Debate here if you deny Jesus is the Creator of the universe born in flesh

[Lionz]

@jusplay4fun

I’m not sure who wrote it myself. I guess Matthew/Matityahu, but who can say for sure? What’s worth busting my balls over when it comes to how I talk if I talk like I do as a result of me trying guard against saying something that’s in error in the first place? I might be about as speculative as a person can be and not be able to absolutely prove much of anything at all without relying senses that could be flawed or memory that could be flawed or words of other people who could be lying, but that being said there is just so much evidence in support of Christ.

Now, let’s still talk about Psalm 2:1-4 and if there is any evidence that the devil and government officials and people with influence over academia conspire against the Creator, if you want to.

[jusplay4fun]

First, Lionz, I think you have an incomplete and rather inaccurate view of me. You may have read some of my posts where I refute pack rat. I do not post to everyone as I do him; basically, he is a silly and pathetic and self-loathing rat. ENOUGH said about that low life.

Let's discuss what you posted here:

Now, let’s still talk about Psalm 2:1-4 and if there is any evidence that the devil and government officials and people with influence over academia conspire against the Creator, if you want to.

I did not follow why you put that in the discussion of the authorship of the Gospel, as I said before. Since you did not make it clear that you shifted topics in that same post, I asked for you to clarify (3X as I recall).

As far as your claim of the devil and conspiring with

government officials and people with influence over academia

I do not think the devil specifically targets those two groups. I DO think there are many in Academia who work vigorously against the God. Many are godless atheists. Their Liberal extremist views do not allow for God. One of the ironies of the colleges like Harvard is that they were founded to teach and train those who were to become ministers and preachers. They are now FAR from that Mission. As far as Government, I am not sure there are a majority there who work AGAINST God, especially at the Federal level under President Trump.

Harvard was founded and authorized by the Massachusetts General Court, the governing legislature of colonial-era Massachusetts Bay Colony.[13] While never formally affiliated with any Protestant denomination, Harvard trained Congregational clergy until its curriculum and student body were gradually secularized in the 18th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University

and
AI Summary

This AI-generated answer is powered by OpenAI. AI-generated content may sometimes contain inaccurate, incomplete, or biased information, so make sure you do additional research. You should not rely on this feature for medical, financial, or legal advice.

To educate the clergy and promote moral character, Harvard University's original mission included the following goals:

AI Overview to the question: what was the original mission of Harvard University?
Establish a college to train ministers for the Puritan community.
Provide a liberal education grounded in classical studies.
Promote the study of theology and philosophy.
Encourage moral integrity and civic responsibility among students.
Support the advancement of knowledge for the benefit of society.

[Lionz]

The Catholic Church and Harvard might both have roots with people who had good intentions, but why would the devil not be trying to influence (or be straight up controlling?) governments and academia and msm and seminaries and yeshivas if he is the prince of this world and had the power to tempt Christ with the kingdoms of the earth?

[jusplay4fun]

The Catholic Church and Harvard might both have roots with people who had good intentions, but why would the devil not be trying to influence (or be straight up controlling?) governments and academia and msm and seminaries and yeshivas if he is the prince of this world and had the power to tempt Christ with the kingdoms of the earth?

I never said that the

devil not be trying to influence (or be straight up controlling?) governments and academia and msm and seminaries and yeshivas

I agree that the devil does that. I merely said he did not specifically target

governments and academia

....OVER other groups. <<<(Perhaps I was not clear enough; I can admit THAT.)

Here again is from my Previous Post:

I do not think the devil specifically targets those two groups. I DO think there are many in Academia who work vigorously against the God. Many are godless atheists. Their Liberal extremist views do not allow for God.

The Devil tempts everyone, even Jesus Christ was tempted 3 times.

4 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry. 3 Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.”

I assume that you know the rest, Lionz

part of Matthew 4:1-11, KJV

[Lionz]

. .

[jusplay4fun]

. .

and THAT is your ONLY RESPONSE? Do you want to discuss these issues or NOT?

[riskllama]

[Pack Rat]

[jusplay4fun]

and we get "SERIOUS" posts by pack rat and llama, VIDEOS. WORTHLESS.

[Pack Rat]

Calm down Karen

[Apatheist]

My take on religions:
1) They can't all be right, so why waste time believing any of them? Either there's 1 god, multiple gods, or none; either there's an afterlife, reincarnation, or oblivion. They can't all be true.
2) If you're a monotheist - do you believe your god is all powerful? If not, then he's not as described. If you do, then ask yourself: can he create anything and everything? Can he destroy anything and everything? If your answer to both is yes, then consider - can he create something that he can't destroy? Ponder that paradox.
3) If you believe in a reincarnation hierarchy - wherein one starts life as a bug, and if you're a good bug, you become a lizard, then a fish, bird, various mammals and finally a woman, then a man (I'm not sure of the exact order, but you get the idea) - does that mean there are no animals in paradise? How would the likes of Steve Irwin and David Attenborough (when he gets there), cat and dog lovers etc enjoy their eternal bliss?
4) If you believe in the 72 virgins - do attractive female virgins die in the ratio 72:1? I think not. Presumably, they're virgins so one gets the honour of "deflowering" them. At one a day, one will have done the lot in 2 and a half months - then what? Not only that, but according to the lot in 3), they're all men.

Sorry, but my idea of eternal paradise does not consist of being hassled by 72 gay ex-virgins who are miffed at being dumped after a one-night stand.
Science has being making inroads into religious lies ever since Galileo first saw moons orbiting Jupiter.
Clearly there wasn't Christianity, now there is, so what or whoever caused that to happen may as well be called Jesus, but that doesn't make him a deity.
In the UK we had David Icke try to start a new religion, but by now we know better.

[Lionz]

@jusplay4fun

What is there to say if we are on a similar page when it comes to your earlier post? Notice Luke 4:5-6 particularly.

“4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

4:6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.” -Luke 4:5-6 RNKJV

[riskllama]

[Lionz]

@Apatheist

First, welcome and thanks for making your way here. In regards to your numbered section:

1) You might think a lot like I do. What can we really ever prove without a shadow of a doubt without making some assumptions related to a) our senses being honest or b) our memory being accurate or c) words of other people being true? Still, I say we try to weigh evidence and figure things out regardless.

2) I guess the Creator can create something heavier than He can lift and He is simply choosing not to make a decision to do so.

3) I actually am a Christian who leans toward reincarnation occurring even if I don’t think it’s in a Hindu or Buddhist type way where lower organisms advance to upper ones over thousands of years maybe. I’m actually a young earth creationist who thinks there was a global flood around 4,350 years ago or something like that. Who needs to look into near dear experiences or ghost stories long to see evidence that animals have spirits? And why would they not?

4) I’m not a Muslim, but I am a Christian who sees Isaiah 4:1 differently than most and it seems like there will be sex in the Millennium and a different system than modern marriage maybe, but if you are making a point related to eternity getting boring, why would it ever get boring if there are theoretically infinity songs and sports seasons and shows and movies and conquerclub games and natural drugs and adventures to go on and senses to test out and colors to see and planets to design and on and on? And then if you could still get mentally exhausted, why not take a real long nap?

Consider what even quantum physics tells us about how consciousness works at this point—doesn’t the double slit experiment suggest it’s a) less likely that consciousness derives from the brain and b) more likely that time and space and matter derive from consciousness than it seemed to mankind prior to 1909?

[Apatheist]

1) We can't *prove* anything as such, but we can base things on the internal logic of what we perceive to be our existence. I won't go down the rabbit hole of if we're in a simulation, then where is that simulation running, etc etc; all we can say is that mutually exclusive precepts, within our understanding of logic, cannot co-exist.
2) The paradox is that, if your belief system relies on "him" being omnipotent, then he either can't create anything or can't destroy anything. It's not about whether he does or does not; but if it's fundamental to your belief that he can create anything and destroy anything, it falls apart because of what I posited.
3) There is scientific evidence for a flood in Mesopotamia, which they would perhaps have understood as "the world", as well as many of the Nile; however, do you believe in the Ark? Seven (or seven pairs) of all clean animals and two unclean - notwithstanding how big the Ark would have to have been, how would they have kept the prey animals separate from the predators? What would they have lived on for a year? If the "whole world" was covered in water, where would it have receded to after a year? Anyway, if animals have spirits - what about arachnophobes or those with other fears in the afterlife? How would you keep a tyrannosaurus happy?
4) Isaiah 4:1 - seven women for every man. Jan and Dean: two girls for every guy. It's not just about it being boring, I question what would happen to the ex-virgins and one's relationships. I imagine one can play golf and go round in 18 every day if one were so inclined. Personally I'm hoping that I'll be able to visit other planets, solar systems and galaxies; or do what the immortal being did in the true holy book, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and spend his time travelling the galaxy and insulting everyone in alphabetical order (which I can see appealing to certain members on here ).

I have no idea what consciousness is. All I can say is that I have yet to see a fully convincing explanation of what really is going on, so I'm not going to believe any of the religions.

[Lionz]

1) If there is one objective reality, how about we poke at it together and try to figure out what it is?

2) I propose that the only true limit is what He puts in place. If He can theoretically limit Himself and that means He is not all powerful in some sense, it is what it is I guess.

3) How about I still get to specific questions, but are you willing spend a good 20 minutes or more checking this out if I have a whole webpage on the great flood?: http://ancientnostalgia.weebly.com/flood.html

4) I guess that we will have an opportunity to travel and visit other star systems if we are saved and make it into eternity.

[riskllama]

[Apatheist]

3) How about I still get to specific questions, but are you willing spend a good 20 minutes or more checking this out if I have a whole webpage on the great flood?: http://ancientnostalgia.weebly.com/flood.html

I lost interest in this when it said:

Well, you don’t have to be clairvoyant to quickly surmise given this trajectory, that your population does not even stretch back seven thousand years let alone the 3.4 billion years...

Nobody thinks there were humans for 3.4 billion years, it's closer to 300,000 years, and the growth rate has clearly increased significantly with improvements in health and food management. As I've mentioned elsewhere, as soon as someone starts pushing things too far, they lose all credibility - much like a witness in a court case, one lie calls in to question all the rest of the evidence. I remember seeing someone claiming the web was evil because www is another way of writing vi vi vi, or 666. It isn't though.
Were there huge floods in the past? Yes. Were they sent by a creator of the universe to punish humans? No. Otherwise we'd all be descendants of Noah. The holy book writers didn't even know about the Americas and Australia, so it really isn't a great source of fact.
For example, winter has gone and spring is here, and I haven't sacrificed a single goat, so I'm putting it down to the orbit and angle of the Earth.

[Lionz]

Haven’t you been led to believe that humans have ancestors who were alive 3.4 billion years ago and that have been reproducing ever since?

I propose that speciation happens very quickly and that there are many species around now who have evolved into being what they are since the flood. Consider the Nile Mosaic of Palestrina if it suggests that there were several animals commonly considered prehistoric who were living around the Nile about 2,000 years ago. Any theories on what the ΚΡΟΚΟΔΙΛΟΠΑΡΔΑΛΙC or crocodile leopard was?














https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nile_mosaic_of_Palestrina

[jusplay4fun]

I think some of those representations in the previous post by Lionz are myths, fiction, and NOT intended as Scientific evidence or accuracy of some or many creatures. A random image of "XYZ" is NOT PROOF of anything. We explored this issue in the discussion of the Art in the SISTINE ("16th") Chapel. The image of a person or creature larger than nearby humans in the Art is NOT PROOF of the existence of a Bigfoot creature.

[jusplay4fun]

1) If there is one objective reality, how about we poke at it together and try to figure out what it is?

4) I guess that we will have an opportunity to travel and visit other star systems if we are saved and make it into eternity.

Let's poke at the matter of travel to other star systems to be saved. This has been a theme in Science Fiction since the 1950s, as the danger of nuclear war(s) destroying the world as we humans know it became a real possibility. Many writers have advanced the notion of the need to travel to distant new planets as the LAST hope of and for Mankind. Travel to ANYWHERE will not save us from our own evil. Evil, as I see it, will go with us and we do NOT escape it by going across the Galaxy.

Now much of Sci-Fi in that era of the 1950-1960s was very pessimistic and apocalyptic. Star Trek, by Gene Roddenberry, was one of the FIRST really optimistic Science Fiction stories that offered a POSITIVE image of the future, where Man has overcome many of his bad tendencies to travel to the Stars and other Planets in Peace to Explore and NOT to CONQUER and NOT to escape war or famine or other "bad things."

[Apatheist]

I think some of those representations in the previous post by Lionz are myths, fiction, and NOT intended as Scientific evidence or accuracy of some or many creatures. A random image of "XYZ" is NOT PROOF of anything. We explored this issue in the discussion of the Art in the SISTINE ("16th") Chapel. The image of a person or creature larger than nearby humans in the Art is NOT PROOF of the existence of a Bigfoot creature.

Quite so. There are other sites whereon one can see Medieval artists that have tried to reproduce animals and failed amusingly (search for "draw a cat without telling me you've never seen a cat" - or horse, lion, whatever), they look nothing like animals we know. They are perhaps stylised or symbolic, but like everything else (including the words) in religious works, should not be taken as literal representation. One only has to look at Disney cartoons - how accurate are the characters in the Lion King or the Jungle Book for example?
I think cave paintings are more likely to be an attempt at accuracy, since they probably hadn't invented the ideas that went into later art.

[Apatheist]

Haven’t you been led to believe that humans have ancestors who were alive 3.4 billion years ago and that have been reproducing ever since?

Not human ancestors, no. The first life on Earth may have evolved around that time, and thereafter evolved into millions of species, but the implication in the previous post was that there were humans and the numbers don't stack up if one projected backwards. This of course ignores the extinction events anyway.

I propose that speciation happens very quickly and that there are many species around now who have evolved into being what they are since the flood. Consider the Nile Mosaic of Palestrina if it suggests that there were several animals commonly considered prehistoric who were living around the Nile about 2,000 years ago. Any theories on what the ΚΡΟΚΟΔΙΛΟΠΑΡΔΑΛΙC or crocodile leopard was?

You say "evolved". The key considerations in this are how much change there has been, how much things change between generations (which we can see in the present) and how many generations. The fossil record shows what creatures looked like in the past - you would need evidence to show incremental changes that led from eg a tapir to a camel to a giraffe (or whatever you're proposing). Do you have such dated physical evidence? To be honest I was constantly last in art class, so anything I drew would look nothing like what it was supposed to.
Apparently there were about 1056 years between Adam and Noah, Noah was about 600 years old at the time of the flood, so humans have been around for nearer 6000 years if one accepts these premises.

Look at the skeleton of a blue whale's fin. It's clearly very similar to a human hand and other mammals in terms of structure. Are you suggesting that they evolved from us in the space of 6000-odd years? What were the interim steps?

[jusplay4fun]

Haven’t you been led to believe that humans have ancestors who were alive 3.4 billion years ago and that have been reproducing ever since?

I propose that speciation happens very quickly and that there are many species around now who have evolved into being what they are since the flood.

When you, Lionz, speak of

humans have ancestors who were alive 3.4 billion years ago

are you speaking of other humanoids? Perhaps NOT. I agree with Apatheist that this sounds to me that you are referring to LIFE and not to merely human ancestors. And most scientists accepted the idea that LIFE evolved from simple to more complex life forms over billions of years. The fossil evidence largely supports this idea.

AI Summary

This AI-generated answer is powered by OpenAI. AI-generated content may sometimes contain inaccurate, incomplete, or biased information, so make sure you do additional research. You should not rely on this feature for medical, financial, or legal advice.

To understand when life began on Earth, consider the following points:Life is believed to have originated around 3.5 to 4 billion years ago.

And when you speak of

speciation happens very quickly

you may be referring to this:

Cambrian explosion

The Cambrian explosion (also known as Cambrian radiation[1] or Cambrian diversification) is an interval of time beginning approximately 538.8 million years ago in the Cambrian period of the early Paleozoic, when a sudden radiation of complex life occurred and practically all major animal phyla started appearing in the fossil record.[2][3][4] It lasted for about 13[5][6][7] to 25[8][9] million years and resulted in the divergence of most modern metazoan phyla.[10] The event was accompanied by major diversification in other groups of organisms as well.[a]

Before early Cambrian diversification, most organisms were relatively simple, composed of individual cells or small multicellular organisms, occasionally organized into colonies. As the rate of diversification subsequently accelerated, the variety of life became much more complex and began to resemble that of today.[12] Almost all present-day animal phyla appeared during this period,[13][14] including the earliest chordates.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

Also, I think you invest too much to a "Great Flood." There is actual geologic evidence of a huge Flood in the region of the Black Sea, that may be the origin of the Flood that happens in the myths of the region of Mesopotamia, that led to that story being incorporated into Jewish lore, i.e., Noah and the Flood. I am skeptical of that narrative. I have not looked at all the evidence that you present in other cultures, tbf.

AI Summary

This AI-generated answer is powered by OpenAI. AI-generated content may sometimes contain inaccurate, incomplete, or biased information, so make sure you do additional research. You should not rely on this feature for medical, financial, or legal advice.

To understand the Great Flood in the Black Sea, consider these key points:

The event is believed to have occurred around 7,500 years ago, reshaping the region.
It is theorized to be linked to the melting of glaciers at the end of the last Ice Age.
The flood may have resulted from the Mediterranean Sea breaching the Bosporus Strait.
Archaeological evidence suggests rapid inundation of coastal settlements.
The flood has been linked to various cultural myths, including the story of Noah's Ark.
Ongoing research continues to explore its impact on ancient human populations and migrations.

Here are a few articles, from sites that have scientific credibility:

https://www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/old99/11/flood.html

https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/no ... big-flood/

https://www.science.org/content/article ... ood-theory

There is NO CONSENSUS on this matter, from my scan of the Science. That means there is NO Scientific confirmation of a LARGE or world-wide Great Flood.

And NOTE that the Bible is NOT a Book of Science. It is also not meant to be a Book of History.

[riskllama]

couldn't find the lyrics for this one...*shrugs*