Greatest I am;52360 wrote:
Why do I think this way. Just common sense of what a God would not do.
Some say that God is never changing. Incest is incest. He is for or against forever. He does not change His mind.
We are also told that there is but one God. Not three.
If we have three personalities then there are three Gods.
How could Jesus be before comming out of Marie. Miracles miracles everywhere and God unable to start us right. Strange.
I think that If God wanted to be on earth, He would find a way that does not include bestiality.
The God of ants is an ant.
The God of dogs is a dog.
The God of men must be a man.
Regards
DL
Concerning your IDEA that angels impregnated earthly females and produced giants.
Genesis 6:4, "There were giants in those days; and also AFTER THAT, the sons of God came in unto daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same BECAME MIGHTY MEN which were of old, men of renown."
RIGHTEOUS PEOPLE (the sons of God) intermarried with the wicked (the reason that God destroyed the world by the flood and started all over, the wicked far outnumbered the righteous....their wickedness was made by their own life decisions of free will, not Gods will). The "wicked" were the DAUGHTERS OF MEN.
Every once and a while you will find someone that "claims" that the angels came down from heaven and mated with earthly women...apparently you found one of these people and parroted their idea. But, the scriptures make it clear that ANGELS do not marry -- Matthew 22:30. Presenting the conclusion that they have no sex, either male nor female, as marriage is defined by God as between a male and a female -- Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-7. And God makes it just as clear that sex outside marriage is considered wrong and a sin -- l Cor. 7:1-9. And you are now suggesting that God would allow those that live in heaven to sin?
It is true that angles are called the sons of God in the scriptures (Job 1:6), but it is also just as true that RIGHTEOUS MEN are also called the sons of God -- Hosea 1:10, Gal. 3:26. Thus considering the fact that angels dwell in heaven and God also dwells in heaven and would cast out any angel that sinned and the fact that angels DO NOT MARRY, we must logically conclude that the sons of God being referred to was MEN that still worshiped and served God....like Noah. But with more and more men becoming wicked by the action of their free will in being able to choose good from evil and deciding to become evil (Genesis 3:22), BY CHOICE, the unrighteous out numbered the righteous and many Righteous Men decided to take a wife from among those that did not worship God any longer or the DAUGHTERS OF MEN, in the hope of converting them, but more often than not the righteous became corrupt, thus "God was repentant" and it grieved Him that He had made man in the first place as they had used their God granted gift of free will to choose evil over good. -- Genesis 6:6.
But also notice that the same verse self describes these imagined Giants not as large men but men that were, "mighty men of renown" or simply great among men. And the fact that these MIGHTY MEN/GIANTS existed even before the sons of God married the daughters of Men, "....and also after that, WHEN THE SONS OF GOD CAME UNTO THE DAUGHTERS OF MEN...". Whether they were physically large or not, they existed BEFORE the fact of this intermarriage. And does not logic dictate that they could not have been THAT MUCH BIGGER THAN men.....or MATING would have been a physical IMPOSSIBILITY...no? (RD)
RED DEVIL;58976 wrote:
Why do I think this way. Just common sense of what a God would not do.
Some say that God is never changing. Incest is incest. He is for or against forever. He does not change His mind.
We are also told that there is but one God. Not three.
If we have three personalities then there are three Gods.
How could Jesus be before comming out of Marie. Miracles miracles everywhere and God unable to start us right. Strange.
I think that If God wanted to be on earth, He would find a way that does not include bestiality.
The God of ants is an ant.
The God of dogs is a dog.
The God of men must be a man.
Regards
DL
God never changes his mind? If this is true then how do you explain the difference in covenants? Like between the covenant God had with father Abraham (The Patriarchal) and the supposed NEW COVENANT that many Islamic people think God had with the imagined visit of an angel with Muhammad? Are you saying that things are exactly the same? If so why are sacrifices no longer burned at the alter and offered to God?
Its very clear that God changes his mind...this does not constitute a change in the righteousness of God or the way that God never lies and is always faithful to keep his promises. You would not consider having a spouse taken from your own rib and then bearing Children with her INCEST? -- Genesis 2:21-24. Or the fact of ABRAHAM marrying his own sister INCEST? -- Genesis 20:1-12. And if God does not change his mind to adjust for the free will choices of man, how could God have been REPENTANT? "And it repented the Lord...." -- Genesis 6:6. Repented literally means A CHANGE IN DIRECTION. And He made it vividly clear that He changed His mind....ever hear of a little thing called the GREAT FLOOD, as God erased all that came before and allowed mankind to start anew.
As He corrected the mistakes made....not by Him, but, those made by mankind in the exercise of their free will in choosing evil over good, which is EXACTLY how man is made in the image of God having the right to choose their own fate (Genesis 3:22), and the only reason that man is no longer immortal like God is the fact that he (man) can no longer eat of the tree of life (which was not forbidden to eat while man was in the garden, until after the fact of his sinning), as the only tree that man was forbidden to partake was that of the TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF RIGHT AND WRONG, which would make man realize when they had sinned, "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of EVERY TREE OF THE GARDEN THOU MAYEST FREELY EAT: BUT FOR THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL, THOU SHALT NOT EAT OF IT...." -- Genesis 2:16-17. These two trees were distinctly different, one was allowed the other was not. And its clear that after man disobeyed God and ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God could no longer allow mankind to live in the Garden where the tree of LIFE was located, "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and TAKE ALSO of the TREE OF LIFE, and eat, and live forever...." -- Genesis 3:22
It is hard to demonstrate something that is actually written to someone when they IGNORE it as if it does not exist. By your reasoning are we to simply ignore what is written and choose to believe how we will? Why then have any Holy Books of guidance in the first place? Are you simply to make the "BREATH OF GOD" non effect by your will (to include the supposed visit of an angel to MUHAMMAD)? Are you saying that MUHAMMAD was not inspired either? If you want your cake and then claim the right to eat it as well that is indeed YOUR FREE WILL, but your free will does not constitute what is inspired from God or God breathed. Which is what INSPIRED literally means (God breathed) as the Old Testament indeed is professed to be inspired by God as well as the NEW. Your reasoning makes all Holy Books useless....no? Especially since some make claims to be only a continuation of the same truth? You would be quite correct..... You and I can never come to any understanding or agreement, for indeed its clear that you take the words delivered by God to man (Inspired Scriptures) with no more value that any other writing of man, while I on the other hand take them for they are self professed to be, A DIRECT REVELATION form God to man in a demonstration of his will, "But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me IS NOT ACCORDING TO MAN. For I neither received it from man, NOR WAS I TAUGHT IT, but it came THROUGH THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST." -- Gal 1:11-12. (RD)
Red devil
There is nothing that is Holy on this earth.
If one must believe in talking snakes to understand your view, I am glad I do not.
Wow an inspired talking snake.
Regards
DL
Its quite clear that you believe in NOTHING, except your own wants and needs, (and claiming to be religious for these reasons only is worthless) and again this is your action of free will and does not affect what is ACTUALLY WRITTEN and as demonstrated which YOU cannot disprove. Thus, the constant insults to the faith of another? Because you cannot disprove what is actually written, which is MY ONLY CONCERN, demonstrating what is actually written as compared to how people try to twist it into something that is not written. As I said, when one simply ignores what is demonstrated in actual writing there is no reasoning with them....for there in NO REASON IN THEM only EMOTIONALISM...like a female defending their offspring. (RD)
Can you prove talking snakes or fish that spit out men after three days?
Regards
DL
I have the written testimony of the scriptures that declare such as the miraculous has taken place. The question is....can you prove that it did not happen?
Counter-intuitive you are red-devil!
Does a lawyer have to prove his client did not commit a crime? No! The burden of proof lies on those who believe such things happened.
You hit the nail on the head, as far as common sense goes. The question is, WHO LEVIED THE CHARGES OF WRONGDOING IN THE FIRST PLACE? Your counter counter intuitive statement suggests that the faithful have accused someone else, when all the faithful are doing is presenting TESTIMONY of witness...NO? As I said the burden of proof is upon the ACCUSER not the ACCUSED. (RD)
well "greatest i am" asked if you believe in talking snakes and you insisted that those things have happened so the burden of proof is on you. Questioning the veracity of a belief or claim requires no evidence.
- a claim requires evidence.
- questioning a claim requires no evidence.
asking someone to prove that something is not true is logically fallacious!
No, indeed what I said, was I believe in the testimony of those that said as much. Now the burden of disproving THEIR sworn testimony is upon the accuser.
LOL... Jews and arab people live in the same land and fighting over the same land, I lump them together, unless the specific topic is Jews VS Arabs
Nope sorry, that's not how it works. The burden of proof does not switch sides....EVER! If the supposed 'testimony' does not meet the requirement of evidence then you must provide more evidence. The requirement of evidence varies depending on the claim. There is saying amongst scientists, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". In debate the disbeliever or skeptic always has an advantage, because in reality there are more false beliefs than true ones.
The burden of proof always lies on positive assertions and it does not move, not even when some evidence is provided. In any academic field it is always presumed that a claim or belief is false until the demand for evidence is met. Even when the demand for evidence is met the burden of proof still remains on positive assertions. If someone questions a claim that has met the demand for evidence, you simply show them the evidence and that should suffice in convincing them.
*PLEASE READ THIS AND THEN RE-READ IT.
First of all WE ARE NOT SPEAKING OF THE HALLS OF ACADEMIA (and their liberal attitude of inverting the court system) The very reason for the inversion would be so they can claim that THEORY be considered the same as Factual information.
...but we are speaking of the Constitutional right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
There are in fact, more than 3 sworn statements of testimony, sworn before God and man that what is stated is TRUTH, in fact there are 27 Books in the NT. and another 39 in the OT,
all containing sworn testimony, as these books are called TESTAMENTS for a reason. Nowhere do these men and or women state the liberal description of truth..aka, THIS POINTS TO, THIS SUGGESTS, THIS LEADS ONE TO BELIEVE, etc.,
the scriptures are self professed to be TRUTH.
-- John 17:17. The eyewitness account of more than 3 people has always been the standard of PROOF.
If the prosecution does not believe their sworn testimony to be true, the accusation of Perjury (a crime) must be proven.
..and not simply stated as "hun ha"..."Nope"...you're lying, as said by the prosecution, and then demand that the eye witness prove what they have stated. Again, the BURDEN OF PROVING GUILT is upon they that levied the charges in the first place....not those that are accused. You are correct....THE BURDEN OF PROOF never switches, simply because the prosecutor CAN NOT disprove a statement, and thereby DEMANDS the defendant provide their leg work.
Are not you AND YOUR LIKE the ones presenting the charges of falsehood?
If not...what is your point, as I said, we the faithful already believe and have NOTHING TO PROVE. As time and time again, the charges presented by your kind as suggesting what the scriptures are declaring, by misrepresenting the contextual structure of the entire message are proven wrong by the very same SWORN TESTIMONIES...when correctly considered IN CONTEXT.
As I said..a perfect example of what happens when YOUR idea of proof is brought into any courtroom as it has happened more than once when the scriptures where taken to court, with the scriptures prevailing in each instance, when Academia's standard of proof was attempted in the courtroom, where, suggests, leads to, points, etc ....is not considered PROOF.
We, the faithful, cannot prove your case for you, for we, unlike you accept the scriptures as TRUTH.
Theories cannot become facts.....
Which still go by the same principals.
You will need more than just a few people's words. A claim as bold as talking snakes will require solid tangible evidence and lots of it.
I would trust it more in that case, leaving a degree of uncertainty is best and more accurate. Anyone claiming to have absolute truth of anything is being intellectually dishonest and is to not be trusted. All humans have a limited mental capacity, are subject to fallibility, external pressures, personal interpretations, after-thought, perspective and bias because of this we cannot know anything absolutely. Honest men admit this.
and thus why they are unreliable....
Excuse me for not accepting an out-dated standard of proof especially from an ancient text that's accuracy is in question of in the first place.
Proving that someone lied (a positive assertion) is different than questioning the original claim to which before said person is in support of. In other words, im not saying that person was lying but rather questioning what they believe. And yes there is a difference!
ok
Again, no! Because i'm not claiming that 'said person is lying (a positive statement), just question the belief of the person , which is a negative statement and thus does not require proving.
the sworn testimonies do not meet the demand for evidence.
proof exists only in linguistics and math. The lay people often refer to things as proof when it is only evidence. Learning the difference between proof and evidence is key in debate.
unmerited acceptance. There is simply not enough evidence to support your beliefs, which is fine as long as you accept your beliefs on faith and do not claim to be supported by facts.
