated myself and you didn't respond to it accordingly. You seem to be the only one that has your magical papers, but the Bible papers were over 1500 years supported by 66 books by 40 writers in a religio-historical context in which the Messih is prophesied for a longer period of time to enter into His creation to atone for sins and replace the temporary sacrifices; the law was given to show no man can keep it. Your unicorn has no depth. You lose by comparison. Nobody knows anything about your mysterious disciples because you keep your mystery papers concealed so only you know about them. Funny. Sounds really evil and deceptive. Since pink is a created color by the perceptions of ours which are caused, and a unicorn is a horse of type which has natural causes, it was introduced in fantasy writings, then your pink unicorn contradicts itself when you claim it says it was uncreated. How easy it is to show lame attempts. The difference between you and the saved is we would feel embarrassed to use such lame reasoning. You don't feel embarrassed because your spirit is dead to God and your conscience is as dull as a board. Do you feel and sense the heat of hell yet oh so near to you? I think it would be a good testimony for folks if you would describe what this foretaste of hell is like for you to help lead them to Christ, since you are much further along on you way to hell.

old comment by A Friend

AEGPM,
Numbers 23.22: "God has brought them out of Egypt; he is like a strong ox for them" (NLT). "God brought them out of Egypt; they have the strength of a wild ox. " (NIV). "God brings them out of Egypt; He has strength like a wild ox" (NKJV). "God brings them out of Egypt and is for them like the horns of the wild ox" (ESV). "God brings them out of Egypt, He is for them like the horns of the wild ox" (NASB). "God brings them out of Egypt; they have as it were the horns of the wild ox" (RSV). "God bringeth them forth out of Egypt; He hath as it were the strength of the wild-ox" (ASV). "God brings them forth out of Mitzrayim; He has as it were the strength of the wild-ox" (HNV). "Deus eduxit eum de Aegypto cuius fortitudo similis est rinocerotis" (Vulgate). Whether a rhinocerous-type or ox, nothing about a pink unicorn, nor being invisible. So why misread the Bible? Where are there documented archaelogical findings for pink unicorns? None right, because you claim it is invisible, but have no evidence for the invisible as we have for God. KJV reads unicorn which is based on later documents, but not in the sense you use it. Strong's says, "probably the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct." To escape egypt is earthly so the Bible talks of these oxes as earthly, not invisible. All an unsaved person has is misreadings and bearing false witness and false accusation and going to hell. How sad.

old comment by A Friend

Jerubbaal,
Praise the Lord, after all this time, you are the first person in this thread, who actually considered watching the movie. Know how belligerent and mindless the unsaved person is who has been encouraged to watch this movie to be saved, bu they don't. They shut their minds down like a zombies for Satan. This shows you the character of an unsaved person. They just don't care and are going to hell! If you would like the password, because this is an underground movie, and deeply spiritual, please request the password at Biblocality Forums and I will give it to you personally as long as you promise not to post it at the fstdt cult. What is even more exciting is there are two sequals since this one. The reason you have requested this movie's password is because you have compared the belligerency and mindlessness of the postings of the unsaved here, and you don't want to be like them. If you are saved already, this is a great tool to help lead people to Christ. If you are unsaved, you wonder if there is an authority that has a power to change you not to be like the belligerent atheists and agnostics or from other false religions.

old comment by Doom

Oh Troy, ye of little faith.
My scanner refuses to work, so I shall have to transcribe the text manually! Oh, the pains I go through. This is known as The Book of the Prophet April. These words have been whispered into my ear by the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

1. Verily am I blessed among women, for I have had revealed unto me the Truthful Doctrine of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Peace Be Unto Her). 2. And this was the manner of it. For I was wandering and confused upon the beaches of Assateague, when I was approached by a small and shaggy pony, which did attempt to eat the apple which I was holding. "Away," I cried. "Foul beast, would you steal the apple which is mine?" 3. Then did the pony look down upon me, and spake: "Child, do you not know me?" 4. And I said, "Verily, it is not my habit to consort with local wildlife." 5. And the pony spake thus: "Quit it with the 'verily' bit, OK? Know, then, you ignorant heathen, that you are in the Presence of the One you have sought, but never found." 6. And lo! the shaggy pony disappeared, and I felt myself to be in the Presence. And indeed was the Presence pink, and shaped like unto a unicorn. Yet such was the overwhelming nature of the Presence that I could not, in truth, look upon it. 7. For indeed, my friends, it is for this reason that the great Pink Unicorn is called Invisible, and that is, that the Presence is too great for our small eyes to truly see, and too awesome for our small minds to comprehend. It is by our faith alone that we know her to be Pink, and a Unicorn. 8. And truly those who say otherwise are heretics and unbelievers, and shall be cast into the Great Manure Pile where her Sacred Dwarves shall indeed nibble on their kneecaps for all eternity. And serve them right. 9. Yet when I felt myself to be in the Presence I was afraid. And I cast myself face down in the sand and begged, "O Galloping Goddess, forgive me that I did not know you, and do not send me forth to eat lunch with your ancient foe, the Purple Oyster of Doom. For he will force me to eat pizza with pepperoni and mushrooms, and I shall be most afflicted." 10. And Her Pinkness proclaimed, "Do not be afraid, my servant, for you have been misled by the false prophets who quote Chapters and Verses of books which do not exist. And yet I have also revealed to them the Eternal Truth, and indeed have they mangled it." 11. "And furthermore shall you know that it is fitting that I be celebrated by prophets who do not exist, in verses that do not exist, for books that do not exist. For my own existence is of a dubious and contradictory nature, and I like it that way." 12. Then was I much confused, whereat I asked, "Then how, O You Whose Hooves Are Never Shod, shall I know how to behave myself, if even Your holy books are not to be believed?" 13. And thus spoke She Who Is Pink, and said, "That is what I shall tell you, for I shall reveal to you the Truth, if you will just shut up and listen. And verily, get your face outta the sand."

Every word as transcribed here is the truth, though the Invisible Pink Unicorn did not remember how to spell Assateague, so I had to look it up to save her time. She was recalling these words from when April spoke them to her, so I could write them down again in complete truth and accuracy. After reading this, how can you have any doubt? Has it not changed your life? The Invisible Pink Unicorn must be real. She must be invisible because we can not see her. She must be pink because we must have faith that she is pink. Is this not the ultimate proof? You had better start believing now, before the Purple Oyster tricks you...

old comment by AEGPM

Where are there documented archaelogical findings for pink unicorns? None right, because you claim it is invisible, but have no evidence for the invisible as we have for God.

Fine. I just thought I'd play by your rules and beat you at your own biblical game, but if you want to invoke 'lack of evidence', you're opening up a whole can of worms for yourself. Regarding your first step: Where is the proof for this? It seems to just be an unfounded statement with no grounds in reality or measurable quantity. (And how do you measure collective consciousness anyway?) Step 2: How can you say that everything must have a cause, except for god? This is another statement with no proof. Why can't this label apply to the Universe itself, or to some titan that created god? You just label god as 'causeless' arbitrarily, and think that it in any way lends credence to your 'proof' (if we can even call it that). I can just as easily say that the Universe came into existance without a cause; without evidence, we're just throwing hypotheses at each other, but at least mine complies to Occam's Razor. Step 3: Why is your proof in any way limitted to the biblical god? Even if your logic did make sense and didn't just dance circles around itself, you'd just be proven a god. The proof itself could apply to any god if you hadn't just arbitrarily tacked 'given Christ' onto the end of several sentences. What does that even mean anyway? The way you worded it makes it sound like you assume Jesus to be true as part of your given information, a claim which is backed up by your favourite kind of evidence: None. Of course, if you do assume Jesus to be the son of god without anything to back it up, it must be pretty easy to prove that god exists, eh? Step 4: Um ... why not? This is again a blanket statement unfounded in fact. If you say that god exists and that his ways are mysterious and incomprehensible by human laws and logic (as you undoubtedly will say in response to my response to your Step 2) then why do you make the assumption that supernatural cannot beget supernatural? If the supernatural's ways are truly incomprehensible, why do you make blatant assumptions about it based in human logic? Stop making logical conclusions you tell other people not to make, it really shoots holes in your struggling theory. Now go ahead and refute me, as I'm sure you will. Make sure to use a bunch of circular logic and unfounded claims because I haven't had a good laugh yet today. Edit: PRAISE APRIL I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT! *converts to the church of the IPU*

old comment by A Friend

Doom,
O ye of no faith! You are trying to do the same thing Joseph Smith of the Mormons did who also rejected Jesus Christ. He said there were these documents he found that nobody could find, then he lost them, and put them on gold plates, but he just made it up. Moreover, those who said they saw the gold plates, most of them rejected mormonism sometime after because of Smith's deceptiveness. Oh the pains you and Joseph Smith went through. You did it to yourselves. Selfish! The disciples remained in Christ. The Bible doesn't suffer your problem because of the multiple attestation. While you and Smith, like Agent Smith in the Matrix, claim you have something, nobody else can verify it and corroborate it. It is just your cultic mind hard at work. Your book of April and book of Mormon are not too different than the Koran, by Mohammed who also made up his book in a cave all by himself calling Jesus a liar 600 years later. Smith came 1800 years later. You come 2000 years later. You are all liars going to hell. Your choice. The disciples went to their death on the testimony for seeing Jesus resurrected. They would not go to their death knowing they are lying. Since scholars have no alternative explanation, it must be true. The Bible wins because it is 40 writers across 40 years in complete agreement and has a religio-historical context and multiple attestation of eyewitness accounts of Jesus resurrected. 12 different group settings. Since the disciples didn't believe Jesus would be resurrected, they were transformed into bold believers by His resurrection. Even his brother James didn't believe Jesus was God until He saw Him resurrected. Paul was an outsider skeptic who has great promise in Judaism, but gave it all up for Christ. Since your revelations from your pink Unicorn are self-induced or demonically instilled, they are of no account. If you are not just flat out lying to people then you are hallucinationg; yet, you can't find any multiple testimony then your hallucination is your's only. Hallucinations are not in groups, but individually experienced. They have no objective reference, just self-centeredness. While you worship that which says just believe without proof, God does not say this, so God trumps your god. Thank God for the 4 Step Proof. You're filled with self-declarations without evidence. You said, "The Invisible Pink Unicorn must be real. She must be invisible because we can not see her. She must be pink because we must have faith that she is pink." God does not say He must be real or must be invisible because you can't see Him. He does not say you must have faith because he has a natural color. How silly. Do you see how on all accounts your god fails to compare to Christ? Don't you feel embarrased? Surely you must have at least a tinge of conscience left to be able to feel a little bit of embarrassment.

old comment by Doom

God does not say He must be real or must be invisible because you can't see Him. He does not say you must have faith because he has a natural color. How silly. Do you see how on all accounts your god fails to compare to Christ?

Wow. Just ... wow. You totally don't get it. I can't believe that you don't get it.
Troy, your mind really has shut down. Had it been alive and thinking, you would have realized the parallels between the Invisible Pink Unicorn and your god. You would have realized that the attributes given to it are impossible, and are of the same kind that others give to your god. You would have realized that I was poking immense fun at the nature of your beliefs. But not only did you completely fail to understand this, you went the entire opposite direction, attempting to debunk the IPU by claiming the righteous and unverifiable defenses in your bible. Turn your mind back on, Troy. Maybe you'll realize what you look like to the rest of the world... Oh yeah, one last thing. A few pages ago, or maybe in another one of the threads, you claimed that there were many Christians that accepted the wording of your 4 steps. I would like to be linked to the posts where they have done so, either on your forums or otherwise, so that I may read their thoughts for myself, rather than take them from your statements alone. I have no doubt that you will refuse to do so. You will state that it is not needed, and/or that all Christians accept the proof, or some other nonsense to excuse yourself from the exercise. That isn't good enough. If all Christians truly accepted your proof, would there not be statements from many of them saying so? I desire very much to see such posts. I assert, with complete confidence, that there is not a single Christian that has ever accepted the wording of your proof as an additional reason to believe in their god. I dare you to prove me wrong, and cite any and all examples contrary to my statement. And if you are unwilling or unable to do so, I ask you why? Why would you be unwilling to demonstrate that your perfect proof is accepted by those that should accept it? Is that not truly what you are seeking here?

old comment by A Friend

AEGPM,
You have to play by the rules of logic if you want to play at all. Since the Bible has no problem with evidence, you're just going to expose your own can of worns again and again! Regarding Step 1, right off the bat, you misread it. You said, "collective consciousness". We are not talking about collective consciousness, but conscience. Don't you know the difference? Misreading doesn't count. I don't say everything must have a cause except for god. That is why Step 4 says if there are gods creating gods then they have causes, except that given the exponential progression in conscience this is not possible, because you would not still be sinning, having been derived from the eternity of past of cause and effects if true. You can't say the universe happened all by itself, because nothing in nature is seen to be without a cause. The odds are are against you more than a trillion to one because there are more than a trillion examples of causes and effects. Not even one example of puff the magic dragon. You don't abide in occam's razor, because you have assumptions that are proven false while I have no assumptions. You assume nature could happen all by itself despite the evidence given above. You assume Step 1 is about collective consciousness when it is not. You lose. Don't you know these mistakes have been made by others many many times in this thread? Regarding Step 3, you also misread, for it is not about some biblical god. What bible? What god, you don't say. Since this Proof is about God of the Bible, then don't argue against some god, for then you would be arguing to disprove some god, but not God of the Bible. Once we realize you can't find anything wrong with God of the Bible, you can indeed compare others to Jesus, but one by one you find they don't stand up to Christ, so Jesus trumps them all always. Since you can't find any that compare to Christ, you lose. God is not some thing, but He shows His mind throughout the Scriptures. He is very personal. Jesus said He was the Son of God, not a son of a god like you said. So you are violating Step 3. You are arguing against a false Jesus, because you said this false Jesus is a son of some god. Step 3 says you are not actually then trying to disprove God of the Bible. Pure logic is a difficult thing to come by with those who have not been regenerated by the Holy Spirit because their minds remain unrenewed. Step 4 does not assume supernatural can't beget supernatural. It proves it. Because of the exponential progression in conscience, you would not still be sinning by now. We would not need an eternity of the past of cause and effects, nor does a chain of cause and effects in the supernatural able to start itself up. Hence, there could not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects in supernatural. Even if there was, it can't cause itself. Hence the uncreated creator created since no other possibility exists. Your misreading does not constitute logic. Nor does it find an assumption I made. I did not make a single assumption. This far exceeds occam's razor. It is not circular logic. It is pure logic. Your logic is overassuming, so it is false. April is a month, not the uncreated creator. How silly. The Word of God shows Himself to be uncreated. IPU is your cult alone, not shared by others. God of the Bible has at least 2 billion souls who at least say they are Christians. You lose. You always lose. And you are always wrong. That is why hell exists for you. When you get to hell you will finally realize you truly belong there.

old comment by A Friend

Doom,
You showed not even one comparison of your pink unicorn to God of the Bible. That's what I did in my last post was to show you all your attempts failed, misrpresented and were boring. You totally failed to realize this as shown by your last post. Since you can't find anything wrong with the Bible, and I showed you many things wrong with your book of April, you lose. The world hates Christians, so I already know what we look like. Jesus said how we are treated by those in the world going to hell, do not worry, because He was treated worse. You guys killed Him because you were jealous and you revile your Creator. Just be satisfied enough that you can't find one Christian who finds a problem with the 4 Step Proof for God. I am not an advertising agency of collecting names for you of Christians. To this day, you still can't find one Christian who disagrees with the Proof. I have the same experience as you. I still can't find a single Christian who disagrees with the Proof for God. That is why the Bible says, "The message God delivered through the angels has always proved true" (Heb. 2.2). Because the Proof for God never fails! The 4 Step Proof I give you is in the Bible itself and all Christians I know agree completely with God's Word. I am not going to name the millions of Christians that agree, nor even one other name, for it is obvious we all agree. The Proof for God is not some "additional reason" you thought, but it is THE reason. All Christians receive Christ by the Proof of God. That is why we have faith in God. You have faith blindly. That is what makes us different than you. We are not overassumers. Praise the Lord! You will be in hell soon enough, don't be so impatient. You don't have to do extra work to get there. You already have a foretaste of hell.

old comment by AEGPM

Regarding Step 1, right off the bat, you misread it. Youd said, "collective consciousness". We are not talking about collective consciousness, but conscience. Don't you know the difference? Misreading doesn't count.

My mistake. I made a written typo when I was saying it out loud. The question I posed still stands if you substitute 'conscience'. How did you measure it? Where are you getting these statistics? And how can you say you aren't just pulling this from nowhere?

I don't say everything must have a cause except for god. That is why Step 4 says if ther are gods creating gods then they have causes, except that given the exponential progression in conscience this is not possible, because you would not still be sinning, having been derived from the eternity of past of cause and effects if true.

So you're saying that you proved the Universe is not infinite because of a faulty and factless claim you made in the first step? Congratulations: Right answer; wrong reason. We already know the Universe had a beginning, but for actual reasons, not made-up ones.

You can't say the universe happened all by itself, because nothing in nature is seen to be without a cause. The odds are are against you more than a trillion to one because there are more than a trillion examples of causes and effects. Not even one excample of puff the magic dragon.

You ignore the fact that when cosmologists follow the history of the Universe backwards, all of our current mathematical constants and physical standards start to not apply and crumble once we hit one Planck time after the Big Bang. The Universe was behaving very differently at that infinitesimal time at the beginning, and what's to say it didn't create itself.

You don't abide in occam's razor, because you have assumptions that are proven false while I have no assumptions. You assume nature could happen all by itself despite the evidence given above.

I'm not going to say you're wrong here for restating your point. I'll give you a chance to respond before saying you're wrong. :-)

You assume Step 1 is about collective consciousness when it is not.

I'd like to reiterate that my argument still applies despite my brief mental hiccup. Don't sidestep the question.

You lose. Don't you know these mistakes have been made by others many many times in this thread?

Now you're getting petty and it's starting to anger me. Please refrain from childish comments like 'You lose.' They very much prove that you are ill-versed in the art of logical debate.

Regarding Step 3, you also misread, for it is not about some biblical god. What bible? What god, you don't say. Since this Proof is about whether God of the Bible is God, then don't argue against some god, for then you would be arguing to disprove some god, but not God of the Bible.

Put away your inferiority complex and answer the question. You know I meant that, and just because I didn't capitalize it doesn't change that. Stop expect an atheist to comply to your ridiculous rules, and stop sidestepping my points.

Once we realize you can't find anything wrong with God of the Bible, you can indeed compare others to Jesus, but one by one you find they don't stand up to Christ, so Jesus trumps them all always. Since you can't find any that compare to Christ, you lose.

That's really not what I said at all. I said that one of your original 'facts' appears to be that Jesus was the son of god (If you say 'ZOMG NO CAPITALIZATION!' I will lose it ...)

Jesus said He was the Son of God, not a son of a god like you said. So you are violating Step 3. You are arguing against a false Jesus, because you said this false Jesus is a son of some god. Step 3 says you are not actually then trying to disprove God of the Bible.

I'm reiterating here that even though I didn't capitalize it, I'm still referring to the biblical god. (And how did you not realize that 'biblical god' was the same 'god of the bible'? I know you're not that thick, so you must've deliberately circumvented having to answer that point entirely. C'mon man, just answer my questions and stop being so defensive and petty.)

Pure logic is a difficult thing to come by with those who have not been regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

Is there really any point to saying this here, or are you just reassuring yourself that you must be right?

Step 4 does not assume supernatural can't beget supernatural. It proves it. Because of the exponential progression in conscience, you would not still be sinning by now. Hence, there could not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects in supernatural. Even if there was, it can't cause itself. Hence the uncreated creator created since no other possibility exists.

Reiterating that you still have yet to prove this conscience through measurable empirical data. I'm not going to insult you by restating any other points I've already made though.

Your misreading does not constitute logic. Nor does it find an assumption I made and I didn't assume.

Then I'd like you to cite your sources for all of the 'information' you have.

It is not circular logic. It is pure logic. Your logic is overassuming, so it is false.

Stop talking to yourself and address me please. :p (Okay, that was uncalled for, but you really didn't address where any of your alleged 'assumptions' were actually 'facts' or 'products of logic'.)(And what assumptions did I make by the way?)

April is a month, not the uncreated creator.

1) My fried April would beg to differ. 2) Silly goose. The unicorn is the creator. April was only the gospel from whence the passage came.

How silly. IPU is your cult alone, not shared by others. God of the Bible has at least 2 billion souls who at least say they are Christians.

This is what we like to call an argumentum ad populum.

You lose. You always lose. And you are always wrong.

Mature, aren't we?

That is why hell exists for you.

Consider your audience, man. Do you really think this kind of statement would have any impact on an atheist? If I were a Christian, it wouldn't apply to me, but I'd believe it, so no matter what, it was just completely useless to say this. You must've known that, so you obviously must be trying to reassure yourself, which conjures up a rather comical image of somebody sitting in a corner in a fetal position rocking back and forth proclaiming 'I'm right. They're all wrong. They're going to hell, but not me. No, not Troy, because I'm right!' So ... have at.

old comment by Doom

Just be satisfied enough that you can't find one Christian who finds a problem with the 4 Step Proof for God.

Wow, what a way to intentionally misunderstand and twist my words. I will rephrase so you can not weasel out of it.
I assert that no Christian has ever said they agree with your 4 steps. Not one, not ever. I dare you to disprove that statement. Provide links. Provide sources. Failure to do so indicates that my statement is correct, and you have never encountered a single Christian that agrees with your 4 steps. I am asking for this in the context of the 4 steps, and only the 4 steps. I am not asking this in the context of what you believe your 4 steps prove. I am not asking this in the context of your god, or your bible. This is only about your 4 steps, nothing else. Stay on topic. Provide links to posts from Christians stating that they believe your 4 steps to be correct, or a proof of the Christian god, or some other similarly faith-reinforcing statement. Do it. I am confident that you will refuse.

old comment by A Friend

AEGPM,
What does AEGPM stand for you to you? I was thinking maybe you would be afraid to admit what it really stands for. The various examples and data of evidence for the exponential progression in conscience have already been given many times. Why don't you look at them to consider them? You couldn't find anything wrong with Step 1 based on what you know so far. The universe did have a beginning, but Step 2 shows us it couldn't happen all by itself. There is nothing that starts to be causeless as you go back in time in the universe. Nobody has every shown that. Many different things happen earlier on, but that doesn't change the fact that cause and effect remain true. Get rid of your doubletongue, for you said, "I'm not going to say you're wrong. I'll give you a chance to respond before saying you're wrong". So then don't make this mistake of overassuming, "because of a faulty and factless claim you made in the first step". And you said, "I'd like to reiterate that my argument still applies". Yet you had no evidence for your reiteration, you overlooked the evidences given for Step 1, so you are in a heap of mess unless you repent. Many times have people made your same mistake in this thread, but you respond "Now you're getting petty and it's starting to anger me". No. You are being petty in self that clings to narrow mindedness of not looking to the answer already given over and over. You're angry because you cling to an idea that is a lie. You really do lose; to say so is not childish, but you are being childish. You really are going to hell. So on the contrary, what you said, "They very much prove that you are ill-versed in the art of logical debate" is really your own condition. Why be a false accuser? You said, "Put away your inferiority complex". I don't have an inferiority complex. I have eternal life, nothing is better. You have hell, nothing is worse. Your ego is so big it can't avoid going to hell and cover up your inferiority complex. Don’t be jealous of us Christian, but enter into the body of Christ by the grace of God. Since the Bible does not de-capitalize God for God of the Bible, then you would be misreading the Bible in your arguments, and thus, I can only respond accordingly. I don't expect an atheist to comply with not misreading, but don't expect me to respond according to your misreadings as though they are true. I am not going to cater to your flesh. That's all quite ridiculous which is sidestepping my point. It is painful for you to capitalize God isn't it? You can feel that! It makes you angry as though if you could, you would kill Jesus again as your predecessors did. I know you didn't say, "Once we realize you can't find anything wrong with God of the Bible, you can indeed compare others to Jesus, but one by one you find they don't stand up to Christ, so Jesus trumps them all always. Since you can't find any that compare to Christ, you lose." You didn't say this, because you don't believe it. Yet this is the answer. Jesus is not the son of god, for what god? Jesus is the Son of God as proven in the Bible as only He fulfilled 62 prophecies which no man could do. Only He gave His life on the cross for your sins. Only He was resurrected and multiply attested. Who else said they were uncreated? Compare them then. What biblical god? What bible? What god? So that we are talking about the same thing and you are not violation of Step 3 anymore, then refer to Jesus as the Son of God since that is how He is referred to in the Bible. If you one to argue against this, that is one thing, but don’t argue against Jesus being the son of some god. To indicate the Bible, don't say some bible, but say Bible, so we are talking about the same. This is the Bible we are talking about with a capital B. This is not being thick, but finding agreement on the same objects of discussion. I know you are doing this though because you are thick and wanting to circumvent or debase God in some way that is irreverent. Stop avoiding the answer already given. Why else do you think I keep repeating myself? Do you think I like repeating myself? You're just being defensive and petty. It's very petty to address the object matter in a way not presented in God's Word. Try this as an example. The word of Jesus is not the same thing as the Word of Jesus. The word is his actual words when walking on earth or received in heaven. The Word is the 66 books which is the fullness of Jesus embodied in these books. Satan is the author of confusion. Notice I don't let him confuse through you, by stopping you short at your tactics. In saying all this, I am stating facts, not to reassure myself, for this is obviously true and needs no reassuring for me, but it is for you to help you not go to hell by leading you to Christ. Why think otherwise? The empirical data was already given in the Proof. Why don't you read it in Step 1? These points data points have also been mentioned hundreds of times in this thread. How could you overlook them? Why shut your mind down? When you repeat yourself and overlook the data, you are just insulting yourself. The sources I have are already given, why overlook them. Again read Step 1 for those sources. You could find nothing wrong with them. Praise God! Dont accuse me of talking to myself, for I am talking to you. Just because you don't listen, doesn't mean I am talking to myself. I am still talking to you. You're just being belligerent. Since you couldn't find anything wrong with the Proof for God, then your assumptions are false. As is always explained, what I have said is perfectly logical, because you can't find anything wrong with it. Just because you shut your mind down and don't want to look at the data points for Step 1 is not bearing on me, but it is your own problem. If you think April is uncreated, where is your evidence? Your begging doesn't count. I am glad I was not created by the month of April and I don’t fellowship with this month of the year. How silly. If your April is not the uncreated, then it fails to compare to the Word of God uncreated. Since the unicorn never anywhere admits it is uncreated, then you are in lala land. You have no evidence. Compare this to Christ who did say He is God and showed it by fulfilling prophecies no man could alone complete. You lose. You always lose. I am glad you lose, for if you were right, that’s an ugly reality. You are the only person who believes your theology, but this is not argumentum ad populum. Since we are not asking for many witnesses, but just a reasonable amount at least, then why confuse these two principles? You have nothing to hold onto except self. It's always funny how atheists like to use fancy words, or latin words to express a simple point. I think they are trying to look smarter than they really are. I find as a Christian and the same is true of more spiritual Christians I know, we tend to use simpler language to convey the truth. 5 words of simple language is better than one word that is complex and nobody can agree on. Is it mature for you to always lose? I think not. Hell should have an impact on any audience for hell is proven, so it should affect you if you cared for the truth. If you were a Christian you would do as I do, because Christians do this. Jesus did it. Since you assume you would do things if you were a Christian that is quite disingenuous. How silly to think that you would even know what to do as a Christian before you are even a Christian. That makes no sense at all. So you are just trying to reassure yourself in your fantasy life on your way to hell in hostility to your Creator. You’re a bad guy. Ya, you look like someone in the fetal position rocking back and forth trying to convince himself he is right, yet still can't find a single problem with the 4 Step Proof for God. All I ask is that you be honest with yourself. You're a bad guy and you want to go to hell deep down inside in your heart of hearts; that is why you still call Jesus a liar. O how He makes a liar out of you! I don't think what you are doing is so much comical as it is pathetic. Christians are right. We are saved. You are wrong. You are going to hell as proven. Amen. Awomen.

old comment by A Friend

Doom,
You're just trying to intentionally misrepresent and weasel your way out of the answer. What a way to go! You assert that no Christian has ever agreed with the 4 Step Proof for God, yet you can't find anyone to back your claim. Why be the great overassumer? I bet you want to be even bigger than Satan. I don't need to disprove what you can't prove, nor try to. All you needed to find was one Christian who disagreed with the 4 Step Proof for God, but you couldn't even do that. Since every Christian I have ever met never had a problem with the Proof, then your claim is false. I don't have a god, why think so? When I talk about no Christian every finding fault with the 4 Step Proof for God I am talking about the 4 steps. Why think otherwise? Try not to overlook this. Christians don't believe in a Christian god, for we believe in the God and there is no such thing as a Christian god we worship. There is none other than God of the Christians and the unsaved. I am confident you will reject this faith-reinforcing statement, but you won't have a credible reason for doing so: since no Christian has ever found a problem with the 4 steps in the 4 Step Proof for God, then know we are all in agreement. And, you are still going to hell. How sad for you that you prefer to remain a bad person and call Jesus a liar. I am glad though you till can't find anything wrong with the 4 Step Proof for God. You're unwittingly giving glory to God of the Bible and helping people to Christ because they don't want to be like you. Praise the Lord!

old comment by CT

Troy... I did something you haven't done. (or you wouldn't make mistakes like you do)
I checked how Jews read that verse. Do you know what they say Troy? They gently point out that IN THE ORIGINAL HEBREW with the way it was written, there was NO "earliest age" between verse 1 and 2... that is something that people made up to explain how you could read Genesis 1 and 2 literally and still avoid the contradiction. Sorry Troy... but I place much more weight on those who speak the language than someone who cherry-picks meanings of single words to back up his claims. When you use the proper context, and native Hebrew speakers trump your pathetic attempts to work on single words, your claim is shown to be fallacious.

old comment by CT

Do you see how you misread the Bible when you assumed sin didn't enter the world until the Garden of Eden? It's not so. When you have read all that, you'll be ready to see the Garden before the Garden.

Since your reading doesn't agree with those who read it in the original language with the original context, just as God wanted it... I'd have to say you are the one misreading. Further proof of your misreading is the way you say...

God did not end all life as we know it.

Just in case you hadn't noticed, I've not used past tense for that... My statement was that, when it comes to the Afterlife, God will end all life as we know it. Refute that claim, if you can... you misread what I said, you claimed I said something I didn't, and you're claiming that something the Bible states will happen (though not in those words... but since there will be no Sin, no Violence, no Death, and so on... the Afterlife and all in it will be a completely different life. Hence God will end all life as we know it... but not life forms. Please read what I say and don't jump to erroneous conclusions about it) so you can't... not without denying all the claims you've made. In conclusion... even while trying to show that I'm misreading things, you show yourself to be misreading my posts before refuting the misreadings. If you are doing that unintentionally, then you need to learn how to read things properly... If you are doing it intentionally, and your refusal to correct mistakes even when you are corrected many times show you are, then you are constructing a Strawman Argument... Correct your misreadings Troy... then you might get what's being said to you.

old comment by Doom

Troy, you have failed to cite any Christians that agree with your four steps, thus I must conclude that none exist.
Prove me wrong. Cite them. Show me their posts of agreement that your four steps are correct. I am waiting. Do it. How can you prove "God" when you can't prove your proof to someone that already believes in that same being named "God?" The more and more you refuse to do this, the more and more I am forced to conclude that no Christian has ever agreed that your four steps prove "God." Prove me wrong. Cite their posts. Show me where any Christian agrees that your four steps are correct. I am waiting. Do it. Why do you keep delaying? Can't you find their posts? If your four steps are true, should not Christians everywhere be pointing to them as the real, ultimate truth? As the most powerful evidence that their faith is not misplaced? That you are a single visionary worthy of praise? Where are they, Troy? Show them to me. Prove me wrong. Do it. Show me where they agree with your four steps. This is about the four steps, not "God." This is about the four steps, not your holy book. This is about the four steps, not faith. This is about the four steps, not religion. Show me. Prove me wrong. Do it.

old comment by A Friend

CT,
I already know what the Jews believe, so why think otherwise? Sometimes they agree, sometimes they don't so that can't be the guiding principle for the ORIGINAL HEBREW. You got to look deeper instead of hearsay. Jews have since rejected their own Scriptures, for they reject Christ, so don't expect them to read their own text properly. What matters is the evidence then. We can only trust the evidence, not those who reject their own Messiah. Moreover, not all Jews think the universe is not 13.7 billion years old, so they place this time frame at Gen. 1.1, followed by the desolate and waste in Gen. 1.2 literally. How can you take it non-literally given the evidence? You don't say. I gave you the evidence. Let me know if you read what I gave you and if you understand all points. This shows us God created perfectly. If you can't find a problem with this, then we can move forward. But don't just say you disagree and have no reason. That's foolish. You're cherry picking hearsay. Don't you know God is not only no respecter of persons, but he is no respecter of nations or languages. That's why the Gospel is given to the Gentiles too and all their languages. How silly it would be if just because you spoke a language you were right. That's crazy! Since the Hebrew in the proof given to you agrees perfectly, then realize you have nothing, since you don't find anything wrong with it. Since I have shown you the evidence and not just self-declare as do you do, then I have more evidence then you, and you would be wrong. It is not difficult to have more evidence than you when you have none. Self-declarations don’t count. You're still wrong. God "did not end all life as we know it" as you said; not before, today or in the future. You're wrong. You're always wrong and you know you are. This is the nature of someone going to hell. They jus don’t care. Life does not end in the after life. There will be a great many people who do not die who will have bodies of flesh and blood in the new earth who will still procreate. They seek healing in the new city from the fruit that grows monthly on the trees for healing the nations. That’s why there is the 12 gates to the new city to enter into. Though there is no sin, there is still weakness in the body. This is revealed in Rev. 21. So, again, you're wrong. Life does not end ever. Christians have life which is resurrection life. This life never ends. Your life as you know it will never end; your same life that is hellish will be forever-an eternal separation from God and His people because you are a bad human being. No matter how you read what you said, you were wrong. God will not end life as we know it, since there will still be procreation and life as people live today, but without sin. Those who are resurrected won’t procreate. This is not an end of life. That's crazy. You're crazy for Satan. Maybe you want to start a cult called Crazies for Satan. Satan is always wrong just like you. Since you can't find anything I misread and I showed how your statement is totally wrong, then you are wrong. If you are doing that unintentionally by overassuming, then you need to be more humble and not overassume so much. You should repent, though that is not an easy thing for you is it? That’s why you still can’t come to the cross because it requires repentance first. Now then, since you couldn't find anything wrong with the gap restoration of Gen. 1.2, would you like to see more evidence for the inhabitants of earth's earliest ages? You know that God made desolate and waste in Gen. 1.2 and indication of why; and that He creates perfectly and does not create waste, then you know there is a gap and early inhabitants. If you would like to see various Scriptures to see the previous Garden, the nature of previous beings inhabiting earth, just ask. That's what I am here for. Don’t you want to know what happened to Satan after he fell from heaven as Lucifer, what happened to the fallen angels and where the disembodied demonic spirits came from? After all, you are going to spend eternity with all of them in hell. You sure tried hard to cover up your statement that all life would cease to exist. Funny. The flesh, it never stops trying to rationalize itself, even all the way to hell.

old comment by A Friend

Doom,
I know lots of Christians that agree with the 4 Step Proof, but the Holy Spirit doesn’t want me to cater to your flesh, so He only wants me to tell you I have never met any Christian that disagreed with the Proof, nor are you able to cite even one who disagrees with the Proof. So, this proves you wrong. It’s wrong to overassume something when you have no evidence for it. All Christians do point to the 4 Step Proof for God for this is the Proof in the Bible and why we believe. This is why our faith is proven and yours is not. This is about God, for the 4 Steps prove God. This is about faith, because now that we know the truth, we have faith. This is about religion, because this is the correct religion because the 4 Steps prove God. Everybody needs religion, except it has to be the right one. You could find nothing wrong with the 4 Step Proof for God, so praise the Lord for your testimony giving glory to God. May this constitute proof you are wrong and going to hell and like being a bad person.

old comment by AEGPM

*sigh* This is really pointless. It's not about being right at all; it's just about Troy clinging to whatever scrap of rhetoric he calls logic and throwing all else out the window. I'll leave you with this one though:
How does your proof specifically prove the Biblical god (I capitalized the name of the literary work after some thought. It's a book, and it should be capatilized as such.) and not any sort of other god? Why does this proof only apply to Christianity? And with that I'm done. You could probably find me somewhere else if you really want; 'AEGPM' isn't all that common a pseudonym. I'm not coming back to this thread to debate, though. That's a rite of self-abuse to which I will not subject myself. Edit: Oh, and Troy? If every Christain believes this proof, how do you explain the first post on this page?

old comment by lastoff

a friend wrote,
I already said why you should worship him, because you need to get saved and because what He wants is correct. Why would you want to go against what your creator wants if He is always right? Since it is a glory to God you are created, you should be grateful and not blame Him for creating you because you did not ask to be created. How evil of you that you think God needs to ask your permission to come out of His glory. Think about that.

even if God wants what is correct for me it doesn't follow that i'm obligated to him to act as he wishes. also you didn't explain how, should God or anyone else do something to me against my will, how that makes me obligated to them. all you did was to argue from emotion. “god is the greatest and you're just a puke and who are you to question what God does....” and why should i care about God's glory anyway?

old comment by A Friend

lastoff,
It does follow that you are obligated to be obedient since He is infinitely greater than you and you can never know all His ways. That which is infinitely greater than you far exceeds your understanding, so the least you could do is be obedient to Him. This takes humility, and you hate how that feels, whereas Christians rejoice, because we know His loving grace that flows from consecration. Since you are a made in God's image, you didn't have a will before He created you, so how could you go against His will. This is just your crazy pride to think you had some imaginary will that God could go against before you were created. All you are doing is arguing from emotion and not seeing the logic that I have given you. You are just emotionally reacting that you don't want to bow to your creator because of yoru selfish center. God lets you have that choice, but since He can't let you go where we are going, He has to put you somewhere, so that is why you will be in hell pretty soon. god is not the greatest since no god could ever compare to God. You don't have to care about anything. That is your choice. How great God is that He has given you the choice. God's glory is most high because all He does is so beautiful and true. If you don't like the beautiful and true, then you can go your own way. How sad it is to be that selfish.

old comment by Doom

I know lots of Christians that agree with the 4 Step Proof, but the Holy Spirit doesn’t want me to cater to your flesh, so He only wants me to tell you I have never met any Christian that disagreed with the Proof, nor are you able to cite even one who disagrees with the Proof.

So, lemme get this straight.
I state that I have never seen a Christian agree with your 4 steps. Then you state that all of them do. So I ask for proof. And you refuse. So I demand proof again, citing your inability to provide proof as reinforcing my previous statement. And you refuse to provide proof... and this time, stating because your god doesn't want you to. Wow. Just ... wow. You don't understand how deeply you just lost, Troy. You just owned yourself. Every single person here, every single person that has read your posts, be it at II, CARM, here, your own forum, and everywhere else that you've posted your BS... every one of them realizes that your 4 steps are incoherent insanity. And every time that someone points it out, you ignore their arguments, attempt to discredit them, and eventually tell them that they are bad people and are going to hell. And, Troy, I've seen it with my own two eyes. Every time someone that considers themselves a Christian attempts to respond, you declare that they are indeed not Christians. Every single time. In fact, you doing so has even made FSTDT before! http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=23215 *edit* Also, how about an example from your own forum? http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=544&page=2 */edit* So every Christian that we've seen that posts about your steps has disagreed with them as proof for their god, and yet you insist that every Christian believes your 4 steps? And now that your very own personal god has told you that you don't need to prove this? Yeah, whatever. Hide behind your god. He can't protect you from the truth. The truth is, Troy, that nobody believes you. Your constant spouting about your proof has driven everyone away from you, hasn't it? And now you are desperate to be proven correct, and are doing your best to convince others that you are correct, as to redeem yourself. Well it's not going to happen. Reflect on what you're doing, and what you've said. One day, maybe, you'll come around and realize how powerful your illness is, and you'll seek help. I hope that day comes soon.

old comment by CT

God "did not end all life as we know it" as you said

I never said that Troy... I never used the past tense.

Since you can't find anything I misread

Like the first statement of yours quoted in this post? Sorry Troy, but that's proof that you are misreading...

God will not end life as we know it, since there will still be procreation and life as people live today, but without sin. Those who are resurrected won’t procreate.

So... those who are ressurrected will not procreate, yet there will still be procreation? Of course, there'll be no procreation in Hell either, so there'll be no procreation anywhere... even though you stated that there'll be procreation. Troy... Life as we know it includes sin... take sin away and it is no longer Life as we know it.

This is not an end of life.

Troy... since I made it clear that I was NOT talking about the end of Life itself, just the end of Life as we know it... why bother repeating what I said? Oh, have I just found another example of you misreading my posts? Why, yes I have...

There will be a great many people who do not die who will have bodies of flesh and blood in the new earth who will still procreate.

Really? Rev 20 nicely points out that everyone will be ressurrected after the Tribulation... yet you said that the ressurrected won't procreate. Which is it Troy? Oh, and don't forget that Revelations was the last book added to the Bible... circa 600AD. There is a lot of doubt as to it's veracity, so don't go trusting it too much.

Don’t you want to know what happened to Satan after he fell from heaven as Lucifer

Lucifer? Oh, you mean that nick-name given to the Babylonian King... the one that means Morning Star. Funny, but wasn't Jesus also called Morning Star at one point in the Bible? As a slight aside, Satan, in the OT, was nothing like a Fallen Angel... he was just one of God's workers, doing what God needed done. Meanwhile, I want to know what you'll end up doing when you find out just who created Evil... that's one thing I REALLY want to know.

old comment by A Friend

Doom,
Since you can’t name even one Christian who disagrees with the Proof, and you are making the accusation, you will need to show it. If you have nothing, your case is thrown out. Your inability to show it, reinforces the fact that you have nothing for your faith. Not my god who doesn’t want me to cater to your flesh, since I don’t worship a god, but God of the Bible. Why does this confuse you? I am owned by the Holy Spirit, not by myself. You’re owned by the Devil and self. Since nobody anywhere that I have ever gone who is a Christian found any problem with the Proof for God, then it is just your imagination and insanity to think some Christians disagree with the Proof. Moreover, you can’t even find anything wrong with the Proof, so you give glory to God. Way to go! That’s a good thing. Don’t you know all Christians are Christians because of the Proof? We are drawn to God because of the Proof of God. It’s amazing how confused you are by this? Your mind is smothered by sin. If you have faith in Christ without a reason, who can say confidently you are a Christian and your faith is real, because you don’t even know why you believe. Tomorrow you might not believe and be many of those who said they were Christians, yet years later renounce Him as their Savior. They were never saved to begin with. You may believe for a false reason so as not to be really saved. There is such a thing as a baptism of the evil spirit that tries to replicate true salvation. All Christians believe in Christ because of the proof for God. That is, nothing in nature happens all by itself and the improvement in conscience tells us there is not an eternity of the past of cause and effects, for we would not still be sinning by now. This is our Proof. It is always known, and it is what all Christians believe. It doesn’t matter what dispensation you are from, these findings remain true. This may be a painful press upon your heart, but that is just your conscience speaking. So why not listen to it? I don’t say everyone is going to hell just because they disagree with the Proof for God, for what if they end up believing one day to be saved? Then they won’t go to hell. However, it is very bad to reject God’s Proof of Himself in the Bible. If you are going to reject His Proof then at least have a reason, but you have none. That’s arrogant and mindless. Drop such nonsense! Just admit you want to go to hell and you like being a bad person. Be honest with yourself. Don’t lie to yourself. Christians don’t have a god. What a strange thing for you to say: “every Christian that we've seen that posts about your steps has disagreed with them as proof for their god”. Christians don’t have different gods. You’re goofy. You are obviously assuming people to be Christians when they are not. That’s quite entertaining. You’re always wrong, that’s why you are going to hell. You said, “And now that your very own personal god has told you that you don't need to prove this?” I don’t have a personal god. My God is personal. He has told me that it is already proven, since you can’t find a single person who disagrees with the Proof who is a Christian and neither can I, plus you can’t find a single non-Christian who can find anything wrong with the Proof. That’s wonderful! That’s the Proof. You see even if I give you 10 names, that won’t be enough for you. You will ask for a hundred, then that won’t be enough, etc. Jesus says don’t cater to your flesh. That’s why Jesus said even if He were to invite you to dinner and you talked with Him for hours, you would still not believe Him, for nothing could convince you. You are already condemned (John 3.18). You don’t love your Creator, so you are going to hell. That’s why I encourage you to see that movie to prove it to you. If that movie can’t save you, I dare say nothing will. Christians flock the Proof for God. It has always been the case. That’s why, though not all are saved who say they are Christians, 2 billion call themselves Christians. You don’t realize what a sick person you are. You can’t find anything wrong with the 4 Step Proof for God, yet you remain angry and reviling. You can’t show how it is not the Proof in the Bible as I have shown. You can’t find any Christian that disagrees with it, nor can I. So what do you have? You have nothing but Satan and hell. How truly sad for you! My condolences for your entry into the second death.

old comment by Doom

Since you can’t name even one Christian who disagrees with the Proof, and you are making the accusation, you will need to show it. If you have nothing, your case is thrown out. Your inability to show it, reinforces the fact that you have nothing for your faith.

Oh really? DRay563 is a Christian, in many senses of the word, and a very smart one at that. A very basic search on the internets shows this, as does my reading of his posts. Yet you demolished his argument and accused him directly of not being a Christian at all. And then you deleted his account, from what it looks like.
There is my proof. And now you will say that he really isn't a Christian, and therefore doesn't count. Of this, I have no doubt.

You see even if I give you 10 names, that won’t be enough for you.

How about two, then? From outside Biblocality, as the sockpuppet population there is rather high. Please, show them to me. Don't be shy, now. Just link their posts here.

old comment by A Friend

CT,
You did say, “in it will be a completely different life”, and this is what you said you meant when you said, “God "will end all life as we know it" in the future, so you are saying, God “did not end all life as we know it" in the past. You say you meant the future. I am glad you are accepting this fact. And, how could you not be saying, “did”, for you meant the future? You are saying life DID not end in the past, but will end in the future, so you are saying “DID”. Aren’t I allowed to quote you like this since you quote me like this? Why not treat others as you would like to be treated? I still think it is strange to say life ends in the future, for it is till the same life that continues in the future, so it never ends. And, there are still bodies of flesh in blood in the eternity of the future the Bible says. Your problem is you just don’t believe God’s Word so you have your own ideas. It helps if you don’t overassume anything that causes misreading. The Bible tells us those who are resurrected will not procreate, but those transferred livingly into the new earth will procreate. Of course those in hell will not procreate for how evil it would be to bring a child into hell be raised there and have no opportunity for salvation. Hell does not determine reality but reality determines hell. Because there is no procreation in hell is not the reason there is no procreation for the resurrected saved. Take a look at the virgin firstfruits which are Christians who are virgins and closest to Christ reigning during the 1000 years (Rev. 14.1-5). God’s reason for no procreation in hell is as given. The reason for no procreation in the new city is because we are blessed as God’s servants for the new city (we are the pillars) and this is our work to take care of those outside the new city who will still procreate by furnishing them with the tree of life which grows fruit monthly for their healing. What an amazing complex of interaction this is! The new city is 1500x1500 miles. There will be as many as 1.2 billion resurrected-saved given its size. There is life whether there is sin or no sin. Life as I know is without sin even though I am not perfected yet. That life doesn’t change. Resurrection life is now and it is the same life in eternity future. This is a great spiritual principle, though to you it is unrealized unless you get saved. When someone says “God will end all life as we know it”, people take that as life ending, literally. If you change what you mean or old posts, I can’t help that. Whatever the case, your language is not accurate at least from God’s perspective what life is. There is another problem. You say there will be no more sin. Yet you reject the exponential progression in conscience towards no sin. Your graph shows jerky drop-offs you have all over the place. That is just strange. Since God never works in jerky transitions, but long periods, realize you are misrepresenting God’s design. The flood is not a jerky transition, but a local phenomenon. The Great Tribulation is not a jerky transition, but the last week consummation of this age is a transition from one official dispensation to the next. A day later the conscience of the world doesn’t all of a sudden change. Things take time. Similarly, the living transfer of those from the end of the dispensation of the kingdom to the new earth is not jerky. Things take time. You can’t shuttle everyone over to the new earth in a day. There is no precedence for your beliefs. Prophets work of precedent. This is how their revelation is certain, because it has some foundation in historicity. I got to repeat this because it is so important! When God resurrects to the life after, He does this not because He ends all life as we know it, for the life believers have is still the same life. The transition for believers will not be a different life as we know it. It is still the same resurrection life. This is an important principle. Appreciate it, because it is not going away. Your problem is your phraseology is just wrong. It misrepresents reality. You should have said, “there will be no more sin, but life as we know it will continue even though” you don’t know that life, because your spirit is dead to God. You should have said something like that that is clearer. Try redoing your chart but the inverse and since change does not happen in a day get rid of your jerky changes during the flood. By the way you misrepresented it in another part too. You don’t distinguish between Jesus first coming and second coming. Can you make me up a chart? I will let you know when you got it right. I don’t like dark blue. Can you use light blue. I can do the chart myself, but I think great progress will be made when you get it right. Take the chart that I have, then make the necessary changes based on my explanations. It will be a good lesson for you. You ask silly questions like, “Rev 20 nicely points out that everyone will be ressurrected after the Tribulation... yet you said that the ressurrected won't procreate.” Everybody is not resurrected after the Tribulation immediately. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong. The unsaved are resurrected a thousand years after the resurrection of the saved takes place. There is procreation in the 1000 years for those nations transferred livingly into it. And those alive at the end of the 1000 years are transferred livingly into the new earth. Your problem is you are not reading the Bible and overassuming. Try to cut out your own ideas and only accept what the Bible says. Revelation 20 does not agree with you. Please learn to ask me when you don’t know and overassume. I have the answer as do most Christians. Revelation was not written AD 600. It was written AD 95/96. You’re always wrong. No scholar believes it was written anytime other than the first century. You’re on your own. There is no doubt to the veracity of Revelation. I know every part of it, and it is 100% accurate. You can challenge me on any sentence. It is actually one of the easiest books of the Bible to read. I bet you didn’t know that. It is confusing to you and as you have shown your misreading of it, because it was designed to be a source of confusion for the unsaved to not let you know what is really going to happen. From Genesis to Revelation there are 66 books. A perfect number of books to break apart the 6 and 6 in God’s design. Lucifer was not a Babylon King. Lucifer is the Morning Star. Since there is no evidence for you idea, why believe it? There is a reason why Lucifer is the Morning Star. Don’t you want to know the reason? Don’t you want to know what happened after Lucifer became Satan? Just ask. I am here for you. How do you think this is related to earth’s earliest ages? I have the answer if you are willing to hear. Stop fighting but try to learn something. Try to ask about stuff with an open heart, not a blaming attitude. It just makes you look bad. Calm yourself down and listen the truth. Hold off your judgment before hearing the information. As this explained you may be thinking you want the answer for earth’s earliest ages and proof in the Bible. Rev. 2.28 “And I will give him the morning star”This is the second promise. Physically speaking, we know the morning star in the sky is Venus. It has two characteristics: it being the first star to appear in the sky at dawn as well as being the first one at dusk. One day the Lord shall be seen by the whole world (Mal. 4.2“the sun of righteousness [shall] arise”). But those who see the morning star are necessarily awake much earlier while the vast majority are still asleep. And these who see the morning star are the overcomers. Rev. 9.1 “From heaven fallen unto the earth”The word “fallen” in the original is the same as the phrase “cast down” in 12.9. “Star” in the Scriptures has reference to angel. In Job we find this verse: “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy” (38.7). Here in Job we are definitely told that the stars stand for the angels in heaven. Rev. 22.16 His relationship with the church and with rapture. “The bright, the morning star”Just as the morning star appears before dawn, so the Lord Jesus is the morning star to His watchful believers that they may be raptured. (The darkest hour is the Great Tribulation; the dawn is the kingdom time.) Christians will receive accountability. Those who are overcomer believers at the start of the Tribulation will be raptured, whereas believers will pass through the Tribulation who were not yet ready to be received (Rev. 3.10, Luke 21.36). Some Christians will reign in the 1000 years, while some will not receive this reward, but all believers have eternal life. Sometimes words can be used in different ways. We should not be legalistic about this, for the context bears it out. Read with an open heart. If it was such a problem do you think the writers of the Bible would have done this? It is not a problem. It is only a problem for the unsaved to be confused by Satan. Satan was not one of God’s workers at all. He is the Devil, the tempter of Eve and Adam. He will never repent to God, not ever. That is in fact why He is let out one last time at the end of the 1000 years to show even still he will not repent. He is not a worker for God. Don’t be silly. He is your father the Devil which you will be with in hell. Who created evil? Satan and man. God didn’t. I think you might be offended by this. You always think you have an angle, and every time I respond to show you how you are wrong. How many more times do you need to be wrong before receiving Christ? I dare say a thousand is not enough, not even 100,000. I don’t think you will ever be saved.

old comment by lastoff

a friend,
if God wants us to worship him, maybe he should have given us an inborn compulsion to do so the way we are compelled by hunger to eat . I know christians will say that god gave us free will as a gift and doesn't want to force us etc. etc. but considering human nature, giving us free will is like giving a two year old a pack of matches; you only know something bad is going to happen. if you don't want a fire you don't give a two year old matches and, if you do, it is pretty obvious that you and not the two year old are responsible. and if God didn't want evil to exist or wanted us to always worship him he shouldn't have given us free will. and since he did and since he created us he is responsible for all sin and evil and lack of faith. i'm probably only saying what has been said 100 times before here

old comment by CT

Aren’t I allowed to quote you like this since you quote me like this? Why not treat others as you would like to be treated?

Troy... Since you refuse to allow summarising non-quotes of your posts, (you class them as lies, since you do not say exactly what the summarization does) then I'm simply treating you the way you treat others.
Surely, since that is how you treat others, that is how you want to be treated... Now... were I in the Future talking about an event in the past, then I would say "did"... but, since I'm in the present talking about a possible future event, I say "will" For you to try to explain how talking about something that might happen in the future is really talking about something in the past is, quite frankly, insane... if you can't keep your tenses straight, how can you expect to be understood when talking about things outside the Present? That said, you really should try looking into the Bible a bit more Troy... certain claims of yours are very quickly shown to be false when you do.

Lucifer was not a Babylon King. Lucifer is the Morning Star. Since there is no evidence for you idea, why believe it?

My evidence? Isaiah 14.

Who created evil? Satan and man. God didn’t. I think you might be offended by this.

Isaiah 45... Seriously Troy... read your damned Bible for once, rather than just cherry-picking it. On second thoughts... don't read it, keep cherry-picking it. It just makes it easy to show how mistaken you are about it.

old comment by A Friend

Doom,
I noticed your late edit with that link you added. If I wasn’t watching I probably would have missed it. Tell me about these things next time you want to edit something a page or more back so I can respond to it. DRay from my forums was not actually a Christian, nor does he believe in Biblocality. He was pretending to be a Christian and fooling himself. Christians are not open theists. The church has always rejected this false teaching and it is one of the worse, because it denies God’s infinite foreknowledge so He no longer becomes all-knowing (omniscient). Even the great harlot (Rev. 14.8; ch. 17) of Religious Rome, the Roman Church, rejected it. That false teaching is called “open theism”, for he rejects God “foreknows our free-choice”. He also denies the gap restoration like some atheists here in this thread at the fstdt. He was unsure about many things on the list of questions, even some of the most basic questions, which was odd, if he was a Christian. I think it would be good if you read what he said, and see my response. It was a pretty good discussion, but he was wrong each time as proven, then just kept repeating himself like a robot instead of actually responding. So, he was not a Christian. Still, we find no Christian who actually rejects the Proof. You can't find any, and I can't find any. That’s wonderful, because that is the very reason a Christian believes in God. Be very careful, because there are false Christs presented all the time. Satan will try to match everything he can as long as it still keeps you unsaved.

old comment by A Friend

lastoff, You can’t win by your reasoning, because you reasoning is corrupted. It is like trying to a caregiver when you spend most of the day at the track gambling on unicorns. Pascal would never make that bet. The natures are incompatible. First, you need to recognize you are sinner. That is not hard to see, but you might not even be there yet. Once you know you are sinner then you know there needs be a solution to this problem. Since you can’t solve your own problem because you were born that way, you don’t have the tools to be delivered from it. Your sin needs to be punished; such punishment is inescapable. Death is that punishment including the second death which is placement in hell. You need an appreciation for the fact that your flesh (sin of the body and self of the soul) is utterly corrupted. It can’t be fixed or refined or improved. It has just one verdict-death! As soon as even one iota of sin entered or small unnoticeable selfishness, it was then corrupted. While you cling to self and try to reorganize it to appear to be good, it is not. As you notice there are some things you can’t seen to do that you know you ought to do. There are some things you can’t stop doing that you know you ought not to do. Your flesh is just shifting itself around because it is livid! As soon as you have one thing tackled, another problem occurs. It’s like trying to push down the bubbles and they keep popping up elsewhere in the bath of sin. Only by the strength of the Holy Spirit can one truly receive deliverance from sin, self and supernatural by letting the old man die on the cross with Christ. When that happens God will forgive you for all your sins! You will also begin to have power over sin because your flesh has been put to naught. God has done what He could do. The question next is, what attitude do we assume towards His finished work? Not just in name but in actuality has He crucified our flesh on the cross. If we believe and if we exercise our will to choose what God has accomplished for us, it will become our life experience. We are not asked to do anything because God has done it all. We are not required to crucify our flesh for God has crucified it on the cross. Do you believe this is true? Do you desire to possess it in your life? If we believe and if we desire then we shall cooperate with the Holy Spirit in obtaining rich experience. Colossians 3.5 implores us to “put to death therefore what is earthly in you.” This is the path towards experience. The “therefore” indicates the consequence of what precedes it in verse 3; namely, “you have died.” The “you have died” is what God has achieved for us. Because “you have died,” therefore “put to death what is earthly in you.” The first mention of death here is our factual position in Christ; the second, our actual experience. We do have an inborn compulsion to worship, that’s why you see all throughout history worshipping constantly taking place in all sorts of venues. With Adam and Eve it was not like giving them a pack of cigarettes. It was a beautiful Garden of Eden with fruits of all kinds and a safe environment. All man had to do was be obedient. He didn’t need to know anything much at all, but he trusted a snake. How can you trust a snake for he is just a creature? God’s creation is not very magnificent if He created robots. I think you need to up-level your perspective on life, because your thoughts are very dull-minded. Do people often consider you boring to talk to? You said, “if God didn't want evil to exist or wanted us to always worship him he shouldn't have given us free will.” As it turns out, according to your reasoning then there would be nothing that exists, because obviously man chose to sin and Lucifer chose to fall. You are saying you would rather not have existed than God to have created anything. You don’t sound like a very happy person. If God just creates robots to worship Him, how does that glorify God or please God’s hearts to fellowship with robots? That doesn’t do anything for you or me, so why do you think that please God? Calvinism is a lie. God created us, be He did not cause sin. However, He is still responsible in that He won’t leave us hanging, and that is why He enters into creation to provide salvation for any that would receive it. He is however, not responsible for anyone’s lack of faith, because He made us all in His image with a spirit of God-consciousness. You can say we all have a choice to activate that gift of faith anytime we choose to come to the cross to receive Jesus as Lord and Savior, and God will never deny a person salvation if they are true to Him. Deep down inside we all know God exists, but many, if not most, just don’t want to bow to Him, because they prefer to remain independent and disobedient. It’s a free country.

old comment by A Friend

lastoff,
There is no god infinitely greater than you, for no god has ever existed for eternity in the past. Only God of the Bible has. You should worship God because this gives glory to Him and fulfills the requirement for fellowship and the fruits of the Spirit. Otherwise you lack the fruits of the Spirit and lack a connection to your Creator, so that your existence is sub-par and unfulfilling as it could have been. One who appreciates God doesn’t feel it is an obligation, but a joy. If you worshiped as God desired you would have overwhelming joy that you have never experienced before in your life. I can assure you of that. You may even have a Third Heaven experience as it appears I have had. This is coming from someone who knows, not someone who does not know the joy of the Lord. It feels like an obligation to you because you are so distant to God. God does not know you, that is, He has no relationship with you because you cut yourself off from Him. If God required your permission to be created, then that would presume you know better than Him, but how can that be if He is eternal and you were created? Instead of your washing the window analogy, think of it this way. This beautiful person comes up to your car and washes your window and says to you, you don’t have to give me anything in return; for I am just happy to see the smile on your face and the joy in your heart because of this free gift. Then He says, I am your father, and I love you. You hadn’t known your true father all your life until that day. There He was as lowly as any man. Because you are overwhelmed by this grace, you get out of the car and ask him to drive wherever he wants to go. You are just happy to be with Him wherever He takes you. You were angry for so long that you were put into the world. Now you are so grateful for your existence! It makes it all worth the trip. Any analogy you have, I can take the same analogy and show you the light.

old comment by A Friend

CT,
There is nothing wrong with summarizing someone. The problem is when you summarize someone falsely. That is what you did. Therein lies the problem. So you are not treating me as you would like to be treated, for I don’t think you would like to be summarized falsely. Next time you summarize someone add some detail and not a quick quip that is nobody knowing any better could think it meant what you meant. I summarized what you meant that you did not believe life ends in the past, but ends in the future. You admitted it. But now you deny it. You’re a ball of confusion all wound up and nowhere to go but hell. Since I read the Bible daily, and you couldn’t find anything wrong with what I have said in my relationship with the Word, then of course, all you can do is vaguely accuse. Praise be to God that is all you can do! You misread Isaiah 14. Let me show you. “How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning!” (Is. 14.12) Before the archangel’s fall, he was called the Day-Star, the Son of the Morning. After his rebellion, however, he is called Satanwhich means the adversary. Kinda like you CT. You and Satan have more in common than you think. “Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty” (Ez. 28.12). This was the archangel’s condition prior to his sin. He was higher than all the other angels. These terms“the sum . . . full . . . perfect”indicate that he was the greatest among the original creatures. God placed him above all others. Moreover, he was full of wisdom, indicative of his understanding of God’s will. Probably he had at that time the office of a prophet. “Thou wast in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering” (v.13a). In Genesis 3 we see the presence of Satan. He was there not having every precious stone as his covering but rather he was there as a tempter to Adam and Eve. And hence these two Edens do not co-exist. At the time of Adam’s Eden, Satan had already fallen; but in the Eden mentioned here, Satan had not fallen yet. So that this garden of Eden must have existed before Adam’s Eden. If so, it must have belonged to the former world, not to the present world. It can be likened to the New Jerusalem in the future, having many precious stones such as the sardis, jasper, and so forth. The Eden which Adam inhabited, though, was not so. The Bible draws attention only to the trees in it, nothing being said of its bejeweled covering. Hence the Eden here must be different from Adam’s Eden. It was much earlier in time. The precious stones which the archangel wore remind us of the precious stones which Aaron the priest had on him (see Ex. 28). This therefore intimates that probably God had established him as a priest. “The workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was in thee” (v. 13b). In the Bible we find that musical instruments were used by kings. We notice, for example, how David played the harp before King Saul, how, in reference to another king, his “pomp is brought down to Sheol, and the noise of [his] viols” when the King of Babylon was destroyed (Is. 14.11), and how the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of music was sounded when the King of Babylon was elated (see Dan. 3). Evidently, the archangel at that time was made king and therefore he was given all these musical instruments by God. “Thou wast the anointed cherub that covereth” (v.14a). “Anointed” means he was being set apart. The work of a “cherub” or “living creature” (cf. Ez. 10.15) is to lead in worshiping the Lord (see Rev. 4.9,10; 5.11-14). So that Lucifer’s work at the beginning was to lead the creatures of that day in the worship of God. This also indicates he had the office of a priest. “And I set thee, so that thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire” (v.14b). The mountain of God most probably is the place where the glory of God is manifested. Since he is God’s priest, Lucifer would naturally stand before God and serve Him. What is the meaning of “walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire”? According to Ezekiel 1.26, the place of the cherubim or “living creatures” (see Ez. 1.19ff.) is just beneath the throne of God. When Moses and seventy of the elders of Israel were called to Mount Sinai, it says that “they saw the God of Israel; and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and as it were the very heaven for clearness . . . And the appearance of the glory of Jehovah was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel” (Ex. 24.10,17). So that this paved work of sapphire stone which looked like devouring fire is “the stones of fire” spoken of here in Ezekiel 28.14b. It thus indicates that originally this archangel was placed in the habitation of the Most High directly under the throne of God where he was very close to God. “Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till unrighteousness was found in thee” (v.15). Whatever God created was perfect, because He is not the originator of sin. Unrighteousness began with this sinful archangel Lucifer. He was created by God and was given a free will, just as God has given us human beings free will. How sad that this created angel misused this freedom! How many are the people today who abuse their freedom even as Satan of old did. In a million or a trillion years from now, the saved resurrected will look back on all that God allowed and did, and be amazed how perfect everything He did was. Even the unsaved will be in awe in hell forever, for it was all so perfectly accomplished. “By the abundance of thy traffic they filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned” (v.16a). We may apply this word to the Antichrist, since in the last days we know that commerce will be greatly increased (see Rev. 18). Due to the increase in trade, many sins also follow. This is easily proven by observing past human history. However, this word may also be applied to Satan. Pember has pointed out that the word “traffic” may also be translated “detraction” or “slander.” We know the word “devil” in the original means “slanderer,” “calumniator” or “malignant accuser.” How Satan accused Job and attacked him without mercy! Sorta like CT. At the end of this age we shall hear these words: “Now is come the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, who accuseth them before our God day and night” (Rev. 12.10). The phrase “cast down” here corresponds to that of the “cast out” in Ezekiel 28, and the reason for his being cast out is likewise the same. Probably in Ezekiel God is seen as condemning Satan’s sin, whereas in the Revelation passage He is observed as sending Michael to execute the judgment against Satan. Why does God allow Satan to remain in the air today? Possibly because (1) God’s time is not yet come, and/or (2) there is still much rubbish in God’s children which needs to be purified by means of this fiery furnace. Verse 17 states explicitly the cause of Satan’s fall: “Thy heart was lifted up because of thy beauty; thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness.” The description given of the King of Babylon in Isaiah 14.12-14 is quite similar to what is described here with respect to Satan. Hence many of God’s servants believe that what the Holy Spirit has said applied not only to the King of Babylon but in a deeper sense also applied to the one behind the King of Babylon, even Satan. It tells of the cause of Satan’s fall. I believe Ezekiel reveals the cause of Satan’s pride whereas Isaiah discloses how proud he was. It might be that inwardly as he compared himself to the other created beings of God, he began to be proud and arrogant. Later on he even thought of himself as being equal with God. Thus he incurred God’s judgment: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! . . . And thou saidst in thy heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; and I will sit upon the mount of congregation, in the uttermost part of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High” (Is. 14.12-14). Because of his arrogant pride, he was punished by God. All his powers in heaven were being taken away from him. (Since the prophecy which follows has nothing to do with our present investigation, we will end our consideration from Ezekiel at this point.)

old comment by A Friend

CT,
Notice this was posted already, but you overlooked the answer given. Why not respond to this evidence of how you misread Isaiah 45? “Thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the God that formed the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah; and there is none else” (Is. 45.18). How clear God’s word is. The word “waste” here is “tohu” in Hebrew, which signifies “desolation” or “that which is desolate.” It says here that the earth which God created was not a waste. Why then does Genesis 1.2 state that “the earth was waste”? This may be easily resolved. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1.1). At that time, the earth which God had created was not a waste; but later on, in passing through a great catastrophe, the earth did become waste and void. So that all which is mentioned from verse 3 onward does not refer to the original creation but to the restoration of the earth. God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning; but He subsequently used the Six Days to remake the earth habitable. Genesis 1.1 was the original world; Genesis 1.3 onward is our present world; while Genesis 1.2 describes the desolate condition which was the earth’s during the transitional period following its original creation and before our present world. Such an interpretation cannot only be arrived at on the basis of Isaiah 45.18, it can also be supported on the basis of other evidences. The conjunctive word “and” in verse 2 can also be translated as “but”: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but the earth was waste and void.” G. H. Pember, in his book Earth’s Earliest Ages, wrote that the “and” according to Hebrew usageas well as that of most other languagesproves that the first verse is not a compendium of what follows, but a statement of the first event in the record. For if it were a mere summary, the second verse would be the actual commencement of the history, and certainly would not begin with a copulative. A good illustration of this may be found in the fifth chapter of Genesis (Gen. 5.1). There the opening words, “This is the book of the generations of Adam,” are a compendium of the chapter, and, consequently, the next sentence begins without a copulative. We have, therefore, in the second verse of Genesis no first detail of a general statement in the preceding sentence, but the record of an altogether distinct and subsequent event, which did not affect the sidereal [starry] heaven, but only the earth and its immediate surroundings. And what that event was we must now endeavour to discover.* * G. H. Pember, Earth's Earliest Ages, New Edition, edited with additions by G. H. Lang (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1975), p. 31. (The original work of Pember, under the same title, was initially published in 1876 by Hodder and Stoughton. Later editions were issued by Pickering and Inglis and the Fleming H. Revell Co.) Over a hundred years ago, Dr. Chalmers pointed out that the words “the earth was waste” might equally be translated “the earth became waste.” Dr. I. M. Haldeman, G. H. Pember, and others showed that the Hebrew word for “was” here has been translated “became” in Genesis 19.26: “His wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.” If this same Hebrew word can be translated in 19.26 as “became,” why can it not be translated as “became” in 1.2? Furthermore, the word “became” in 2.7 (“and man became a living soul”) is the same word as is found in Genesis 1.2. So that it is not at all arbitrary for anyone to translate “was” as “became” here: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, [but] the earth became waste and void.” The earth which God created originally was not waste, it only later became waste. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1.1) and “in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is” (Ex. 20.11). Comparing these two verses, we can readily see that the world in Genesis 1.1 was quite different from the world that came after Genesis 1.3. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. In the Six Days God made the heaven and earth and sea. Who can measure the distance that exists between “created” and “made”? The one is a calling into being things out of nothing, the other is a working on something already there. Man can make but cannot create; God can create as well as make. Hence Genesis records that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but later on the earth had become waste and void due to a tremendous catastrophe, after which God commenced to remake the heaven, earth and sea and all the creatures in them. 2 Peter 3.5-7 expresses the same thought as well: the heavens and the earth in verse 5 are the original heavens and earth referred to in Genesis 1.1; the earth mentioned in verse 6 that was overflowed with water and which perished is the earth covered with water which became waste and void as mentioned in Genesis 1.2; and the heavens and the earth that now are as spoken of in verse 7 are the restored heavens and earth after Genesis 1.3. Hence the works of God during the Six Days are quite different from His creative work done in the beginning. The more we study Genesis 1, the more we are convinced that the above is the true interpretation. In the first day, God commanded light to shine forth. Before this first day, the earth had already been existing, but it was now buried in water, dwelt in darkness, and was waste and void. On the third day, God did not create the earth. He merely commanded it to come out of water. F. W. Grant has stated that “the six days’ work merely sets the earth into a new program; it does not create it out of nothing.” On the first day, God did not create light, He instead commanded light to shine out of darkness. The light was already there. Neither did God create heaven on the second day. The heaven here is not the starry heaven but the atmospheric heaven, that which surrounds the earth. Where, then, did all these come from if they were not created during the Six Days? The one answer is that they were created at the time of the first verse of Genesis 1. So that subsequently, there was no need to create but simply to remake. Since the evidence speaks for itself, that you would cherry pick away without evidence shows how wrong you are CT. It’s hard to compete with the truth. There are lots more evidences than that. I am just getting warmed up.

old comment by CT

There is nothing wrong with summarizing someone. The problem is when you summarize someone falsely.

Like you tried to summarize what I said and ended up making sound like I was talking about the past?
Yes Troy... false summarizing is a problem... stop doing it!

You misread Isaiah 14. Let me show you. “How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning!” (Is. 14.12) Before the archangel’s fall, he was called the Day-Star, the Son of the Morning. After his rebellion, however, he is called Satanwhich means the adversary. Kinda like you CT. You and Satan have more in common than you think.

*Ahem* Isaiah 14:3 On the day the LORD gives you relief from suffering and turmoil and cruel bondage, 4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: Cue various verses right through to 14:24... See Troy? It's a taunt against the King of Babylon... nothing to do with Satan at all. Don't believe me? Isaiah 14:16 Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: "Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, Not talking about a Fallen Angel, is it? Just about a man! Isaiah 14:7 the man who made the world a desert, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?" Again... all about a man, not an Angel. Your lies about Isaiah 14 are shown to the world... isn't it terrible when your ow Bible shows what a Liar you are?

old comment by CT

By the way Troy... Hebrew is a VERY contextual language... the meaning of words isn't set in stone like much of the English language, but is fluid depending on the rest of the sentence.
Hence, trying to make an argument that one word was improperly translated because the same word is given a different translation elsewhere is flawed. Only by looking at the full context of the sentence can the meanings of words be found... Hence your claim that the word should be "Became" rather than "Was" is flawed. That is why I believe those who know the language, over those who quibble over the meaning of a single word, devoid of the context the sentence gives it... By the way... there's one other person who does that. Jason Gastrich... Are you sure you're not him?

old comment by A Friend

CT,
You said yourself you do not believe there was an end of all life in the past, so that is how I paraphrased as saying life did not all end in the past. Why does this upset you? Why do you argue when I agreed with you? I think you just like to argue regardless. You said I falsely summarized you, but you don’t show how. Try to explain yourself, just don’t accuse, for that is mindless. Is. 14.3 is the King of Babylon. Who said otherwise? This was already said, but you didn’t respond to it Verse 17 in Ez. 28 states explicitly the cause of Satan’s fall: “Thy heart was lifted up because of thy beauty; thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness.” The description given of the King of Babylon in Isaiah 14.12-14 is quite similar to what is described here with respect to Satan. Hence many of God’s servants believe that what the Holy Spirit has said applied not only to the King of Babylon but in a deeper sense also applied to the one behind the King of Babylon, even Satan. It tells of the cause of Satan’s fall. I believe Ezekiel reveals the cause of Satan’s pride whereas Isaiah discloses how proud he was. It might be that inwardly as he compared himself to the other created beings of God, he began to be proud and arrogant. Later on he even thought of himself as being equal with God. Thus he incurred God’s judgment: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! . . . And thou saidst in thy heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; and I will sit upon the mount of congregation, in the uttermost part of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High” (Is. 14.12-14). Because of his arrogant pride, he was punished by God. All his powers in heaven were being taken away from him. (Since the prophecy which follows has nothing to do with our present investigation, we will end our consideration from Ezekiel at this point.)

old comment by A Friend

Mr Smith,
You can call me anything you like, but if you can’t prove it, you’re just a false accuser like the Devil. When you say Jesus is not God, you are calling Him a liar, for He said He is God. By rejecting Jesus as God, it is because you like remaining in your sin nature. Only bad people want that. Jesus said if you are not for Him then you are against. Since you don’t want Him to be God, you are against Him. Only bad people such as yourself are against Jesus, and you couldn’t find anything wrong with the 4 Step Proof for God. I love how you give glory to God when you can’t find anything wrong with the Proof. You like to be like Satan saying you disproved the Proof, but you never present anything. That’s lame. Don’t be a Zombie for Satan.

old comment by Doom

DRay from my forums was not actually a Christian, nor does he believe in Biblocality. He was pretending to be a Christian and fooling himself. Christians are not open theists. The church has always rejected this false teaching and it is one of the worse, because it denies God’s infinite foreknowledge so He no longer becomes all-knowing (omniscient).

How very odd. Why would you accuse someone that asserts that they are Christians of being un-Christian?
The last time I checked, one may be considered a Christian if they believe in the statements of the Nicene Creed, mainly the death and rise of Jesus Christ and the subsequent forgiving of human sin, etc. I see nothing in the concept of open theism that would contradict or invalidate anything in the Creed. Indeed, I would insist that it is not up to you to declare who is and is not a Christian.

I think it would be good if you read what he said, and see my response.

I did, and he made a great deal of sense to me. Unfortunately you banned him before he could reply to your final post in that topic, as honestly it deserved further response. You played the same game with him that you play with us -- intentionally misunderstood his arguments, twisted his words, declared him a fool, and dismissed him. So what I predicted was true. You declared that he is not Christian. You have yet to show me any actual proof that any Christians agree with your four steps. You keep saying that "all" Christians do, yet you refuse to provide any evidence of this statement. Until you do so, I have no other choice but to believe that no Christians agree with your four steps. Ya know, now that I think about it a little longer, I've never seen anyone, ever agree with it, actually. So, let me expand the criteria a bit. Maybe that will be a little easier for you. Troy, show me a handful of people, regardless of faith, that do agree that your four steps are correct. Like before, I would prefer that they not be on Biblocality, due to the number of sockpuppets. But anyone of any faith will do. Anyone at all. Anyone that says something similar to "Yes, the four steps prove the God of the Bible." I eagerly await the plethora of links that will prove me wrong. But I won't get my hopes up. You probably won't provide any links, and that will do nothing but reinforce the facts. Nobody, ever, has agreed with your four steps, Troy. Nobody. Not a single living being. Doesn't that anger you, Troy? Doesn't it fill you with rage that nobody sees the brilliance of your four steps? Teehee, I see now. That's why you say all Christians agree with the four steps, then call everyone that calls themselves Christians not Christians. That way, when they disagree, which anyone with an active mind is likely to do, you still "win." So, Troy, prove me wrong. Show me some people of any faith that agree with your four steps. Do it.

old comment by CT

@Doom

You have yet to show me any actual proof that any Christians agree with your four steps. You keep saying that "all" Christians do, yet you refuse to provide any evidence of this statement.
Until you do so, I have no other choice but to believe that no Christians agree with your four steps.

His evidence is simple... If someone doesn't agree with his proof, they're not a Christian... That, funnily enough, is how he knows people misread his proof... because if they don't agree with it, they must be misreading it... That's the evidence... if you don't agree with it, you're misreading it... if you misread it, you're not a Christian... if you're not a Christian, you'll not agree with it... and if you don't agree with it, you're misreading it. Anything else he puts as "evidence" is flim-flam garbage used to distract people from his circular "evidence"

old comment by A Friend

CT,
Your problem is you are an evil man and do not sin only the sin of rebellion, but also the sin of overassuming some fault with the Proof for God, but you don't show it, or that you think Jesus is a liar, but have no reason for doing so. That's crazy! You're crazy! "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived" (2 Ti 3.13). "I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book" (Rev. 22.18-19). “Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins [overassuming]; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be clear from great transgression” (Ps. 19.13). From this verse of David’s psalm we are shown that there are two kinds of sin before God: one is the sin of rebellion, the other is that of presumption. Not doing what one is told to do constitutes the sin of rebellion. Now we all know the sinfulness of this kind of sin; and from this sin we wish to be delivered. But please take note that besides the sin of rebellion there is also that of presumption, which is, that we do what we are not ordered to do. Rebellion is failing to do what God has charged, whereas presumption is doing what God has not commanded at all. To be active outside of the Lord’s will is to be presumptuous. On the one hand God says, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal. If anyone should commit such an act, he is guilty. This we all know. But on the other hand, do we know that it is equally sinful for us to act without God’s order? It is reckoned as sin before the Lord if we work for Him without His command and instead work according to our own idea, even though we may view what we do to be most excellent. The prayer of David is for Jehovah to keep him away from presumptuous sin.

old comment by A Friend

Doom,
Let me break it down for you. The clearest way to explain open theism is open theists don’t believe God has infinite foreknowledge. Period. This is not Christian, for all Christians believe God has infinite foreknowledge. If you say you are a Christian, yet reject God’s omniscience, then Christians should not assume you are a Christian, because you are showing they don’t believe in an all-knowing God. Libertarian free-will is false. It says that God’s infinite foreknowledge and cause and effect in all things (determinism) is not compatible with free-will. Of course it is compatible! God’s all-knowing. We are made in His image as sovereign beings with free-will. The Nicene makes no commentary on whether God is all-knowing, so this is yet another loophole in the Nicene Creed. Be careful, for it has lots of loopholes cults use to teach false things. Trust the Word of God, not Creeds alone! This is the lowdown on the real deal! It is not complicated at all. Since the Bible teaches God is all-knowing for eternity, then to reject the Word of God on this point is very non-Christian. I have never met a Christian who believes God lacks infinite foreknowledge. That’s crazy! It’s also faithless. The Word decides, we just agree. Since you could find nothing wrong with the responses to Dray and it was shown Dray was going into mindless repetitive mode then his wasting space and shutting his mind down ought not be permitted for that is belligerent and discourteous. It should not be permitted. If you are going to just repeat yourself instead of responding in kind, that’s rude. You are just repeating yourself now, but you have not responded to the need of the burden of the proof of the accuser which is on you. He was already shown not to be a Christian. How can you predict this that which is already stated at Biblocality Forums? Funny. That’s not a real prediction. That’s hilarious! Since you can’t find a single Christian who disagrees with the Proof for God, nor can I, and I know every Christian I have ever talked to always agreed, then let us be glad God fully proves Himself. Moreover, you still can’t find anything wrong with the Proof for God. And the burden still remains on you for your blind accusation. It is always true the burden of the proof is on the accuser. Since you accuse no Christian agrees, you will have to prove your claim to account for every Christian that ever lived. You can’t even find one who disagrees. Since I am at peace in talking with lots of Christians who agree, there is no problem; God said don’t cater to your flesh. I even have quotes of non-Christians saying they agree with the logic, but still shut their minds down. So your blame is passed backed to you where it belongs and the burden is on you. You’re just a sockpuppet for Satan. You know that. There are no sockpuppets at Biblocality Forums. Try not to be upset by this. I love how I don’t have to cater to your flesh. I can just let you spin your wheels and carry on in your rampage as the accuser who has no evidence for his accusation. Since all Christians agree God is proven in the Word of God and the 4 Step Proof flows from the Word of God as that proof, then no Christian disagrees. That makes you angry doesn’t it? Name just one Christian who believes in puff the magic dragon it happened all by itself that Step 2 shows is impossible? Name just one Christian who thinks child sacrifices are still conducted to overturn the exponential progression of conscience in Step 1? Name one Christian who thinks when you argue against God of the Bible by arguing against some god, that that is logical which Step 3 shows is not logical? And, find one Christian who thinks there is an eternity of past of gods creating gods and supernatural events causing supernatural events, even though Step 4 shows it is impossible? You lose. You’re going to hell, and there is not a thing you can do about it as long as you revile Christians with nonsense and continue to call Jesus a liar. But God said if you search Him out with all your heart and soul, you shall find Him. Obviously, then you have not really searched Him out with all your heart and soul, but you are just sitting on your pedestal rationalizing yourself. You are a bad guy. Just admit it. Be honest with yourself. Don’t lie to yourself on your way to hell.

old comment by A Friend

Mr Smith,
I can’t respond to all your vague accusations because you have no substance behind any of it. What you can say to God at the Great White Throne is that you always called Jesus a liar. So you will go to hell. You will say you tried your best though. But God said, Why did you call My Son a liar? Why did you refuse My forgiveness? I wanted to give you My Life, but I couldn’t because you kept yourself separated from Me. I have to send you to Hell now. In response, you will say nothing, because you will realize you belong there. How sad. All my brothers and sisters in Christ have died on the cross with Christ. We received God’s gift of eternal life and forgiveness. It is an accomplished fact and renders your father Satan powerless. Because our sins have been cleansed by the precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ we have God’s power to do His will. You don’t, because you are still lost in the self life where you are the center and not God. I can’t really respond to your mindless vague accusations since they have no details. All I can say is that you are trying to save yourself by works when you said, “I see him I will be able to say I lived my life as best I could and I was honest”. “As best I could” is self-works, not relying on your Creator. God will say to you many things, and He might even say to you: you were shown the Proof of Me, so why did you still reject Me? You couldn’t find any fault with the Proof of Me? So why did you then overassume and not receive Me? You have committed sin: sin of presumption to reject Me. Wow!

old comment by Doom

God, knowing what we will do with our free will, negates free will. If He knows what will happen and what will not, then what is the purpose of free will? Would He not then know, from the very moment of each human coming into existence, what he or she will do throughout their entire lives, and thus immediately know the fate of their souls? But doesn't that line of thought lead to predestination?
Also, it was not I that has the burden of proof. You have stated on previous occasions that all Christians agree with your four steps. All I'm doing is asking you to back that statement up, and you keep refusing. The only conclusion that I can draw is that I am correct, as you have not provided any outside sources to indicate that you are correct instead. If you can show me even one Christian *edit* or non-Christian, per my previous request */edit* that agrees with your four steps, then I will admit defeat on that point. Your continued refusal to provide evidence to counter my argument only serves to reinforce the argument. Please, prove me wrong. *repost because the previous post was inserted into a random location*

old comment by A Friend

Doom,
God can still have a relationship with His creation even though He knows all things. The Bible teaches predestination, but it doesn’t mean what you think. Calvinists twist it. Predestination in Rom. 8.29 tells us that God predestinates by foreknowing. What does He foreknow? He foreknows our free-choice. Like Abel’s free-will offering and the choice God implores you to make for Him, when He said, “whosoever believeth” may be saved (John 3.16). Since I can’t count every single Christian in the world, and it has just been my experience that of hundreds or thousands of Christians I have spoken to or exchanged writings with, none of them ever found fault with the Proof for God of the Bible. This would agree with your finding as well, since you can’t find any fault with the Proof either and you can’t find any Christians who disagree with it. I think that is a good thing. Since you accuse, the burden is on you. Waiting. Hope this helps. My prayers go out to you to receive Jesus into your life. Sophie/CT, Trying to keep two personas must difficult for you. CT hasn't posted in awhile. I guess pretending to be Sophie tired him out, lol. How about an actual Christian? Couldn't find any eh? I am sure there is somebody that can do a better job than Sophie did in misrepresenting themselves. She gave herself away by a catch phrase of CT, and the false teaching of universalism and denying hell exists when Jesus said it existed. Plus, that 101 vague accusations approach is deadly poison to your spirit Sophie. Know that SophieEleven is not actually a Christian, for this person makes many accusations, but doesn’t back them up. Christians are not like the great false accuser, so there is no reason for us to think SophieEleven is a Christian. As the Bible says, we shall know them by their fruit. I am just glad Sophie gives glory to God even though unwittingly, since she can not reproduce any disproof even though she says one exists mysteriously. Coy people are coy because they have nothing! I love that. Sounds like Sophie is really CT using the phrase “cherry-picking”. This is quite a give a way. Call that the slip of the tongue. I would like anyone who reads this person Sophie to know that all those accusations of hers are as vague as can be. There is really nothing to say in response, since this Sophie CT can’t back any accusation up. Do you see how Satan works? He is called the great false accuser, and he will accuse day and night and as vaguely as possible so all you can really say in response is, PROVE IT! Sophie doesn’t. How’s it feel to be a woman now CT? lol. I am sure Satan would wish there was universalism too! Satan will never repent and nor will Sophie and CT. They have decided forever they want to go to hell, so they will go there. That is why John 3.18 says they are already condemned. They are bad people! I only wished I was proven wrong and they gave their life to Christ, but they never will. Sophie will always be a universalist and deny hell exists. I am not even so sure there will be surprise. I think they might know they are going there and they would rather go there. As I said, you know Sophie is not a Christian. She said, “you will watch in disbelief as He welcomes into His arms people who are atheists, agnostics, scientists, pagans, homosexuals, Catholics, Jews, Muslims- in other words, all of those people you purport to judge now.” Jesus said, the only way to salvation, to enter the new city, is through Jesus Christ. The only way to the Father and receive forgiveness is through the Son. Since Jesus showed Himself to be true, then that means Sophie is going to hell for calling Jesus a liar. If you call Jesus a liar, you are going to hell. That’s why Jesus spoke on hell more than anyone else, because of His authority that that is exactly what is going to happen to all those mentioned above, with some exceptions where few Catholics could be saved and of course a Jew who is a Christian is saved. The rest are doomed! No fags in the kingdom. Sorry. If you are a fag or lesbo, you’re not a Christian. You’re going to hell. Sophie is admitting she is not a Christian when she said, “I don't believe in Hell” and she said: “I am a Universalist”. You see, Christians can prove a person is a fraud by the Word of God which exposes them. If you need verses, just ask. That’s what I am here for. Sophie will post again. She can’t resist. She said she won’t post again because more of her CTiness will be exposed by the slip of the tongue so she said she will likely not post again, lol. The flesh is too strong, because she has NOT died on the cross with Christ. There’s lots of verses about hell in the OT and NT. If you want some, please place your request. I try not to cast what is holy unto dogs unless first there is some humility in requesting the awesome verses of God’s Word. Universalism falsely teaches everyone is saved. This means there are no consequences. You can go nuke 10 cities and no big deal. You’re alright. This only shows Sophie is on her way to hell. What do you think CT? Moreover, to reject the very forgiveness of God is an eternal choice for hell. All you open theists who reject God’s infinite foreknowledge and universalists who don’t like the requirement of hell for being a universalist, well that is exactly what hell was created for. You’re only calling Jesus a lair, for He spoke on hell more than any other. There is no way around it. You’re going to hell.

old comment by Athar

And so the battle rages on! The two sides set off like fundametalists on contrary opinion. The daring philosophers with the well being of humaninty at their side and powerful intellect to boot but nary the wisdom to express doubt in the faithful and the mighty crusader whos inner strength hath tempered his constitution but dulled his eyes in blinding light of the unfathomable! As usual the clash hits another stalemate as no side is quickly swayed one way or the other. But fear not gentle readers! The conflict continues now and forever!
Who shall win?! Does it really matter? Will we be better of for having listened to either side? Will this thread ever go away!? Lets watch and find out...

old comment by AEGPM

Lot's of people use the phrase 'cherry-picking'. Lord knows it describes you quite nicely.
Also note how Sophie debates more emotionally and passionately than CT. (This is not a knock against either of you by the way. You both argue from your respective appeals quite well.) Maybe instead of latching onto a single verb and claiming sock puppet, you could analyze the actual rhetorical style of each. At that point, you'll recognize -- ... What's the point? Troy's going to claim that any Christian who disagrees with him isn't a true Christian and that his proof is somehow woven into the basic tenets of Christianity, like a false eleventh commandment of sorts. It's like beating a brick wall. A very stupid brick wall that claims that any other brick wall isn't actually a brick wall.

old comment by A Friend

In all the posts, the only person who used this phrase was CT, then all of a sudden Sophie uses it. Exposed! As you try desperately to make it look like a Christian rejects the Proof, but this so-called Christian is a universalist and denies hell. That's goofy.
Anyway, you're still avoiding the Proof for God and talking about anything but, so as I did before, when it sinks this low and stinks this bad here and gets so utterly mindless and belligerent, that is my cue to exit. I might be back. You never know. But God wants me to leave at this time, for there is lots of work to do for the kingdom of God. Can't help those who are going to hell, will never repent, so going to have to kick the dust under my feet as I leave this place. You know where to reach me. My sincerest prayer is for you to watch the movie, The Perfect Stranger, and feel free to contact me any time at Biblocality Forums. If you do get saved, I would love to hear about. In fact if you do get saved, I can guarantee you will contact me, because you will be so happy to share your new life. You are also boring me to tears. I feel so sad for you that you could care less you are going to hell and don't need a reason to reject God's Proof of Himself. Such reviling one's Creator is so horrible. Go ahead say whatever you want; I won't be reading the posts anytime soon, if ever. Praise the Lord! There is nothing Satan and his pawns can do to Christians. Hallelujah!

old comment by Doom

If predestination and foreknowledge are true, how can I have free will?
I have the choice between A and B. God knows that I will choose B. He must know that I will choose B, because He must know everything, by your own definition. I can not choose A, because if I was to choose A, that means that God was wrong. God can not be wrong, by your own definition. This doesn't even begin to touch the concept of evil. If God is just and merciful, then how can He condone evil acts? He knows that evil will occur, and yet does nothing to stop it? Why would He do that? All in the name of giving us the appearance of free will? Predestination precludes free will. The two are entirely incompatible.

Since I can’t count every single Christian in the world, and it has just been my experience that of hundreds or thousands of Christians I have spoken to or exchanged writings with, none of them ever found fault with the Proof for God of the Bible.

*sigh* Okay. Troy, work with me here. How about this. Let's ignore the four steps for a few moments. Because your definition of who is and is not a Christian seems to be rather narrow, how about if you point me at a few people with an online presence (i.e. that I can see posts from on a forum or blog or whatnot), that you have talked to, that you agree are Christians? Just one or two will do, with the usual sockpuppet clause. We'll work from there. Oh, and also, I have used the phrase "cherry-pick(ing)" before, just under another pseudonym in another one of the topics. It is a very common thing to say, especially as it's pretty much exactly what you're doing. *edit* Hah! Once again, his god tells him that he should leave, just as his god told him that he didn't need to answer my questions... Who wants to wager when he'll be back?

old comment by lastoff

" It is like trying to a caregiver when you spend most of the day at the track gambling on unicorns. Pascal would never make that bet. The natures are incompatible."

a friend, since you brought up Pascal. perhaps you might consider this statistical argument: God is our creator and the creator of our nature. we had no choice in that. God created us with free will such that we are tempted to act against God (sin, evil). that is part of human nature. so when God created Adam and Eve, even if there was only a billionth of a percent chance per temptation that they would succumb to sin, it was still a 100% probability that they would succumb over the eternity they were supposed to spend in eden. since God created a set of circumstances in which it was impossible for evil not to come into being then, God created evil.

old comment by Jim

Lastoff, let's hope you're right.
I've watched this thing grow from 40 comments to 1000+. And have finally vouched to voice my opinion: Goddammit, "a Friend," you're not a friend to us. Your idiotic ramblings and cherry-picking of Biblical passages piss even God off. Seriously. He sees you right now and weeps. The utter idiocy of your questionably sane arguments astound me. You need to a.) get your head out of your ass, and b.) get a life. WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MINDS WILL POST ON THIS FREAKIN' SITE DAY IN AND DAY OUT TO INCREASE THEIR OWN EGO?! Besides you? SophieEleven, most of us here realize most Christians (and other religious folks) aren't like...this guy...here. Frankly, I get embarrassed sometimes talking to sane Christians because they're so sincere. It's kinda hard to trivialize something like that. Oh the other hand, I believe "A Friend" has disgraced most of the internet. Right now, I'm actually debating if he's worse than Bro. Randy. At least Randy doesn't force your ass up into his. Like...certain people. "A Friend"? You realize you're pissing everyone off, right? Because the sheer ignorance you possess puts people like Debbie to shame. They have nothing against such a <insert word here>. So, here's my view on such matters: I refuse to participate in this farce any longer. -Minke Zhang, the Asian

old comment by Athar

You know if you watch the film battle field earth It'll tell you all about the greatness and wisdom the scientology has to offer. If you watch the movie the matrix you'll actually realise that you are a living a lie in order to power the lives of many robots. If you watch the movie star wars you'll see that their is this thing called the force and it really really works. Watch the movie truimph of the will and you will see a superior man named hitler who has all the answers to you queries. Yep movies all contain a lot of truth, especially if you ignore the subtext. Wow a movie agrees with your 4 step program? Gee it must b true! You sir will not go where you want to go because you are far too lawful and not good enough! You will go to Arcadia! Land of Back and white! Stop with the fucking charts For fuck sake! they prove nothing! they have no basis or evidence to be backed up by anything!! just die!!!!!! and save me the effort!

old comment by Holy Spirit Updater

Before Regeneration
According to the Bible the mind of man is unusual in that it constitutes a battlefield where Satan and his evil spirits contend against the truth and hence against the believer. We may illustrate as follows. Man’s will and spirit are like a citadel which the evil spirits crave to capture. The open field where the battle is waged for the seizure of the citadel is man’s mind. Note how Paul the Apostle describes it: “though we live in the world we are not carrying on a worldly war, for the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor. 10.3-5). He initially tells us of a battlethen where the battle is foughtand finally for what objective. This struggle pertains exclusively to man’s mind. The Apostle likens man’s arguments or reasonings to an enemy’s strongholds. He pictures the mind as held by the enemy; it must therefore be broken into by waging war. He concludes that many rebellious thoughts are housed in these strongholds and need to be taken captive to the obedience of Christ. All this plainly shows us that the mind of man is the scene of battle where the evil spirits clash with God. Scripture explains that before regeneration “the god of this world (had) blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God” (2 Cor. 4.4). This verse concurs in what the other verse just quoted said by declaring here that Satan holds on to man’s mind by making it blind. Some people perhaps may consider themselves extremely wise in their ability to advance many arguments against the gospel; others may take for granted that unbelief is due to dullness of understanding; but the truth in both cases is that the eyes of man’s mind have been covered by Satan. When firmly held by Satan the mind of man becomes “hardened”; man “follows the desires of body and mind (as) children of wrath” and so “is estranged and hostile in mind” because “the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God” (2 Cor. 3.14; Eph. 2.3; Col. 1.21; Rom. 8.7). Upon reading these various passages we can see clearly how the powers of darkness are especially related to man’s mind, how it is peculiarly susceptible to Satan’s assault. With respect to man’s will, emotion and body, the powers of evil are helpless to do anything directly unless they first have gained some ground therein. But with man’s mind they can work freely without initially persuading man or securing his invitation. The mind appears to be their possession already. The Apostle in comparing men’s minds to an enemy’s strongholds seems to imply that Satan and his wicked spirits already have established a deep relationship with the minds of men, that somehow they are using them as their bastions in which to imprison their captives. Through man’s mind they impose their authority and through the mind of their captives they transmit poisonous thoughts to others so that these too may rise up against God. It is difficult to estimate how much of the world’s philosophy, ethics, knowledge, research, and science flow from the powers of darkness. But of one point we are certain: all arguments and proud obstacles against the knowledge of God are the fortresses of the enemy. Is it strange to behold the mind in such close proximity to the authorities of wickedness? Was not the sin which mankind first committed that of seeking the knowledge of good and evil, and that at the instigation of Satan? Hence man’s mind is especially related to Satan. If we were to peruse the Scriptures carefully and to observe the experiences of the saints we would discover that all communications between human and satanic forces occur in the organ of thought. Take, for instance, Satan’s temptation. Every temptation with which he entices man is presented to his mind. It is true that Satan often uses the flesh to secure the consent of man, yet in each instance of enticement the enemy creates some kind of thought by which to induce the man. We cannot separate temptation and thought. All temptations are offered us in the form of thoughts. Since the latter are so exposed to the power of darkness, we need to learn how to guard them. Prior to regeneration man’s, intellect obstructs him from apprehending God. It is necessary for His mighty power to destroy man’s arguments. This is a work which must occur at the hour of new birthand it does happen then in the form of repentance. The original definition of repentance is none else than “a change of mind.” Man in his mind is at enmity with God; therefore God must alter man’s mind if He would impart life to him. In his unregenerated state man has a darkened mind; at his regeneration it undergoes a drastic change. Because it has been so united with the devil it is vital for man to receive from God a change of mind before he can receive a new heart (Acts 11.18).

old comment by Doom

According to the Bible the mind of man is unusual in that it constitutes a battlefield where Satan and his evil spirits contend against the truth and hence against the believer.
[...] Satan and his wicked spirits already have established a deep relationship with the minds of men, that somehow they are using them as their bastions in which to imprison their captives. Through man’s mind they impose their authority and through the mind of their captives they transmit poisonous thoughts to others so that these too may rise up against God. It is difficult to estimate how much of the world’s philosophy, ethics, knowledge, research, and science flow from the powers of darkness. [...] If we were to peruse the Scriptures carefully and to observe the experiences of the saints we would discover that all communications between human and satanic forces occur in the organ of thought.

I... I think he just accused us of being collectively possessed by Satan. Which reminds me... Troy, didn't your god tell you go to away from here? And that we are poison to your mind? Seriously.

old comment by A Friend

Spirit, Soul and Body after the Fall

Adam lived by the breath of life becoming spirit in him. By the spirit he sensed God, knew God’s voice, and communed with God. He had a very keen awareness of God. But after his fall his spirit died.

When God spoke to Adam at the first He said, “in the day that you eat of it (the fruit of the tree of good and evil) you shall die” (Gen. 2.17). Adam and Eve nevertheless continued on for hundreds of years after eating the forbidden fruit. This obviously indicates that the death God foretold was not physical. Adam’s death began in his spirit.

What really is death? According to its scientific definition, death is “the cessation of communication with environment.” Death of the spirit is the cessation of its communication with God. Death of the body is the cutting off of communication between spirit and body. So when we say the spirit is dead it does not imply there is no more spirit; we simply mean the spirit has lost its sensitivity towards God and thus is dead to Him. The exact situation is that the spirit is incapacitated, unable to commune with God. To illustrate. A dumb person has a mouth and lungs but something is wrong with his vocal cords and he is powerless to speak. So far as human language is concerned his mouth may be considered dead. Similarly Adam’s spirit died because of his disobedience to God. He still had his spirit, yet it was dead to God for it had lost its spiritual instinct. It is still so; sin has destroyed the spirit’s keen intuitive knowledge of God and rendered man spiritually dead. He may be religious, moral, learned, capable, strong and wise, but he is dead to God. He may even talk about God, reason about God and preach God, but he is still dead to Him. Man is not able to hear or to sense the voice of God’s Spirit. Consequently in the New Testament God often refers to those who are living in the flesh as dead.

The death which began in our forefather’s spirit gradually spread until it reached his body. Though he lived on for many years after his spirit was dead, death nevertheless worked incessantly in him until his spirit, soul and body were all dead. His body, which could have been transformed and glorified, was instead returned to dust. Because his inward man had fallen into chaos, his outward body must die and be destroyed.

Henceforth Adam’s spirit (as well as the spirit of all his descendants) fell under the oppression of the soul until it gradually merged with the soul and the two parts became closely united. The writer of Hebrews declares in 4.12 that the Word of God shall pierce and divide soul and spirit. The dividing is necessary because spirit and soul have become one. While they are intimately knit they plunge man into a psychic world. Everything is done according to the dictates of intellect or feeling. The spirit has lost its power and sensation, as though dead asleep. What instinct it has in knowing and serving God is entirely paralyzed. It remains in a coma as if non-existent. This is what is meant in Jude 19 by “natural, not having spirit”. This certainly does not mean the human spirit ceases to exist, for Numbers 16.22 distinctly states that God is “the God of the spirits of all flesh.” Every human being still has in his possession a spirit, although it is darkened by sin and impotent to hold communion with God.

Churchwork #fundie biblocality.com

1226 comments

Confused?