All Forums | General Discussion

If Christ died on the cross for all of humanity

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 256994
Posts: 5358
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2004
Posts: 1687
Posted: #176
Quote Originally Posted by SirJohnDrake:

When did I ever say anything about enemies and that I don't love them? I love everybody which includes the heathens. I come here hoping to make them believers because I love them and care about them. I don't hate, I just feel sorry for them right now and I certainly don't hate you but I just wish you tone down the things you say because earlier like I said I really don't know where you stand with the things you say.


you're killing your cause

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2011
Posts: 117
Posted: #177
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:

What is the story of the celestial tea pot? It is a tea pot that is orbiting the sun somewhere in space .....

Regardless of wether it is proved or disproved that a tea pot in space actually exists, the fact remains that it is testable.....As difficult as it would be to detect the tea pot, it is possible given the smallest of probabilities to physically detect it as it is within our REALM. Nevertheless, it would be PHYSICALLY possible to detect the tea pot. This is no different to me saying there are Kangaroos playing baseball in Jupiter....The point is wether my claims are true or not, the fact is, that it is POSSIBLE to test wether my claims are true or not, just like the tea pot.

The theory of God is that his realm is in the supernatural and will only be witnessed by death. Therefore he is not testable.

Is it written that God will be at your local shopping mall on Sundays? Is it written that God will appear at your local Church on Sunday visible to everyone? Is it written that God is in space like the tea pot but is very hard to detect?

That is the reason this argument is flawed, just like the common atheist claim of comparing God to Santa, the tooth fairy, etc etc.

The reality is those are testable as THEY ARE IN OUR REALM where as the theory of God is in the supernatural, is NOT testable.

Comparing the 2 is a fallacy of equivocation



Somebody here is definitely committing the fallacy of equivocation here, but it sure isn't me. You are absolutely missing the point of this analogy. Bertrand Russell did not make this argument strictly to disprove God... he is simply saying that the onus is NOT on a disbeliever to prove that something DOESN'T exist. If I make a ridiculous claim, such as "Harry Potter is fact," then the impetus is on ME to prove that it is. The argument you're making, according to the Celestial Teapot allegory, is completely invalid. You're asking us if we have empirical evidence that a "god" exists. But according to Russell, and getting to the crux of his argument, we don't have to provide any evidence that he doesn't (although we have in the form of inaccuracies in the Bible). The burden of proof is on you, and you alone. So "You have no empirical evidence" is therefore an invalid counterargument.

And you're saying the analogy is testable because it isn't a "supernatural" thing? What about the idea of a "Flying Spaghetti Monster?" It's the same idea, just transposed to be a parallel. I can't claim belief in FSM simply because nobody can prove me wrong. So how is God any more valid than the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2011
Posts: 4
Posted: #178

Hey every Time i screw up, I look at my parents and say

"There was only one perfect son and even he got crucified"

LOL LOL LOL

The Hammer

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2006
Posts: 14746
Posted: #179

Quote Originally Posted by Droxside:



You do not get it, ate up with Dogma..There are great truths in the bible (many stolen from past civilizations for your benefit), that does not mean theer are not fallacies as well. If you cannot understand this concept there is little hope for you as a rule...If believing in fairy tells gives you 100% belief in something then I envy you, I wish it were that easy for me, but unfortunately I am awake...

When debating someone you can't be making contradictory statements, otherwise it gives proof that you have no idea what you are talking about and are definitely confused.

On page 7 post #173 you said, " Thanks for playing, but the fact is neither of us were here 2000 years ago as no one else was either and don't believe everything you read just because you were born into.

Then on post #174 you said, "There are great truths in the bible (many stolen from past civilizations for your benefit), that does not mean theer are not fallacies as well.

So you read somewhere that many great truths in the bible were stolen from past civilizations...how do you know?...you weren't there during past civilizations just like you weren't there 2000 years ago as you said in your first statement.

Rostos is right when he claims you are contradicting yourself, he cited several examples of this. So here is what you need to do if you want to debate someone, right down things you want to say and go over it and make sure you are not contradicting yourself otherwise like I said it gives proof that you have no idea what you are talking about and are definitely confused.

Lastly I want to say that the Bible may look like one book, but it is actually sixty-six rolled into one. Thirty-nine books make up what we call the Old Testament, and twenty-seven make up the New Testament. God uses many authors-as many as forty-over a time-period of many centuries to write the sixty-six books of the Bible. This makes each book unique. But even though each book has its own style and character, each one contributes to God's life changing message. What is that message? Through the Bible, God makes it clear that he loves us and has a plan to save us from the destructive power of sin.
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2007
Posts: 16408
Posted: #180
if i may chime in to both camps...

the problem is that you guys are using Enlightment/Cartesian/modern thought to argue here (Christians/non-Christians alike).  under this paradigm, there is an assumption that if you are going to be rational, you have to be unbiased, independant, objective, and free from the influence of tradition.  so pure, un-biased, neutral, objective reasoning is the only thing that counts for rationality and knowledge...under a modernistic paradigm.

so the outcome of this is that all things "religious" or pertaining to tradition are characterized as irrationality.

what post-modern thought does is say that all of that is myth.  there is no such thing as unbiased, objective rationality.  no human person can operate independent of intellectual inheritance or prior commitments.  post-modern thinkers (who have no stake in religion) have debunked the modernist paradigm.

under this "rational" discussion, you are supposed to shed everything that means something to you b/c they are tied to your gender, experience, spirituality, etc.  all those things will only taint a pure rational discussion.  (religion becomes the most taint-able...for some reason.)  the thing is that your "rational reasoning" is always someone's story & commitments pretending as if it weren't.  so if you get to bring your commitments and beliefs into this discussion, everyone should be able to do the same.  now the playing field is level when people quit pretending that their beliefs are somehow independently rational.  under a post-modernist paradigm, there is honest room to discuss religion.

all i'm saying it that there needs to be discussion on epistemology before you can talk about religion, etc.
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2007
Posts: 16408
Posted: #181
- Christians...you can't prove religion and you are doing a disservice to Christianity to argue it under a modernist framework.

- Non-Christian...you can't bring unbiased thought or objective rationality to any discussion and are doing a disservice to yourself to think otherwise.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2010
Posts: 12194
Posted: #182
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:

Do you have PROOF or EMPIRICAL evidence that it was all a fairytale?

 



The onus is on religion to prove that is it real. Your pretty much saying that if someone said they saw a fairy and that no one could prove that he didn't saw a fairy; he would be right. You sir are a dumbass.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2006
Posts: 14746
Posted: #183
Quote Originally Posted by sims_key:

- Christians...you can't prove religion and you are doing a disservice to Christianity to argue it under a modernist framework.

- Non-Christian...you can't bring unbiased thought or objective rationality to any discussion and are doing a disservice to yourself to think otherwise.

Exactly!

I have said it before...it is not debatable. You either believe or don't believe but of course people still like to debate it because as we all know it is such a powerful, interesting topic of discussion but proven it or disproven it is absolutely impossible.

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2006
Posts: 14746
Posted: #184
Quote Originally Posted by SYSTEM:


   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2011
Posts: 117
Posted: #185
Quote Originally Posted by Laroja:



The onus is on religion to prove that is it real. Your pretty much saying that if someone said they saw a fairy and that no one could prove that he didn't saw a fairy; he would be right. You sir are a dumbass.



 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2008
Posts: 1371
Posted: #186
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:

This is not about proofs or pre-suppositions you are making (i was brainwashed) which is an argument that has many flaws within it 

On one hand you have stated that Jesus was a "great" man yet in the same sentence you stated that he wasnt who he was claiming to be.

If he is lying about that, then why should i believe anything he said?

He was either a great man and believe or he was a lunatic. There is NO evidence to suggest he was lunatic but rather who he was is true.

You just cant pick and chose whatever suits your argument.


Again, you are playing by your rules and your bias. I do the same, the only difference is I realize it where as you do not see it being possible that you are wrong, a major flaw as a rule with your cult. Your remark and I quote..."He was either a great man and believe or he was a lunatic. There is NO evidence to suggest he was lunatic but rather who he was is true.

You just cant pick and chose whatever suits your argument."..Why not? I am not saying he is a lunatic by the way, he was using examples that people today take literally (Dogma), not his fault people need to believe impossible things to keep their "sanity" and plug along thru life and found the need to see the great lessons in life he re-taught that he learned from earlier people and so many such as yourself latched onto in the wrong context. Just as  it is better to teach a man to fish than  giving him a fish is a great lesson because of the obvious, so is so much more in the bible. The made up stories that seem impossible to anyone with common sense mostly are and if you can point me to one person alive today that seen anything in the bible themselves then please do. Otherwise it is all hear say and written and re-written and so on...Your claim that a lunatic cannot be a great man sums you up. Your thoughts on a lunatic and someone else's are two different things, but people like you are not flexible to the idea opened mindedness, you already have it all figured out...I could be wrong on some things because the one thing I know for sure is that I do not know, I was not there. However, I do possess enough common sense to not believe in the Easter bunny, Santa Clause or Jesus was anything more than a man. Again, I apologize if this offenses you and to be blunt I am wasting  way too much time discussing cults with cult members when I should be capping or doing something with my time that benefits myself. We are all our own god and it is up to us to use the given ability (wherever it comes from) to make a difference instead of waiting for a fairy tale to unfold and save us all...Nothing personal, just plain common sense...

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2011
Posts: 117
Posted: #187
Quote Originally Posted by SirJohnDrake:

But even though each book has its own style and character, each one contributes to God's life changing message. What is that message? Through the Bible, God makes it clear that he loves us and has a plan to save us from the destructive power of sin.


How about he saves us from the destructive power of religion instead
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 27785
Posted: #188

Quote Originally Posted by Sugarbear19:



Somebody here is definitely committing the fallacy of equivocation here, but it sure isn't me. You are absolutely missing the point of this analogy. Bertrand Russell did not make this argument strictly to disprove God... he is simply saying that the onus is NOT on a disbeliever to prove that something DOESN'T exist. If I make a ridiculous claim, such as "Harry Potter is fact," then the impetus is on ME to prove that it is. The argument you're making, according to the Celestial Teapot allegory, is completely invalid. You're asking us if we have empirical evidence that a "god" exists. But according to Russell, and getting to the crux of his argument, we don't have to provide any evidence that he doesn't (although we have in the form of inaccuracies in the Bible). The burden of proof is on you, and you alone. So "You have no empirical evidence" is therefore an invalid counterargument.

And you're saying the analogy is testable because it isn't a "supernatural" thing? What about the idea of a "Flying Spaghetti Monster?" It's the same idea, just transposed to be a parallel. I can't claim belief in FSM simply because nobody can prove me wrong. So how is God any more valid than the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

It doesnt matter who the burden of proof is on......

The illustration is FLAWED as it doesnt matter how improbable the example is, the FACT is it is testable. It is humanly or will be humanly possible to prove or disprove he tea pot, THEREFORE, it is testable.....God is NOT Testable.......Cant be disproven.

Russel is committing the fallacy of equivocation. The argument can be put in the same group as the tooth fairy, Santa, Big foot etc......They can ALL be proven or disproven.....God cant be disproven.

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 27785
Posted: #189

Quote Originally Posted by Laroja:



The onus is on religion to prove that is it real. Your pretty much saying that if someone said they saw a fairy and that no one could prove that he didn't saw a fairy; he would be right. You sir are a dumbass.

if something is written 2000 years ago about events that occured at the time......I wasnt there, you werent there and nobody breathing on this planet right was there, THEREFORE, i believe it to be true, the non believer doesnt believe it to be true.....It is based on faith.....

The atheists are making a conviction when they say, "IT IS a book of fairy tales".......They need to re-phrase that and say, " I believe it is a fairytale"...

There is a massive difference.

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 27785
Posted: #190
Quote Originally Posted by Droxside:


Again, you are playing by your rules and your bias. I do the same, the only difference is I realize it where as you do not see it being possible that you are wrong, a major flaw as a rule with your cult. Your remark and I quote..."He was either a great man and believe or he was a lunatic. There is NO evidence to suggest he was lunatic but rather who he was is true.

You just cant pick and chose whatever suits your argument."..Why not? I am not saying he is a lunatic by the way, he was using examples that people today take literally (Dogma), not his fault people need to believe impossible things to keep their "sanity" and plug along thru life and found the need to see the great lessons in life he re-taught that he learned from earlier people and so many such as yourself latched onto in the wrong context. Just as  it is better to teach a man to fish than  giving him a fish is a great lesson because of the obvious, so is so much more in the bible. The made up stories that seem impossible to anyone with common sense mostly are and if you can point me to one person alive today that seen anything in the bible themselves then please do. Otherwise it is all hear say and written and re-written and so on...Your claim that a lunatic cannot be a great man sums you up. Your thoughts on a lunatic and someone else's are two different things, but people like you are not flexible to the idea opened mindedness, you already have it all figured out...I could be wrong on some things because the one thing I know for sure is that I do not know, I was not there. However, I do possess enough common sense to not believe in the Easter bunny, Santa Clause or Jesus was anything more than a man. Again, I apologize if this offenses you and to be blunt I am wasting  way too much time discussing cults with cult members when I should be capping or doing something with my time that benefits myself. We are all our own god and it is up to us to use the given ability (wherever it comes from) to make a difference instead of waiting for a fairy tale to unfold and save us all...Nothing personal, just plain common sense...

You said he was "great man".....His teachings CENTRED around him being the son of God. Therefore, how can you say he was the son of God and at the same time dont believe who he said he was?

My goodness.

If he was LYING as to who he was, WHY should anything that comes out of his mouth be true then?

It is like me saying, Casey Anthony is a great woman, but she did kill her child.........

Or, Jesus was a great man, but he was a lunatic...

Contradictions

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2011
Posts: 117
Posted: #191
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:

It doesnt matter who the burden of proof is on......

The illustration is FLAWED as it doesnt matter how improbable the example is, the FACT is it is testable. It is humanly or will be humanly possible to prove or disprove he tea pot, THEREFORE, it is testable.....God is NOT Testable.......Cant be disproven.

Russel is committing the fallacy of equivocation. The argument can be put in the same group as the tooth fairy, Santa, Big foot etc......They can ALL be proven or disproven.....God cant be disproven.


You really just said that science can disprove the existence of the tooth fairy? How stupid can you be?

I guess the REAL moron here is me for continuing a conversation with someone like this


 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2006
Posts: 14746
Posted: #192

Quote Originally Posted by Sugarbear19:



How about he saves us from the destructive power of religion instead

How is the Christian faith which is one of many religions destructive for mankind when it teaches us that sin is destructive and following the Ten Commandments is morally good for everyone's life. You are not making any sense.

Nowhere in the Holy Bible does it preach violence and we all know that violence is destructive.

Why if everyone obeyed and followed the Ten Commandments this world no doubt would be a safe world to live in for all mankind, everyone man, woman or child need not worry about crime for there would be no crime whatsoever.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2008
Posts: 1371
Posted: #193
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:

You said he was "great man".....His teachings CENTRED around him being the son of God. Therefore, how can you say he was the son of God and at the same time dont believe who he said he was?

My goodness.

If he was LYING as to who he was, WHY should anything that comes out of his mouth be true then?

It is like me saying, Casey Anthony is a great woman, but she did kill her child.........

Or, Jesus was a great man, but he was a lunatic...

Contradictions



Last post here I promise...DOGMA...Nothing more to say except your reactions are common place among your cult, so not surprising...
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2004
Posts: 1687
Posted: #194
Quote Originally Posted by SirJohnDrake:

When debating someone you can't be making contradictory statements, otherwise it gives proof that you have no idea what you are talking about and are definitely confused.

On page 7 post #173 you said, " Thanks for playing, but the fact is neither of us were here 2000 years ago as no one else was either and don't believe everything you read just because you were born into.

Then on post #174 you said, "There are great truths in the bible (many stolen from past civilizations for your benefit), that does not mean theer are not fallacies as well.

So you read somewhere that many great truths in the bible were stolen from past civilizations...how do you know?...you weren't there during past civilizations just like you weren't there 2000 years ago as you said in your first statement.

Rostos is right when he claims you are contradicting yourself, he cited several examples of this. So here is what you need to do if you want to debate someone, right down things you want to say and go over it and make sure you are not contradicting yourself otherwise like I said it gives proof that you have no idea what you are talking about and are definitely confused.

Lastly I want to say that the Bible may look like one book, but it is actually sixty-six rolled into one. Thirty-nine books make up what we call the Old Testament, and twenty-seven make up the New Testament. God uses many authors-as many as forty-over a time-period of many centuries to write the sixty-six books of the Bible. This makes each book unique. But even though each book has its own style and character, each one contributes to God's life changing message. What is that message? Through the Bible, God makes it clear that he loves us and has a plan to save us from the destructive power of sin.

The bible is full of contradictions!

the bible
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2007
Posts: 16408
Posted: #195
does anyone care to have a dialogue about post 181 & 182?

or are you guys just going to keep posting emoticons to try to make other people look stupid so you can feel good about yourselves.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 1988
Posted: #196
There was a 2000+ post thread on this topic...why does the same cycle keep repeating itself over and over and over again. How many times can the same arguments be made? And more importantly...why?
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2010
Posts: 1384
Posted: #197
Quote Originally Posted by SirJohnDrake:

How is the Christian faith which is one of many religions destructive for mankind when it teaches us that sin is destructive and following the Ten Commandments is morally good for everyone's life. You are not making any sense.

Nowhere in the Holy Bible does it preach violence and we all know that violence is destructive.

Why if everyone obeyed and followed the Ten Commandments this world no doubt would be a safe world to live in for all mankind, everyone man, woman or child need not worry about crime for there would be no crime whatsoever.



IT TELLS US IN THE BIBLE TO KILL HOMOSEXUALS!!!

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death"
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2011
Posts: 519
Posted: #198

If you are a non-believer it is understandable to me.  You have not read the bible, or have not tried to read it with an open mind.  As SJD has said, the bible is not just one book, but 66 books written by 40 God Inspired people.  To read the bible straight through it would take you 56 hours.

Now, for all of you non-believers, the key is to have an open mind here.  Without automatically saying God cannot be true, try to understand that there is a very large possbility it can be true because most of the world believes in God.

Now, for me once i started to read the bible with an open mind, i found out for myself that there was just no way this book was a lie.  It is the truth in every way and you cannot deny the truth. 

Remember it is 66 books written by 40 different authors over a time span of 1600 years.

So for you to say its a myth or a fairy tale, you are basically saying that those 40 authors who wrote 66 books over a time-span of 1600 years are liars and were just making stuff up.

Well they werent.  We are all sinners, this is a fact.  Look at all the destruction and evil in the world today.  All the sickness and disease.  It is exactly as God knew it would be after man disobeyed God.  It says that in the bible.  You cannot deny that.

The thought that we came here from nothing, without any creator is ridiculous.  The notion that a bunch of cells can come together from nothing and create human life and animal life is just crazy. It would be like saying the websters unabridged dictionary came about because of an explosion in a printing room or like saying a tornado can sweep through a junkyard and a boeing 757 will appear.  Point is, you would need A LOT of faith to believe that happened.

The point is, if you truly seek the truth, take a look at the bible with an open mind, and decide for yourself whether or not you think the people who wrote it were being honest and sincere.  I tell you, you will not be dissapointed.

I myself was skeptical about God before I started to read the Bible, but as i read with an open mind, I came to know for myself that these books were nothing that man coudlve done by himself.  It is history of what happened during those times in great great detail.

You will not come to know God without hearing his word.

Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God- Rom. 10:17

Key is having an open mind, seek the truth.

 

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2007
Posts: 326
Posted: #199
Jesus is Real Dumbass! 
Go ahead and act foolish and you will spend your eternity in Hell.
 Try reading the Bible a chapter a day and see what happens. Why take a chance on going to Hell when God has made it simple to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Read John 3:16. God forgives those who ask and has Faith in Him. I Found god in 2005 and it changed my life.
 
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2009
Posts: 54
Posted: #200

Quote Originally Posted by Crashdavis565:


This is kind of my point. I am not much of a guy. I drink a little too much and gamble too much but as I was thinking about the dying on the cross thing it came to me that I would take one for the team too. I mean, do not get me wrong,  I really appreciate what he did and all but would not anyone do that?
We have kids go "over the hill" in war into a hail of bullets and take one for the team. The Japanese have kamikazes.  These people are sacrificing themselves for others. Jesus made a good call and all by dying on the cross to take care of all the sins of man but I think most people when faced with this decision would have done the same?
Not all that big of a deal?

what do you mean "I am not much of a gay", you either r or not...what a riot...just keep on sinning and being forgiven in your own mind and everything will be ok, and u can live with yourself..religion is nothing more than a cop-out thery developed by the weekmind so they can blame all thier problems and short comings on someone else.

All Forums | General Discussion
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Sports Betting
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
618,670
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 25 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2024 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.