I can not only prove the existence of God I can prove the one true God! Welcome!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-03-2013, 09:55 AM
RE: I can not only prove the existence of God.
(29-03-2013 09:51 AM)rbmead1960 Wrote:  
(29-03-2013 12:45 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So you're saying an ancient pissed off deity required someone to die so he could feel better ? Great god ya got there. And if it HAD to happen, that means your god, (and his kid) are subject to the nature of Reality. And guess what ? If your god is subject to the nature of reality, Mr. ManOfGodButAin'tNoPhilosopher, it ain't the CREATOR of reality.
Funny how you (little man such as I) could possibly declare the Creator of the world as "pissed off." I would acknowledge that he is RIGHTEOUS in his JUDGMENT, HOLY in His CHARACTER and EVERLASTING CONSISTENT in his DISCIPLINE. Always two ways to look at something. Just like when you are 16 and think your parents are "crazy" and then at 26 they look so much smarter. Who changed??



Isn't it just a wee bit arrogant, you speaking for god?Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2013, 09:55 AM
RE: I can not only prove the existence of God.
(29-03-2013 12:46 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  
(29-03-2013 12:24 AM)rbmead1960 Wrote:  The Bible was written by holy men of God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, 2 Peter 1:21. They were in awe that God chose them to be used for his revelation.

You don't see the flaw in that?

Joseph Smith was a holy man. The angel Moroni gave him golden tablets with the words of god on them, and the Holy Spirit filled Joseph Smith so that he could translate those tablets and give us the Book of Mormon, the most recent addition to the bible. Those are the words of God.

See, I have a quote too:

Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

So there you have it. Indisputable proof that the Book of Mormon is the purest, most perfect word of God available today. Well, at least this proof is as good as Peter's word. Better, since Joseph Smith was a prophet and Peter was only a "Penman".

So, using your own "method" of providing "proof", we have conclusively proved that the Mormon religion is the correct one.

You are a Mormon, right?

Nice try but Mormonism is a Cult. A Cult is a group that deviates from the truth. One quick example why this is true. Joseph Smith had the gold plates delivered to him in Pennsylvania (I believe) and then God asked for them back. For one God doesn't need the plastes, and two God never asked for his message to be returned. These are two contrary points to the consistency of God. It also is contrary to the nature of God who does not need things (returned plates).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2013, 09:57 AM
I can not prove the existence of God. I can, however, use the caps lock.
Okay, I'm convinced...nothing will bring me around to an idea faster than capitalization. Thumbsup

Two ways to look at something: 1) You are a liar and 2) You are deluded

Please go away and find some people that give half a damn about your ramblings.

I'm not anti-social. I'm pro-solitude. Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
29-03-2013, 09:58 AM
RE: I can not only prove the existence of God.
(29-03-2013 09:55 AM)rbmead1960 Wrote:  
(29-03-2013 12:46 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  You don't see the flaw in that?

Joseph Smith was a holy man. The angel Moroni gave him golden tablets with the words of god on them, and the Holy Spirit filled Joseph Smith so that he could translate those tablets and give us the Book of Mormon, the most recent addition to the bible. Those are the words of God.

See, I have a quote too:

Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

So there you have it. Indisputable proof that the Book of Mormon is the purest, most perfect word of God available today. Well, at least this proof is as good as Peter's word. Better, since Joseph Smith was a prophet and Peter was only a "Penman".

So, using your own "method" of providing "proof", we have conclusively proved that the Mormon religion is the correct one.

You are a Mormon, right?

Nice try but Mormonism is a Cult. A Cult is a group that deviates from the truth. One quick example why this is true. Joseph Smith had the gold plates delivered to him in Pennsylvania (I believe) and then God asked for them back. For one God doesn't need the plastes, and two God never asked for his message to be returned. These are two contrary points to the consistency of God. It also is contrary to the nature of God who does not need things (returned plates).


No, you do not understand the definition of 'cult'. Be that as it may, where do you get off speaking for god?

What gives you this absolute knowledge of the nature of god?

Aren't you being incredibly arrogant?

You have no knowledge of god.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
29-03-2013, 10:04 AM
RE: I can not only prove the existence of God.
(29-03-2013 12:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-03-2013 12:31 AM)rbmead1960 Wrote:  what would you want as proof that God exists? Lightning strikes, rising from the dead, destruction of entire cities, healing the sick, raising the dead, feeding the masses, great theological teachings, walking through walls, walking on water, turning water into wine, ascending to heaven. What else is proof to you? The over 25,000 manuscripts that correlate and prove the Biblical passages. Outside sources of evidence from "The writings of Josephus" a non-believer that was paid by the Romans to document history and points out Jesus and his supposed resurrection. There is nothing false or contradictory in the Bible that was "penned" by about 40 authors over 1600 years and we can't agree on the mere existence of God. How infallible does that prove the Bible? And they didn't get together and exchange notes. They didn't know it was going to be put in a book form. By a clue! I thought the dark ages were in the past. check it our for yourself. The list goes on and on and on and on!

You forgot the split rocks, (oops), that were never found. The many other zombies, besides ZombieJebus who rose, yet somehow escaped mention of anyone in Jerusalem, and the temple curtain that was torn, yet no Jewish historian on-site in Jerusalem happened to metion. Yup. All VERY convincing. NOT. As for your 40...40 people all in the same cult. Of course they wrote the same crap. If you got 40 Scientologists do you think they would write against Scientology ? Now as to your proof in post #1, where exactly the fuck is it, or are you going to keep wasting our time ? Tongue

You seem to forget that these 40 "penman" didn't "get together." The bible was compiled in over 1600 years of writings. Many "penma" did not get to personally read previous accounts. There were very limited copies at the time. couldn't go to the library or temple and check-out a copy. It is a book of such harmony in spite of only a limited exposure to the writings. It is like us writing a book and each of us write 3 books about God. Our writings would not mesh. They would contradict and conflict in there message. How did this book ever possibly be written that it would wind up so cohesive in its theme and chronological events or prophecy's? Only God could produce such a Book. As the Romans said and amply named it "The Book of many Books" that ultimately became known as the THEE BOOK OF BOOkS - the ultimate book! Good day and look forward to your next response.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2013, 10:06 AM
RE: I can not only prove the existence of God.
(29-03-2013 10:04 AM)rbmead1960 Wrote:  
(29-03-2013 12:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You forgot the split rocks, (oops), that were never found. The many other zombies, besides ZombieJebus who rose, yet somehow escaped mention of anyone in Jerusalem, and the temple curtain that was torn, yet no Jewish historian on-site in Jerusalem happened to metion. Yup. All VERY convincing. NOT. As for your 40...40 people all in the same cult. Of course they wrote the same crap. If you got 40 Scientologists do you think they would write against Scientology ? Now as to your proof in post #1, where exactly the fuck is it, or are you going to keep wasting our time ? Tongue

You seem to forget that these 40 "penman" didn't "get together." The bible was compiled in over 1600 years of writings. Many "penma" did not get to personally read previous accounts. There were very limited copies at the time. couldn't go to the library or temple and check-out a copy. It is a book of such harmony in spite of only a limited exposure to the writings. It is like us writing a book and each of us write 3 books about God. Our writings would not mesh. They would contradict and conflict in there message. How did this book ever possibly be written that it would wind up so cohesive in its theme and chronological events or prophecy's? Only God could produce such a Book. As the Romans said and amply named it "The Book of many Books" that ultimately became known as the THEE BOOK OF BOOkS - the ultimate book! Good day and look forward to your next response.


The various books of the Bible hardly 'mesh'. The 4 gospels alone have dozens of contradictions.

The various books are written in different styles, on different subjects, with different points of view. Your view seems utterly without merit or substance.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
29-03-2013, 10:08 AM
RE: I can not only prove thI can prove the one true God! Welcome!
(29-03-2013 12:12 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(29-03-2013 12:04 AM)rbmead1960 Wrote:  Maybe it is as God said "don't cast pearls at swines feet." I wish it was a false statement. You spend you whole life trying to deny him when all he wants to do is spend eternity with you, but you reject him, that is why people spend eternity in hell. They sadly reject God's blessings.

You're preaching not proving...

At least I can understand the difference, since it's completely clrear you cannot.

Shoo fly

So you want to prove God? Than would you believe that the Bible is a factual account in the Book of Genesis? Or Does God need to lie when speaking his message to mankind? Can we agree that Genesis is a historical account of events?
I mean, you guys seem to always quote the Bible. So I ought to be able to use it on a limited basis.

Did you look up Laminin and see you how it relates to Colossians 1:17 "holds" "consists" or keep things together, intact?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2013, 10:10 AM
RE: I can not only prove thI can prove the one true God! Welcome!
(29-03-2013 10:08 AM)rbmead1960 Wrote:  
(29-03-2013 12:12 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  You're preaching not proving...

At least I can understand the difference, since it's completely clrear you cannot.

Shoo fly

So you want to prove God? Than would you believe that the Bible is a factual account in the Book of Genesis? Or Does God need to lie when speaking his message to mankind? Can we agree that Genesis is a historical account of events?
I mean, you guys seem to always quote the Bible. So I ought to be able to use it on a limited basis.

Did you look up Laminin and see you how it relates to Colossians 1:17 "holds" "consists" or keep things together, intact?


No, Genesis is not factual. Don't be absurd.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
29-03-2013, 10:11 AM
RE: I can not only prove the existence of God.
(29-03-2013 12:17 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  
(29-03-2013 12:15 AM)rbmead1960 Wrote:  why is a circle flat? Is a ball flat? Golf ball? Basketball? Football? Volleyball? But when God looks from heaven it could look very well flat. So you choose this as you great theory to "hang" your hat and not believe God?? what a solid case? You fight him too hard. Hang in there and look harder for him. You have to peel all the layers of unbeleif away to get to the true core.

Those aren't circles, they're spheres.

So as I said when God looks down from the heavens what does he see? A 3D circle is to him a flat half circle. To us it is a sphere. Thank you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2013, 10:12 AM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2013 11:09 PM by Doctor X.)
RE: I can not only prove the existence of God.
******

Those who administer and moderate in order to exercise personal agenda merely feed into the negative stereotype of Atheism
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: