Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Panther256
New member
What is the value of a saved soul?
What is the value of a saved soul?
What price would you pay to save a man's immortal soul?
One of the issues that bothers me the most about organized religion is their public representatives and the way they conduct themselves.
We are told that there is an eternal salvation and that our time here is a fleeting transition. Therefore we should really spend the majority of our time and effort being kind to our fellow men and helping each other through this period of our existance... Not amassing wealth and power which mean nothing after we are saved... Right?
So why then are there ever devout Christian, Jewish and Muslim millionaire's and/or politicians? Shouldn't these people be leading by example and donating their time, effort and money to help lead mankind to the word of God instead? Especially since it will almost assuredly bring them into the good graces and eternal rewards of Heaven. And yet there are millions of religious followers still living in luxury while their fellow men, even those of the same religion, are suffering needlessly.
Actions speak louder than words. What would impress the most from the standpoint of believing in God and showing Faith would be for any true Christian, Jewish or Muslim who claims to believe in what they preach about eternal slavation is to give up their worldly possesions and actually go forth among the people and help the people while spreading the word of God. There are a few out there who do this but not many.
I have a hard time believing anything spewing from the mouth of a man who lives on the charity of others while attaining and enjoying minor celebrity status. And if his standard of living is shown to be any higher than the lowest of his God's people, then shun him for the fraud he is. For he is not doing all that he can but merely just enough as he perceives his God would ask of him.
Jesus sacrificed his life for us... Can you at least sacrifice your paltry money, power and time for him? Even if only for this life? Is your faith strong enough? Are you?
Are you ready for judgement knowing that many in Sodom and Gomorrah also felt themselves to be righteous and good but in reality were in defiance of His will? The poor are growing in our world again as those tasked by God to watch over them turn from His Will and seek power, money and dominion. Believing in God and yet still defying His will is NOT the road to salvation.
What is the value of a saved soul?
What price would you pay to save a man's immortal soul?
One of the issues that bothers me the most about organized religion is their public representatives and the way they conduct themselves.
We are told that there is an eternal salvation and that our time here is a fleeting transition. Therefore we should really spend the majority of our time and effort being kind to our fellow men and helping each other through this period of our existance... Not amassing wealth and power which mean nothing after we are saved... Right?
So why then are there ever devout Christian, Jewish and Muslim millionaire's and/or politicians? Shouldn't these people be leading by example and donating their time, effort and money to help lead mankind to the word of God instead? Especially since it will almost assuredly bring them into the good graces and eternal rewards of Heaven. And yet there are millions of religious followers still living in luxury while their fellow men, even those of the same religion, are suffering needlessly.
Actions speak louder than words. What would impress the most from the standpoint of believing in God and showing Faith would be for any true Christian, Jewish or Muslim who claims to believe in what they preach about eternal slavation is to give up their worldly possesions and actually go forth among the people and help the people while spreading the word of God. There are a few out there who do this but not many.
I have a hard time believing anything spewing from the mouth of a man who lives on the charity of others while attaining and enjoying minor celebrity status. And if his standard of living is shown to be any higher than the lowest of his God's people, then shun him for the fraud he is. For he is not doing all that he can but merely just enough as he perceives his God would ask of him.
Jesus sacrificed his life for us... Can you at least sacrifice your paltry money, power and time for him? Even if only for this life? Is your faith strong enough? Are you?
Are you ready for judgement knowing that many in Sodom and Gomorrah also felt themselves to be righteous and good but in reality were in defiance of His will? The poor are growing in our world again as those tasked by God to watch over them turn from His Will and seek power, money and dominion. Believing in God and yet still defying His will is NOT the road to salvation.
MESSAGE TO KNIGHT
MESSAGE TO KNIGHT
KNIGHT
I'M REALLY SORRY. I ACCIDENTLY POSTED THIS IN THE BATTLE ROYALE VII DEBATE RESERVED FOR ZAKATH AND BOB.
here's an article from japan showing an update to the human/chimp dna similarity claims. according to the article, there's an even larger difference than previously thought.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20030712b6.htm
EA
Saitama Japan
MESSAGE TO KNIGHT
KNIGHT
I'M REALLY SORRY. I ACCIDENTLY POSTED THIS IN THE BATTLE ROYALE VII DEBATE RESERVED FOR ZAKATH AND BOB.
here's an article from japan showing an update to the human/chimp dna similarity claims. according to the article, there's an even larger difference than previously thought.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20030712b6.htm
EA
Saitama Japan
Looks like I posted the following in the wrong place - I'd intended it for this forum, but wound up posting to a far less active one. In the interests of joining the discussion here, I'd like to repost the following. Apologies for the error from a new user...:
Having only recently joined this forum - and in fact my joining up here was prompted by my hearing about this debate - I wanted to put my $0.02 in....
First, I think it needs to be acknowledged that the basic question supposedly being discussed has yet to be addressed by both parties. The debate seems to have very quickly gone from "Does God exist?" to "Does Bob Enyart's notion of a God exist" - which is a considerably different question. (And one that I think has already been quite clearly answered in the negative.) It's too bad that the discussion has wound up with such a narrow focus, although I have to admit that most such efforts are doomed to the same fate.
Having said that, if we simply consider the question of who's "winning", I don't think there's any doubt that it's NOT Enyart. Contrary to some comments made here, he has yet to provide any real evidence or reasoning - just unsubstantiated assertions and distortions of his opponent's position. All in all, I have found Enyart's "arguments" - if they can be called that - to be disingenuous. Few, if any, are original, and instead consist merely of parroting some very old notions which have in general already been discredited, and are no longer considered by serious debators on either side of this issue.
An excellent example is his recent argument based on how much time would supposedly be required to form certain molecules necessary for life - in this particular case, proteins. Enyart first claims that he will "show" how it is impossible for such things to arise out of "random" processes within any conceivable time span that would be allowed within the age of the universe - but he does no such thing. He does not present either the assumptions or the reasoning/calculations that would lead to this conclusion. All he really does is make the assertion, and then hopes that no one will notice the lack of support for it.
Given that lack of evidence, one can only assume that he's presenting basically the same argument as has been advanced by the "creationist" side of the origins debate for decades - that given X number of different sorts of atoms, we then could assume Y possible combinations of those atoms, and given the complexity of a protein molecule, you perform some basic probability calculations and come up with a truly impressive number for the time required for that molecule to come about "at random". The argument, though, is flawed right from the start, and the flaw would be apparent to anyone who had managed to comprehend high-school-level chemistry. Atoms do NOT combine "at random" - they are constrained to combine only in certain limited ways, and combine preferentially with some types of atoms over others. The generation of something like a protein molecule turns out to be not nearly as unlikely as simplistic calculations such as this would make it seem. The flaw is actually even more obvious - by this sort of argument, such a thing as a diamond should be impossible, as it requires literally trillions of atoms to positions themselves in an extremely precise array (and surely such a thing could not have arisen "by chance"!). But the same forces that constrain carbon to form such crystals - essentially, giant single molecules - under certain conditions also constrain the formation of all other chemical compounds.
What's truly disturbing is that this flaw in the argument has been known for almost as long as the argument itself has been advanced, and one would think that anyone familiar with the field would know this - and if they still thought the argument correct, would also offer the reasoning that showed this. Enyart has not done this, and so we can only assume that he is either not particularly well-informed in this area, or else he is being deliberately deceptive in this presentation. If the former, then Enyart is not qualified to engage in this sort of discussion. If the latter, then I would have to seriously question the "truth" of any position which requires such practices of its defenders.
In either case, I find Enyart's arguments to be an embarrassment to the theistic position.
Having only recently joined this forum - and in fact my joining up here was prompted by my hearing about this debate - I wanted to put my $0.02 in....
First, I think it needs to be acknowledged that the basic question supposedly being discussed has yet to be addressed by both parties. The debate seems to have very quickly gone from "Does God exist?" to "Does Bob Enyart's notion of a God exist" - which is a considerably different question. (And one that I think has already been quite clearly answered in the negative.) It's too bad that the discussion has wound up with such a narrow focus, although I have to admit that most such efforts are doomed to the same fate.
Having said that, if we simply consider the question of who's "winning", I don't think there's any doubt that it's NOT Enyart. Contrary to some comments made here, he has yet to provide any real evidence or reasoning - just unsubstantiated assertions and distortions of his opponent's position. All in all, I have found Enyart's "arguments" - if they can be called that - to be disingenuous. Few, if any, are original, and instead consist merely of parroting some very old notions which have in general already been discredited, and are no longer considered by serious debators on either side of this issue.
An excellent example is his recent argument based on how much time would supposedly be required to form certain molecules necessary for life - in this particular case, proteins. Enyart first claims that he will "show" how it is impossible for such things to arise out of "random" processes within any conceivable time span that would be allowed within the age of the universe - but he does no such thing. He does not present either the assumptions or the reasoning/calculations that would lead to this conclusion. All he really does is make the assertion, and then hopes that no one will notice the lack of support for it.
Given that lack of evidence, one can only assume that he's presenting basically the same argument as has been advanced by the "creationist" side of the origins debate for decades - that given X number of different sorts of atoms, we then could assume Y possible combinations of those atoms, and given the complexity of a protein molecule, you perform some basic probability calculations and come up with a truly impressive number for the time required for that molecule to come about "at random". The argument, though, is flawed right from the start, and the flaw would be apparent to anyone who had managed to comprehend high-school-level chemistry. Atoms do NOT combine "at random" - they are constrained to combine only in certain limited ways, and combine preferentially with some types of atoms over others. The generation of something like a protein molecule turns out to be not nearly as unlikely as simplistic calculations such as this would make it seem. The flaw is actually even more obvious - by this sort of argument, such a thing as a diamond should be impossible, as it requires literally trillions of atoms to positions themselves in an extremely precise array (and surely such a thing could not have arisen "by chance"!). But the same forces that constrain carbon to form such crystals - essentially, giant single molecules - under certain conditions also constrain the formation of all other chemical compounds.
What's truly disturbing is that this flaw in the argument has been known for almost as long as the argument itself has been advanced, and one would think that anyone familiar with the field would know this - and if they still thought the argument correct, would also offer the reasoning that showed this. Enyart has not done this, and so we can only assume that he is either not particularly well-informed in this area, or else he is being deliberately deceptive in this presentation. If the former, then Enyart is not qualified to engage in this sort of discussion. If the latter, then I would have to seriously question the "truth" of any position which requires such practices of its defenders.
In either case, I find Enyart's arguments to be an embarrassment to the theistic position.
PureX
Well-known member
Hmmm, I don't see, though, how it could be otherwise. The concept of "God" would have to be defined before the debate could begin, and as the atheist side would not have a concept of God, per se, that would leave the theist side to define the concept. And it would then be the theist's definition of God.
I suppose they could debate the existence of God as defined by some specific religious tradition, but the result of that debate would only prove the existence or non-existence of that religion's idea of God, and would not be addressing the actual existence of God. The problem is that an individual's or a religious tradition's idea of God is all the definition we have. God only exists, even to those who believe God exists, as an idea. So the idea is all there is to debate. Who's idea? I suppose it may as well be the idea of the theist proponent, as it was in this case.
But even here there is a problem. If I were Zakath's opponent. I would have defined God very differently, and done so in such a way that I would then have been able to prove the existence of God as I had defined it. An overly simplistic example would be that if I define God as "wet", I can then use the effect of the rain on my opponent's own skin as proof that my God exists. This is the flaw in allowing a member of the debate to define the object of the debate.
The other problem with such a debate is that because it can only argue about an idea of God rather than the actual existence of God, in a way it can be said that the argument was both won and lost before it began. The debate itself is proof that the idea of God exists. But the moment one tries to connect this idea to something objective, the mere fact of having to do so would itself be evidence against the objective existence of God.
The question being debated, here, is just too vague. "Does God exist?" ... "Does Bob's God exist?" ... "Does Bob's God exist without Bob?" ... "Does Bob's God exist to anyone else but Bob?" ... "Does Bob's God have any recognizable effect on anyone but Bob?" ... "Does Bob's God exist to me?" ... and finally; "Does Bob's God effect me?". Too many secondary questions are lurking within the initial question.
PureX:
It is of course a fact that the debate never realy makes the distinction between the subjective and the objective existence of God.
While we can admit to the first (at least the concept of God in the consciousness of at least one of the participants of the debate exists) there has not been given any grounds for the second.
A direct question on this, in an earlier post, on this particular issue, namely wether or not we mean with existence as an objective form of existence (apart from and independend and outside of the mind) was replied by Bob E with the statement: never mind.
This indicates that Bob E is very much aware of the fact that he can not in any way provide evidence for the objective existence of God, and does not even tries to provide such objective existence, and therefore avoids to answer such questions.
His concept of God, is of course something that can not even exist outside of his or anytone else's mind, since God does not have objective existence. At least none has been proven so far, and a more sophisticated mind can even proof that such objective existence is not at all assumable.
So the debate just evolves based on a flawed definition of existence.
All that can come out in theory is that Bob E happens to convincingly state that his concept of a God in fact does exist in a mindly form, namely in his mind.
But to that acknowledgement we could have already started the debate, the debate would not even be necessary.
In the same way that if the debate would be wether or not ducks that can talk exists, it could be stated that we do acknowledge the existence of the comic figure of Donald Duck, but that we are not interested in that kind of existence for the sake of the debate, but only in the biological form.
Since the rules of the debate did not make clear what kind or type of existence must be assumed, discussed or proved, we have in fact a nonsensical debate going on, since it did not profoundly state what kind of existence is to be discussed.
It is of course a fact that the debate never realy makes the distinction between the subjective and the objective existence of God.
While we can admit to the first (at least the concept of God in the consciousness of at least one of the participants of the debate exists) there has not been given any grounds for the second.
A direct question on this, in an earlier post, on this particular issue, namely wether or not we mean with existence as an objective form of existence (apart from and independend and outside of the mind) was replied by Bob E with the statement: never mind.
This indicates that Bob E is very much aware of the fact that he can not in any way provide evidence for the objective existence of God, and does not even tries to provide such objective existence, and therefore avoids to answer such questions.
His concept of God, is of course something that can not even exist outside of his or anytone else's mind, since God does not have objective existence. At least none has been proven so far, and a more sophisticated mind can even proof that such objective existence is not at all assumable.
So the debate just evolves based on a flawed definition of existence.
All that can come out in theory is that Bob E happens to convincingly state that his concept of a God in fact does exist in a mindly form, namely in his mind.
But to that acknowledgement we could have already started the debate, the debate would not even be necessary.
In the same way that if the debate would be wether or not ducks that can talk exists, it could be stated that we do acknowledge the existence of the comic figure of Donald Duck, but that we are not interested in that kind of existence for the sake of the debate, but only in the biological form.
Since the rules of the debate did not make clear what kind or type of existence must be assumed, discussed or proved, we have in fact a nonsensical debate going on, since it did not profoundly state what kind of existence is to be discussed.
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?
I understand that whether you follow evolution or creationism there is going to be some inbreeding. In evolution though, there isn't going to be the amount on the scale of Adam/Eve ,Noah and his brood. On to the next point in the statement. Calling me a well defined inbred is a fairly low blow for a "good" Cristian. Feeling the need to insult me personally on basically a jest is fairly pathetic. I couldn't expect anything more from you anyways.
I could reciprocate, but I have grown up. In the future Jack, refrain from insulting me in that fashion. Golden rule.
Spartin
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?
I understand that whether you follow evolution or creationism there is going to be some inbreeding. In evolution though, there isn't going to be the amount on the scale of Adam/Eve ,Noah and his brood. On to the next point in the statement. Calling me a well defined inbred is a fairly low blow for a "good" Cristian. Feeling the need to insult me personally on basically a jest is fairly pathetic. I couldn't expect anything more from you anyways.
I could reciprocate, but I have grown up. In the future Jack, refrain from insulting me in that fashion. Golden rule.
Spartin
One Eyed Jack
New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?
Then why did you ask me a question that you already knew the answer to?
I wouldn't be too sure about that, unless you think several different lines of humans just happened to evolve simultaneously.
Let's face it -- you walked right into that one. Besides, it's not like you weren't trying to set me up for an insult. Why else would you ask me a question like that when you aready knew the answer? I think you're just mad because I got you first.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?
Then why did you ask me a question that you already knew the answer to?
I wouldn't be too sure about that, unless you think several different lines of humans just happened to evolve simultaneously.
Let's face it -- you walked right into that one. Besides, it's not like you weren't trying to set me up for an insult. Why else would you ask me a question like that when you aready knew the answer? I think you're just mad because I got you first.
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?
Had you read my post you are quoting to, you would see the word jest. Here for your benefit I got the definition for you:
jest ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jst)
n.
A playful or amusing act; a prank. See Synonyms at joke.
A frolicsome or frivolous mood: spoken in jest.
An object of ridicule; a laughingstock.
A witty remark.
What kind of joke could I make at your expense for asking an obviously silly question? Regardless if evolution or creation is correct, we are all from the same basic dna sequencing. Someone such as yourself with your scathing remarks really couldn't make me mad. I know who I am and where I am going. Something you say about me isn't going to hurt me. The point I was trying to bring up was the fact that it really isn't needed here. Act like a respectful individual please. I came here and I repect others opinions. I may not Agree with it, but I can respect it. I don't call someone stupid for not believing the way I do. A little break in the seriousness was needed. I figured you would see it that way and go "lol". If you want to have an insult competition, we can do it elsewhere. This isn't the type of an environment for it. Rest assured, I would have you beat in that department.
Spartin
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?
Had you read my post you are quoting to, you would see the word jest. Here for your benefit I got the definition for you:
jest ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jst)
n.
A playful or amusing act; a prank. See Synonyms at joke.
A frolicsome or frivolous mood: spoken in jest.
An object of ridicule; a laughingstock.
A witty remark.
What kind of joke could I make at your expense for asking an obviously silly question? Regardless if evolution or creation is correct, we are all from the same basic dna sequencing. Someone such as yourself with your scathing remarks really couldn't make me mad. I know who I am and where I am going. Something you say about me isn't going to hurt me. The point I was trying to bring up was the fact that it really isn't needed here. Act like a respectful individual please. I came here and I repect others opinions. I may not Agree with it, but I can respect it. I don't call someone stupid for not believing the way I do. A little break in the seriousness was needed. I figured you would see it that way and go "lol". If you want to have an insult competition, we can do it elsewhere. This isn't the type of an environment for it. Rest assured, I would have you beat in that department.
Spartin
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?
I am not a vindicitive person. I feel no need to lash out at anyone here. If you ever knew me, you would know that it isn't my way. Know me before you make a statement like that please. You have no grounds in which to base that upon. Also quit trying to justify you being a donkey please.
Spartin
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?
I am not a vindicitive person. I feel no need to lash out at anyone here. If you ever knew me, you would know that it isn't my way. Know me before you make a statement like that please. You have no grounds in which to base that upon. Also quit trying to justify you being a donkey please.
Spartin
One Eyed Jack
New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?
I seriously doubt that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?
I seriously doubt that.
cheeezywheeezy
New member
In his recent post Zakath said:
"Pastor Enyart is a believer in a religion which believes that certain things are immutable, among them, the creator for the universe."
I will give Zakath a million dollars if he can show where...and I mean ANYWHERE in any of Bob's posts...literature...tapes...videos...etc... where Bob has stated that God is immutable.
It is hard for me to understand how Zakath can misrepresent Bob with such a statement about God when he began this whole debate by asking Bob to define God. No where did Bob state or imply that God was immutable!
QUIT misrepresenting Bob's position!!! If Zakath had the slightest knowledge of what Bob believes about God or had ever listened to any of Bob's teachings on the Bible he would know that Bob DOES NOT teach that God is immutable.
God changes. <---- period
God was not always a man. He became a man. A HUGE change. That is the heart of the gospel message.
"Pastor Enyart is a believer in a religion which believes that certain things are immutable, among them, the creator for the universe."
I will give Zakath a million dollars if he can show where...and I mean ANYWHERE in any of Bob's posts...literature...tapes...videos...etc... where Bob has stated that God is immutable.
It is hard for me to understand how Zakath can misrepresent Bob with such a statement about God when he began this whole debate by asking Bob to define God. No where did Bob state or imply that God was immutable!
QUIT misrepresenting Bob's position!!! If Zakath had the slightest knowledge of what Bob believes about God or had ever listened to any of Bob's teachings on the Bible he would know that Bob DOES NOT teach that God is immutable.
God changes. <---- period
God was not always a man. He became a man. A HUGE change. That is the heart of the gospel message.
Originally posted by cthoma11
Really, can you please supply references of this creation of life in the lab from chemicals?
I've created barbequed steak from chemicals... but the chemicals were already in the form of raw steak, a match and a barbeque.
Your claim is meaningless without context. Also, I'm surprised that this hasn't appeared in the mainstream news (the creation of life that is, not my barbequing of the steak.)
This was just one such "creation".
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/July2002/ScisCreate12.htm
Man the only known creator strikes again
Cheezy,
Get real.. trying to imply Zakath is lying. It is you who are being disingenuous.
im•mu•ta•ble
adj.
Not subject or susceptible to change.
Now are you honestly trying to say Bob has not said this 100 times over. Just because he doesn't use the correct English word and Zakath simplifies what Bob says you try and imply he is lying !
BTW some of us are grateful for Zakath for condensing Bob’s massive diatribes and additional question upon question into something easier to read.
I understand it is Bob’ method to obfuscate as he has really very little argument.
Get real.. trying to imply Zakath is lying. It is you who are being disingenuous.
im•mu•ta•ble
adj.
Not subject or susceptible to change.
Now are you honestly trying to say Bob has not said this 100 times over. Just because he doesn't use the correct English word and Zakath simplifies what Bob says you try and imply he is lying !
BTW some of us are grateful for Zakath for condensing Bob’s massive diatribes and additional question upon question into something easier to read.
I understand it is Bob’ method to obfuscate as he has really very little argument.
That's an excellent point, and I should probably say that I didn't really expect this debate to wind up otherwise. I suppose my real disappointment, at least in this regard, is that Enyart's notion of "God" seems so narrow and limited - and he further appears utterly unwilling or incapable of acknowledging other possible views of "God" that could very well be valid. In short, simply showing that Bob Enyart's particular model of "God" is incorrect - something that I believe is rather easily done - says very little about the actual existence or non-existence of "God".
Exactly, and this IS in effect what's being done here. We should not for an instant think that this debate actually addresses the question it purports to. The debate at this point (as, I believe, all such debates wind up, unless the debators are very, very careful) has to do with Bob Enyart's particular notion of God. I'm very, very interested in the question of whether or not there is a God, but couldn't possibly care less about Enyart's rather limited model.
Certainly, although this is a sword that cuts both ways. If you define your God as "wet" - and ONLY as that quality - then you also have to live within the limitations of your definition. You might be able to prove that such a "God" exists, but then you've wound up with a God-definition so limited as to be essentially irrelevant. Such a problem exists with most definitions of God, unless considerably more than the usual amount of thought goes into their creation.
Agreed. Agnosticism, anyone?
cheeezywheeezy
New member
Zakath also says that:
"God encourages human slavery"
Which type of slavery Zakath? It wouldn't be the same type of slavery that is encouraged and allowed by the 13th Amendment to the constitution would it?
Is there a good and bad type of slavery? Well, both the Bible and the constitution seem to think so. "Owning" someone as a slave because of their ethnicity is evil. But what about for restitution purposes?
You see, the 13th Amendment to the constitution DOESN'T say:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the United States..."
For some reason this is what everyone seems to think. But there is a little comma in there. The 13th Amendment DOES say:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS A PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME WHEREOF THE PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY CONVICTED, shall exist within the United States..."
Slavery....involuntary servitude....whatever you want to refer to it as was an acceptable punishment in Biblical times as restitution must be paid for a crime, and only for a ceratin length of time, and is still legal in the United States.
Zakath also said:
"God has built an imperfect world in which tragic genetic mutation causes monstrosities to be born to human parents"
I don't understand Zakath. You use the terms "tragic" and "monstrosities" for mutations. Are you a tragic monstrosity? Isn't that what evolution is al about? Perhaps these "tragic monstrosities" are our next phase in human evolution.
What about Downs Syndrome? Are they really monsters as you seem to indicate? Shouldn't we see this as our next evolutionary stage?
Do you not realize that mutation and natural selection is your god?
Evolution created you Zakath. It has molded you into the person you are today. Heck, maybe we "normal" humans are the monsters. Ever see that Twilight Zone episode from way back where those of us that look normal are the monsters? Mutation and natural selection has created your brain. Wait...here's a thought...if this is true, how do we know the evolution god created our brains correctly? One of the ten commandments given to us by the evolution god of mutation and natural selection teaches us that we are merely matter and chemistry. Every living creature is just reorganized goo. How can you refer to goo as a monster? Evolution is your god Zakath.
Is it wrong for a fish to kill and eat another fish because it is hungry? After all they too are just reorganized goo created by your evolution god. Why then if man is merely just another animal is it wrong for us to do the same? We too are just goo. Maybe you don't believe it is wrong. I guess I just assumed you thought it was. You know all about assumptions Zakath don't you. You assumed Bob thought God was immutable earlier.
"God encourages human slavery"
Which type of slavery Zakath? It wouldn't be the same type of slavery that is encouraged and allowed by the 13th Amendment to the constitution would it?
Is there a good and bad type of slavery? Well, both the Bible and the constitution seem to think so. "Owning" someone as a slave because of their ethnicity is evil. But what about for restitution purposes?
You see, the 13th Amendment to the constitution DOESN'T say:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the United States..."
For some reason this is what everyone seems to think. But there is a little comma in there. The 13th Amendment DOES say:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS A PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME WHEREOF THE PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY CONVICTED, shall exist within the United States..."
Slavery....involuntary servitude....whatever you want to refer to it as was an acceptable punishment in Biblical times as restitution must be paid for a crime, and only for a ceratin length of time, and is still legal in the United States.
Zakath also said:
"God has built an imperfect world in which tragic genetic mutation causes monstrosities to be born to human parents"
I don't understand Zakath. You use the terms "tragic" and "monstrosities" for mutations. Are you a tragic monstrosity? Isn't that what evolution is al about? Perhaps these "tragic monstrosities" are our next phase in human evolution.
What about Downs Syndrome? Are they really monsters as you seem to indicate? Shouldn't we see this as our next evolutionary stage?
Do you not realize that mutation and natural selection is your god?
Evolution created you Zakath. It has molded you into the person you are today. Heck, maybe we "normal" humans are the monsters. Ever see that Twilight Zone episode from way back where those of us that look normal are the monsters? Mutation and natural selection has created your brain. Wait...here's a thought...if this is true, how do we know the evolution god created our brains correctly? One of the ten commandments given to us by the evolution god of mutation and natural selection teaches us that we are merely matter and chemistry. Every living creature is just reorganized goo. How can you refer to goo as a monster? Evolution is your god Zakath.
Is it wrong for a fish to kill and eat another fish because it is hungry? After all they too are just reorganized goo created by your evolution god. Why then if man is merely just another animal is it wrong for us to do the same? We too are just goo. Maybe you don't believe it is wrong. I guess I just assumed you thought it was. You know all about assumptions Zakath don't you. You assumed Bob thought God was immutable earlier.
cheeezywheeezy
New member
Aussie you say:
"Now are you honestly trying to say Bob has not said this 100 times over."
YES!!!
Have you not ever listened to Bob's sermons? In his audio tape debate with Doug Krueger, Doug lists all the "attributes" of what people traditionally define as pertaining to God. Immutability was one of them. Bob says that he rejects that.
Haven't you ever listened to his lectures on predestination and freewill? Bob REPEATEDLY denies that God is immutable.
Haven't you ever listened to his series on The Flood? Bob REPEATEDLY denies that God is immutable.
Did you ever watch Bob's show when it was on television? He NEVER stated that he believed that God was immuatable. One of Bob's cliche's that he teaches people to quit saying is that God i immutable. If you don't believe...get the material mentioned above and see for yourself.
"Now are you honestly trying to say Bob has not said this 100 times over."
YES!!!
Have you not ever listened to Bob's sermons? In his audio tape debate with Doug Krueger, Doug lists all the "attributes" of what people traditionally define as pertaining to God. Immutability was one of them. Bob says that he rejects that.
Haven't you ever listened to his lectures on predestination and freewill? Bob REPEATEDLY denies that God is immutable.
Haven't you ever listened to his series on The Flood? Bob REPEATEDLY denies that God is immutable.
Did you ever watch Bob's show when it was on television? He NEVER stated that he believed that God was immuatable. One of Bob's cliche's that he teaches people to quit saying is that God i immutable. If you don't believe...get the material mentioned above and see for yourself.
Cheezy,
So hang on… God IS subject and susceptible to change !
So out absolute morals (which are derived from Gods righteousness) are subject to change in an instant ?
In fact if God is not immutable they are LIKELY to change.
That’s sure puts the kybosh on Bob’s argument for absolutes doesn’t it ?
You have completely the wrong take on evolution. You seem to hate that we are accidents and therefore we must have the same compunctions as animals.
We do of course. You can commit any crime you like.. just be aware that us other animals who don’t like the crime are gunna punish you for it !
So hang on… God IS subject and susceptible to change !
So out absolute morals (which are derived from Gods righteousness) are subject to change in an instant ?
In fact if God is not immutable they are LIKELY to change.
That’s sure puts the kybosh on Bob’s argument for absolutes doesn’t it ?
You have completely the wrong take on evolution. You seem to hate that we are accidents and therefore we must have the same compunctions as animals.
We do of course. You can commit any crime you like.. just be aware that us other animals who don’t like the crime are gunna punish you for it !
cheeezywheeezy
New member
Oh and Aussie...I never said that Zakath was lying. I said that he misrepresented Bob.
Can you agree to that? Can you agree that Bob never stated that God was immutable?
After that can you agree that Zakath assumed that Bob believed that God was immuatable?
And then lastly...if you said "yes" to the above question...could you then agree that since Bob does not claim that God is immuatable...and that Zakath thought that Bob believed this to be true...that Zakath did indeed misrepresent Bob's idea of God?
I never even implied that Zakath was lying....just misrepresenting Bob's postion.
Again, if you don't believe me that Bob teaches this...call into his show and ask him if he thinks God is immutable.
I will almost guarantee that he will say no and that the greek philosophers taught that GOd was immutable and their teachings have infiltred the church.
Can you agree to that? Can you agree that Bob never stated that God was immutable?
After that can you agree that Zakath assumed that Bob believed that God was immuatable?
And then lastly...if you said "yes" to the above question...could you then agree that since Bob does not claim that God is immuatable...and that Zakath thought that Bob believed this to be true...that Zakath did indeed misrepresent Bob's idea of God?
I never even implied that Zakath was lying....just misrepresenting Bob's postion.
Again, if you don't believe me that Bob teaches this...call into his show and ask him if he thinks God is immutable.
I will almost guarantee that he will say no and that the greek philosophers taught that GOd was immutable and their teachings have infiltred the church.
- Status