Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

If you built a time machine and used it to verify everything in the Bible to be 100% correct, would it move you to accept Christ?

Obviously this is aimed towards non believers.

What do you mean by accept? If you mean "accept" as in worship, no. I would acknowledge he exists, but if the bible was true then I don't think God or Jesus deserve worship.

Again remember God destroyed nearly all life on the planet.

You can't really compare your definition of morality with God's.

Sure I can, I have nothing else to compare it to. You don't get a pass just because you have a lot of power. Plus what is that thing I always hear..we were created in his image?

You're right, you have nothing else to compare it to, but that doesn't mean God is not moral just because it doesn't fit your view of morality.

God didn't kill anyone in the Flood. They killed themselves. They refused to accept the certainty of the coming disaster. All were given a chance to board the Ark.

You are in the middle of the Pacific and I throw you a life raft and you refuse it because you could swim to land. If you drown, who's fault is it?

Play semantics all you want, and argue the ambiguity of personal v. universal morality, it doesn't change the fact that OT God is a sick piece of shit. All powerful sure, but He gave me the ability to form my own opinion for a reason, and I judge the Lord as undeserving of praise or worship.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
You're right, you have nothing else to compare it to, but that doesn't mean God is not moral just because it doesn't fit your view of morality.

God didn't kill anyone in the Flood. They killed themselves. They refused to accept the certainty of the coming disaster. All were given a chance to board the Ark.

You are in the middle of the Pacific and I throw you a life raft and you refuse it because you could swim to land. If you drown, who's fault is it?

Okay but your example doesn't hold up. It would be one thing if a flood happened for no reason, but if you caused a flood on that scale on purpose then the fact you offer people a life raft is kind of irrelevant.

The flood is just one example of God causing deadly disasters you know that right?

There is also no reason at all not to hold God to the kind of morals he supposedly set for us to follow. It's just a roundabout way of saying it doesn't apply to God because he has super powers on a ridiculous scale.

I would accept that God and Jesus is real but I still wouldn't be a Christian

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
If you built a time machine and used it to verify everything in the Bible to be 100% correct, would it move you to accept Christ?

Obviously this is aimed towards non believers.

If God wants our faith & undivided trust in him then it's only fair IMO that he shows himself to us.
Now.
And I don't think I'm being blasphemous for asking that.
It would put substance into blind faith.

Stop hiding behind the bible told us so.
Stop saying he works in mysterious ways beyond our comprehension.
If we can't comprehend, why believe?

We, as humanity give eachother more than one chance before we lose faith & trust...why did God only give us one chance? And so long ago?

If he truly created us then he has a responsibility to uphold.

It's not for us to prove he existed, it's for him to prove that he does.
That would end a lot of bloodshed & hatred on this planet.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
If he truly created us then he has a responsibility to uphold.

Human creations aren't exactly pampered by us though, we consider them fiction related to us and in such inferiority we are comfortable dismissing them into nothingness.

I think your assumption is pretty interesting to be honest, but we don't really have any concept to judge how responsible God is supposed to be towards us nor how He is supposed to enact such responsability. That's a huge gray area with no objective answer.

You're right about there being no objective answer.

But try telling that to a Christian.

And the notion of responsibility is quite straight forward. That's one of the first things you teach a child when they're old enough to understand.

You decide you want to have children or even own a pet. There's no grey area of objective that you can argue that you don't have to be responsible for its welfare & upbringing.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Play semantics all you want, and argue the ambiguity of personal v. universal morality, it doesn't change the fact that OT God is a sick piece of shit. All powerful sure, but He gave me the ability to form my own opinion for a reason, and I judge the Lord as undeserving of praise or worship.

http://33.media.tumblr.com/fddde3ddc01c7152e6290acab90eebc0/tumblr_inline_ns9xy4wiDn1t1ctzz_500.gif

I am finding it quite funny at the # of people that if they went back and proved God was REAL are still like "**** that bastard. I am gonna do what I want".

Kind of not seeing the full picture if you ask me.

But hey if you wanna be a charcoal briquette who am I to say diff.

I'd fight him. If he can beat me in single combat, I would pledge my life to serving him.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
If you built a time machine and used it to verify everything in the Bible to be 100% correct, would it move you to accept Christ?

Obviously this is aimed towards non believers.

Yes, but I'd have some questions for him.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Yes, but I'd have some questions for him.

Like how did he find Apostles with names like Simon, James, John & Matthew in the Middle East?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Like how did he find Apostles with names like Simon, James, John & Matthew in the Middle East?

Really? I would have been more like "What the Fuch were you thinking when you made bushel sprouts?"

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Like how did he find Apostles with names like Simon, James, John & Matthew in the Middle East?



Peter, Paul, Mark and Luke are the english language equivalent names for those they had. In spanish they are named Pedro, Pablo, Marcos, and Lucas. We could continue to find equivalent names in each language.

1. Peter original name was Simon or Shimon or Simeon (Hebrew: שמעון&#8206, same as one of the sons of Jacob / Israel. Jesus nicknamed him "Cephas" which means "rock" in the aramic language they spoke back then. In greek, the equivalent for "rock" was "petra" and that greek nickname become Peter when the english language was developed centuries later.

2. Paul's name was Saul of Tarsis (spanish: Saulo de Tarso).
Saul in aramic became Paulus in latin, and then just Paul in english.

3. Mark (or John Mark, nephew of Barnabas) original name is מרקוס, Greek: Μάρκος or Marcus. Again as tthe languages were developed later it become Mark in english.

4. Luke: Hebrew: לוקא; Greek: Λουκᾶς Loukas, english Luke, spanish Lucas.

^^^ It was meant as a light hearted comment.

Silly Esau. Such things aren't permitted in the RELIGOUS Forum.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
And the notion of responsibility is quite straight forward. That's one of the first things you teach a child when they're old enough to understand.

Things aren't thought perfectly nor are as simple as when we speak to children


Originally posted by Esau Cairn
You decide you want to have children or even own a pet. There's no grey area of objective that you can argue that you don't have to be responsible for its welfare & upbringing.

But we don't extend that kind of rights to things we actually create. Even animals that are just for food don't receive proper treatment from people that get money from them.

I agree that our morality supposes there is some responsability even towards the abstract things we create (so they aren't used in a negative fashion), but this is why I find the idea interesting. Even assuming our nature is very different to that of God, a degree of responsability is still to be expected.

The example I'm using is my own son being old enough now to have a pet he can call his own. He feeds it, cleans its cage out & interacts with it. He also gives his pet the companionship of being a caring & loving owner.

Now God (supposedly) created us. And if that's the case he basically just left us with a book of instructions & let us fend for ourselves.
He could give us a peaceful utopia to live in & in exchange we praise him & give thanks but that's not the case isn't it?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Now God (supposedly) created us. And if that's the case he basically just left us with a book of instructions & let us fend for ourselves.
He could give us a peaceful utopia to live in & in exchange we praise him & give thanks but that's not the case isn't it?

But then what about our responsability? The idea of an utopia lacking treats, as if other animals or elements should be under our thumb and were not creations of God themselves is still a very human-centric concept.

Originally posted by Bentley
But then what about our responsability? The idea of an utopia lacking treats, as if other animals or elements should be under our thumb and were not creations of God themselves is still a very human-centric concept.

How exactly can we know what our responsibilities are without the intervention of God?

He left us with a bible that is basically so outdated it has very little relevance to society today. A bible that can either be interpreted literally or broadly in a general sense to justify one's actions.

No where has he given us an updated version factoring on modern day society nor has he shown compassion or punished the evil.

In this sense, how is mankind supposed to gauge their own responsibilities?

We assume we have responsabilities over other animals and entities, at least as a concept they are a reality to us. They come from a subjective place and are far from self-justified though.

The crux of morality is learning exactly how much responsability we can encompass within our possible actions. Considering how complex our eco-system and society is, having a dumbed down version of responsability fluxes isn't necesarily the best solution (you can argue that's exactly the problem with scripture based religions).

Totally agree.

And in this instance there really is no need of God or any religion for that matter.