• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FALSE TEACHERS

I sought after him through ten years of catholic school, I couldn't find your god and the nuns couldn't beat their beliefs into me, sorry.
Roman Catholicism isn't the most rewarding place to seek after GOD. The Bible is much better, and I know that at one time the Catholic church didn't encourage Bible study. I even worked with a parochial school teacher that had considered becoming a priest (until he got married). But he was of the opinion that much of the Old Testament was an allegorical. We became buddies, but I can only imagine that his opinions were not conducive to a deep understanding of GOD's Word.
 
There is still a 1000 year Millennial Kingdom with the MESSIAH as the ruler. That will begin after the Catching Away of the CHURCH and the end of the Time of JACOB's Trouble/TRIBULATION PERIOD.

You are very good at parroting myths. You’re a regular Aesop.
 
You have no proof that there is no GOD.

You have no proof that there is a God.


You cannot even prove that biological life is the end result of any possible event other than CREATION.

You cannot prove that biological life is the end result of any possible event other than evolution.
 
Roman Catholicism isn't the most rewarding place to seek after GOD. The Bible is much better, and I know that at one time the Catholic church didn't encourage Bible study. I even worked with a parochial school teacher that had considered becoming a priest (until he got married). But he was of the opinion that much of the Old Testament was an allegorical. We became buddies, but I can only imagine that his opinions were not conducive to a deep understanding of GOD's Word.
Ah and there you have it. He was of the opinion, great, so he has an opinion. Seems like lots of folks have lots of opinions and in my opinion, that's why there are so many 'versions' of the Bible.
 
Ah and there you have it. He was of the opinion, great, so he has an opinion. Seems like lots of folks have lots of opinions and in my opinion, that's why there are so many 'versions' of the Bible.
Many versions is a good thing. And I'm not sure any of them claim to be completely accurate.
 
You have no proof that there is no GOD.

So you're talking about proving the nonexistence of something. In a mathematical system, that's not uncommon. You assume it exists, but that leads to a contradiction. Therefore it doesn't exist. QED.

But outside of mathematics, ChatGPT (with some editorial modifications) points out the obvious:

"You cannot prove that something doesn’t exist anywhere in the universe because you’d have to exhaustively search all of space and time — a practical impossibility.​
However, you can prove that something doesn't exist under certain conditions or within a specific domain."​
So I should be able to tell if this "God" exists in my vicinity. What would I see? What unambiguous test or finding would show such existence?
You cannot even prove that biological life is the end result of any possible event other than CREATION.
What do you mean by this "Creation"? What process is involved? Does some "Being" act to bring the Universe into existence? Or is this just some poetic notion that you can only explain with other poetic notions, and you really don't know WHAT it means?
 
So you're talking about proving the nonexistence of something. In a mathematical system, that's not uncommon. You assume it exists, but that leads to a contradiction. Therefore it doesn't exist. QED.

But outside of mathematics, ChatGPT (with some editorial modifications) points out the obvious:

"You cannot prove that something doesn’t exist anywhere in the universe because you’d have to exhaustively search all of space and time — a practical impossibility.​
However, you can prove that something doesn't exist under certain conditions or within a specific domain."​
So I should be able to tell if this "God" exists in my vicinity. What would I see? What unambiguous test or finding would show such existence?

What do you mean by this "Creation"? What process is involved? Does some "Being" act to bring the Universe into existence? Or is this just some poetic notion that you can only explain with other poetic notions, and you really don't know WHAT it means?
I expect that if you believe a mindless Universe could bring into existence biological life of any sort in a billion years, that a very astute individual like yourself should be able to fabricate biological life in a matter of days with all the diligence of an atheist chef.
 
Ah and there you have it. He was of the opinion, great, so he has an opinion. Seems like lots of folks have lots of opinions and in my opinion, that's why there are so many 'versions' of the Bible.
Only, one Bible but many opinions.
 
You have no proof that there is a God.

CHRIST is my proof of GOD. I believe HE was GOD in the flesh. And there is just another reason to pity those among the Witnesses, as they are left without...
You cannot prove that biological life is the end result of any possible event other than evolution.
 
I expect that if you believe a mindless Universe could bring into existence biological life of any sort in a billion years, that a very astute individual like yourself should be able to fabricate biological life in a matter of days with all the diligence of an atheist chef.

Your posts get sillier and sillier.
 
Those are not “heavens”. Those are “atmosphere” and “space”. Get yourself a science book and learn something.
Scientists made up those words thousands of years later. Get real!
 
Are many versions like alternative facts?
Just different ways of expressing Hebrew/Greek languages. Some lean towards word-for-word, some lean towards thought-for-thought. Literal vs dynamic.

None that I know of claim to be exclusively authoritative. Strangely, some groups of people claim this version or that version may do so, but none of the translators actually do. At least not that I know of.

Generally, translators translate knowing they're only presenting a different vantage point.
 
Back
Top Bottom