Interested in a Serious Religious Debate? Part 2

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I would like to hear mse2us’ answer to my question on the Hebrews 1:13 passage. If there are 3 spirit beings in heaven then which one is Jesus? Then how can Jesus be an angel if using the literal interpretation of Hebrews 1:13.[/quote]

Just to get started: Here are some cross referenced scriptures (all in NIV)

Ps 110:1
Of David. A psalm. The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

Matthew 22:44
"‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’

Mark 12:36
David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: "‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’

Luke 20:42,43
David himself declares in the Book of Psalms: "‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’

Notice that in each case there are 2 distinct people mentioned. (In your Bible it is LORD and Lord) [/quote]

Again you are not answering the question. You are going to the second part and not answering the question. The question is “To which of the Angels did he ever say?” You say that Jesus sits at the right hand of the father, but Hebrews 1:13 says, “To which of the Angels did he ever say, sit at my right hand.” God never asked an angel to sit at his right hand. This is 100% equivocally proof that Jesus is not an angel. So if Jesus is not a Demon or an Angel, what other spirit being is in Heaven? Please answer the question asked. This question is not very difficult unless it goes against your doctrine, but if you beleive that the Bible should be interpreted literally then this question is not hard, but very straight forward. I feel like I am talking to Obama, or some other politician.[/quote]

What do you have to say about Hebrews 1:4

“So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.”

This verse is in the context of the other scripture you mentioned.

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I would like to hear mse2us’ answer to my question on the Hebrews 1:13 passage. If there are 3 spirit beings in heaven then which one is Jesus? Then how can Jesus be an angel if using the literal interpretation of Hebrews 1:13.[/quote]

Just to get started: Here are some cross referenced scriptures (all in NIV)

Ps 110:1
Of David. A psalm. The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

Matthew 22:44
"‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’

Mark 12:36
David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: "‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’

Luke 20:42,43
David himself declares in the Book of Psalms: "‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’

Notice that in each case there are 2 distinct people mentioned. (In your Bible it is LORD and Lord) [/quote]

Again you are not answering the question. You are going to the second part and not answering the question. The question is “To which of the Angels did he ever say?” You say that Jesus sits at the right hand of the father, but Hebrews 1:13 says, “To which of the Angels did he ever say, sit at my right hand.” God never asked an angel to sit at his right hand. This is 100% equivocally proof that Jesus is not an angel. So if Jesus is not a Demon or an Angel, what other spirit being is in Heaven? Please answer the question asked. This question is not very difficult unless it goes against your doctrine, but if you beleive that the Bible should be interpreted literally then this question is not hard, but very straight forward. I feel like I am talking to Obama, or some other politician.[/quote]

What do you have to say about Hebrews 1:4

“So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.”

This verse is in the context of the other scripture you mentioned.
[/quote]

I see that you have put up a new thread so I will reask the question over there.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:
The second question BackInAction asked:

  1. What’s so important about October 1914? I keep seeing references to this date, but am not sure what exactly transpired on that year according to JWs beliefs.

In the late 1800 Jehovah’s Witness or Bible Students as they were called back then looked to the year 1914 as a year of great significance. In the 1800’s there were a number of religious men who had set out a variety of views on Jesus’ prophecy about “the times of the Gentiles” and the prophet Daniel’s record of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream regarding the tree stump that was banded for “seven times.” This prophecy is in Daniel 4:10-17 and it shows a tree that has been chopped down and a band of iron is put around it so that it would not grow. An angel then says let “seven times” pass over it. Tree’s are sometimes used in the Bible to represent rulership as seen at Ezekiel 17:22-24 and 31:2-5.

As recorded at Luke 21:24, Jesus said: "Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations [“the times of the Gentiles,” King James Version] are fulfilled. Jerusalem had been the capital city of the Jewish nation - the seat of rulership of the line of kings from the house of King David. These kings were unique because God anointed or chose these kings to sit on the thrown and these kings represented God’s rulership. So the Jerusalem in Luke 21:24 was a symbol of God’s rulership. So chopping down a symbolic tree represented how God’s rulership as expressed through the kings at Jeruselum would be interrupted. But the vision also said that the trampling would be temporary - seven times. Many people in the 1800’s tried to figure out how the tree being banded or prevented to grow for “seven times” related to Jerusalem being trampled by the nations and how long was “seven times.” As early as 1823 A non-JW named John A Brown was able to calculate that the seven times was 2520 days. He did this by applying a scripture at Revelation 12:6,14 which shows that three and a half times (a time=1, times=2, half time=1/2) is equal to a thousand two hundred and sixty days so “seven times” would last twice as long or for 2520 days. The problem was that he or no one else knew when in history to apply 2520 days. The founders of my religion along with other non-JW’s got together and they figured out that the start of the Gentile times began with the removal of King Zedekiah mentioned at Ezekial 21:25-27 which states:
“25 'O profane and wicked prince of Israel, whose day has come, whose time of punishment has reached its climax, 26 this is what the Sovereign LORD says: Take off the turban, remove the crown. It will not be as it was: The lowly will be exalted and the exalted will be brought low. 27 A ruin! A ruin! I will make it a ruin! It will not be restored until he comes to whom it rightfully belongs; to him I will give it.”

That is a prophecy that points to a king of Israel, who God rejects, who loses the kingship. Another anointed king is not put on the thrown "until he comes to whom it rightfully belongs. This is the start of the Gentile times when Jeruselum is trampled on mentioned at Luke 21:24 and when the tree which symbolizes God’s rulerhip expressed through the kings of Jeruselum is chopped down prevented from growing for “seven times.” Jesus is the one who "rightfully belongs so the trampling ends and the copper band is removed when Jesus is made king in heaven.

The trampling begins in 607 B.C.E. when Babylon conquers Jerusalum and king Zedekiah is taken into captivity. Zedekiah is the last king in the line of David to sit on God’s thrown and God’s thrown become vacant There are other kings that become king in Israel after the Israelites are freed from Babylon but none are in the line of David. However, Jesus is a descendant of David so he has the legal right to the thrown. There is a lot of debate as to when Babylon conquered Jerusalem and many historians say this happened in 586 B.C.E. instead of 607 B.C.E. But there is a simple way to tell who is right: historians or Bible chronology. I get to that later.

Once people figured out when in history to apply the “seven times” or 2520 days from 607 B.C.E. they quickly realized that the nations did not stop trampling Jerusalem 2520 days after it’s fall. So they quickly realized that this prophecy covers a much longer time. They then applied the scriptures at Ezekiel 4:6 and Numbers 14:34 which state “a day for a year” and that 2520 days became 2520 years. When you add 2520 years to 607 B.C.E and not include year zero because there was not a year zero you arrive at 1914 A.D. So in the late 1800’s the group of Bible students looked to 1914 as a significant date in Bible prophecy but they did not know exactly what to expect.

So we believe that the prophecy above points to when Jesus is given the vacant thrown of his forefather David and when he becomes king over God’s heavenly kingdom. This is just one piece of the whole puzzle that points to 1914 but just this alone would not be enough evidence even for me. Fortunately, there is a lot more.

Once Jesus became king in heaven the Bible states that significant changes on earth would occur. Revelation 12:7-12 shows a war breaking out in heaven and Michael who is Jesus in his heavenly position along with his angels battles Satan and his angels and Michael kicks Satan along with his angels out of heaven and throws them down to earth. Notice what verse 12(NIV): "Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them? But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short." Isaiah 55:20 and Revelation 17:15 shows that sea and water means people. So when Satan got kicked out of heaven the earth got noticeable worse. Many historians contend that the 20th century was unlike any other century before and more people died during the 20th century than all other centuries combined. Also, notice what verse 10 states: “Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ. For the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down.” So once Satan is kicked out of heaven an angel officially announces God’s kingdom as coming into power and Jesus as the king. This is another piece of evidence that shows Jesus became king in 1914 but both of what I mentioned above still is not enough Biblical proof. There is still more.

The four horsemen of the apocalypse is the next piece of evidence. Most people don’t know who these four riders represent. Revelation 6 shows that the first rider is on a white horse, arrayed in white, with a crown, has a bow and goes forth conquering and completing his conquest. This rider is none other than Jesus Christ as the newly crowned king. But he is also riding with 3 seemingly evil riders. A red horse and the rider has a sword and “takes peace away from the earth so they should slaughter one another.” A black horse and the rider has a pair of scales and a voice is heard begging for food. And a pale horse whose name is Death and Hades. Verse 8 of chapter 6 explains what each of the three seemingly 3 evil riders represent: “And authority was given them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with a long sword and with food shortage and with deadly plague and by the wild beasts of the earth.” Now how can we know for sure that the rider on the white horse is Jesus. Besides being arrayed in white which represents righteousness, on a white horse with a crown, Revelation 19:11-16 identifies the rider on the white horse as Jesus. Now why would Jesus in his role as king ride with 3 seemingly evil riders? It’s because when Jesus became king in heaven he kicked Satan and his demons out and to the earth. Satan in his fury would bring WOE or trouble upon the people of the earth. And evidence of this is a war that occurred that had never happened prior to that. World War 1 in 1914 here about 90 percent of the earth’s nations were involved and over 20 million people died and since then the 20th century was plagued by war. Some researchers estimate that more than 100 million people have died as a result of war since 1914 - this is the rider on the red horse. Food shortages. The World Heath Organization estimates that malnutrition is involved in the deaths of 5 million children each year despite the fact that food production has increased - this is the rider on the black horse. Deadly plague or pestilence. Despite medical advances, old and new diseases plague us with no cure in sight for many and the thing that has been in the news of late is the fact that diseases that once had cures are starting to become more powerful and resistant to drugs that once cured them - this is the pale horse.

I just hit the preview button and this is way too long but there is still more Biblical evidence that points to the year 1914 as being when Jesus became king in heaven and when the last day or conclusion of the system of things started. The Last Days is something I really want to talk about and show how Jesus becoming king in heaven is the start of the last days and explain how the last days we’re living in today parallels with the Last Days of the Jewish system of things that came to an end in 70 C.E. So again the prophecy of 2520 years being applied to the date of 607 B.C.E. and arriving at 1914 shows when the king in the line of David would be given the Davidic thrown; Satan being kicked out of heaven and thrown to the earth and an angel announcing that God’s kingdom has come into power with Jesus as the king; Satan in his fury causing woe to the people of the earth and war, famine and pestilence are some of the results of this fury. And this being symbolized with the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse war, famine and pestilence who ride with Jesus when he became king, is still not all of the Biblical evidence. I will finish the rest Saturday afternoon.

[/quote]

This is what I was looking for. This is not a literal biblical interpretation, in fact I’d consider it quite a stretch.
Satan, has been around here for a while…The shit did not hit the fan just in 1914. Every generation has thought that the end times was in there life time. Eventually, somebody is going to be right.
Personally I don’t know or care. If the world is coming to an end, so be it. I am small issue to it and thinking or worrying about it in any way is not going to help me one iota.[/quote]
You’re right. Satan has been around for a while but if you look at Revelation 12:7-12 you will see that he gets kicked out of heaven and thrown down to the earth and as a result of his anger the Bible says Woe to the earth and the people on it. It’s not a coincidence that this was marked with a global event that had never happened before on that scale and since that year things on earth have never been the same. Yes the stuff did hit the fan in 1914.

You’re right again that most religious people think that Armageddon was going to come in their life time. Jehovah’s Witnesses do think that know but 1914 is different then thinking Armageddon is going to come. The year 1914 brought about the beginning of the last days which is going to be a period of time. Just like the last days of the Jewish system of things that sarted in 33 C.E. and ended in 70 C.E. Jesus gave his followers signs to look to for so they would know that they were indeed in the last days of the Jewish system of thinks. All of the signs Jesus stated came true including the Romans surrounding Jerusalem with a fortification of pointed stakes and completely destroying the city. After the city was destroyed the Jewish system of things never went back to that way of worship. Knowing about this gives me complete confidence that we are living in the last days of the worlds system of things.[/quote]

The end of Israel happened within 37 years, but we have almost had 100 years pass since 1914. From your literal interpretation of the Bible should the end be coming, or do you all give it 1,000 years to happen? I have heard the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the second coming will happen in the lifetime of people born in 1914 or before the first 144,000 of JWs beleivers die off. Is this you alls beleifs?[/quote]
I’m sorry the Jewish last days started in 29 C.E. when Jesus became God’s anointed Messiah at his baptism. So the conclusion of the Jewish system of things was 40 years.

If you look at the signs Jesus told his disciples to look for they happened in the last days of the Jewish system of things and the last days that we are in today. Wars, earthquakes, food shortages, disease were signs the Christians were to look for so that the knew they were in that period. For example, Act 11:28 states that a famine was going to occur and this did happen during Emporer Claudius’ reign between 41-54 C.E. But all of the signs or characteristics Jesus said would mark the conclusion of the system of things for his disciples occurred on a much smaller scale specific to that part of the world. However, these same signs - war, earthquakes, food shortages, pestilence are now happening but on a global scale. Yes these thing happened before 1914 but since then the frequency has increased not only that, but with the advent of technology in the 20th century all of those signs are on full display meaning they are impossible to miss. Prior to the 20th century, one could live in a remote area of a country and have relative peace and not know about wars, earthquakes, diseases and food shortages in other parts of the world. But with the 20th century that all changed. News traveled faster and faster as the years went on to the point we are today were it’s almost instant. When the end does come people who are identified as goats will not be able to say they could not see the signs.

2 Timothy 3:1-5 is another passage about the last days. This passage talks about human attitudes that would be dominant among people on the earth during the last days. Verse one starts out by saying In the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. Verse two then goes on to list attitute that would be dominant: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power.
Again, before the 20th century these attitudes of people in the last days would not have been discernable on a global scale due to the lack of technology. Not until the 20th century due to the rapid advance in technology did the wars, earthquakes, food shortages, diseases and bad human traits became clearly visible. What I mean is that yes all of the things I mentioned above have been happening for centuries but due to the lack of technology which caused information to travel extremely slow or not at all these characteristics would not have affected everyone on earth. So they would not have been signs if the whole world could not clearly see them. They did not become signs until they were clearly visible to the whole world which only started to happen well into the 20th century. The first sign Jesus mentioned to his disciples at Matthew 24:3 was wars. The first horse to ride with the crowned Jesus at Revelation 6 is war. The first sign that happened in 1914 was war. Not just any war but a war so massive that the term world war was applied to it. Even with the limited technology available back then the whole world knew about that war and could clearly see this first sign. It was no coincidence. Look at where we are today. Due to technology every time we turn on the news, read the paper we are smacked in the face with most of those signs mentioned above. War, people starving, diseases are rampid, earthquakes killing many and all of the human characteristics mentioned at 2 Tim 3:1-5 are now on full display on a global scale with an intensity like never before seen. Again, when Armageddon comes no one will be able to say that they did not see the signs.

What did Jesus say would be the reason people would not survive Armageddon? At Matthew 24:37-39 Jesus says that people will be living their lives but they will take no note. No note of what? The signs he mentioned a several verses earlier at Matthew 24:3 and the signs mentioned at 2 Timothy 3:1-5. People aren’t going to take note because they will not know what to make of them.

Jesus giving his disciples signs to identify his Jesus’ parousia or presence most often translated as “coming” shows that it will be invisible and over a period of time. Because if it were visible you would not need signs to identify it. And it if was going to be when Armageddon comes Jesus would have compared his parousia to the flood event which is comparable to Armageddon instead of comparing his parousia to the days leading up to the flood which was a 50-60 year period.

Dmaddox, yes we do believe that the end is coming and we no longer think it is just right around the corner we think it’s straight ahead of us due to the signs and the fact that it’s been 96 years since the last days of this system of things started. However, we do not know the exact date.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]wimpuskhan wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]wimpuskhan wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]wimpuskhan wrote:

I understand where you are coming from regarding self defense. But you are right when you mentioned that those in WW 1 and 2 were not warring as Christians. True Christians would not fight against fellow believers. By fighting against each other these people put nationalism before religion. [/quote]

I don’t think so. In many cases it’s kill or be killed. A war of plunder or conquest is one thing. A war resulting from a real provacatation is something else. You cannot judge in a general sense it has to be a taken on a case by case business.
I guarantee you most soldiers would rather not fight a war.[/quote]

I have a question for you or anyone. Do you think a person can still be a true Christian if they start a war, or are willing participants on the side of a country that starts a war? For example in WW2(again) Germany, the majority of the population identified themselves as Christians and many of them fought in Hitler’s war. Would you call these people true Christians?[/quote]

Being a Christian isn’t easy. Sometimes to be a good Christian you have to be counter intuitive. You have to do what you think is right and you don’t always have help, not even from scripture. The people fighting a war are drawn into it by the decisions of others. They are merely faced with dealing with the situation they were handed.

War is evil. There is no way around it. But who cause the war and who fights them are entirely different. The wars you reference, most of those folks didn’t have a choice but to fight. Now it’s volunteer, but we need armies and thank God people volunteer. IF we didn’t have them we wouldn’t be able to do what we are doing. This country feels secure, but in reality it is fragile like any other. Those who fight wars aren’t evil. Those who cause them are, but not those who fight them.[/quote]

Remember what separates humans from animals - free will. People absolutely can choose to not be a participant in war upon fellow humans. The question is, do they place religious standards over nation? And is their faith in God strong enough to opt out of war and face the consequences brought upon them by their own nation for refusal to fight?

From what I have read in the bible, it seems to me that Jesus wants us to love our fellow man. There absolutely will be destruction wrought upon the wicked in Armageddon, but it won’t be carried out by those who follow in Jesus’ footsteps. [/quote]

This is a great line of questioning. I personally have not thought about this, but maybe I should. As I stated above, that Jesus says, to render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and render unto God what is God’s. We have to live by the laws of the lands we live in. As males in the U.S. we must register with the government at the age of 18 for the draft. The law states this. If you do not register you will lose several rights of being a citizen of the country, most of which are entitlement programs. I will say that God will bless you if you follow him first. I personally do not see an issue with serving in the military or by being patriotic towards you country of citizenship. I have a problem when people rely on their country instead of God. The country becomes their God. I will fight for all beleivers all over the world. Christians are being killed all over the world for thier beleifs. Mostly in Muslim nations. These Christians love their countries, but are willing to die by the hand of the countries because they love the Lord more.

Again good questions, and I need to think and pray more about this.[/quote]
Good job D! You seem to be humbly thinking about this and your asking for God to assist you. Well done! I know that religious leaders use the pay Caesar’s thing to Caesar and God’s things to God to justify going to war. But remember Jesus said that only because the religious leaders of his day were trying to trap him. So he meant this in response to their question about paying taxes. Religious leaders also use Romans 13:1 about being in subjection to the superior authorities to justify joining the armed forces and going to war. Notice what the apostles say at Acts 5:29:
“We must obey God as ruler rather than men.”

We should be in subjection to the governments but if a law from a government or human causes you to disobey God one should do the above which is to obey God’s and Jesus’ commandments rather than man’s.

Notice what Samuel said about obeying at 1 Samuel 15:22:
"22 But Samuel replied: “Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.”

Sacrifices was the main way the Israelites worshipped. Samuel under the inspiration of God is saying that he’d rather have his people obey than to offer sacrifice.

Look at the example of the three Hebrews at Daniel 3:18:
“But if not, let it become known to you, O king, that your gods are not the ones we are serving, and the image of gold that you have set up we will not worship.”

They chose death rather than break one of God’s laws.

Notice what Jesus said to his disciples about keeping his commandments at John 14:15:
“15 If YOU love me, you will observe my commandments.”

And John 15:10:
“If you observe my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have observed the commandments of the Father and remain in his love.”

Can you see how it’s a conditional love? The condition is that you observe Jesus’ commandments to remain in his love and if you love him you will observe [i]all]/i] of his commandments.

Notice the NEW commandment Jesus said would be the mark of his disciples:
“I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.”

I don’t care how you twist it, spin it or justify it. If you’re willing to take up arms to kill someone of the same faith you are not keeping the command of having love among yourselves.

Furthermore, loving your neighbor as youself is a command as stated at Romans 13:8.
“8 Do not YOU people be owing anybody a single thing, except to love one another; for he that loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9 For the law code, “You must not commit adultery, You must not murder, You must not steal, You must not covet,” and whatever other commandment there is, is summed up in this word, namely, “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does not work evil to one’s neighbor; therefore love is the law’s fulfillment.”

If you are willing to take up arms to kill another person then you are not loving your neighbor.

I’ve said this before. According to Matthew 25:31 when Jesus sat on his throne he then turned his attention to the nations and put the sheep on his right hand and the goats on his left hand. The sheep are on his right hand because sheeps listen to their shepard, they obey his voice. Goats do not. Goats are unruly and don’t listen well. So he is going to look at people out of the nations and see who is obeying his commandments. He’s not going to reason that “well they have to go to war to fight and kill because thier country told them to.” He is going to look for sheep that are willing to obey him and his father over what men say.

Now this leads to another question. Do you think it is okay to pledge or make a solemn promise or agreement of your allegiance to a country? Do you think God cares when they say “I pledge my allegiance” to a country’s flag which symbolizes a country? Let me put it this way do you think God cares when one makes a solemn promise to be loyal to a country?

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
^ this is a great question. I’m too am confused about this prophecy discussion. If your explanation is that the calander was off by 30-odd years, what happened to the prophecy after that amount of time passed?[/quote]
I’m not sure what you’re asking Irish. I think you may be referring to when I said the Jewish system of things starting in 33 C.E. and ended in 70 C.E. I made a mistake about when the Jewish system of things started. It started in 30 C.E. and ended in 70 C.E. when Rome destroyed and conquered Jerusalem.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I would like to hear mse2us’ answer to my question on the Hebrews 1:13 passage. If there are 3 spirit beings in heaven then which one is Jesus? Then how can Jesus be an angel if using the literal interpretation of Hebrews 1:13.[/quote]
I’m sorry D. I’m at work and trying to sneak on these forums when I get the chance. I definitely will answer that question.

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
I’m interested to hear what people’s opinions are of the following two people:

  1. Kirk Cameron
  2. Richard Dawkins

Both are common speakers for their cause. Which have you heard speak? Which do find yourself agreeing with and why?
[/quote]

I have heard both via youtube.

my opinion on Kirk: he means well but he is a horrible apologist.

My opinion on Dawkins: He is way out of his league philoshy wise. Honestly it is barely on the level of college phil 101.

Now that isn’t to say I don’t find many athiest fascinating to talk with. some are very interesting, Dawkins isn’t one of them.

just my .02 [/quote]

RE: Dawkins, yes he is vastly out of his league. Have you heard of Daniel Dennett by any chance?

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
I’m interested to hear what people’s opinions are of the following two people:

  1. Kirk Cameron
  2. Richard Dawkins

Both are common speakers for their cause. Which have you heard speak? Which do find yourself agreeing with and why?
[/quote]

I have heard both via youtube.

my opinion on Kirk: he means well but he is a horrible apologist.

My opinion on Dawkins: He is way out of his league philoshy wise. Honestly it is barely on the level of college phil 101.

Now that isn’t to say I don’t find many athiest fascinating to talk with. some are very interesting, Dawkins isn’t one of them.

just my .02 [/quote]

RE: Dawkins, yes he is vastly out of his league. Have you heard of Daniel Dennett by any chance?[/quote]
No I have not. Got any good links?

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
I’m interested to hear what people’s opinions are of the following two people:

  1. Kirk Cameron
  2. Richard Dawkins

Both are common speakers for their cause. Which have you heard speak? Which do find yourself agreeing with and why?
[/quote]

I have heard both via youtube.

my opinion on Kirk: he means well but he is a horrible apologist.

My opinion on Dawkins: He is way out of his league philoshy wise. Honestly it is barely on the level of college phil 101.

Now that isn’t to say I don’t find many athiest fascinating to talk with. some are very interesting, Dawkins isn’t one of them.

just my .02 [/quote]

RE: Dawkins, yes he is vastly out of his league. Have you heard of Daniel Dennett by any chance?[/quote]
No I have not. Got any good links?[/quote]

I found this, and many more of his lectures to be quite interesting.

[quote]mse2us wrote:

Dmaddox, yes we do believe that the end is coming and we no longer think it is just right around the corner we think it’s straight ahead of us due to the signs and the fact that it’s been 96 years since the last days of this system of things started. However, we do not know the exact date.[/quote]

I just cannot seem to muster up a give a damn about whether the end is near or not. If it happens it happens. If I survive it, I’ll deal with it then…Personally, I’d rather not. Being inherently lazy, rebuilding from Armageddon sounds like a lot of work and if my family did not survive, I would find no joy in continuing to exist.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
I’m interested to hear what people’s opinions are of the following two people:

  1. Kirk Cameron
  2. Richard Dawkins

Both are common speakers for their cause. Which have you heard speak? Which do find yourself agreeing with and why?
[/quote]

I have heard both via youtube.

my opinion on Kirk: he means well but he is a horrible apologist.

My opinion on Dawkins: He is way out of his league philoshy wise. Honestly it is barely on the level of college phil 101.

Now that isn’t to say I don’t find many athiest fascinating to talk with. some are very interesting, Dawkins isn’t one of them.

just my .02 [/quote]

RE: Dawkins, yes he is vastly out of his league. Have you heard of Daniel Dennett by any chance?[/quote]
No I have not. Got any good links?[/quote]

I found this, and many more of his lectures to be quite interesting.[/quote]

I will look at it tonight when I am not working. Although from the title of it I will state that I am not impressed with much of anything Rick Warren has ever done. I would be really interested if he responded to Norman Geisler, NT Wright, Ravi Zacharius, or RC Sproul.

Thanks for the link. I used to enjoy Bertrand Russel alot as well.

[quote]haney1 wrote:
I used to enjoy Bertrand Russel alot as well.
[/quote]
That’s largely his writing style I think. Even if I agree with a philosophers argument, I tend to abhor the majority of them for their ridiculous way of obscuring the point with roundabout sentence structure. Russel was one of the few that you find that made an effort to make things as simple as he could.

[quote]ephrem wrote:
[/quote]
Of course there is Alan Plantinga’s solution to the logical problem of Evil and God.

[quote]ephrem wrote:
[/quote]

I’d rather have self-consciousness. The awareness to choose the good over the evil. To grow, to improve, to become better. I don’t allow evil to cause me to pine for an existence as an unawares simpleton, programmed for ‘good.’ The life of a lobotomized, drooling, teddy-bear isn’t for me. And in the end, that’s exactly what the above suggests. That we should’ve simply been created as automatons in paradise. No thanks.

So while we must suffer the consequences of choosing evil, I understand that I have been allowed to recognize it as evil. And, that I have the ability choose to oppose it, freely, consciously. Freely choosing to make better. To become better. It’s only through the ability to become worse, that I even have the ability to come closer to perfection for myself, and for the sake of others.

You look at the futility of it all. I look at the promise, the hope, the possibilities. And, I keep in mind how a lifetime of holding onto these things can complete a soul endowed with free will. But, ulimately, you’re free to decide how to view the world.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:
I used to enjoy Bertrand Russel alot as well.
[/quote]
That’s largely his writing style I think. Even if I agree with a philosophers argument, I tend to abhor the majority of them for their ridiculous way of obscuring the point with roundabout sentence structure. Russel was one of the few that you find that made an effort to make things as simple as he could.[/quote]

So I watched it, and found it interesting. Not alot of it was really new. I do agree with his idea that religion should be taught in school and it should be with out a bias. Some of his complaints against Rick Warren’s book I would obviously disagree with since I am on the theist side of the argument, but I do agree that an Atheist can have morality. I don’t agree that all religions evolve in the sense that he is describing it.

The idea of morality with out God though is an intersting topic, because at that point certain topics of morality do leave open the argument of that truth being relative.

That however is a huge topic to discuss. Thanks for the link, I will google him some more and may look into his book. I certainly think he is very reasonable in his discussion of the topic. Especially compared to Dawkins militant approach.

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
[/quote]
Of course there is Alan Plantinga’s solution to the logical problem of Evil and God.[/quote]

…not without interpreting God’s reasons for allowing evil from a human point of view, which amounts to nothing but opinion…

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
[/quote]

I’d rather have self-consciousness. The awareness to choose the good over the evil. To grow, to improve, to become better. I don’t allow evil to cause me to pine for an existence as an unawares simpleton, programmed for ‘good.’ The life of a lobotomized, drooling, teddy-bear isn’t for me. And in the end, that’s exactly what the above suggests. That we should’ve simply been created as automatons in paradise. No thanks.

So while we must suffer the consequences of choosing evil, I understand that I have been allowed to recognize it as evil. And, that I have the ability choose to oppose it, freely, consciously. Freely choosing to make better. To become better. It’s only through the ability to become worse, that I even have the ability to come closer to perfection for myself, and for the sake of others.

You look at the futility of it all. I look at the promise, the hope, the possibilities. And, I keep in mind how a lifetime of holding onto these things can complete a soul endowed with free will. But, ulimately, you’re free to decide how to view the world.[/quote]

…you can have this outlook on life without a god watching over you, the only difference is that you don’t have a prize waiting for you at the end…

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
[/quote]
Of course there is Alan Plantinga’s solution to the logical problem of Evil and God.[/quote]

…not without interpreting God’s reasons for allowing evil from a human point of view, which amounts to nothing but opinion…
[/quote]

Lots of things only amount to an opinion. Every conversation I have ever had with someone usually ends up with little facts and lots of opinion. Some opinions though have merit and are worthy of concideration for being valid.

Can anyone present me any non-Biblical contemporary evidence of Jesus? These would include Roman records, passengers traveling by, etc.