this is getting hilariously interesting.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, but y'all obviously need help.

Oh yeah, they sure do

Lol religious people that believe living a "flashy & flamboyant" life is a sin are the biggest jokes of all. If i wear a tattoo and you tell me its a sin the u must be the most ignorant individual that exists. Lol so pathetic

Purist:

Here, let me attempt to answer that for Anony.

First, I start by writing "lol".

Then I proceed. . .

How would you define "rest"? What do you really understand by "rest" as used in that verse?

You see, "rest" in heavenly parlance does not mean that one is taking a break from tiredness as we humans understand it. It simply means that since he was done creating everything, there was nothing left to create, hence, the writer had to use the word "rest" for lack of a better word.

By the way, do you have any reason to question why he chose to rest? He is God, the Almighty... He does what he pleases!! Not satisfied? Go make your own universe!!

musKeeto: But the intended meaning of "rest" is very clear in that verse. You can only take a rest when you're tired and you need to recuperate.

Mr_Anony: lol [again], you miss the point. Did you read what I wrote? Go back and read from the beginning so you can present a better argument.

------------
Anony, you owe me a glass of wine.

Might be the alcohol in me but Lololololol !!!!!

Anony you owe me some wine too !

Mr_Anony:
I think Purist answered in the way I would albeit with a tone of mockery. However, your answer is simple. God did not rest in the sense that humans rest. Rest here signifies cessation from creation. (When we describe God, we ascribe to Him anthropomorphic/humanistic attributes so as to make it make sense to us. That is not an accurate picture of how God is. Compare with phrases like "hand of God", "God remembered" "God looked" etc)

Damn! You're so predictable!

You still owe me!

jayriginal:

Might be the alcohol in me but Lololololol !!!!!

Anony you owe me some wine too !

Anony, you hear that? Make that two glasses, please.

Mr_Anony:

Fair enough.
The question how do we know and how do we know that we know?
I'll suggest to you that since our senses are not infallible we cannot know (in the sense of the question).sic laws of logic being the law of identity, the law non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle)Do you agree up to this point?

I agree "ultimately".

However, there are certain basic information which we must take for granted. This is what we call reality. The problem however is that this basic reality or worldview can be false e.g. the urhobo boy who is sure that he is yoruba.

Agreed again

How then do we know if our reality is true or false?

In his particular instance, his reality is true, but ultimately false. Each and every one of us can be placed in that situation and not even know it.

Enter logic: Logic is our way of weighing the truth value of our realities i.e. If our reality is true, then we can identify such and such as should follow from it. If they do not follow from it, then we can say that such a worldview is demonstrably false.

Even if our reality is false, it may bear the illusion of truth and therefore be true particularly but not ultimately.
Which is why I say even in an illusion, rules may hold sway. So, our reality may be "true".

If you disagree, you may want to tell me how you can tell our reality is true or false.

For an explanation of what I mean, we'll go back to the Urhobo boy who thinks he is Yoruba: If someone were to tell him that he is really Urhobo and not Yoruba, his rebuttals (if they are reasonable) would come in the form of "I have X attribute and Yorubas have X attribute therefore it should follow that I am Yoruba". The person trying to convince him must show that the attributes he is holding up are not exclusive to Yorubas and must then provide an attribute which is exclusive to Urhobos that Yorubas cannot have. If the boy has this attribute, then it is settled that he cannot be Yoruba. At this point, they would have arrived at truth by logic.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I like the term "if they are reasonable"

There are somethings though that cannot be proven, either because of a lack of "faith" or for some other contrived reason. What do we do? Accept an assertion on those grounds ? It takes nothing away from the above though !

Im going to do the following

Mr_Anony:
For an explanation of what I mean, we'll go back to the Urhobo boy who thinks he is Yoruba: If someone were to tell him that he is really Urhobo and not Yoruba, his rebuttals (if they are reasonable) would come in the form of "I have X attribute and Yorubas have X attribute therefore it should follow that I am Yoruba". The person trying to convince him must show that the attributes he is holding up are not exclusive to Yorubas and must then provide an attribute which is exclusive to Urhobos that Yorubas cannot have. If the boy has this attribute, then it is settled that he cannot be Yoruba. At this point, they would have arrived at truth by logic.

Gbam, Gboga, Gbagada, Lagos !

Mr_Anony:
I'll submit that logic does for us what mathematics does for numbers (the basic laws of logic being the law of identity, the law non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle)Do you agree up to this point?

I'm with you thus far. I'm eager to learn and to see where this will end up.

Martian:


I didn't quote you out of context, I just made a comment about your descriptions of god .
At the end of the day, god can only be described "in your own words" and buzugee's word, pagan nja's or any other person's word.

lol, in the same way at the end of the day, anything and everything we describe are described in our words so what's your point really?

Purist:

Damn! You're so predictable!

You still owe me!

lol, last I checked, predictability was a sign of trustworthiness

Mr_Anony:
lol, last I checked, predictability was a sign of trustworthiness

Nah bro, fill our glasses up.

Mr_Anony:
I think Purist answered in the way I would albeit with a tone of mockery. However, your answer is simple. God did not rest in the sense that humans rest. Rest here signifies cessation from creation. (When we describe God, we ascribe to Him anthropomorphic/humanistic attributes so as to make it make sense to us. That is not an accurate picture of how God is. Compare with phrases like "hand of God", "God remembered" "God looked" etc)

Let's also include 'God is jealous', 'He repented', 'He got angry'...

So the Bible does not paint an accurate picture of GOD? Inspired by him, but the writers were limited in their ability to describe him quite accurately ... amazing...

Every single thing is subjective then?
Why would anyone do that?
Oh why?

musKeeto:
Let's also include 'God is jealous', 'He repented', 'He got angry'...
So the Bible does not paint an accurate picture of GOD? Inspired by him, but the writers were limited in their ability to describe him quite accurately ... amazing...

Lol, interesting. . . . The bible was written in such a way that you might be able to understand it. In much the same way as you have to dumb down difficult concepts for a layman so does a higher being tone down his expressions in order to communicate with a much lower being.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, interesting. . . . The bible was written in such a way that you might be able to understand it. In much the same way as you have to dumb down difficult concepts for a layman so does a higher being tone down his expressions in order to communicate with a much lower being.

And things leading to another, the rest/cessation from creation led to this... was this also 'dumbing down'...

Exodus 35:1
Moses assembled the whole Israelite community and said to them, “These are the things the Lord has commanded you to do: 2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death

Remember we're talking about a perfect being, one who is also love according to Ihedinobi...
Or did death here simply mean 'cessation of living'?
Are threats necessary in a relationship based on 'love'?

Mayhaps the bot has malfunctioned?

jayriginal:
I agree "ultimately".
In his particular instance, his reality is true, but ultimately false. Each and every one of us can be placed in that situation and not even know it.
Even if our reality is false, it may bear the illusion of truth and therefore be true particularly but not ultimately.
Which is why I say even in an illusion, rules may hold sway. So, our reality may be "true".
If you disagree, you may want to tell me how you can tell our reality is true or false.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I like the term "if they are reasonable"
There are somethings though that cannot be proven, either because of a lack of "faith" or for some other contrived reason. What do we do? Accept an assertion on those grounds ? It takes nothing away from the above though !
Im going to do the following
Gbam, Gboga, Gbagada, Lagos !
I'm with you thus far. I'm eager to learn and to see where this will end up.

Ok apparently we agree. However, one interesting thing you have brought up though is the difference between ultimate truth and particular truth i.e. truth that is known now is a particular truth but the real real situation of things (permit me to use that expression) is the ultimate truth.

I would like to suggest to you that ultimate truth exists but is something that due to the limits of our senses, we cannot know unless we possessed some sort of omniscience. Ultimate truth is illusive and even if we were to come face to face with it, we will not know it (we would still call it particular truth). All we can work with is particular truth. Ultimate truth is what we use as a place holder it is what we call what believe may turn out true but it is yet unknown. This allows us to be able to cautiously say "maybe there is something more than this" and hence use phrases like "to the best of my knowledge". The thing is that when we make a new discovery, we call it particular truth and push ultimate truth even further. Truth is just truth, it is only our knowledge that is limited. What is yet unknown can neither be true nor false.

To explain what I mean, let's look at our Urhobo boy. Assuming after he has been convince that he is Urhobo, someone comes with logical proof that he is indeed Ibo by showing him that the attribute he thought was exclusive to Urhobos has actually been discovered to be also possession of Ibos i.e. a new discovery has been made. then the person goes on to present to him an attribute that he has that only Ibos can have. Now he has a new particular truth which is that he is Ibo. Now let us say another new discover comes out and it is found that he is actually Hausa and yet again another and it is found that he is Tiv. At this point the boy is waiting for the next new discovery so as to find what new tribe he must really come from. Now assuming the ultimate truth of the matter is that the boy is Tiv, he cannot know this. He will still think that there ought to be an ultimate truth outside his particular truth.

What is my point? The world is vast and there are things we don't know but then we keep moving forward and discovering stuff. The thing is that the more we discover, the more we assure ourselves that there is more to discover i.e. tending towards knowing the ultimate truth. However realistically, we cannot work with a truth that is yet unknown. we can only work with what we know now as true and if it follows logically, then we must accept it as true and work with it. At any point where is ceases to logically follow, then we must find what else logically follows and that is how we move forward in discovering truth.

e.g. we used to believe the earth was flat. It logically followed that if it was people and buildings won't slide of it. Later, we observed that ships disappear over a horizon and that led us to the truth of a spherical earth. This is our particular truth for now, it may or may not be the ultimate truth. But we must continue to accept it as true until we observe an event that doesn't logically follow from it, then we will move on to an even more accurate discovery. As I said earlier, truth is just truth It is only our knowledge that is limited, but then we have logic which helps us to discern truth.

Do you follow up to now?

musKeeto:

And things leading to another, the rest/cessation from creation led to this... was this also 'dumbing down'...



Remember we're talking about a perfect being, one who is also love according to Ihedinobi...
Or did death here simply mean 'cessation of living'?
Are threats necessary in a relationship based on 'love'?

let's not get cheeky now ok.

Love is just. The penalty for sin is death. If it is indeed God that gives life and He has the power to take life and give life back to one who is lifeless, then He has every right to take it.

You asked: Are threats necessary in a relationship of love?

My reply is: Please tell me, Is it necessary in a relationship of love to threaten to break up with your girlfriend if she cheats on you?
Also, is it necessary to punish your kids if they break your rules? Or perhaps you don't have a relationship of love with anyone?

Mr_Anony:
let's not get cheeky now ok.

Love is just. The penalty for sin is death. If it is indeed God that gives life and He has the power to take life and give life back to one who is lifeless, then He has every right to take it.

You asked: Are threats necessary in a relationship of love?

My reply is: Please tell me, Is it necessary in a relationship of love to threaten to break up with your girlfriend if she cheats on you?
Also, is it necessary to punish your kids if they break your rules? Or perhaps you don't have a relationship of love with anyone?

The purpose of a rule is to protect one from danger or hurt.
Note, you can work on any other day. But on a particular day, drop your tools.

What is the danger in working on the Sabbath?

Note: Like you said, predictability is trustworthiness, that's why I picked a command that is at best flimsy. I anticipated your response :-)

Ps: keep in mind Jesus' response to a similar question in the NT.

Mr_Anony:
Or perhaps you don't have a relationship of love with anyone?

Lmao.

And he says I shouldn't be cheeky...

musKeeto:
A rule is there to protect one from danger or hurt.
Note, you can work on any other day. But on a particular day, drop your tools.

What is the danger in working on the Sabbath?

Note: Like you said, predictability is trustworthiness, that's why I picked a command that is at best flimsy. I could anticipated your response :-)

Ps: keep in mind Jesus' response to a similar question in the NT.

This is the muskeeto I like!


Finally growing some ballz.


Keep on hammering Anony!


As for Anony, your tactics are now a joke people can predict your flawed arguments with accuracy. Sad

musKeeto:
A rule is there to protect one from danger or hurt.
Note, you can work on any other day. But on a particular day, drop your tools.

What is the danger in working on the Sabbath?

Note: Like you said, predictability is trustworthiness, that's why I picked a command that is at best flimsy. I could anticipated your response :-)

Ps: keep in mind Jesus' response to a similar question in the NT.

The danger of working on the sabbath was incurring God's wrath. I think that's danger enough. Much like the danger in your girlfriend kissing another man is incurring your wrath that also should be danger enough, wouldn't you agree?

Coming to Jesus' response about working on the sabbath, what does He say? "the sabbath is made for man and not man for the sabbath" .
Now bear in mind that Jesus is the fulfilment of the law which is grace. He did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. He came to lead us into a dispensation of grace.

For instance, when I was a child, breaking 6pm curfew was a sin punishable by multiple strokes of the cane. Now that I am grown, 6pm curfew no longer attracts a punishment. I can say that "the curfew was made for me and not me for the curfew"

Paul puts it best when he says:
"What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba Father." So you are no longer a slave, but God's child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir." Gal 4:1-7

My Father's values have not changed, neither has my heritage in Him. All that has changed is the maturity. At the fullness of time, God sent His Son; Jesus to us......

Mr_Anony:

To explain what I mean, let's look at our Urhobo boy. Assuming after he has been convince that he is Urhobo, someone comes with logical proof that he is indeed Ibo by showing him that the attribute he thought was exclusive to Urhobos has actually been discovered to be also possession of Ibos i.e. a new discovery has been made. then the person goes on to present to him an attribute that he has that only Ibos can have. Now he has a new particular truth which is that he is Ibo. Now let us say another new discover comes out and it is found that he is actually Hausa and yet again another and it is found that he is Tiv. At this point the boy is waiting for the next new discovery so as to find what new tribe he must really come from. Now assuming the ultimate truth of the matter is that the boy is Tiv, he cannot know this. He will still think that there ought to be an ultimate truth outside his particular truth.

This is why no one, no entity, no anything, can know it's omniscient. Omniscience cannot be confirmed, even in magical la-la land of omnipotent (another concept that $hits all over logic). If god shows up and tells you he's sure he's omniscient then he's either not so smart, thereby immediately questioning his omniscience, or lying.

Suddenly you understand this? Could it be you've known all along? When I rant about dishonesty, it's usually because of this (not exclusively though). Not to mention you know why I'm ranting, but will come up with some silly excuse for my rant, like claim I'm ranting because I disagree with you, piling on the dishonesty.

I ate some terrible food, I think I'm going to puke

Mr_Anony:
let's not get cheeky now ok.

Love is just. The penalty for sin is death. If it is indeed God that gives life and He has the power to take life and give life back to one who is lifeless, then He has every right to take it.

You asked: Are threats necessary in a relationship of love?

My reply is: Please tell me, Is it necessary in a relationship of love to threaten to break up with your girlfriend if she cheats on you?
Also, is it necessary to punish your kids if they break your rules? Or perhaps you don't have a relationship of love with anyone?

O my, what a sick and twisted logic.

comparing a break-up of a girlfriend to eternal torment by that wicked monster they called yahweh. at least, a good boyfriend will wish his girlfriend well after break-up and hopes she learnt her lesson and improve her life, but that self-proclaimed all-good omnibenevolent Jewish deity who is actually a wicked monster/sky-tyrant never forgives after hundred zillion years of excruciating torment.

and comparing punishment of your child to yahweh's eternal torment. your sky daddy is a sick twisted heavenly father being defended with a sick twisted logic..

MacDaddy01:

This is the muskeeto I like!


Finally growing some ballz.


Keep on hammering Anony!


As for Anony, your tactics are now a joke people can predict your flawed arguments with accuracy. Sad

lol, last I checked, the ability to predict an argument does not make it flawed rather it shows consistency, neither does asking questions equal "hammering".

I know you are so obsessed with me and you would love to see me stumble so much that you are happy to jump and grasp at anything that vaguely looks it puts me in some difficulty.

Lol, you have tried everything and failed so you now resort to mockery and ridicule. It doesn't bug me as I am yet to see you use any real logic in your arguments. When you start thinking logically, please let me know. I'll be very happy to engage you then.

God loves you and calls you to Himself if you will only heed Him. Winning or losing an argument is a very minor matter in the grand scale of things. You need to come to the point where you are no longer obsessed with trying to win against Anony's arguments but move past that obsession and move unto a dedicated effort in seeking the truth. That's when you'll begin to grow.

Mr_Anony:
The danger of working on the sabbath was incurring God's wrath. I think that's danger enough. Much like the danger in your girlfriend kissing another man is incurring your wrath that also should be danger enough, wouldn't you agree?

I fully agree. Death for working on the Sabbath. I mean GOD rested(stopped creating) so everyone else should observe that rest(to recuperate)... else death.. Makes a lot of sense..

Mr_Anony:
Coming to Jesus' response about working on the sabbath, what does He say? "the sabbath is made for man and not man for the sabbath" .
Now bear in mind that Jesus is the fulfilment of the law which is grace. He did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. He came to lead us into a dispensation of grace.

Like I've said before, Yahweh either
A - found a better way of working with humans after realizing people just couldn't keep to his rules (I wonder why, after all everything he created was good, oh wait, apart from Satan...)

OR

B - felt like having an adventure on earth.

Mr_Anony:
For instance, when I was a child, breaking 6pm curfew was a sin punishable by multiple strokes of the cane. Now that I am grown, 6pm curfew no longer attracts a punishment. I can say that "the curfew was made for me and not me for the curfew"

You were not allowed to go out beyond 6pm. That was to protect you from danger, kidnapping, maybe thieves too..
What's wrong with working on the Sabbath? Nothing, Anony, and you know this. It was just God's rule. It's like a government forcing everyone to celebrate a festival. If you do not celebrate, they kill you.

Mr_Anony:
Paul puts it best when he says:
"What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba Father." So you are no longer a slave, but God's child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir." Gal 4:1-7

I've no idea how this fits into the conversation... but I'd like to us continue further on..

Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces[d]? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

At a point, even the servants of God realized the Old testament was just a pack of dumb laws and rules. When Jesus claimed to fulfill them, what exactly did he mean? He certainly didn't observe most of the commandments, that's why an enmity existed between him and the Pharisees/Sadduccees. It's the same problem that plagues the church today: a microcosm on nairaland, tithe vs non tithers, trinity vs non trinity.. God should have made the Bible as clear as possible.. He didn't... The Bible is open to as many interpretations as possible... deeply subjective.

And please, do not ask what would be my idea of a book that clearly elucidates God and whatever message he wants to communicate to us..

If a manual isn't clear enough, u don't ask the customers to figure it out..
except it's a DIY kit, which well, I think the Bible is... lol..

Mr_Anony:
lol, last I checked, the ability to predict an argument does not make it flawed rather it shows consistency, neither does asking questions equal "hammering".

I know you are so obsessed with me and you would love to see me stumble so much that you are happy to jump and grasp at anything that vaguely looks it puts me in some difficulty.

Lol, you have tried everything and failed so you now resort to mockery and ridicule. It doesn't bug me as I am yet to see you use any real logic in your arguments. When you start thinking logically, please let me know. I'll be very happy to engage you then.

God loves you and calls you to Himself if you will only heed Him. Winning or losing an argument is a very minor matter in the grand scale of things. You need to come to the point where you are no longer obsessed with trying to win against Anony's arguments but move past that obsession and move unto a dedicated effort in seeking the truth. That's when you'll begin to grow.

Yawn.


Consistency doesn equal right.


You are consistently flawed. Consistently wrong and consistently playing mental gymnastics.


You have been exposed numerous times on this thread. My work is done. All I ever wanted was to show the other theists that their arguments will never win. You were the sole man giving them a little hope.

However, this thread serves as evidence that you have nothing. Cyrexx and co hammered you.


Theists, it is over.


I have stopped obsessing over you, Anony as of yesterday. I am going into new territory now- just waiting for my ban in the islam section to expire.


Call me the atheist boss

Mr_Anony:
Wow. they are lengthy! I doubt we can go through them all today. I'll try and take them one after the other but I'd like to ask first: Are you willing to extend me the courtesy of actually pondering my responses and equally giving reasoned replies? You have asked some good questions and I will hate to see our discussion go to waste.

Of course. Feel free to debate at your leisure. The key here is that there is no right or wrong in this type of debate. It is all about perspective. Do you really believe that God meets all the requirements you set about or not? If he doesn't then there could be a problem somewhere with the defintion of God. If he does then how does one reconcile all these questions. There are loads of other questions relating to that.

cyrexx:

O my, what a sick and twisted logic.

comparing a break-up of a girlfriend to eternal torment by that wicked monster they called yahweh. at least, a good boyfriend will wish his girlfriend well after break-up and hopes she learnt her lesson and improve her life, but that self-proclaimed all-good omnibenevolent Jewish deity who is actually a wicked monster/sky-tyrant never forgives after hundred zillion years of excruciating torment.

and comparing punishment of your child to yahweh's eternal torment. your sky daddy is a sick twisted heavenly father being defended with a sick twisted logic..

I love this. Your god is a monster and its funny how those people that wrote the bible couldnt even pretend to make your imaginary god look so nice and loving as all his principles are questionable giving the fact that he claims to be all loving and generous. Y'all just make my stomach sick urghh

MacDaddy01:


Yawn.


Consistency doesn equal right.


You are consistently flawed. Consistently wrong and consistently playing mental gymnastics.


You have been exposed numerous times on this thread. My work is done. All I ever wanted was to show the other theists that their arguments will never win. You were the sole man giving them a little hope.

However, this thread serves as evidence that you have nothing. Cyrexx and co hammered you.


Theists, it is over.


I have stopped obsessing over you, Anony as of yesterday. I am going into new territory now- just waiting for my ban in the islam section to expire.


Call me the atheist boss

@ Macdaddy,


let me sing a song for you from Rihanna's "(Cheers) Drink To That" and make it a toast as we pop this e-champagne together.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR0v0i63PQ4


and here is the lyrics



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nVI0ovKg8A

MusKeeto, I think your question is: why should the sabbath be punishable by death? And by extension, why did Jesus appear far more lenient about it?

Like Mr Anony said elsewhere, punishments are deterrents and are proportionate to the danger or consequence that they are actually warning about. So if the punishment for breaking the Sabbath was physical death, it said that the actual consequence was far greater than mere physical death. Hold that thought, please.

Later in the New Testament, Jesus says that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Did this mean then that breaking the Sabbath was no longer such a big deal? I assure you that it didn't. The thing to note about the events of Jesus's day is that the Law had lost meaning and He came to not only restore that meaning but to fully comprehend it in Himself. In other words, Jesus is the Sabbath. The question then arises, what does that mean?

God rested on the seventh day. That is, He ceased from all His Work on the Seventh Day of Creation. Why? Exhaustion? If we are to believe the Bible, God never suffers exhaustion. His Infinite Power is never exhausted on any task. So, why then did He rest? Because HIS WORK WAS COMPLETE. Why should that be an issue at all? "Addition" to any work of God corrupts it. In fact, it is impossible to add to any work of God, what is possible is to take away from it. And that is what sin does.

If God declares a work complete and anyone saunters in to add to it, the person essentially divorces the work from God. The final result is that that work will unravel into absolute confusion. This happens because God is the holder-together of all His Work. Any effort to add to something He has done is based on the presupposition that He didn't do His Work well. That means that such effort will most certainly disengage what He has done from Him in order to examine it and pronounce it well-done or not. Evidently, seeing as He alone possesses all knowledge and wisdom, nobody can judge His Work accurately or as well as Himself does.

Said effort then destroys the basis of the Work which is that God is Perfect. In doing so, the work itself is destroyed. Hence the Sabbath. The Sabbath is simply God stating the obvious: if you attempt to add to His Work you will corrupt it and end up in total, absolute and irreconcilable confusion which the Bible calls eternal death. If this is the case then, the Law which foreshadowed Christ and symbolized all things spiritual, must necessarily proportion the punishment for break of the physical sabbath with the final, absolute, spiritual consequence of a break with the spiritual Sabbath. So the symbol of eternal death would be physical death, don't you agree?

What did Jesus do? He showed that the Sabbath was not merely a day in the week. That it was and is a condition of Life and that that is what the Law was pointing to. The Jews had become so divorced from God that they had killed the meanings of the Law with their stringent demands and hypocritical practices. Jesus said that the Sabbath existed so that man could be. Without a perfect work of God, what can man do? Man is able and useful to himself because God's Work is done, and perfectly too. Man does not have to labor in a confused environment when God has finished His Work.

Jesus therefore did not change or abolish the Law, rather He restored it to its true meaning and purpose and brought it to Life.

Atheist:-D:


Of course. Feel free to debate at your leisure. The key here is that there is no right or wrong in this type of debate. It is all about perspective. Do you really believe that God meets all the requirements you set about or not? If he doesn't then there could be a problem somewhere with the defintion of God. If he does then how does one reconcile all these questions. There are loads of other questions relating to that.

Apart from the bolded being an excuse to say all manner of unintelligent things in debate, what debate does not establish right and wrong? If you don't want to consider God and admit any possibility that you are wrong in your perceptions, then stay away from debate.