Why do people call the devil a "thief, liar, and murderer"?

[kingblaze84]

"So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake... Religion is all bunk"



"To those seaching for truth - not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction - faith in fiction is a damnable false hope"



--Thomas Edison, America's greatest inventor

 

[luke1733]

What lie was told in the garden of Eden?

He told eve that if she at the fruit she would not certainly die and that she I.e we would know the difference between good and evil. This first statememt was a total lie and the second a half truth.

Good answers zombie.

Me, sometimes I get tired of doing other people's research for them.

There's a lot on Christianity, a lot on Judaism, a lot of scholars from 100 AD (Josephus, His writings provide a significant, extra-Biblical account of the post-Exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty, and the rise of Herod the Great. He refers to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and to Jesus. Josephus represents an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity.)

and

Eusebius (Little is known about the life of Eusebius. His successor at the see of Caesarea, Acacius, wrote a Life of Eusebius, a work that has since been lost.Beyond notices in his extant writings, the major sources are the 5th-century ecclesiastical historians Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, and the 4th-century Christian author Jerome. There are assorted notices of his activities in the writings of his contemporaries Athanasius, Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Alexander of Alexandria. Eusebius' pupil, Eusebius of Emesa, provides some incidental information.

Eusebius wrote about all the sightings and things people saw after Jesus came back to life. He wrote about how he was being persecuted and how all the Jews that were Christian were being killed and their names, families and the Romans that were doing it. He wrote about in depth the court trials and how different priests had to be challenged by orthodox dews in judaism and how they also had to stand trial before Rome and were challenged by arguments and tests of what they saw and many debating points. The arguments in the trials are documented in his book. The Book is called Eusebius.)

All these silly childish challenges to Christianity have been had since the year 10AD, but people in 2015 still think they are being wise in these questions just because they keep repeating them.

They've been answered. Noone has to accept the answer, but the arguments and answers have existed and are WELL very WELL and thoroughly documented by courts, through trials, and by sentencing people to death. It's been DONE, but people don't accept the answers. So why keep answering questions they don't want answers to?

It's kind of lazy and ignorant when I see some come with negative questions on Christianity that they aren't asking out of respect but wanna be "gotcha" questions.



There's a ton of writings and history on these people and there's no need sometime for me to feel like answering what they can research themselves.

But, then again, every now and then, like zombie I'll say something too.

These people often don't even do research on the stuff they believe in as far as its origins and founders are, but are quick to ask a question on others beliefs for cynicism.

Philosophy, religion, science, it's all written.

What more could the people do to convince someone that what hundreds of people witnessed and did not dispute was true, BESIDES write it on a piece of paper or draw in a cave????

Tv's didn't exist. They used the only resource at their disposal during a time when 98% of the people were illiterate.

 

[kingblaze84]

What lie was told in the garden of Eden?

He told eve that if she at the fruit she would not certainly die and that she I.e we would know the difference between good and evil. This first statememt was a total lie and the second a half truth.

Good answers zombie.

Me, sometimes I get tired of doing other people's research for them.

There's a lot on Christianity, a lot on Judaism, a lot of scholars from 100 AD (Josephus, His writings provide a significant, extra-Biblical account of the post-Exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty, and the rise of Herod the Great. He refers to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and to Jesus. Josephus represents an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity.)

and

Eusebius (Little is known about the life of Eusebius. His successor at the see of Caesarea, Acacius, wrote a Life of Eusebius, a work that has since been lost.Beyond notices in his extant writings, the major sources are the 5th-century ecclesiastical historians Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, and the 4th-century Christian author Jerome. There are assorted notices of his activities in the writings of his contemporaries Athanasius, Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Alexander of Alexandria. Eusebius' pupil, Eusebius of Emesa, provides some incidental information.

Eusebius wrote about all the sightings and things people saw after Jesus came back to life. He wrote about how he was being persecuted and how all the Jews that were Christian were being killed and their names, families and the Romans that were doing it. He wrote about in depth the court trials and how different priests had to be challenged by orthodox dews in judaism and how they also had to stand trial before Rome and were challenged by arguments and tests of what they saw and many debating points. The arguments in the trials are documented in his book. The Book is called Eusebius.)

All these silly childish challenges to Christianity have been had since the year 10AD, but people in 2015 still think they are being wise in these questions just because they keep repeating them.

They've been answered. Noone has to accept the answer, but the arguments and answers have existed and are WELL very WELL and thoroughly documented by courts, through trials, and by sentencing people to death. It's been DONE, but people don't accept the answers. So why keep answering questions they don't want answers to?

It's kind of lazy and ignorant when I see some come with negative questions on Christianity that they aren't asking out of respect but wanna be "gotcha" questions.



There's a ton of writings and history on these people and there's no need sometime for me to feel like answering what they can research themselves.

But, then again, every now and then, like zombie I'll say something too.

These people often don't even do research on the stuff they believe in as far as its origins and founders are, but are quick to ask a question on others beliefs for cynicism.

Philosophy, religion, science, it's all written.

What more could the people do to convince someone that what hundreds of people witnessed and did not dispute was true, BESIDES write it on a piece of paper or draw in a cave????

Tv's didn't exist. They used the only resource at their disposal during a time when 98% of the people were illiterate.

TVs exist now. What's stopping the supposedly "powerful" Bible god from proving itself on TV screens? Is the "powerful" Bible god afraid of proving people wrong?

After all, 70% of the world is not Christian. The Bible god, if alive, should be very disappointed in that. I mean wow, a powerful god that supposedly made all humans cannot even convince 70% of the world to believe in Jesus. Shouldn't the Bible god take advantage of those TVs by now? Perhaps people have good reason to not be satisfied with those answers you speak of. Why is Jesus unable to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament after 2,000 years, he can at least explain that on TV. The Old Testament prophecies said the "savior" would create world peace, and the Jews have yet to be proven wrong on Jesus.

70% of the world actually have great reasons to not take those answers seriously. But to each his own.

 

[alissowack]

@soulrattler Well...Adam and Eve, who were made in God's image, were cursed as a result of it for starters. Who knows the drive it took to motivate the deed, but it wasn't for Adam and Eve's benefit...and it definitely wasn't to glorify God.

I've said somewhere in this thread that there is a difference in being in a position to fail and actually failing. Jesus was placed in a position to fail when he was lead to the desert. He had a choice to either trust God or trust Satan. Through it all, he trusted God. Adam and Eve had a choice. Adam and Eve knew in advance what they could or couldn't do in the garden so it wasn't like they didn't know.

You've heard this before...it's the principle of it all. Adam and Eve disobeyed God when it was all said and done. No matter how petty it seems, it just shows that God does not take disobedience lightly. However, despite what you believe, mercy was shown.

 

[luke1733]

What lie was told in the garden of Eden?

He told eve that if she at the fruit she would not certainly die and that she I.e we would know the difference between good and evil. This first statememt was a total lie and the second a half truth.

Good answers zombie.

Me, sometimes I get tired of doing other people's research for them.

There's a lot on Christianity, a lot on Judaism, a lot of scholars from 100 AD (Josephus, His writings provide a significant, extra-Biblical account of the post-Exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty, and the rise of Herod the Great. He refers to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and to Jesus. Josephus represents an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity.)

and

Eusebius (Little is known about the life of Eusebius. His successor at the see of Caesarea, Acacius, wrote a Life of Eusebius, a work that has since been lost.Beyond notices in his extant writings, the major sources are the 5th-century ecclesiastical historians Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, and the 4th-century Christian author Jerome. There are assorted notices of his activities in the writings of his contemporaries Athanasius, Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Alexander of Alexandria. Eusebius' pupil, Eusebius of Emesa, provides some incidental information.

Eusebius wrote about all the sightings and things people saw after Jesus came back to life. He wrote about how he was being persecuted and how all the Jews that were Christian were being killed and their names, families and the Romans that were doing it. He wrote about in depth the court trials and how different priests had to be challenged by orthodox dews in judaism and how they also had to stand trial before Rome and were challenged by arguments and tests of what they saw and many debating points. The arguments in the trials are documented in his book. The Book is called Eusebius.)

All these silly childish challenges to Christianity have been had since the year 10AD, but people in 2015 still think they are being wise in these questions just because they keep repeating them.

They've been answered. Noone has to accept the answer, but the arguments and answers have existed and are WELL very WELL and thoroughly documented by courts, through trials, and by sentencing people to death. It's been DONE, but people don't accept the answers. So why keep answering questions they don't want answers to?

It's kind of lazy and ignorant when I see some come with negative questions on Christianity that they aren't asking out of respect but wanna be "gotcha" questions.



There's a ton of writings and history on these people and there's no need sometime for me to feel like answering what they can research themselves.

But, then again, every now and then, like zombie I'll say something too.

These people often don't even do research on the stuff they believe in as far as its origins and founders are, but are quick to ask a question on others beliefs for cynicism.

Philosophy, religion, science, it's all written.

What more could the people do to convince someone that what hundreds of people witnessed and did not dispute was true, BESIDES write it on a piece of paper or draw in a cave????

Tv's didn't exist. They used the only resource at their disposal during a time when 98% of the people were illiterate.

TVs exist now. What's stopping the supposedly "powerful" Bible god from proving itself on TV screens? Is the "powerful" Bible god afraid of proving people wrong?

After all, 70% of the world is not Christian. The Bible god, if alive, should be very disappointed in that. I mean wow, a powerful god that supposedly made all humans cannot even convince 70% of the world to believe in Jesus. Shouldn't the Bible god take advantage of those TVs by now? Perhaps people have good reason to not be satisfied with those answers you speak of. Why is Jesus unable to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament after 2,000 years, he can at least explain that on TV. The Old Testament prophecies said the "savior" would create world peace, and the Jews have yet to be proven wrong on Jesus.

70% of the world actually have great reasons to not take those answers seriously. But to each his own.

I'll say this without being condescending and be respectful since your questions are not disrespectful.

You obviously know very,very,very little about the bible. I could tell you exactly what scripture says to answer you directly, but to you it wouldn't even matter. Anyone can see that.

I'll answer you indirectly with scripture: There's a scripture that says the world will get worse before God comes and these things must happen when the world will lose faith and Christians will be persecuted in the end times.

Now, ironically Islam teaches the opposite on this. Maybe this is where the confusion is.

Islam teaches the world will be converted to Islam and Muslims are supposed to rule the world. The world will get better. No savior, no christ, no jesus.

I'm no expert on Islam so I can't confirm exactly what they believe beyond what I've been told.

As for tv, Jesus spoke of how God had revealed himself during those days (and nobody denied God, thus the reason for no society for over 4,000 years being atheist) and how the world would in the future look for signs and miracles but the generation would not receive them.

When the people heard from God they would not obey. Proving his existence to us is immaterial, you wrestle so hard because your spirit tells you he exists and you feel it but your mind fights.

God's not begging for you.

Also, do yourself a favor and read a book on all the prophecies fulfilled. Your wasting your own time asking folks on the internet to do theological studies.

More than all your questions have already been answered, and it's obvious you don't want answers, so just be happy with where you stand in not knowing what the bible actually says.

Keep reading internet posts or thinking of challenges.

Christians welcome challenges to our faith.

You have to seek your own answers.

 

[luke1733]

Question you might want to ask is: Atheism should be natural?

Look at it this way. Think of early man.

No God exists.

How many centuries had to pass before someone made up the character Wolverine or Vampires and Werewolves?

Now, I'm using your own basic logic for where a mind like yours pragmatically should think.

So if it took like 5,500 years or however long it takes to come up with those Characters and nobody believes in them and even in the day when only a few believed MOST even then still did not;

now how long did man exist in the beginning without thinking to CREATE a God character????

This has to be natural according to your way of thinking.

Why?

Because if God did not exist then someone had to make him up, and if someone had to make him up; then there had to be a good period of time when nobody created his character and the entire world operated without a concept or word or thought of God.

So, studying early man, there should be numerous societies and evidence of cultures around the world that NEVER believed in a God or gods because it was not introduced OR if it was introduced then the Concept and structure of having a God does not free people but limits people's actions and condemns people. So??? If noone believes in God and most didn't believe in God, like 99.99% because God never existed, then how do you sell overwhelmingly to all these people that God exists and the people accept it by the masses?

Instead, what you have according to the earliest findings of man and history is every culture in the entire world on every continent writing consistently on cave walls, forming rocks, and doing everything they can to spell out GOD.

So, if anyone shouldn't have believed in God, it actually should have been these people.

Instead, apparently, the belief in God according to all cultures recorded (and if there is one then that still wouldn't be enough to challenge the overwhelming majority of 99.99% of all humankind) was never in doubt; and not only not in doubt, but constantly referenced and tried to document God's manifestation because they saw it as worthy.

 

[kingblaze84]

What lie was told in the garden of Eden?

He told eve that if she at the fruit she would not certainly die and that she I.e we would know the difference between good and evil. This first statememt was a total lie and the second a half truth.

Good answers zombie.

Me, sometimes I get tired of doing other people's research for them.

There's a lot on Christianity, a lot on Judaism, a lot of scholars from 100 AD (Josephus, His writings provide a significant, extra-Biblical account of the post-Exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty, and the rise of Herod the Great. He refers to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and to Jesus. Josephus represents an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity.)

and

Eusebius (Little is known about the life of Eusebius. His successor at the see of Caesarea, Acacius, wrote a Life of Eusebius, a work that has since been lost.Beyond notices in his extant writings, the major sources are the 5th-century ecclesiastical historians Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, and the 4th-century Christian author Jerome. There are assorted notices of his activities in the writings of his contemporaries Athanasius, Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Alexander of Alexandria. Eusebius' pupil, Eusebius of Emesa, provides some incidental information.

Eusebius wrote about all the sightings and things people saw after Jesus came back to life. He wrote about how he was being persecuted and how all the Jews that were Christian were being killed and their names, families and the Romans that were doing it. He wrote about in depth the court trials and how different priests had to be challenged by orthodox dews in judaism and how they also had to stand trial before Rome and were challenged by arguments and tests of what they saw and many debating points. The arguments in the trials are documented in his book. The Book is called Eusebius.)

All these silly childish challenges to Christianity have been had since the year 10AD, but people in 2015 still think they are being wise in these questions just because they keep repeating them.

They've been answered. Noone has to accept the answer, but the arguments and answers have existed and are WELL very WELL and thoroughly documented by courts, through trials, and by sentencing people to death. It's been DONE, but people don't accept the answers. So why keep answering questions they don't want answers to?

It's kind of lazy and ignorant when I see some come with negative questions on Christianity that they aren't asking out of respect but wanna be "gotcha" questions.



There's a ton of writings and history on these people and there's no need sometime for me to feel like answering what they can research themselves.

But, then again, every now and then, like zombie I'll say something too.

These people often don't even do research on the stuff they believe in as far as its origins and founders are, but are quick to ask a question on others beliefs for cynicism.

Philosophy, religion, science, it's all written.

What more could the people do to convince someone that what hundreds of people witnessed and did not dispute was true, BESIDES write it on a piece of paper or draw in a cave????

Tv's didn't exist. They used the only resource at their disposal during a time when 98% of the people were illiterate.

TVs exist now. What's stopping the supposedly "powerful" Bible god from proving itself on TV screens? Is the "powerful" Bible god afraid of proving people wrong?

After all, 70% of the world is not Christian. The Bible god, if alive, should be very disappointed in that. I mean wow, a powerful god that supposedly made all humans cannot even convince 70% of the world to believe in Jesus. Shouldn't the Bible god take advantage of those TVs by now? Perhaps people have good reason to not be satisfied with those answers you speak of. Why is Jesus unable to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament after 2,000 years, he can at least explain that on TV. The Old Testament prophecies said the "savior" would create world peace, and the Jews have yet to be proven wrong on Jesus.

70% of the world actually have great reasons to not take those answers seriously. But to each his own.

I'll say this without being condescending and be respectful since your questions are not disrespectful.

You obviously know very,very,very little about the bible. I could tell you exactly what scripture says to answer you directly, but to you it wouldn't even matter. Anyone can see that.

I'll answer you indirectly with scripture: There's a scripture that says the world will get worse before God comes and these things must happen when the world will lose faith and Christians will be persecuted in the end times.

As for tv, Jesus spoke of how God had revealed himself during those days (and nobody denied God, thus the reason for no society for over 4,000 years being atheist) and how the world would in the future look for signs and miracles but the generation would not receive them.

When the people heard from God they would not obey. Proving his existence to us is immaterial, you wrestle so hard because your spirit tells you he exists and you feel it but your mind fights.

God's not begging for you.

Also, do yourself a favor and read a book on all the prophecies fulfilled. Your wasting your own time asking folks on the internet to do theological studies.

More than all your questions have already been answered, and it's obvious you don't want answers, so just be happy with where you stand in not knowing what the bible actually says.

Keep reading internet posts or thinking of challenges.

Christians welcome challenges to our faith.

You have to seek your own answers.

Ok, but the Old Testament prophecies said the savior would accomplish all prophecies the first time it came around, and it would be a judge and king among societies. It is obvious the Christian answers will never satisfy me lol but enjoy your beliefs!

 

[kingblaze84]

Question you might want to ask is: Atheism should be natural?

Look at it this way. Think of early man.

No God exists.

How many centuries had to pass before someone made up the character Wolverine or Vampires and Werewolves?

Now, I'm using your own basic logic for where a mind like yours pragmatically should think.

So if it took like 5,500 years or however long it takes to come up with those Characters and nobody believes in them and even in the day when only a few believed MOST even then still did not;

now how long did man exist in the beginning without thinking to CREATE a God character????

This has to be natural according to your way of thinking.

Why?

Because if God did not exist then someone had to make him up, and if someone had to make him up; then there had to be a good period of time when nobody created his character and the entire world operated without a concept or word or thought of God.

So, studying early man, there should be numerous societies and evidence of cultures around the world that NEVER believed in a God or gods because it was not introduced OR if it was introduced then the Concept and structure of having a God does not free people but limits people's actions and condemns people. So??? If noone believes in God and most didn't believe in God, like 99.99% because God never existed, then how do you sell overwhelmingly to all these people that God exists and the people accept it by the masses?

Instead, what you have according to the earliest findings of man and history is every culture in the entire world on every continent writing consistently on cave walls, forming rocks, and doing everything they can to spell out GOD.

So, if anyone shouldn't have believed in God, it actually should have been these people.

Instead, apparently, the belief in God according to all cultures recorded (and if there is one then that still wouldn't be enough to challenge the overwhelming majority of 99.99% of all humankind) was never in doubt; and not only not in doubt, but constantly referenced and tried to document God's manifestation because they saw it as worthy.

Not sure if this is addressed to me but I'm not atheist. I am skeptical of any all powerful and all knowing god though. Be aware that many people worldwide believe in multiple gods (especially in Africa and Asia), so the theory of "one god" isn't necessarily shared by everyone. But I'm sure you know that already.

 

[luke1733]

Question you might want to ask is: Atheism should be natural?

Look at it this way. Think of early man.

No God exists.

How many centuries had to pass before someone made up the character Wolverine or Vampires and Werewolves?

Now, I'm using your own basic logic for where a mind like yours pragmatically should think.

So if it took like 5,500 years or however long it takes to come up with those Characters and nobody believes in them and even in the day when only a few believed MOST even then still did not;

now how long did man exist in the beginning without thinking to CREATE a God character????

This has to be natural according to your way of thinking.

Why?

Because if God did not exist then someone had to make him up, and if someone had to make him up; then there had to be a good period of time when nobody created his character and the entire world operated without a concept or word or thought of God.

So, studying early man, there should be numerous societies and evidence of cultures around the world that NEVER believed in a God or gods because it was not introduced OR if it was introduced then the Concept and structure of having a God does not free people but limits people's actions and condemns people. So??? If noone believes in God and most didn't believe in God, like 99.99% because God never existed, then how do you sell overwhelmingly to all these people that God exists and the people accept it by the masses?

Instead, what you have according to the earliest findings of man and history is every culture in the entire world on every continent writing consistently on cave walls, forming rocks, and doing everything they can to spell out GOD.

So, if anyone shouldn't have believed in God, it actually should have been these people.

Instead, apparently, the belief in God according to all cultures recorded (and if there is one then that still wouldn't be enough to challenge the overwhelming majority of 99.99% of all humankind) was never in doubt; and not only not in doubt, but constantly referenced and tried to document God's manifestation because they saw it as worthy.

Not sure if this is addressed to me but I'm not atheist. I am skeptical of any all powerful and all knowing god though. Be aware that many people worldwide believe in multiple gods (especially in Africa and Asia), so the theory of "one god" isn't necessarily shared by everyone. But I'm sure you know that already.

I really wasn't addressing you King. I respect a lot of what you say. I just read what was said and responded to the quote. Nothing personal though.

I have somewhat of an idea where you stand, according to what you've written in the past.

As for on this issue, we just disagree.

On your point about prophecy that was supposed to be fulfilled the first time Jesus came, that's not true.

Nobody knew he would come twice. In fact, most of the very people who walked with him didn't even know who he was. Then when they thought they knew, they had expectations that he had to clarify the meaning of scriptures and his purpose, and they still didn't understand; so much so he was frustrated. Even to his death his own disciples thought him the Christ and thought as King states that he would fulfill the prophecy the way they interpreted.

THEY DID NOT know he would be resurrected.

Then when he died everyone stopped believing and believed they were misled and abandoned Jesus's the Christ and just believed he was a prophet.

It wasn't until the resurrection that much of the old testament and revelation about who Jesus was and how he fulfilled the scriptures came to light.

It was not in scripture that on his first appearance that he would do everything stated, in fact the difference between his first arrival and second arrival most of the time isn't even distinguished.

So I ask you where you are getting that scripturally according to the old testament that Jesus was supposed to do things only on his first arrival specifically that were stated in the old testament that he did not do on his first arrival?

 

[luke1733]

Other point on other gods:

REsponse 1:

Yeah, I know the belief in many gods has existed since the beginning of time. That was my entire logic to the atheism claim. Logic states if there is no God then atheism should have been automatic, because God would have to be created by people; and the idea, the creation and the spreading of that God to convince everyone else would defy the Logic of an atheist.

All this, considering the fact that everyone in early existence knew there was no God b/c they never had a word or thought of-or even considered there being a God b/c there never was a God to speak of. Thus, God had to be introduced. or created by man by former Atheists.

That wouldn't make sense for an atheist world to create God and then all the masses to willingly believe in him without any evidence, and then for there to be no evidence of Atheist societies in today's existence. Meaning to this day there should still be societies and cultures that say "we don't believe in God and as far as my people know, we never believed in a God or gods as long as our history has been recorded."

The opposite is true so much so that the earliest findings of Man go out of there way to constantly point to God and the sky.

That is illogical for atheists.

And no, no gov't forced the whole world to believe in God.

Response 2:

What other book (besides Koran, Bible, Torah) is in existence today that people claim is holy with prophecies and has the exact names of families that exist today and are confirmed to have existed in the past of over 4,000 years ago that also lays claims to over hundreds of people all witnessing the exact same event and recording the exact same stories within the exact same time frame? Also mentioning the exact places where things occurred while telling the entire story of humankind's existence?

Within this book how many of these people were also known to be normal in their societies before all seeing an event that changed them from being perceived as normal to crazy and persecuted to the point of suffering terrible deaths?

I know of Egypt's Gods and the telling of a son of God, I know of Native Americans and their views of resurrection but I have not seen first names and last names and documents of exact events like they were recording facts being seen by not one person but hundreds of people.

Let me know. I'm asking for the book, and not some book that once existed but nobody has anymore or someone writing a book about that book that once existed.

I want that book.

I will read it

I've read on asian (chinese/east indian) religions, native american, european religions, african religions but I have not seen what I ask AND I NEVER SAW AN ATHEIST NATION throughout ALL OF MAN'S early time on earth. ATHEISM,which should be old and the majority (for the reasons I claimed in the post above), has always been seen throughout history as the minority.

 

[kingblaze84]

Question you might want to ask is: Atheism should be natural?

Look at it this way. Think of early man.

No God exists.

How many centuries had to pass before someone made up the character Wolverine or Vampires and Werewolves?

Now, I'm using your own basic logic for where a mind like yours pragmatically should think.

So if it took like 5,500 years or however long it takes to come up with those Characters and nobody believes in them and even in the day when only a few believed MOST even then still did not;

now how long did man exist in the beginning without thinking to CREATE a God character????

This has to be natural according to your way of thinking.

Why?

Because if God did not exist then someone had to make him up, and if someone had to make him up; then there had to be a good period of time when nobody created his character and the entire world operated without a concept or word or thought of God.

So, studying early man, there should be numerous societies and evidence of cultures around the world that NEVER believed in a God or gods because it was not introduced OR if it was introduced then the Concept and structure of having a God does not free people but limits people's actions and condemns people. So??? If noone believes in God and most didn't believe in God, like 99.99% because God never existed, then how do you sell overwhelmingly to all these people that God exists and the people accept it by the masses?

Instead, what you have according to the earliest findings of man and history is every culture in the entire world on every continent writing consistently on cave walls, forming rocks, and doing everything they can to spell out GOD.

So, if anyone shouldn't have believed in God, it actually should have been these people.

Instead, apparently, the belief in God according to all cultures recorded (and if there is one then that still wouldn't be enough to challenge the overwhelming majority of 99.99% of all humankind) was never in doubt; and not only not in doubt, but constantly referenced and tried to document God's manifestation because they saw it as worthy.

Not sure if this is addressed to me but I'm not atheist. I am skeptical of any all powerful and all knowing god though. Be aware that many people worldwide believe in multiple gods (especially in Africa and Asia), so the theory of "one god" isn't necessarily shared by everyone. But I'm sure you know that already.

I really wasn't addressing you King. I respect a lot of what you say. I just read what was said and responded to the quote. Nothing personal though.

I have somewhat of an idea where you stand, according to what you've written in the past.

As for on this issue, we just disagree.

On your point about prophecy that was supposed to be fulfilled the first time Jesus came, that's not true.

Nobody knew he would come twice. In fact, most of the very people who walked with him didn't even know who he was. Then when they thought they knew, they had expectations that he had to clarify the meaning of scriptures and his purpose, and they still didn't understand; so much so he was frustrated. Even to his death his own disciples thought him the Christ and thought as King states that he would fulfill the prophecy the way they interpreted.

THEY DID NOT know he would be resurrected.

Then when he died everyone stopped believing and believed they were misled and abandoned Jesus's the Christ and just believed he was a prophet.

It wasn't until the resurrection that much of the old testament and revelation about who Jesus was and how he fulfilled the scriptures came to light.

It was not in scripture that on his first appearance that he would do everything stated, in fact the difference between his first arrival and second arrival most of the time isn't even distinguished.

So I ask you where you are getting that scripturally according to the old testament that Jesus was supposed to do things only on his first arrival specifically that were stated in the old testament that he did not do on his first arrival?

I respect a lot of what you say too, I don't take any of this personal. To me it's all about an exchange of ideas and better understanding of different beliefs. Doesn't mean we always have to agree but I find it curious that some Christians take the Bible seriously but seem to ignore much of what the Old Testament says about the future savior.

But on your question, it's debatable that Jesus was supposed to complete all the prophecies in his first go around, but for me at least, he should have fulfilled them after all this time. As you said before, the answers simply do not satisfy me but from my studies of the Bible as a Christian growing up, Jesus showed little signs of ever being capable of having the power to match the totality of Old Testament prophecies. The list of things Jesus failed to fulfill is too large for me. From creating world peace to failing to become a judge or king of all nations on Earth and creating world peace by vanquishing all enemies of the world, after 2,000 years, a savior should have done these things by now.

But your patience is better then mine lol

 

[kingblaze84]

Nvm

 

[soul rattler]

Question you might want to ask is: Atheism should be natural?

Look at it this way. Think of early man.

No God exists.

How many centuries had to pass before someone made up the character Wolverine or Vampires and Werewolves?

Now, I'm using your own basic logic for where a mind like yours pragmatically should think.

So if it took like 5,500 years or however long it takes to come up with those Characters and nobody believes in them and even in the day when only a few believed MOST even then still did not;

now how long did man exist in the beginning without thinking to CREATE a God character????

This has to be natural according to your way of thinking.

Why?

Because if God did not exist then someone had to make him up, and if someone had to make him up; then there had to be a good period of time when nobody created his character and the entire world operated without a concept or word or thought of God.

So, studying early man, there should be numerous societies and evidence of cultures around the world that NEVER believed in a God or gods because it was not introduced OR if it was introduced then the Concept and structure of having a God does not free people but limits people's actions and condemns people. So??? If noone believes in God and most didn't believe in God, like 99.99% because God never existed, then how do you sell overwhelmingly to all these people that God exists and the people accept it by the masses?

Instead, what you have according to the earliest findings of man and history is every culture in the entire world on every continent writing consistently on cave walls, forming rocks, and doing everything they can to spell out GOD.

So, if anyone shouldn't have believed in God, it actually should have been these people.

Instead, apparently, the belief in God according to all cultures recorded (and if there is one then that still wouldn't be enough to challenge the overwhelming majority of 99.99% of all humankind) was never in doubt; and not only not in doubt, but constantly referenced and tried to document God's manifestation because they saw it as worthy.

Fucking seriously? Your argument is that the absence of evidence is the evidence of presence?

1. There was a time in which science and theism were one in the same. Societies came up with theism to explain events in nature as a first step in science. They recognized that the universe they were in was greater than themselves and found a way to make it conceptually conceivable. And then we made strides in empirical study. At this point, it was no longer acceptable to say "Its raining because (insert deity) is sad/angry/happy"

2. The fact that theology has changed over time is a testiment to its lack of veracity. It wasn't always "G-d". There were pantheons of deities. There were spirits in nature. Then those concepts became formalized and consolidated. Now you get Jehovah/Allah.

3. The persistence of theology and religion? Imperial force. The history of religion is bloody, treacherous, and steeped in ignorance.

 

[luke1733]

Question you might want to ask is: Atheism should be natural?

Look at it this way. Think of early man.

No God exists.

How many centuries had to pass before someone made up the character Wolverine or Vampires and Werewolves?

Now, I'm using your own basic logic for where a mind like yours pragmatically should think.

So if it took like 5,500 years or however long it takes to come up with those Characters and nobody believes in them and even in the day when only a few believed MOST even then still did not;

now how long did man exist in the beginning without thinking to CREATE a God character????

This has to be natural according to your way of thinking.

Why?

Because if God did not exist then someone had to make him up, and if someone had to make him up; then there had to be a good period of time when nobody created his character and the entire world operated without a concept or word or thought of God.

So, studying early man, there should be numerous societies and evidence of cultures around the world that NEVER believed in a God or gods because it was not introduced OR if it was introduced then the Concept and structure of having a God does not free people but limits people's actions and condemns people. So??? If noone believes in God and most didn't believe in God, like 99.99% because God never existed, then how do you sell overwhelmingly to all these people that God exists and the people accept it by the masses?

Instead, what you have according to the earliest findings of man and history is every culture in the entire world on every continent writing consistently on cave walls, forming rocks, and doing everything they can to spell out GOD.

So, if anyone shouldn't have believed in God, it actually should have been these people.

Instead, apparently, the belief in God according to all cultures recorded (and if there is one then that still wouldn't be enough to challenge the overwhelming majority of 99.99% of all humankind) was never in doubt; and not only not in doubt, but constantly referenced and tried to document God's manifestation because they saw it as worthy.

Fucking seriously? Your argument is that the absence of evidence is the evidence of presence?

1. There was a time in which science and theism were one in the same. Societies came up with theism to explain events in nature as a first step in science. They recognized that the universe they were in was greater than themselves and found a way to make it conceptually conceivable. And then we made strides in empirical study. At this point, it was no longer acceptable to say "Its raining because (insert deity) is sad/angry/happy"

2. The fact that theology has changed over time is a testiment to its lack of veracity. It wasn't always "G-d". There were pantheons of deities. There were spirits in nature. Then those concepts became formalized and consolidated. Now you get Jehovah/Allah.

3. The persistence of theology and religion? Imperial force. The history of religion is bloody, treacherous, and steeped in ignorance.

okay, steeped in ignorance.

98% of the world couldn't read, but the very people who wrote these things were the most ignorant? according to you.

Based on what reported study does your #1 come from?

And your assumption, because that's what it truly is, is also just stupid and based on conspiracy theory.

Enjoy your ignorance while you read and study the internet, instead of the actual books you speak negative on.

Since you can't see God, maybe you can relate to evil. Go play with those games out there and see what you come up with and say it's all in your mind. Have fun

By the way on PROPHECY: the words weren't along the lines of "thunder is God bowling, or rain is the gods are sad,"

The prophecy was more like: under the line of David the Christ will be born during the time when the first priest in the jewish kingdom will not be a jew. This prophecy is told like 3,000 years before it happening; and then that person being born known as Jesus came .

Other prophecies were like a prophet known as the lion will come before the Christ, then 2,000 years later John the Baptist was famously called the Lion and he is the one who baptized Jesus. And he was known as the Lion before Jesus existed, so nobody knew he would be the one to usher in the Christ.

or other prophecies telling of a mighty nation whose symbol will be the eagle will rule

(this is like the past 500 years this prophecy took to come true in the country America)

These prophecies weren't: a heavy flood will come (and when that prophecy was given it was given within a year's time of the flood that is known in science to have happened)

The prophecy that there will be one world currency and a government that will rule the world and under this the anti-christ will come

These people built aqueducts and had inventions we still don't know the use for. They were humans building pyramids and knowing the exact location of particular stars and had almanacs. Not uncivilized ignorant people.

They were also people who believed in multiple gods.

Like I said before, it's almost pointless explaining or showing someone things that are written when they won't do it for themselves and don't care too, but yet want to say it isn't true.

People argued over it (if Jesus was the Christ). Many had claimed to be the Christ for hundreds of years, but only one has been and was generally accepted as so.

What was never questioned was if Jesus existed in that day by those people in that day who were responsible for the recorded debates in documents that have survived over 2,000 years ago and are accepted today as documents that come from that time and are legitimate documents. What documents? Josephus and Eusebius's notes/Dead Sea Scrolls or Roman, Egyptian, Greek and Ethiopian documents that are still kept in today's time 2015 as naming some of the biblical names and stories

If anyone reads the court trials and sees the information produced then it is obvious the intellect and seriousness of the situation that the claims were taken as.

I wish God would reveal himself in an undeniable way also? But for us, we don't see it.

As for the older generations, they apparently saw something that according to the way they documented stuff and wrote about it presents to me a very compelling case that something was going on that was far beyond Hercules and Zeus or Ra.

And again the bible presents itself as a book of records, one which over the course of like 5,000 years has provided some relevant historical documentation and for some records seems not to line up correctly with other scholars research of specific events.

Either way, when it comes to what I mentioned in the other post on The Torah, the Bible, and the Koran being the only books that detail man's beginning, use actual events that were recorded by other civilizations (Egyptians, Jews, Persians, Ethiopians, Iraqis, Romans, Greeks) all during the same times on the same people that other societies and governments that sentenced these same biblical figures to death also have on record lived and existed: this is too much to throw away as nonsense and ignorance.

It changed the course of history and LITERALLY TIME itself (have you heard of 2015 AD?).

 

[luke1733]

soulrattler:Your question was on why do people call the devil a liar? It's been answered. I'm through with this thread. Pray you the best on your search for whatever, but i will suggest to do more reading of the actual books or books written in that time frame, so at least you get things accurate on debating points. This is my last comment on this pt

 

[VIBE]

@kingblaze84 In regards to Numbers 21:5 and 6...there is a context to all of this. Way before this "complaint", God gave Israel over to the Egyptians and were enslaved for quite a time. God promised Israel that He will deliver them through Moses and did so in "miraculous" fashion. And this is a prime example of not believing in spite of the evidence. If God parted the Red Sea before the eyes of the Israelites, that should have been enough to make God their Lord. But, when times got rough out there in the desert, they forget that God had done anything and want to go back to Egypt. They no longer believe in God when He stopped working His Magic.

Yeah, I always found it interesting how the Israelites' faith would waver when their god stopped working magic.

I suppose it's because it could have been any number of gods who could have worked those miracles, assuming those miracles happened to begin with. Many of the Israelites, rationally, could have believed those "miracles" were just random coincidences.

There's a reason Jews have one of the highest rates of atheism in the world, look at the Holocaust. The Bible god didn't save any Jews when Hitler and his Nazis were killing them all over the place. Where was the Bible god's magic then lol

 

[VIBE]

This is why salvation is such an idiotic concept.

G-d puts man in a position to fail, knowing they would surely fail, punishes them for failing, makes an elaborate plan to save SOME of them, and expects GRATITUDE for it?

Fuck that. If the police planted coke on you then locked you up on drug charges, only to let you go months later, would you be greatful to them? If they claimed to have done it for your good, would you love them for granting you the experience? If you had a lawyer that was willing to fight the charges on your behalf, would you blame them for your predicament?

I think the police example is a bad one. Cops planting drugs on somebody means the accused didn't have a choice in the matter. The cop's intentions were to find someone guilty whether they were guilty of something or not. I doubt cops bust people to teach them some valuable life lesson. That just goes against how justice system is suppose to work. Now if I was falsely accused, I would feel some type of way about it, but my hope is that I can step back and see that it is in our sinful nature to lie on each other.

Being in a position to fail is totally different than failing. Jesus was in a desert yet he chose God. You still have a choice to either do what's right or wrong.

Adam and Eve had no choice. That was an illusion of choice.

 

[VIBE]

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismhistory/a/PrimitiveAtheismSkepticism.htm

 

[kingblaze84]

@kingblaze84 In regards to Numbers 21:5 and 6...there is a context to all of this. Way before this "complaint", God gave Israel over to the Egyptians and were enslaved for quite a time. God promised Israel that He will deliver them through Moses and did so in "miraculous" fashion. And this is a prime example of not believing in spite of the evidence. If God parted the Red Sea before the eyes of the Israelites, that should have been enough to make God their Lord. But, when times got rough out there in the desert, they forget that God had done anything and want to go back to Egypt. They no longer believe in God when He stopped working His Magic.

Yeah, I always found it interesting how the Israelites' faith would waver when their god stopped working magic.

I suppose it's because it could have been any number of gods who could have worked those miracles, assuming those miracles happened to begin with. Many of the Israelites, rationally, could have believed those "miracles" were just random coincidences.

There's a reason Jews have one of the highest rates of atheism in the world, look at the Holocaust. The Bible god didn't save any Jews when Hitler and his Nazis were killing them all over the place. Where was the Bible god's magic then lol

Damn that's deep.

 

[alissowack]

This is why salvation is such an idiotic concept.

G-d puts man in a position to fail, knowing they would surely fail, punishes them for failing, makes an elaborate plan to save SOME of them, and expects GRATITUDE for it?

Fuck that. If the police planted coke on you then locked you up on drug charges, only to let you go months later, would you be greatful to them? If they claimed to have done it for your good, would you love them for granting you the experience? If you had a lawyer that was willing to fight the charges on your behalf, would you blame them for your predicament?

I think the police example is a bad one. Cops planting drugs on somebody means the accused didn't have a choice in the matter. The cop's intentions were to find someone guilty whether they were guilty of something or not. I doubt cops bust people to teach them some valuable life lesson. That just goes against how justice system is suppose to work. Now if I was falsely accused, I would feel some type of way about it, but my hope is that I can step back and see that it is in our sinful nature to lie on each other.

Being in a position to fail is totally different than failing. Jesus was in a desert yet he chose God. You still have a choice to either do what's right or wrong.

Adam and Eve had no choice. That was an illusion of choice.

The illusion is thinking they will not surely die and that they will be like God. I believe the act of choosing is never an illusion, but that it is tainted by what we think our choice will give us.