Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Isa 40:22 "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."
Pythagoras Date of Birth: 570 BC
The Book of Isaiah was written between 701 and 681 B.C.
And look. Dimensions! Stretched out, and spread.........
And look: "who stretches out the heavens like a curtain".
Yes, very much a flat earth worldview. I think you have thoroughly dismantled your own argument.
You're a little short on understanding.
The "He" who sits, is also the "He" who spreads and stretches. You don't think the inhabitants did it do you, or that the inhabitants were actually grasshoppers?
I'll bet the "4 corners of the earth" as described in the Bible throws you off too.very much a flat earth worldview
You have offered up not one thing that puts a dent in the Bible. Your Pythagoras was a fail by a few hundred years. The tired old, it's a fable thing, doesn't work in the face of evidence.
And your personal attacks don't interfere in the least with Biblical fact, so my argument stands on it's own merit, and I didn't have to insult you or your beliefs to get there.
um no- intellects. Now you. Map the planetary system tonight on a clay plate, with a stick and within an accuracy of 1 degree.
Three classic mistakes atheists make:
1. They don't read the Bible
2. They don't understand the Bible
3. They rely on Hawking
Uh, huh, cute
But you didnt address the three classic mistakes theists make, which is okay, no one expects you to.
OK I have no problem addressing these 3 points, and i will even add a 4th:
1. God's will predetermined vs free will of man being punished even though it's God's will
instead of viewing it as punishment, the suffering of death disease and war are natural consequences of the laws of cause and effect, or the laws of karma and justice.
basically you get back what you give in life.
if you live by retributive justice and wish ill will on others,
yes, god's universal laws of justice mean you get that back in return
if you live by forgiveness of others as you ask forgiveness yourself, that's restorative justice where ppl can correct wrongs together instead of dividing bullying and blaming in conflict.
so again you get the type of justice you give and live by.
it is not god's ideal will that we keep suffering the vicious cycle of retribution
but god made us with consciences that use free will and reason to learn the difference based on the consequences we experience so we choose what brings peace and ends suffering. eventually by free will, trial and error, we learn to forgive in order to correct problems together to bring lasting peace and justice. in order to stop the same suffering from repeating we eventually choose the path of restorative justice which brings peace over retributive justice which kills relations and humanity with death and war.
2. god does not need to be anthropomorphized. this symbolism helps to explain relations between the higher source of all life and truth which is infinite and finite humanity on earth, but is not necessary. you can believe in aspects attributed to god such as life, truth, wisdom, love, and still agree this points to the same higher source whether personified or not. it's still the same concept no matter how this is expressed or symbolized, does not need personification. the main point to understand in the relationship is based on forgiveness love and grace, not judgment and punishment.
personal note: i have quite a few atheist/nontheist friends who believe in restorative justice without needing to believe in a personified god,
so i find this forgiveness factor is the key issue that allows us to align our views of truth, not whether god is abstract or in a humanized form.
3. the expressions are relative to man and different cultures; clearly these symbolic systems are going to be limited since god represents infinite love and truth so this cannot be defined fully using limited human perception and language. however faulty the systems are, the god and concepts they represent can still remain universal. for example the concept of justice is greater than any system of man which has failed to bring this in full. but we still use these systems to express the ideals we strive for though not attained yet.
the religions and laws are not the part to be worshipped. the point is the higher principles beyond just the words and symbolism. these values of universal truth and justice belong to all ppl of all views including secular humanists, nontheists and even atheists.
4. the fault i do find most common is where ppl claim to understand god and jesus as lord or universal law for all humanity; but then leave out nontheists secular gentiles and others out of salvation rejecting them for not believing in divine laws. this contradicts the meaning of jesus as symbolizing justice for all ppl of all tribes, especially both folds of the same flock the gentiles under natural laws and the churched believers under scriptural laws.
so to correct this misteaching, that's where i explain in order for jesus to be the messiah or message of justice for all humanity, his governance and salvation must equally include the nontheists from buddhists to atheists etc, under natural and civil laws and secular laws of science and spcial psychology, and cannot leave out the other fold of the one flock.
this correction does not discredit theological approaches but resolves the conflict so this is a valid approach for explaining universal laws and spiritual process for all humanity, theists and nontheists both without conflict. the same god or source of divine laws would also be the same for natural laws of creation if there is only one god or source for all things in life.
does this help to address and resolve your three points plus the fourth i added as well?
Atheist doesn't afraid of anything.
I fear man--some humans are dangerous to other humans
Hmm, no - bombed.
Three classic mistakes theists make:
- It defies predestination: why would a deity punish the people of either city for doing exactly as the deity willed.
- The deity is anthropomorphized: omnipotent entities do not feel, need, or want; they do not become angry, they have no need to punish.
- The omnipotence of the deity is undermined to the point where it is not worthy of worship: consequently, religion and god are clearly creations of men, their myths, fables, and legends.
um no- intellects. Now you. Map the planetary system tonight on a clay plate, with a stick and within an accuracy of 1 degree.
Three classic mistakes atheists make:
1. They don't read the Bible
2. They don't understand the Bible
3. They rely on Hawking
Uh, huh, cute
But you didnt address the three classic mistakes theists make, which is okay, no one expects you to.
And look: "who stretches out the heavens like a curtain".
Yes, very much a flat earth worldview. I think you have thoroughly dismantled your own argument.
You're a little short on understanding.
The "He" who sits, is also the "He" who spreads and stretches. You don't think the inhabitants did it do you, or that the inhabitants were actually grasshoppers?
I'll bet the "4 corners of the earth" as described in the Bible throws you off too.very much a flat earth worldview
You have offered up not one thing that puts a dent in the Bible. Your Pythagoras was a fail by a few hundred years. The tired old, it's a fable thing, doesn't work in the face of evidence.
And your personal attacks don't interfere in the least with Biblical fact, so my argument stands on it's own merit, and I didn't have to insult you or your beliefs to get there.
Seriously Hollie and Irish, though I personally appreciate reading these historic and Biblical references, from where I am sitting at my laptop, I cannot tell or prove if the world is round, square, flat or poised on the back of a turtle held up by four elephants.
It still does not affect my faith in the message in the Bible that forgiveness brings salvation.
not haggling over the letter of the law which doesn't free anyone from the conflicts you will find there, obviously. Forgiveness is what frees us from these traps we lay ourselves.
You are both knowledgeable and intelligent in your criticisms.
Can we please stop this, and focus on what we agree to be true and helpful to grow in positive directions; not fight over what is false or fictitious that does not matter if it's false.
If ppl in the past could not drop false theories they were teaching, it was because of this same shame-based approach of blasting ppl for being wrong where they feared change but stayed stuck in denial for fear of losing credibility and authority. So why keep this same attitude if THAT is what fuels problems with willful ignorance and denial in the first place?
If that is causing the problems you're so against, why keep pushing against each other this way? If you want things to change, shouldn't we try a different approach that WELCOMES and rewards change, instead of blasting and blaming each other where nothing changes.
Is this what you want? To stay stuck like the people who kept teaching things the wrong way cuz that's how they've always done it. Really?
Galatians 1:6-12
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
I know who is responsible for what I read in the Bible. I don't know what spirit is responsible for someone's interpretation of what it says. Interpreting what God said has fractured Christ's church into dogma hell for followers. That feel good approach, that it means whatever whoever wants it to mean is a form of corruption. The Bible is not to be read in such a way that it is made to conform to our opinions and assumptions; or our neighbor's opinion. Instead, we are called conform to what it says.1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
As to the silly "four corners of the earth", that make total sense for those who viewed the earth as a flat or as a "curtain".
And look: "who stretches out the heavens like a curtain".
Yes, very much a flat earth worldview. I think you have thoroughly dismantled your own argument.
You're a little short on understanding.
The "He" who sits, is also the "He" who spreads and stretches. You don't think the inhabitants did it do you, or that the inhabitants were actually grasshoppers?
I'll bet the "4 corners of the earth" as described in the Bible throws you off too.very much a flat earth worldview
You have offered up not one thing that puts a dent in the Bible. Your Pythagoras was a fail by a few hundred years. The tired old, it's a fable thing, doesn't work in the face of evidence.
And your personal attacks don't interfere in the least with Biblical fact, so my argument stands on it's own merit, and I didn't have to insult you or your beliefs to get there.
You're a little short on facts. You have made your "he" into little more than a Yoga instructor.
The bibles are dented and blemished more than I could hope to dent them. For all your claims to biblical "facts", I've yet to see you post a single one.
As to the silly "four corners of the earth", that make total sense for those who viewed the earth as a flat or as a "curtain".
um no- intellects. Now you. Map the planetary system tonight on a clay plate, with a stick and within an accuracy of 1 degree.
Three classic mistakes atheists make:
1. They don't read the Bible
2. They don't understand the Bible
3. They rely on Hawking
Uh, huh, cute
But you didnt address the three classic mistakes theists make, which is okay, no one expects you to.
You must. Which is ok.
I don't agree that Believers make those mistakes.
1. Predestination is addressed in the Bible. And God in no way willed the inhabitant's vile behaviors.
2. Who determined that omnipotent entities are void of emotion? Is there an interview with an omnipotent in which He discusses His properties, that I missed?
Believing He doesn't, is a mistake atheists make. I know better.
God doesn't need a creation of His to humanize Him. He humanized the creation. Atheists have that backwards.
3. There is nothing a creation of His can do that is capable of undermining the omnipotence of God. He is omnipotent regardless. Just as an atheist can't make Him disappear by saying He doesn't exist. His existence and omnipotence are secure no matter what we say.
His love is tangible.
1. The Bible tells us of a deity that has complete authority, and is in the position to control all things and chooses not to. (Thank you God for my decision making brain and the authority to use it.)
2. How do you know what a truly omnipotent deity needs or wants? Are you one, or related to one?
Theists can and do conceive of a deity that is spiritual. I know that for a fact. I'm one of those theists who do.
I know a deity that creates, delegates authority, enjoys relationships, has a sense of humor, enjoys a good home cooked meal with His friends, tells the ocean where to stop, controls weather, makes fish jump into nets, and tells us what to expect in the future. ( Thank you Lord for being omnipresent. )
What good is yours?
3. An omnipotent can do whatever He wants, which negates you #3 premise. He can love or not, test or not, raise from the dead or not... ( Thank you Father for being omniscient. )
The very notion that you think you can tell us in human terms what a deity can or can't do according to your human standards, tells me your source leaves much to be desired.
And if your deities can't do any of the things that you described, then they aren't omnipotent, and apparently need your direction to tell them what they can or can't do.
Mine doesn't need to rely on any creation's limited concept of what a deity is capable of, because you know, He's omnipotent.
I'd hate for Him to have to stop loving us because you say He incapable of being omnipotent and loving at the same time! Your poor little deities are limited. No love.
What deities have you consulted that have given you such a ridiculous portrait of a deity?
Any source other than your concept of a deity?
You're a little short on understanding.
The "He" who sits, is also the "He" who spreads and stretches. You don't think the inhabitants did it do you, or that the inhabitants were actually grasshoppers?
I'll bet the "4 corners of the earth" as described in the Bible throws you off too.
You have offered up not one thing that puts a dent in the Bible. Your Pythagoras was a fail by a few hundred years. The tired old, it's a fable thing, doesn't work in the face of evidence.
And your personal attacks don't interfere in the least with Biblical fact, so my argument stands on it's own merit, and I didn't have to insult you or your beliefs to get there.
Seriously Hollie and Irish, though I personally appreciate reading these historic and Biblical references, from where I am sitting at my laptop, I cannot tell or prove if the world is round, square, flat or poised on the back of a turtle held up by four elephants.
It still does not affect my faith in the message in the Bible that forgiveness brings salvation.
not haggling over the letter of the law which doesn't free anyone from the conflicts you will find there, obviously. Forgiveness is what frees us from these traps we lay ourselves.
You are both knowledgeable and intelligent in your criticisms.
Can we please stop this, and focus on what we agree to be true and helpful to grow in positive directions; not fight over what is false or fictitious that does not matter if it's false.
If ppl in the past could not drop false theories they were teaching, it was because of this same shame-based approach of blasting ppl for being wrong where they feared change but stayed stuck in denial for fear of losing credibility and authority. So why keep this same attitude if THAT is what fuels problems with willful ignorance and denial in the first place?
If that is causing the problems you're so against, why keep pushing against each other this way? If you want things to change, shouldn't we try a different approach that WELCOMES and rewards change, instead of blasting and blaming each other where nothing changes.
Is this what you want? To stay stuck like the people who kept teaching things the wrong way cuz that's how they've always done it. Really?
Em, I understand what you are saying but I can't find anywhere in the Bible that tells me to find common ground with nonbelievers for the sake of uniformity. I have no problem with Hollie, but I have an obligation to Christ to spread the Good News. That it conflicts with Hollie's beliefs is neither here nor there.
John the Baptist would have never had his head removed if he had looked for a way to just get along with Herod or to concentrate on their similarities to reach an accord, or to "compliment each other" or compromise for the sake of peace. Sry.
And I can't find the Bible anywhere in your post about this one's interpretation and that one's interpretation. Did Christ make concessions for the Pharisees interpretations of the Law? In fact I find the opposite:
Interpretation breeds perversion of the word. The need to interpret, means we want what we read to conform to (just what you said), "what we deem to be universal and applying to all humanity", instead of what God deems.
And opens the door for this:
I know who is responsible for what I read in the Bible. I don't know what spirit is responsible for someone's interpretation of what it says. Interpreting what God said has fractured Christ's church into dogma hell for followers. That feel good approach, that it means whatever whoever wants it to mean is a form of corruption. The Bible is not to be read in such a way that it is made to conform to our opinions and assumptions; or our neighbor's opinion. Instead, we are called conform to what it says.1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
and Hollie, I was yanking your chain about you not understanding "the four corners of the earth" till I read this:
As to the silly "four corners of the earth", that make total sense for those who viewed the earth as a flat or as a "curtain".
To find the four corners of the earth, look at a silly compass.
Omnipotence is a paradox. If your deity can create something that he cannot destroy then he cannot be omnipotent because there is something he cannot do. For the inverse if cannot create something that he can't destroy then he cannot be omnipotent either. Ergo there is no omnipotent deity.
1. The bible is completely devoid of objective authority.
Theists can’t have it both ways, either their deity is indeed omnipotent and knows and controls all things, where there is no ‘free-will,’ or a deity that allows ‘free-will’ isn’t the master of the universe and is therefore not omnipotent.
2. That theists can only conceive of their deity in human terms undermines the very essence of an omnipotent entity – a truly omnipotent deity will not need or want, it will have no emotions because it isn’t human, and if it’s human it’s not a god. Clearly all of this goes to the fact that god is a creation of man, a god indeed made in man’s own image.
3. A truly omnipotent entity will have no need for love, it will have no need to ‘test’ men, or ‘judge’ them; it will have no need to play a cruel, silly game of who will screw up and go to ‘hell’ and who will live a life of Christ and end up in ‘heaven.’ The very notion of the ‘chosen,’ the ‘elect,’ or those ‘left behind’ are all human constructs and failures, the need to divide, to segregate, to single-out for punishment; these are the attributes of imperfect humans, not a truly omnipotent deity.
emily said:OK I have no problem addressing these 3 points, and i will even add a 4th:
1. God's will predetermined vs free will of man being punished even though it's God's will
instead of viewing it as punishment, the suffering of death disease and war are natural consequences of the laws of cause and effect, or the laws of karma and justice.
basically you get back what you give in life.
if you live by retributive justice and wish ill will on others,
yes, god's universal laws of justice mean you get that back in return
if you live by forgiveness of others as you ask forgiveness yourself, that's restorative justice where ppl can correct wrongs together instead of dividing bullying and blaming in conflict.
so again you get the type of justice you give and live by.
it is not god's ideal will that we keep suffering the vicious cycle of retribution
but god made us with consciences that use free will and reason to learn the difference based on the consequences we experience so we choose what brings peace and ends suffering. eventually by free will, trial and error, we learn to forgive in order to correct problems together to bring lasting peace and justice. in order to stop the same suffering from repeating we eventually choose the path of restorative justice which brings peace over retributive justice which kills relations and humanity with death and war.
2. god does not need to be anthropomorphized. this symbolism helps to explain relations between the higher source of all life and truth which is infinite and finite humanity on earth, but is not necessary. you can believe in aspects attributed to god such as life, truth, wisdom, love, and still agree this points to the same higher source whether personified or not. it's still the same concept no matter how this is expressed or symbolized, does not need personification. the main point to understand in the relationship is based on forgiveness love and grace, not judgment and punishment.
personal note: i have quite a few atheist/nontheist friends who believe in restorative justice without needing to believe in a personified god,
so i find this forgiveness factor is the key issue that allows us to align our views of truth, not whether god is abstract or in a humanized form.
3. the expressions are relative to man and different cultures; clearly these symbolic systems are going to be limited since god represents infinite love and truth so this cannot be defined fully using limited human perception and language. however faulty the systems are, the god and concepts they represent can still remain universal. for example the concept of justice is greater than any system of man which has failed to bring this in full. but we still use these systems to express the ideals we strive for though not attained yet.
the religions and laws are not the part to be worshipped. the point is the higher principles beyond just the words and symbolism. these values of universal truth and justice belong to all ppl of all views including secular humanists, nontheists and even atheists.
4. the fault i do find most common is where ppl claim to understand god and jesus as lord or universal law for all humanity; but then leave out nontheists secular gentiles and others out of salvation rejecting them for not believing in divine laws. this contradicts the meaning of jesus as symbolizing justice for all ppl of all tribes, especially both folds of the same flock the gentiles under natural laws and the churched believers under scriptural laws.
so to correct this misteaching, that's where i explain in order for jesus to be the messiah or message of justice for all humanity, his governance and salvation must equally include the nontheists from buddhists to atheists etc, under natural and civil laws and secular laws of science and spcial psychology, and cannot leave out the other fold of the one flock.
this correction does not discredit theological approaches but resolves the conflict so this is a valid approach for explaining universal laws and spiritual process for all humanity, theists and nontheists both without conflict. the same god or source of divine laws would also be the same for natural laws of creation if there is only one god or source for all things in life.
does this help to address and resolve your three points plus the fourth i added as well?
all that giberish depends on wether the bible is true and not just a bunch of fablesthe people wjo wrote the bible did not have access to the facts about our world that we have now.
They tried as best they could but were incorrect.
sodam and Gamorah was not bombed with fire by god.
It was an asteriod that created a plume that then dropped on the location and killed the people.
did you know sceince had figured that one out?
What facts? That there are more than 4 dimensions? lol That is what you believed thanks to Einstein. You now know better, thanks to Hawking and others.
I knew better when I read John.
Sodom and Gomorrah were indeed bombed by God. While an errant asteroid could have coincidentally destroyed the 2 cities just when God said He was going to deal with them, Bible readers know that God sent that asteroid.
Here is how, use science:
God didn't destroy 2 cities. He had 5 cities on the radar, all in close proximity to the other. Scientifically, if you are correct, the asteroid blast and the heat would have destroyed them all.
BUT, God promised Abraham He would spare Abraham's nephew. Lot went to Zoar, which was in the middle of the conflagration.
Zoar being untouched during the episode would be the same as a giant nuke hitting New York City and destroying everything but Central Park.
God said He'd never let Sodom and Gomorrah be rebuilt again. Have you booked at trip to Sodom lately? Zoar on the other hand is still there. You can book a trip there to see Lot's cave.
All you have to do is explain scientifically how a nuke could turn NYC to rubble while Central Park remains unscathed.
Did you know God had that one all figured out?
Atheist doesn't afraid of anything.
I fear man--some humans are dangerous to other humans
True.
And humans who believe in gods and the like have proven to be particularly dangerous.
Omnipotence is a paradox. If your deity can create something that he cannot destroy then he cannot be omnipotent because there is something he cannot do. For the inverse if cannot create something that he can't destroy then he cannot be omnipotent either. Ergo there is no omnipotent deity.
What if for example, God could have totally made the world and laws differently and maybe still could change them. but given how things are set up, the plan is for things to proceed where they do not violate natural laws, such as human free will within natural laws, but are designed to respect that free will as part of the purpose and how the whole works together.
Sure the whole thing could be changed, destroyed, made another way entirely.
but in practice, from our human and natural perspective,
this is not the ideal will so God would not have any purpose in doing so.
For example, we cannot will ourselves to become butterflies or elephants.
That is outside the natural laws, and there is no purpose in that.
Is it okay to chalk up such things that God "cannot do" meaning
not going outside the plans laws or designs already in place?
So hypothetically, yes, anything could be possible
and you could leave it open for God to have that potential.
but in our reality, no, there are consisent laws of how the world/universe
works and doesn't work. So those things even God cannot change.
I can give you another example.
People cannot be forced to forgive. that has to be by free will.
people forced generally resent being forced so that adds to the resentment.
So even if God could force us to forgive, potentially, that is not how the conscience
is designed. the purpose of the plan is to learn to choose by free will, reason and compelled by truth and love, not by force of religion or fear or punishment which is limited in effect.
If you mean that this limitation makes God NOT omnipotent
then by your system of assessment then it is so.
If you go by natural laws first and foremost, then yes under natural laws in that limited realm, God is limited to follow plans/design of nature already in place where some things require man's free will which is also limited in that realm. For example, God does not have unlimited power to intervene where we do not agree to forgive and submit to let God's will intervene by asking and choosing freely first; it is part of God's will that we choose to reconcile our free will with God's will, but BY USING our free will, not God forcing on us.
DT I think this is related to proving man has no free will, but only within a given system.
I hav,nt consulted any deity cus idont know of any that exist at least in the real world . id like to you to prove to me yours exists outside of anything you read in the bible . fiction is fiction some folks cant tell where reality and fiction meet ... but to each his own you believe what you wish i once believed in santa , rupert bear ,and the tooth fairy cus i read it in a book ,,,,,, then i grew up1. The Bible tells us of a deity that has complete authority, and is in the position to control all things and chooses not to. (Thank you God for my decision making brain and the authority to use it.)
2. How do you know what a truly omnipotent deity needs or wants? Are you one, or related to one?
Theists can and do conceive of a deity that is spiritual. I know that for a fact. I'm one of those theists who do.
I know a deity that creates, delegates authority, enjoys relationships, has a sense of humor, enjoys a good home cooked meal with His friends, tells the ocean where to stop, controls weather, makes fish jump into nets, and tells us what to expect in the future. ( Thank you Lord for being omnipresent. )
What good is yours?
3. An omnipotent can do whatever He wants, which negates you #3 premise. He can love or not, test or not, raise from the dead or not... ( Thank you Father for being omniscient. )
The very notion that you think you can tell us in human terms what a deity can or can't do according to your human standards, tells me your source leaves much to be desired.
And if your deities can't do any of the things that you described, then they aren't omnipotent, and apparently need your direction to tell them what they can or can't do.
Mine doesn't need to rely on any creation's limited concept of what a deity is capable of, because you know, He's omnipotent.
I'd hate for Him to have to stop loving us because you say He incapable of being omnipotent and loving at the same time! Your poor little deities are limited. No love.
What deities have you consulted that have given you such a ridiculous portrait of a deity?
Any source other than your concept of a deity?
