Originally posted by Robtard
You're wrong (again)... God is the Alpha and the Omega; God is the epitome of Omnipotence. Logically thinking, God could force us to do anything, God chooses to give us free will, key word "chooses".Edit: Damn you Alliance, beat me to it by meer seconds.
Originally posted by Robtard
Logically thinking, God could force us to do anything, God chooses to give us free will, key word "chooses".
Originally posted by erg
Omnipotent means all powerful and almighty. But the only thing that he has given to us that he has basically no control of is freewill. And that was of his will. He didn't want to program everyone to worship him. He wanted us to worship him because we wanted to.
No one has free will according to The Bible:
Acts 13:48When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
Ephesians 1:4-5Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him In love, He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will . . .
Jude 1:4For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Romans 8:29-30For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
Romans 9:11-22For though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."
Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."
What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION."
So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."
So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"
On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?
Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.
2 Timothy 1:9Who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity . . .
Originally posted by Thundar
How can a dead person guide or pray for a living one? If you could, please provide something of a scriptural nature to support this notion. I've never seen anything in the bible supporting it.
In the same way that a living person, i.e. a Christian can claim to have a relationship with a dead person, i.e. Jesus.
Originally posted by Thundar
These are just the most glaringly obvious things, without completely delving into the paganistic history of the church. This is not to say that the Catholic church hasn't done a few good things. If it wasn't for the Church, there would have never been the Protestant reformation, nor would the gospels have spread across the globe as much as they have.But its extremely important for all of those interested in converting to the Christian faith(as well as those presently practicing the faith), to know about these paganistic practices. So they don't get led astray by them.
Because the whole of Christianity is not the result of the syncretism of various pagan religions?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In the same way that a living person, i.e. a Christian can claim to have a relationship with a dead person, i.e. Jesus.
😆
So basically you're supporting my initial supposition with the statement above, since you have just defined i.e "a Christian" as being of a different faith than a i.e. Catholic.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because the whole of Christianity is not the result of the syncretism of various pagan religions?
Umm...no. Actually it is not.
Originally posted by Thundar
😆So basically you're supporting my initial supposition with the statement above, since you have just defined i.e "a Christian" as being of a different faith than a i.e. Catholic.
No, I am not.
All Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholics.
🙄
Originally posted by Thundar
Umm...no. Actually it is not.
The Christian myth is wholely unoriginal.
The following is a list of over 30 saviors who were said to have descended from heaven, taken the form of men, were born of virgins, furnished evidence of their divine origin by various miracles and marvelous works, laid the foundation for salvation, were worshipped as Gods, and crucified:
[list][*]Chrishna of Hindostan
[*]Budha Sakia of India
[*]Salivahana of Bermuda
[*]Zulis and Orus of Egypt
[*]Odin of the Scandinavians
[*]Crite of Chaldea
[*]Baal and Taut of Phoenecia
[*]Indra of Tibet
[*]Bali of Afganistan
[*]Jao of Nepal
[*]Wittoba of the Bilingonese
[*]Thammuz of Syria
[*]Atys of Phrygia
[*]Xamolxis of Thrace
[*]Adad of Assyria
[*]Deva Tat and Sammonocadam of Siam
[*]Alcides of Thebes
[*]Mikado of the Sintoos
[*]Beddru of Japan
[*]Hesus or Eros and Bremrillah of the Druids
[*]Thor of the Gauls
[*]Cadmus and Adonis of Greece
[*]Hil and Feta of the Mandaites
[*]Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico
[*]Universal Monarch of the Sibyls
[*]Ischy of the island of Formosa
[*]Divine teacher of Plato
[*]the Holy One of Xaca
[*]Fohi and Tien of China
[*]Ixion and Quirinus of Rome
[*]Prometheus of Caucasus
[*]Mohamud or Mahomet of Arabia[/list]
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, I am not.All Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholics.
🙄
Actually you did essentially state that by the way in which you originally phrased the sentence. It's good that you clarified what you meant though, so we can get to the heart of the argument. As Paul stated to the Corinthians:
I Corinthians 4:5
Do not be quick to say who is right or wrong. Wait until the Lord comes. He will bring into the light the things that are hidden in men's hearts. He will show why men have done these things.
It is Christ and not man who considers the intentions of the heart, and then determines as to whether or not a man is truly his follower and/or his friend.
So some Catholics will indeed prove to be Christians, as will some Buddhists, some Baptists, and some Hindus despite their knowledge(or lack thereof) of the scriptures, specifically because of the loving intentions of their hearts.
Still, it is very important for those who are very well versed in the scriptures and who follow Christ, to inform others of practices that go directly against it. As mentioned previously, Catholicism is very paganistic in its interpretation and presentation of the bible. Its paganistic rituals should be brought to the attention of those who subscribe to the Catholic faith, particularly those Catholics who profess these paganistic practices to others as being Christian.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The Christian myth is wholely unoriginal.The following is a list of over 30 saviors who were said to have descended from heaven, taken the form of men, were born of virgins, furnished evidence of their divine origin by various miracles and marvelous works, laid the foundation for salvation, were worshipped as Gods, and crucified:
You have to take into account though that prophecy of a savior was actually presented to Abraham sometime in 1400-2000 BC, pre-dating just about all of the earlier prophecies you've presented. Jesus makes a reference to Abraham being informed of the savior prophecy in the following verse taken from John:
John 8:56
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
So now with this nugget of information, take this into consideration. Abraham is the father of much of the world, so logically one would think it very possible that he shared this knowledge of the coming savior with his children. This is probably why many cultures, particularly those descended from Abraham, have similar accounts of a "Christ", as this prophecy was passed down to them by their father Abraham.
Now let's go back a bit further, specifically back to man's creation and the Garden of Eden. As it is described in the book of Adam and Eve, Adam was made aware of the the coming messiah after his initial fall from grace. So one could then make the assumption that it is highly probable, for mankind to have had knowledge of a messiah shortly after the onset of creation.
All of this again of course, pre-dates the historical accounts of similar stories you've presented. I'm sure you'll disagree with me, but If you truly want to learn more about what I've posted, I suggest you pick up a bible and read the verses/books I've presented.
Please take not that all of this is not a sermon. It is just some thoughts.
Originally posted by Thundar
Actually you did essentially state that by the way in which you originally phrased the sentence.
How does stating, "In the same way that a living person, i.e. a Christian can claim to have a relationship with a dead person, i.e. Jesus," indicate a difference between Catholics and other Christians? It does not.
Originally posted by Thundar
You have to take into account though that prophecy of a savior was actually presented to Abraham sometime in 1400-2000 BC, pre-dating just about all of the earlier prophecies you've presented.Now let's go back a bit further, specifically back to man's creation and the Garden of Eden. As it is described in the book of Adam and Eve, Adam was made aware of the the coming messiah after his initial fall from grace. So one could then make the assumption that it is highly probable, for mankind to have had knowledge of a messiah shortly after the onset of creation.
All of this again of course, pre-dates the historical accounts of similar stories you've presented.
Mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars generally hold that The Bible is an imaginative fiction, and all stories within it are of a metaphorical character. None of the early stories are held to have a solid historical basis, and only some of the later stories possess at most only a few tiny fragments of genuine historical memory—which by their definition are only those points which are supported by archaeological discoveries. In this view, all of the stories about the biblical patriarchs are fictional, and the patriarchs never existed. Further, mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars hold that the twelve tribes of Israel never existed, King David and King Saul never existed, and that the united kingdom of Israel, which The Bible says that David and Solomon ruled, never existed.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Wow, that's just not true. A lot of evidence for the patriarchs has been found. There is also plenty of evidence for the united Israel.
The Patriarchs are Abraham, his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob, who are placed in the early 2nd millennium BCE by the dates given in Genesis. There is however no evidence for their historicity.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The only records we have of Adam and Eve are mythological texts that existed 5000 years B.C. at the very most...so no, they're not entirely reliable....
Thank you Urizen. At least you have somewhat acknowledged(although probably inadvertently) that the texts I referenced in my prior post, pre-date most of the savior stories that Adam_Poe enumerated.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The Patriarchs are Abraham, his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob, who are placed in the early 2nd millennium BCE by the dates given in Genesis. There is however no evidence for their historicity.
Grossly innacurate at worst, and purposely misleading at best. Listed below is archeological evidence supporting the existence of the Patriarchs.
1) Abraham's name appears in Babylonia as a personal name at the very period of the patriarchs, though the critics believed he was a fictitious character who was redacted back by the later Israelites.
2) The field of Abram in Hebron is mentioned in 918 B.C., by the Pharaoh Shishak of Egypt (now also believed to be Ramases II). He had just finished warring in Palestine and inscribed on the walls of his temple at Karnak the name of the great patriarch, proving that even at this early date Abraham was known not in Arabia, as Muslims contend, but in Palestine, the land the Bible places him.
3) The Beni Hasan Tomb from the Abrahamic period, depicts Asiatics coming to Egypt during a famine, corresponding with the Biblical account of the plight of the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob'.
4) The doors of Sodom (Tell Beit Mirsim) dated to between 2200-1600 B.C. are heavy doors needed for security; the same doors which we find in Genesis 19:9.
5) Jericho's excavation showed that the walls fell outwards, echoing Joshua 6:20, enabling the attackers to climb over and into the town.
6) David's capture of Jerusalem recounted in II Samuel 5:6-8 and I Chronicles 11:6 speak of Joab using water shafts built by the Jebusites to surprise them and defeat them. Historians had assumed these were simply legendary, until archaeological excavations by R.A.S. Macalister, J.G.Duncan, and Kathleen Kenyon on Ophel now have found these very water shafts.
All of the numbered information above was directly taken from the following website, which contains more information relating to biblical archeology:
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibarch.htm
Below are a few references to various articles and literary works, which support what is listed above:
Lemonick, Michael D., "Are the Bible Stories True?", Time, December 18, 1995, pgs. 50-58
Nevo, Yehuda D., "Towards a Prehistory of Islam," Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, vol.17, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1994
The rest of the sources can be found at the following: