• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Heaven and Hell

Fulfilled Messianic prophecies (the signature of God). You can start with what's in Matthew.



See above. The other religions don't have that signature.

So you got nothing ok
 
Do you have anything to present besides spurious claims?


Do you?
So far I haven't seen anything so unless you got some actual proof of your position that scriptures are the word of god, you cannot prove it and it has as much relevance as the Iliad.
 
Do you?
So far I haven't seen anything so unless you got some actual proof of your position that scriptures are the word of god, you cannot prove it and it has as much relevance as the Iliad.

Like I said, if you want to discuss Matthew's Messianic prophecies have at it. Otherwise you're the one who has nothing.
 
Does anyone not 12 or younger actually believe that the good, or more specifically, those who accept Jesus Christ as their savior, go to heaven while everyone else goes to hell? Seriously?

No. I believe that those who recognize Jesus as their Savior and their Lord do. As for others, I am confident in a loving God who wants all His kids to come home and am satisfied to let Him be the judge because only He knows our hearts. But I do worry about those who mock the Holy Spirit and who use terms such as "flying spaghetti monster." Even so, Jesus said, "Forgive them for they know not what they do."

This is as true today as it was 2000 years ago.
 
No you want to discuss prophesies that you think prove your version of God go ahead prove the prophesies came true exactly as stated and then prove how this proves god?
Skeptical Bible Study: Matthew's Messianic Prophecies | Progressive U

Sorry but you aren't gonna win a debate this way you made a claim you have to back it up!

<yawn>

Pick out your best one of those and lay out your argument, and I'll show you where you've made your mistake.

And by the way, there's numerous Christian websites that answer each of these sophomoric allegations, so if you'd like a link in return to offset your perceived victory, then let me know.
 
Uh, it's not for me to "falsify" the Resurrection. It's for those making such extraordinary claims to prove it. And, to be as honest as possible, without being rude, the idea of the Resurrection is on par with Santa being pulled on his sleigh by flying reindeer.

You're one of the ones who dissed Christianity, so you do have the obligation to back that up.

The Santa claim was demolished. People who make that claim don't know an historical figure from antiquity from a myth.
 
No. I believe that those who recognize Jesus as their Savior and their Lord do. As for others, I am confident in a loving God who wants all His kids to come home and am satisfied to let Him be the judge because only He knows our hearts. But I do worry about those who mock the Holy Spirit and who use terms such as "flying spaghetti monster." Even so, Jesus said, "Forgive them for they know not what they do."

This is as true today as it was 2000 years ago.
So, something that supposedly happened 2000 years ago, the only evidence for which is word of mouth passed along from one generation to the next, until it was written down in Arabic and eventually translated into English about 300 years ago, is something you hang your hat on more so than something revealed by scientific evidence like evolution?
 
<yawn>

Pick out your best one of those and lay out your argument, and I'll show you where you've made your mistake.

And by the way, there's numerous Christian websites that answer each of these sophomoric allegations, so if you'd like a link in return to offset your perceived victory, then let me know.

Yawn!
Always the same thing from Christian Fundies they make claims with no evidence to back them up then demand you prove it isn't true.
You made the claim you show proof!
if you actually had any proof the entire freaking world would go damn you right we will become Christian as of right now. This doesn't happen because all religions Christianity included require faith in the unprouvable. You believe this is true but you cannot prove it.
 
You're one of the ones who dissed Christianity, so you do have the obligation to back that up.

The Santa claim was demolished. People who make that claim don't know an historical figure from antiquity from a myth.

There is no evidence suggesting that the Jesus of the New Testament is a historical figure from antiquity.
 
Yawn!
Always the same thing from Christian Fundies they make claims with no evidence to back them up then demand you prove it isn't true.
You made the claim you show proof!
if you actually had any proof the entire freaking world would go damn you right we will become Christian as of right now. This doesn't happen because all religions Christianity included require faith in the unprouvable. You believe this is true but you cannot prove it.

Just read Matthew, sport. The fulfilled Messianic prophecies are right there. Apparently you refuse to get involved and pick out your best one example of one that's supposedly false so as to make your case. Just flashing a link from some anti-Christian website without making your own case for it doesn't cut it. You'll actually have to spend a little quality time to make your case. Otherwise I won't be able to take your claim(s) seriously.
 
Just read Matthew, sport. The fulfilled Messianic prophecies are right there. Apparently you refuse to get involved and pick out your best one example of one that's supposedly false so as to make your case. Just flashing a link from some anti-Christian website without making your own case for it doesn't cut it. You'll actually have to spend a little quality time to make your case. Otherwise I won't be able to take your claim(s) seriously.

Apparently you refuse to pick out your best example and show that it is not only true but that it is proof of God.
Just saying it is both true and proof of God doesn't even come close to cutting it.
I cannot take your claims seriously at all you have provided 0 evidence then demand that I refute your non argument? How exactly is that supposed to work?
 
There is no evidence suggesting that the Jesus of the New Testament is a historical figure from antiquity.

Sorry, but I'm not prepared to heave my New Testament, etc., in the trash just because some folks won't take the historical accounts seriously.

Have you really studied the issue? Because in the link below is a wealth of historical confirmations of Jesus.

Grant R. Jeffrey Ministries
 
Apparently you refuse to pick out your best example and show that it is not only true but that it is proof of God.
Just saying it is both true and proof of God doesn't even come close to cutting it.
I cannot take your claims seriously at all you have provided 0 evidence then demand that I refute your non argument? How exactly is that supposed to work?

Once again, the evidence is in Matthew, etc. Sorry you missed it.
 
Once again, the evidence is in Matthew, etc. Sorry you missed it.

Once again provide proof? Sorry that seems to be lost upon you
 
Once again provide proof? Sorry that seems to be lost upon you

You can't use the scientific method to PROVE ancient events, etc. Because you can't replicate them.

But if you'd like evidence read the Gospels, Acts, etc., and see my previous posts for a link on evidence for the historical Jesus.
 
You can't use the scientific method to PROVE ancient events, etc. Because you can't replicate them.

But if you'd like evidence read the Gospels, Acts, and see my previous posts for a link on evidence for the historical Jesus.

Don't need scientific I will accept historical proof of this. What most fundies seem to not realize that proof that a person or place existed is not proof of any of the miracles said to have happened. Just because Herod is an established historical figure and that his existence is not disputed does not mean that jesus walked on water.

If you are unable to provide this proof you will have failed to make your point and are thus basing it on belief.
 
Don't need scientific I will accept historical proof of this. What most fundies seem to not realize that proof that a person or place existed is not proof of any of the miracles said to have happened. Just because Herod is an established historical figure and that his existence is not disputed does not mean that jesus walked on water.

If you are unable to provide this proof you will have failed to make your point and are thus basing it on belief.

LOL! What sort of PROOF can there possibly be left for a resurrected individual such as Jesus?

We have multiple historical confirmations from independent sources. That's about all you can really expect.
 
LOL! What sort of PROOF can there possibly be left for a resurrected individual such as Jesus?

We have multiple historical confirmations from independent sources. That's about all you can really expect.

So you are going on faith alone and think that that is enough to convince others?
 
So you are going on faith alone and think that that is enough to convince others?

Well, it is a faith based religion. So...ya.
 
So you are going on faith alone and think that that is enough to convince others?

Faith alone would mean I don't have the independent, historical Gospels and various Epistles, etc., as evidence to build a foundation for my faith.

But as for faith, there is a good book for atheists to read: "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist," by Norman Geisler.
 
Faith alone would mean I don't have the independent, historical Gospels and various Epistles, etc., as evidence to build a foundation for my faith.

But as for faith, there is a good book for atheists to read: "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist," by Norman Geisler.

There are lots of texts for other religions as well. Hinduism has tons. Heck the only reason there is more stuff on Christianity than there is on Greek mythos is it has been around longer.

I am not an atheist and have argued with them in the past but in general I find myself taking their side over religious extremists as there are a heck of a lot less extremist atheists out there. Most atheists are fairly open to logical debate as are most moderate religious people it is the extremes that are screwed up.
 
If the resurrection is so absurd, why can't you falsify it?

No one can falsify that which did not happen. First you prove that it did happen with data and logic, then we get to see how strongly your statement stands, and alas falsify it.

You are jumping steps here. What you are saying is: Falsify Frtdsk's existence. Yet we do not know what Frtdsk's is, where it lives, what it does, etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom