₦airaland Forum

Weah96

No. However, it's impossible for a woman, a human woman, to conceive without human s)emen being strategically deposited in her fallopian tubes.

It's impossible by what standard?

IVF didn't exist 2000 years ago, and even if it had, we would still need human s)emen, not some imaginary seed.

Of course IVF didn't exist then, I am not denying that. Your defense is confined only to what you know Bros. We are going back to the same issue here? You are confined to your 5 senses; I am not. For example, a persons soul can't be measured by the 5 senses but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The possibility of a virgin getting pregnant is impossible for someone limited by their 5 senses; you fit into that category.

Can a he goat impregnate a chicken? No.

You are the evolutionist; tell me. I am guessing by your theory; we all came from a fish or a tadpole.

Which is more plausible: that the laws of nature were suspended, or someone is telling a LIE?

This is where we defer. I believe God is supreme and can suspend the laws of nature because He created them. I believe it's plausible it was a LIE if the witness was from only one person - however; you have multiple people from different times; that didn't know one another confirming the same story - now, that's not plausible. Why would all the Biblical authors that lived in different times and ages decide to all LIE about the same subject? Most importantly, why would people that were killed for their faith LIE? Martyrs don't make good liars.

Also, do you only believe in things that your 5 senses can perceive?

Weah96

Grasping at straws, aren't we? Dude, you're the one who believe that virgins give birth, snakes talk, and dead people wake up after one week of soil treatment. I don't believe in any of those things.

I am not forcing you to believe Bros, it's your cup of tea if you decide to believe or not. The issue here is your belief is confined to what your 5 senses can observe; I am not faulting you for that. You seem to be agitated for those of us that believe not only in the 5 senses but something more.

Are you mad? You're the fool, for believing that nonsense with a sober brain. Sheep following the shepherd to the slaughter house.

Is it nonsense to you or to everyone else?

Proof? Is the talking SNAKE not enough proof for you, mr. Pinhead? And the virgin mother? Walking on water? Hahaha.

I asked you is it impossible for a woman to conceive without sex.ual intercour.se?

A bunch of stoners, talking bout God. God my a)ss. You and your imaginary God can suck a fat one. Re)tard.

Coming from someone who takes illegal drugs to experience hallucinating or.ga-sm - Pathetic

Weah96

The proof is the nonsense written in the bible itself, talking snakes, resurrected human beings, and cheap magic tricks.

You said they took drugs like you did, all I asked was for proof; some historical evidence that we can refer to that they did. You are running away with your tail between your legs because you can't back up your statement.

Imagine, dozens of authors from different times and sometimes thousands of years apart where on "mushrooms" and supported the same hallucination theme? Such explanation is evidence of too much "illegal mush-rooms" . So, all Biblical authors got it wrong and you got it right? Amazing!

I don't believe in fairies bro, only your dishonest nature is preventing you from acknowledging what I've repeated here countless times.

Really, what beings do you see when you are high on your illegal mushrooms? Remember, you have it posted on online forum the experience when you are hallucinating from the after effects of your "mushrooms"

I only wish that your wife comes home pregnant with one of these fatherless virgin children

So, a woman can only get pregnant through sex.ual intercourse?

Weah96

Illegal drug is a meaningless phrase. MLK once said that legality doesn't determine what's right or wrong, you simpleton.

Let's test your logic - go steal someones car and say you didn't think it was wrong. If that doesn't work - go and kill someone and say the definition of murder is subjective. Here is an easy one - don't pay your taxes and say the government is a thief . Your stupidi.ty annoys me

It was once illegal to share water fountains with white people. People went to jail for breaking that law.

What has that got to do with drugging yourself to see fairies?

My friend, your bible was written by drug users. Deal with it. Hahaha

All I have asked you to do is provide proof of your claim. If you insist on been stupid; I can't stop you - you have done a pretty good job with that already

davien:
job...ruth...song of solomon...psalms....proverbs....chronicles etc

Sorry mate, I missed this post - will respond shortly

Weah96

Notice how only the high priest was allowed to enter the second tabernacle during service, in Hebrews 9:7, that's where the manna was kept daily.

I believe the fairies told you this; oh wait it was the cookie monster

Do I look like a fool to you? The biblical stories match the kinds of stories that native doctors and shamans would tell newly enrolled apprentices before feeding them magic plants. Hahaha.

Who cares what you believe? I for one certainly don't. I find it hard to debate someone who has no historical clue about the subject they are discussing especially when that person is a drug addict on illegal drugs. . You were the same idiot that claimed Jesus never existed - how can I debate someone like you?

Weah96

Dude, you're as ignorant as they come. Your Biblical writers took drugs and couldn't distinguish fantasy from reality. I can. Deal with it.

. I have asked you for proof but so far you have insisted on been stubborn even against history. I find it hard to argue with a drug addict

I don't believe in talking snakes, and virgin baby mamas, even though I consume recreational magic shrooms.

But you believe in talking fairies, cookie monsters when you are over-dosed yourself with illegal drugs? Cha - stupidi.ty is instead a gift to some

Is it a coincidence that the location of said fight was Peniel, or the pineal gland, the source of visual hallucination in humans. Hahaha.

You can justify your illegal drug use all you want. I don't need to hallucinate to realize that humans didn't come from fish or that the earth and heavens is not some freak accident that got us here

Let's examine the description of your manna in exodus, and see if it doesn't sound like a description of mushrooms.

Awwww, you want to find justification for your illegal drugs use in the Bible? You will have to try harder than that Bros

The only difference between your authors and myself resides in the fact that I don't consume the quantity of entheogens that they regularly did. The reason is simple, I have a real job and can't afford to be lying around the house geeked up to my eyeballs.

Can you prove they used entheogens apart from your usual rants. If you can't; please shutup and sit down

Btw, entheogens are legal in many parts of south America where they occupy a traditional religious role, so spare me your appeal to the authority of the government.

Say that to the feds when you are caught and believe you me; you won't be hallucinating when you are in prison

Cigarettes kill 450k people in the US annually and yet they're legal. Cannabis is illegal even though it hasn't yet killed anyone.

Malu - does that make it right? What has legality got to do with morals?

Is that the kind of judgment you expect me to revere? Do you know what a political lobby is?

Bros, sit down and take a chill pill.

Weah96

There are edible mushrooms, psychedelic mushrooms, and even poisonous ones.
I'm referring to psychedelic mushrooms.

So you are taking stimulants or drugs that produce hallucinations and see fairies? It is difficult to know if the mushrooms are psilocybin mushrooms because poisonous mushrooms also cause hallucinogenic effects. Some users experience such extremely unpleasant hallucinations that the fear of that experience remains with them for life such aggravate conditions like schizophrenia, mania, or depression.

The psychological consequences of psilocybin found in psychedelic mushrooms use include hallucinations and an inability to discern fantasy from reality. Panic reactions and psychosis also may occur, particularly if a user ingests a large dose.

You should be ashamed to present those examples as proof that virgins do give birth. I accept your concession.

Did you or did you not ask for example? The issue here is simple; you do not believe in God nor miracles so how would virgin birth make any sense to you? But you rather take illegal drugs (YES, IT IS ILLEGAL) and hallucinate as evidence of your connection with the divine - truly pathetic! You believe in consciousness and fairies when under a drug when you can't actually explain their origins but you deny "God" because you can't explain His origin - double standard huh?

Pr0ton:
Alexis.. You could distort the book of Isaiah 7 from now till...eternity. Any one who's open-minded and reads the whole of Isaiah 7 will know that the child to be born (VS 14) is not Jesus, because during Jesus's birth there were no "two kings whose land would be deserted" before He would know "how to choose good and refuse evil" as 7:16 continues the prophecy in 7:14. It would be ridiculous to deem that these two kings were still alive after 700 years.

The fulfilment is in the next chapter(Isa where Isaiah's wife gives birth to a son, he isn't named Emmanuel tho, but God promises that "before the child could cry 'my father' and' my mother' the riches of Damascus and spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria" (8:4). The child was referred to as Immanuel in verse 8 anyway.

The Hebrew word used in 7:14 is almah which simply means a young woman (virgin or not). If Isaiah was REALLY referring to a virgin he would have used the MAIN Hebrew word for it, "bethulah". He didn't so it's not.

You are the one insisting it was not Jesus. You are also the one insisting Daniel wasn't talking about Jesus. I have given you Biblical examples but you are insisting it isn't. What else do you want me to do?

Weah96

Mushrooms are eaten, like garden eggs, not taken.

Alot of people eat mushrooms and don't see fairies Weah. I eat mushrooms and not see fairies either. So, obviously you are not telling us what kind of mushrooms these are or you are playing pretend

And you've still not shown me any recorded incidents of virgin births.

I sent you a link where you said they were making fun of Virgin births and there were examples in there. What else do you want?

You instead directed me to a website that mocks the phenomenon.

Did that link mentioned examples of virgin births or not?

Pr0ton:
Alexis you didn't get my point, did you?

In the time of king Ahaz , king of Judah, two kings (king Rezin and king Petach) planned to rise against Judah. Ahaz was troubled and terrified, together with the house of David. But God, being the God of Judah, sent his prophet, Isaiah, to strengthen the mind of king Ahaz assuring him that the conspiracy of these two kings against him would not come to pass. God through Isaiah asked Ahaz to ask for a sign to be convinced that God would keep His promise. Ahaz didn't want to doubt God so he refused to ask. However, God Himself gave Ahaz a sign. The sign was that a young woman would give birth to a child whose name would be Immanuel. God didn't stop there. He further said,
"Before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, THE LAND WHOSE TWO KINGS YOU ARE IN DREAD SHALL BE DESERTED." I.E before that child would be able to differentiate good from evil, King Ahaz opponents would be deserted which didn't happen when Jesus was born(700yrs later).

Let me try and give you more historical background - I will continue where I left off

The Distress in the House of David because of Rezin and Pekah – 7:1, 2

The first two verses give us the historical setting for this chapter. The events recorded take place in the “days of King Ahaz of Judah.” It was during this time that Rezin, the Syrian king whose throne was in Damascus brought his army up to Ephraim because he had an alliance with Pekah, the king of Israel. In verse one, the verb “went up” (to Jerusalem) is singular and seems to indicate that Rezin was the instigator of the plot to overthrow Ahaz and he was dragging Pekah along with him as his co-conspirator (7:1; cf. 10:27-32).

A few years earlier, Ephraim and Damascus had invaded Judah and killed 120,000 Judeans soldiers in one day because the Judeans had forsaken the LORD. Also, 200,000 women and children were taken captives to Samaria, but were later released at the urging of the prophet Oded (II Chron. 28:5-15).

Their main objective, however, was not met, so they prepared a second incursion against Judah in which to overthrow King Ahaz. Judean intelligence was aware of the Syrian troop movements and informed the House of David: “Syria’s forces are deployed in Ephraim.” This was not good news for Ahaz. He, like all the rest of Judah, was “shaking in his boots” (to use an American slang). The Judean equivalent was used by Isaiah: “The heart(s) of his [Ahaz] people were moved as the trees of the woods are moved with the wind” (7:2). One of the members of the House of David was a young teen-age boy named Hezekiah. At this time, he was probably 15 years old. As this chapter unfolds, we will see that he was the primary recipient of one of the most astounding prophecies given to the nation of Judah.

The Planned Destruction of the House of David by Rezin and Pekah – 7:3-9

The Judean intelligence service was aware of the troop movements in the north, but God’s intelligence service would reveal the true intentions of the kings of Syria and Israel.

The LORD instructed Isaiah and his son, Shear-Yashuv, to meet Ahaz at the “end of the aqueduct from the upper pool, on the highway to the Fuller’s field”1 (7:3). Ahaz was probably there because he was checking out the water system to see if any damage had been done when the city was first besieged by the Syro-Ephraimite confederacy (II Kings 16:5).

God instructed Isaiah to take his son because they were a sign to Israel and Judah (Isa. 8:18). The name Shear-Yashuv means “A remnant shall return.” This son was born after the call of Isaiah, in the year King Uzziah died (6:13). He was brought to meet Ahaz, a believer in the LORD (cf. 7:11), with the intent that this would be an encouragement for him to return to the Lord (6:10, 13).

Underlying this whole passage is the unconditional promise made by the Lord to David in the Davidic Covenant. This covenant promised David that one of his sons (or descendents) would sit upon the throne of David, in Jerusalem, forever and ever (II Sam. 7: 12-17; I Chron. 17: 11-15; I Kings 8:25; 2:3, 4; 9:5).

Ahaz was “trembling in his boots” at this point, but God instructs Isaiah to give him two positive and two negative commands in order to show him that he has nothing to fear. Isaiah says, “Take heed, and be quiet,” the two positive commands. Then he says, “do not fear or be fainthearted,” the negative commands. Then Isaiah gives the reason why he has nothing to fear and also reveals the plot of the Syro-Ephraimite confederacy. He calls Rezin and Pekah “two stubs of smoking firebrands” (7:4). In essence he is saying they are nothing but “hot air,” there is no fire in them. They are smoldering embers and their strength is gone. Perhaps Isaiah called King Ahaz’s attention to another promise of God: “Do not be afraid of sudden terror, nor of trouble from the wicked when it comes; for the LORD will be your confidence, and will keep yout foot from being caught.” Faith and fear are contrary to one another (Prov. 3:25, 26).

Isaiah then reveals the ultimate goal of the Syro-Ephraimite confederacy which was to replace King Ahaz with a puppet king, identified as one of the “sons of Tabeel.”2 This individual would then bring Judah into the coalition against Assyria.

There are far reaching implications for this plot to overthrow King Ahaz. If Pekah and Rezin successfully overthrew Ahaz and the House of David and placed one of the sons of Tabeel on the throne, the Davidic line would be wiped out and God could not fulfill His promise to David, i.e. the Lord Jesus would never have been born! But God is faithful to His promises.

You will recall the words of the angel Gabriel to Mary when he appeared to her in Nazareth: “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of His kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:30-33). If the Davidic dynasty was overthrown, and the Messianic line eliminated, God would not be faithful to His promise to David. In the “conflict of the ages” between God and Satan, Satan would be victorious because there would be no Davidic Messiah to sit on the throne of David in Jerusalem.

In verses 7-9, the LORD God gives two prophetic assurances and one warning to Ahaz. The first prophetic assurance is that this plot will not stand, nor will not come to pass (7:7). In other words, “It ain’t gawna happen, and it didn’t.” The second prophetic assurance is that within 65 years Ephraim will be broken (7:. The warning that the Lord gives to Ahaz is that if he does not trust the Lord, his kingdom shall not be established (7:9). In other words, he will be removed from the throne.

The second prophetic assurance was fulfilled during the reign of Esarhaddon, king of Assyrian (680-669 BC). Hugh Williamson’s comments on Ezra 4:2 might be helpful. He has observed: “Nowhere else in the OT are we told that Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, was responsible for settling foreigners in Israel. The major tradition, as found in 2 Kings 17, suggests a much earlier settlement by Sargon II” (1985:49). He goes on to say: “Support for its historicity comes first from Isa. 7:8, whose reference to sixty-five years may well bring us to the reign of Esarhaddon, and second from the historical texts of Esarhaddon’s reign, which testify to his successful campaign in the west and which thus suggest a plausible setting for a policy of resettlement” (1985:49, 50). The Assyrian resettlement policy would have finally broken Ephraim.

The warning that was given to Ahaz was that he would be removed from the throne if he did not trust the LORD God: “If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established” (7:9). The important word of this warning is “establish.” In the Hebrew, this warning is a word play: “eem lo ta-a-mee-noo, key lo tey-a-may-noo” It is difficult to translate this Hebrew word play into English, but the NIV made an attempt. They translated it as: “if you do not stand firm, you will not stand at all.” In essence, what this verse is saying is this: If you insist on trusting Tiglath-Pileser III and not the LORD in this situation, it will not be Rezin and Pekah that remove you from your throne, but rather the Lord will remove you as king, yet He will still be faithful to His promises to David.

The words of this warning go back to the Davidic Covenant. God promised David that his kingdom would be established forever (II Sam. 7:16; I Chron. 17:23, 24; Ps. 78:70; Ps. 89). Of David’s son, Solomon, and by implication all the other descendents, God, acting as a loving Father, would chasten them if they are disobedient to the Word of God. But His mercy would never depart from the House of David (II Sam. 7:13-15).

Ahaz did not want to trust the Lord in this situation, but rather, he bribed Tiglath-Pileser III to save him from Pekah and Rezin (II Kings 16:7, 8; II Chron. 28:16-25). The Chronicler recounts that “in the time of his distress King Ahaz became increasingly unfaithful to the LORD” (II Chron. 28:22). His trust was in Tiglath-Pileser III and not the Lord in this situation. He also thought he was indispensable for the program of God. Yet God, not Rezin and Pekah, would remove Ahaz from his throne.

This same principle is seen in the New Testament. The Apostle Paul, writing to the church at Corinth, uses athletic terminology to describe the Christian life (I Cor. 9:24-27). He states: “But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified” (9:27). Paul is not talking about loosing ones salvation because a believer in the Lord Jesus is eternally secure in Christ (John 5:24; 6:39, 40; 19:28, 29; Rom. 8:38, 39; I Tim. 1:12; I John 5:9-13). He is, however, saying that it is possible for a believer to be disqualified from the race of the Christian life and not be used of the Lord anymore. The sad results will be that the believer will be “ashamed” at the return of the Lord Jesus and “suffer lose” of rewards at the Judgment Seat of Christ (I John 2:28; II Cor. 5:10; I Cor. 3:12-15).

These words of assurance and warning should encourage the House of David. When they saw the near fulfillment come to pass in 65 years, they could be confident that the next prophetic oracle that God would give would be accomplished as well, even if it was hundreds of years later.

The Declaration to the House of David – 7:10-17

In verses 10-12, the Lord confronts Ahaz. The LORD seems to imply that Ahaz is a believer in verse 11 when he challenges him to “Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God”, a sign that could strengthen his faith in the Lord (cf. Isa. 38). But Ahaz responded piously, using the language of Scripture that he would not (7:12). He reasoned that if he saw the sign, he would have to respond in a positive way to the Word of God. He would have to trust the LORD and not Tiglath-Pileser III, something he did not want to do. Ahaz was using the language of faith because he knew the Word of God, but he was in rebellion to the Lord (cf. Jonah 2:1-9; 4:1-3). Ahaz had a very high opinion of himself. He thought he was indispensable to the plan of God.

In verses 13-17, the LORD comforts the House of David. Isaiah turns his attention to the House of David. Apparently he was in the royal court with members of the Davidic family. Most likely Prince Hezekiah would have been there. At this point in time, he was a teen-ager, about 15 years old. The warning had been given to Ahaz that he would be set aside (disqualified) from ruling. He would not be “established”, but the House of David was reassured that the Davidic dynasty would still be established.

Isaiah stated: “Therefore the Lord (Adoni) Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son and shall call his name Immanuel” (7:14). The word “you” in verse 14 is plural. In other words, he is no longer talking to Ahaz, but the whole house of David. The sign of the virgin born son, Immanuel, was directed primarily toward Hezekiah in order to encourage him to trust the Lord. A few years later, when he came to the throne, he instituted a great revival in that first year. His trust was only in the Lord.

The Hebrew word for “virgin” in verse 14 is “almah”. This word is never used in the Hebrew Scriptures of a married woman, but is used of a young woman of marriageable age (Gen. 24:43; Ex. 2:8; Ps. 68:26; Song of Sol. 1:3; 6:8; Prov. 30:18). Within the Israelite culture, one who is a virgin at the time of marriage is understood. There is another Hebrew word, “betula” that specifically means a virgin.

Interestingly, in the third century BC, seventy Jewish scholars got together in Alexandria, Egypt, and translated the Hebrew Bible into the Greek language. The translation, called the Septuagint (LXX), was for those Jewish people living in the Diaspora, or outside the Land of Israel, who spoke only Greek. When they came to the word “almah”, they translated it with the Greek word “parthenos” which is at the root of the word “parthenogenesis” that means “development of an egg without fertilization”. These translators understood the word to mean virgin in the technical sense of the word.

In the New Testament, Dr. Luke, describes the miraculous conception of the Lord Jesus in the virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit in Luke 1:27, 34-38. Matthew also records the conception by the Holy Spirit in Matthew 1:18-25. In verse 23, Matthew follows the Septuagint when he quotes Isaiah 7:14 and uses the Greek word “parthenos”.

Some evangelical expositors have sought a dual fulfillment of this passage and try to identify Immanuel with either Hezekiah or the child of the prophetess who was Isaiah’s wife (8:3), and then also Jesus. These two suggested identifications collapse on historical and theological grounds. First, Hezekiah was already born and was one of those in the royal court hearing this prophecy. Second, Immanuel could not be the son of the prophetess because she had already given birth to Shear-Yashub (7:3), thus she was not a virgin. The name Immanuel, “God with us” indicates that the Child will be God manifested in human flesh. Two chapters later, Isaiah would call Him the “Mighty God” (Isa. 9:6). There was One, and only one Person, who could fulfill this passage and that was the Lord Jesus Christ.

There are actually three aspects to the nature of this Child. First, He would be virgin born. Second, He would have a humble beginning. And third, He would have a sinless nature, thus divine. The first part of verse 15 states: “Curds and honey He shall eat.” These are the food of the poor, not a symbol of a royal diet (contra Young 1992:I:291). The sign to shepherds was that He would be born in poor circumstances (Luke 2:10-12), not royal surroundings. When Mary dedicated her first-born in the Temple, she offered two turtle doves, the offering of the poor (Luke 2:22-24; cf. Lev. 12:. The wise men did not arrive until a year, to a year and a half after the birth of the Lord Jesus, before they presented Jesus with gold, frankincense and myrrh.

Verse 15 goes on to say, “that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good.” In this passage Isaiah is pointing out the sinless nature of the Child. Unlike us (and Hezekiah and Isaiah’s children), who by nature are sinful human beings that choose evil and refuse the good (Rom. 1-3), this Child will have a sinless nature as demonstrated by the fact that He chooses good and refuses evil.

Isaiah takes this prophecy and applies the time frame of the Child to the present situation. He continues: “For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good” [that is, before He was born], “the land that you dread [Samaria] will be forsaken by both her kings” (7:16). To put it another way, after the defeat of Pekah and Rezin, Immanuel would be born. How much time after, Isaiah did not know (cf. I Pet. 1:10, 11). He did not have a prophecy chart in front of him with an arrow pointing to May 14, 6 BC to mark the birth of Immanuel. Yet he believed Immanuel would one day be born.

It would be helpful to tell “the rest of the story.” Isaiah had admonished Ahaz to trust the Lord only, yet Ahaz wanted to trust Tiglath-Pileser III to take care of his foreign policy problems. Ahaz goes to Damascus to pay tribute and homage to Tiglath-Pileser III who, at this time, was not only king of Assyria, but Babylon as well (II Kings 16:9, 10). Isaiah warns Ahaz again about trusting Tiglath-Pileser III (Isa. 14:3-21) and reveals the king’s true intentions to Ahaz. The king of Assyria and Babylon wanted to “sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north” (Isa. 14:13; cf. Ps. 48:1-3). His intentions were to conquer Jerusalem! Ahaz would not believe this. In apparently what was the “straw that broke the camel’s back”, Ahaz made a plan of the altar that he saw in Damascus and sent it back to Jerusalem to be constructed. When he got back to Jerusalem, he offered sacrifices on this unbiblical altar (II Kings 16:10-18). God’s patience and long-suffering ran out and Ahaz dies soon after in 727 BC (Isa. 14:28).

Prince Hezekiah had apparently paid attention to Isaiah’s warnings as he saw what transpired in his father’s life because in the first year of King Hezekiah’s reign, there is a great revival. He reinstituted the Passover and Biblical worship in the Temple in Jerusalem and got rid of the idolatry taking place in the Kingdom of Judah (II Chron. 32:29-31; II Kings 18:2-5). Judah had been heading for destruction because of Ahaz’s idolatry, but Hezekiah brought the people back to the Lord and the Lord, in mercy, intervened. Tiglath-Pileser III was struck down in Damascus the same year that Ahaz died and judgment from God was averted on Jerusalem. The prophet Micah also predicted the impending judgment on Jerusalem but because Hezekiah brought the people back to the Lord, the Lord did not carry out His planned judgment (Micah 3:12; cf. Jer. 26:16-19).

For the first time in the book of Isaiah, the Assyrians are mentioned by name as an instrument of God’s judgment (7:17; cf. Isa. 10:5). Judgment was stayed in the first year of Hezekiah’s reign, but they would come back at least two more times during Hezekiah’s lifetime (Franz 1987). The most devastating invasion would be in the year 701 BC. At this time, most of Judah was destroyed, but Jerusalem and the House of David was spared because Hezekiah trusted the LORD.

Weah96

Why are you showing me that link? Hahaha. Did you even read it? The article is making fun of virgin births, not supporting the idea.

Just the way you are making fun; however you asked for instances didn't you?

Your biblical authors were under the influence of entheogens, just like the modern herbalists, shamans, and native doctors.

Really? Any proof?

Their personal hallucinations have nothing to do with me. I share mine for the purpose of generating amusement and general insight.

At least you admitted you are on substance. Please provide proof of Biblical authors taking substance like yourself?

They obviously consumed a lot more mushrooms than I did, because what they saw were bigger than fairies.

Perhaps you should take more mushrooms, perhaps 2.5 billion people that believe their account might dis-believe theirs and take you serious

I envy them, but for different reasons.

Your cup of tea Bros

Pr0ton:
Alexis.. You accuse me of not reading Bibical history?? LOL

I think you've just made the biggest mistake by quoting OT prophecies to prove the authencity of Jesus as the Messiah I'm interestingly good at prophecies you know.

Isa 7 has nothing to say about Jesus. As I said earlier those guys twisted OT scriptures to fit their fabricated Jesus.

Isa 7:1 talks about king Rezin and king Pekah conspiring against King Ahaz, king of Judah
Isa 7:2 King Ahaz troubled
Isa 7:3-6 God sends Isaiah to gee them up and assure them that the plans of the two kings "shall not stand, and shall not come to pass" (7)
Isa 7:9-11 God tells "Ahaz, ask a sign of the LORD your God" to be assured of the promise.
Isa 7:12 Ahaz being a gentle doesn't ask.
Well then, "the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a YOUNG WOMAN shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'uel." 14
"Before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, THE LAND WHOSE TWO KINGS YOU ARE IN DREAD SHALL BE DESERED"16

That is why I said you need to read biblical history:

In Isaiah chapter 7, God demonstrates His faithfulness to a promise that He made with King David concerning the Davidic dynasty by giving the ultimate sign to the House of David. The sign would be a virgin born Son named Immanuel, God with us. If you examine this passage carefully, we will see from the historical context that Matthew is not taking verse 14 out of context in order to “proof-text” the virgin birth of Jesus. Moreover, the context is clearly pointing to the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus as the fulfillment of this passage in Isaiah 7. The Lord Jesus Christ is the sinless Immanuel and God manifest in human flesh

In the Eighth Century BC there was a king of Judah named Ahaz. He had heard about a planned coup d’etat by two other kings that wanted to overthrow him and replace him with a puppet king. Ahaz was a believer in the Lord but was living in sin, sadly it was gross sin. He had an arrogant spiritual attitude because he thought he was indispensable to the plan, program, and purposes of God. In his thinking, God needed him more than he needed to walk with God and let Him work in his life. That is a dangerous attitude to have, especially when you are dealing with the Living God.

Historical Background

The events of the reign of King Ahaz are recorded in II Kings 16 and II Chronicles 28. The summary statement of his spiritual walk with the Lord is very alarming. It states:

...and he did not do what was right in the sight of the LORD, as his father David had done. For he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and made molded images for the Baals. He burned incense in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, and burned his children in the fire, according to the abominations of the nations whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel. And he sacrificed and burned incense on the high places, on the hills, and under every green tree (II Chron. 28:1b-4).

Yet apparently he had trusted the Lord at one time in his life for his eternal salvation. The Bible seems to indicate that he had a relationship with God (not a great one, but a relationship none the less). In II Kings 16:2 it says he did not walk in the sight of the LORD his God. II Chronicles 28:5 says that “the LORD his God delivered him into the hand of the king of Syria.” Even the LORD Himself said to Ahaz, “Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God” (Isa. 7:11). Yahweh was his God, yet Ahaz was terribly unfaithful to Him (II Chron. 28:22). King Ahaz is not a person we should hold up as a role model, except as a warning to those believers in the Lord Jesus who are unfaithful to the Lord and have gotten away from Him (I Cor. 10:6).

The event and conversations recorded in Isaiah 7 took place in the year 734/733 BC. It was a time when Ahaz was having problems with his neighbors to the north. Israel, with its capital in Samaria and ruled by Pekah, and Syria, with its capital in Damascus and ruled by Rezin, wanted Ahaz to join a coalition of nations to fight against the “super power” of the day, Assyria, ruled by Tiglath-Pileser III. Ahaz was not a godly or spiritual man, but he was politically smart. He knew that the coalition could not stand up against the mighty Assyrian army, so he declined the invitation. This brought about the second Syro-Ephraimite incursion against Judah. Syria and Ephraim joined forces again to try and overthrow King Ahaz.

In order to get Judah to join the coalition, Pekah and Rezin hatched a plot to overthrow Ahaz and put a “puppet king” on the throne that would bring Judah into the coalition. To back up their conspiracy, Syria deployed troops in Samaria. Ahaz got wind of this plot and began to “shake in his boots.” He started to make secret overtures to the Assyrian king to get Pekah and Rezin off his back (II Kings 16:7, . His trust was in Tiglath-Pileser III and not the LORD.

In this chapter, Isaiah reminded Ahaz that God had made a covenant with David and promised him that a Davidic ruler would one day sit upon the throne of David forever (II Sam. 7:12-17).

Again, please study history - I take God beg you

Pr0ton

I would have held my peace if you did not say that the term 'son of man' in Dan 7:13-14 is a Messianic title. Worst of all, saying it is also referring to Jesus when the Old Testament writers never wrote anything about the Jesus of Christianity, as the New Testament writers only TWISTED scriptures in the Old Testament to fit their fabricated Jesus and religion.

It's evident that you don't read Biblical history. Isaiah 7:14 and 53: 3-7 is an OT prophet that wrote about Jesus. Zechariah 9:9 is another OT prophet. The “seventy sevens” prophecy in Daniel chapter 9 predicted the precise date that Jesus, the Messiah, would be “cut off.” Isaiah 50:6 accurately describes the beating that Jesus endured. Zechariah 12:10 predicts the “piercing” of the Messiah, which occurred after Jesus died on the cross. Many more examples could be provided, but these will suffice. The Old Testament most definitely prophesies the coming of Jesus as the Messiah.

One is that the chapter never talks about a Messiah. You took verses 13 and 14 out of context. You should have read the explanation in the other verses. When you continue to read from verse 14 downwards you'll see that the term 'son of man' who's receiving "dominion and glory and kingdom" (14) to whom "all peoples, nations, and languages should serve" (14) is equivalent to "saints of the Most High" (18) who "received the kingdom" (18) whose "kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them." (27)

So, who are these verses talking about?

In sum, the prophecy is all about the Israelites not a Jesus who lived hundreds centuries after.

Israelite s are the ones refered to in Daniel 7?

Weah96

Cocaine and heroin are NOT entheogens. Get your drugs right, I never said they were rock stars

.

You have to induce yourself to experience fairies Bros - you can call it any name you want. The fact is you have to be under the influence of some kind of substance

Quit this appeal to traditional values tactic my brother. I'm impervious to it.

That is your cup of tea.

Since you believe that virgins give birth, contrary to the findings of medical science, kindly tell us where the last recorded event was witnessed

.

You sound ignorant - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/22/the-strange-science-behind-virgin-births.html

Let me see the gospel of Joseph, the step father of Jesus. He may have had one or two things to say about that whole virginity business.

Try this, take a large dose of your entheogens; ask one of the fairies you meet to take you back 2000 years and consult Joseph on it. If that doesn't work - do some historical research and stop displaying your ignorance on historical matters on a public forum

davien:
alexis so you think 66 authors wrote the bible? lmao!
Much of the bibles authors are unknown...those that are known contradict themselves on the things they allegedly also wrote....raising more eye-brows .....those 66 books of today were voted to be in the bible....the books chosen still contain passages referring you to the unadded books.....

My mistake - I meant different authors wrote 66 books. You said most of the Bible authors are unknown; which of the books of the Bible are the authors unknown?

gatiano:
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5: 17-20 (this was the Beautiful, righteous Jesus of 2000 years ago), He did not come to change the old testaments, for the old testaments is the Torah (the book of law of GOD), thus everything will pass away, not the words of GOD until they are fulfilled, which meant, that they are not fulfilled yet. (moses crossing the red sea is a future event, not far again).

I will now introduce you to the Jesus who is been expected now,

Matthew 10: 34-37
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

You can read down further the verse, this was the verses i was refering to. And if you look around the world today, doesn't it seem that there is Jesus presence in our midst?

I do sincerely believe that you have a wonderful soul, and all your wishes and thoughts are of your best, however, like i said, never cut out words that go contuary to your beliefs and throw verses that serves your arguments. that will make you unjust and a bad judge. to the Quran 2: 191, why didn't you quote them from the verses 190 atleast. or to expanciate better if you understand, start it from 189th verse, states:

189 They ask thee of the new moons. Say: They are times appointed for men, and (for) the pilgrimage.
And it is not righteousness that you enter the houses by their backs, but he is righteous who keeps his duty.
And go into the houses by their doors; and keep your duty to Allåh, that you may be successful.

190 And fight in the way of Allåh against those who fight against you but be not aggressive. Surely Allåh
loves not the aggressors.

191 And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, and persecution is worse than slaughter.
And fight not with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it; so if they fight you (in it), slay them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

and kill them whereever you find them,! why not? if an enemy comes to your house, would you let him kill you and your family? shouldn't you fight back? common sense makes us to fight back, it is natural for all living organism. and where ever you find them around your domain, yet unrepented, won't your enemy come back again? peradventure they come back, kill you and your family, would you blame GOD? you can't cause you have ceased to become a human being or animal is you don't fight back. but if they repent/desist, not if they turned muslim then ALLAH/GOD is merciful. As verse 191 is an instruction, it is also an event that is to come. like you said, heaven and earth will pass away never the words.

Quran 2 ;62
Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allåh and the Last Day
and does good, they have their reward with their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

Is it written anywhere that only Muslims or must be Muslims?

now according to what you wrote, if anybody reads it, gets angry (a christian or jew), and goes out on a killing spree based on the incomplete fabrications that you wrote, who will GOD place the blame on? I DON'T KNOW, ALLAH KNOWS BEST.

Quran 2;216
Fighting is enjoined on you, though it is disliked by you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you,
and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you; and Allåh knows while you know not.

Fighting, but fighting who? fighting here also means struggle, striving, carrying one's cross, fighting the love and urges of material pleasure and feeling. i saw a beautiful woman, she has a nice back, i imagine carrying her on my laps. (dirty thoughts, i should resist that temptation, it is also fighting), things are tough, i must keep on trying and not commit suicide. when anybody comes to kill or fight you, fight back! if boko haram goes to villages to kill, the villagers should fight back to kill (allowed), you can see the kurds.


How can you quote Quran 3: 56, without 55 and 57? 56 starts with the word "then", no sentences starts in such manner, 57 starts with "And". how did you or how will you pass waec?

Quran 3: 55-57

55 When Allåh said: O Jesus, I will cause thee to die and exalt thee in My presence and clear thee of those who disbelieve
and make those who follow thee above those who disbelieve to the day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return,
so I shall decide between you concerning that wherein you differ.


56 Then as to those who disbelieve, I shall chastise them with severe chastisement in this world and the Hereafter,
and they will have no helpers.

57 And as to those who believe and do good deeds, He will pay them fully their rewards. And Allåh loves not the unjust.

verse 55, 56, 57 and 58 clears Jesus of false charges. because, he never said he was GOD, he never preached christianity, Jesus preached freedom, justice and equality. and most of all LOVE, for GOD IS LOVE AND LOVE IS GOD.
The jews call him a bastard and they call mary a LovePeddler (in their self made book thalmud).

and verse 56, if you declare that in your house, everybody must eat rice with vegetables or else no entry, it is either i comply with the owner of the house (you), or go some place else to eat potatoes or stay hungry.

brother, don't cut things in half, don't bear false witness.

as i am trying/fighting to be a good muslim so am i fighting/striving to be a good disiple of Jesus. disciple is from the word discipline. anybody that is disciplined by the lessons and the intructions of Jesus is his disciple(i hope i got the spelling right).

from Maulana Muhammah Ali translation.

The facts are simple - Islam didn't exist during the time of Jesus. It is stupi.dity to claim otherwise

Pr0ton:
No, God did.

Good, when God calls Ezekiel "son of man," it is a way of saying he is completely a man, a mere human creature in contrast to the Creator. So the term "son of man" in Ezekiel stresses Ezekiel's humility in contrast to God's glory.

Daniel 7:13 uses the term "one like a son of man" when describing a person coming in glory as God on the clouds, to stress that the Messiah is both divine and human. When Jesus used the term "the Son of Man" to describe himself, Jesus was referring to Daniel 7:13, not Ezekiel's use of the term.

The description “Son of Man” was a Messianic title. Jesus is the One who was given dominion and glory and a kingdom. When Jesus used this phrase, He was assigning the Son of Man prophecy to Himself. The Jews of that era would have been intimately familiar with the phrase and to whom it referred. Jesus was proclaiming Himself as the Messiah.

A second meaning of the phrase “Son of Man” is that Jesus was truly a human being. God called the prophet Ezekiel “son of man” 93 times. God was simply calling Ezekiel a human being. A son of a man is a man. Jesus was fully God (John 1:1), but He was also a human being (John 1:14). First John 4:2 tells us, “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.” Yes, Jesus was the Son of God—He was in His essence God. Yes, Jesus was also the Son of Man—He was in His essence a human being. In summary, the phrase “Son of Man” indicates that Jesus is the Messiah and that He is truly a human being.

Weah96

The evidence is the bible itself.

You said all the Bible writers took substance - I asked you for proof and you are here swallowing your tongue

Virgins don't give birth, snakes don't talk, dead people do not wake up after 3 days of relaxing in the soil.

You believe they don't - I believe they do.

But all these things are possible when the nervous system is under the influence of entheogens.

Oh yes - Cocaine and Heroine can make you see things

When was the last time you saw a virgin mother, or a dead man walking around one week after his funeral

Easy - do you believe in miracles?

The authors of the bible either intended it to be a completely fictional book, or they were HIGHER than even God himself.

So, 66 authors over different life-times all sat down together and decided it should be a fictional book?

Pr0ton:
It doesn't specify if it's Jesus or Ezekiel. Since the term 'Son of man' isn't limited to a person so it's literally implausible to know who it's referring to because Dan 7 uses symbols for illustration. If the Son of man there is referring to Jesus it'll be a surprise that no New Testament writer referred to it as Jesus. And assuming any did, what's your point?

Did Ezekial call himself Son of Man?

Pr0ton:
I know the term "Son of man" isn't labelled to Jesus only. Ezekiel is also called Son of man in Ezekiel 4:16-17(?)

But in the context of John13 the Son of man is apparently Jesus.

Read Daniel 7:13-14 and tell me if it was Ezekial or Jesus that is prophesied in that verse

Weah96:
Do you understand the relationship between a flock of sheep and a shepherd?

And what does tripping have to do with anything? Were the writers of the bible not hardcore drug addicts?

The only person that we have evidence that took any substance and that have confirmed it is you. If you have evidence of every single Bible writer taking substance; please bring proof.

gatiano:
Everything on earth and in the heavens obeys GOD completely except men.

That is not the point. The issue is your claim that everyone born irrespective of their race, clan, religious bearings were all Muslims and are all Muslims even if they are not aware about it - that is an outlandish claim that you haven't backed up yet

Weah96

The mere fact that you're writing all of this is evidence enough that your God doesn't exist.

Coming from someone that takes substance to induce experiences with fairies . Need I say more?

Why is he making you his minister of defence if both of us were created by him?

Just the same way you think He doesn't exist is the same way I think He does. Besides, are you not all knowing to claim that God doesn't exist?

Does that make sense to you? Don't you think he would have spoken for himself, like he did in the biblical records?

The answer is quite simple but for the fool; it can be quite complicated. The very same question had been asked multiple times and by your likes thousands of years ago:

John 10:24-27:

24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

The whole thing is a fabrication designed out of our fear of death.

Again, coming from someone that takes substance to induce meta-physical experiences. Let me give a discussion between a Physics professor and some of his students on the same subject:

Does evil exist?

The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists? A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!"

"God created everything? The professor asked.

"Yes sir", the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil". The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?"

"Of course", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.

The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

So, I am not going to argue with you since you are taking an absolute stance. In Einstein words:

We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God

Can you imagine what the experience of death must have felt like to a human being from antiquity? They had to make up something

When you die and IF you ever come back - please tell us your experience on death.

finofaya:
Chairman, good night.

When you said that your being here, thinking, is not proof that you are conscious, I knew you were lost. Please go and research these issues properly. Serious people don't even ask for proof that consciousness exists. You can confirm for yourself. I felt I should oblige you and this is what you are saying.

Bros, don't mis-represent me. Please find out the origins of consciousness and provide tangible proof that it exist - when you have; then come back and let us discuss your evidence of God

finofaya

I said "you are aware that you are". That is the proof, bro. The statement "I exist" suffices also. If consciousness did not exist, nothing could be aware of anything.

It doesn't prove consciousness. Having experiences is a measurement of what consciousness is but you don't know what it is. Assuming you are giving me a verbal proof of consciousness - will a verbal proof of God be enough as well?

You prove consciousness every time you think, feel, perceive etc. Its funny, really. Every time you try to prove it, you have proven it. Every time you try to disprove it, you have proven it. When you decide to go to the lab to prove it, you have proven it. When you say that it is subjective, you have proven it. It's basically all up in your face. What is subjective about consciousness? Does it exist for some people and not others or what?

Again, I am not talking about the experiences or effects of consciousness; that is all you have explained - I am asking you what it is?

You know, saying that consciousness is subjective ,i.e., not actually true, means that everything that is dependent on consciousness, such as your belief in God, is equally untrue.

It is subjective: we see different things, think different thoughts, feel different emotions, hold different values. All you are doing is saying consciousness proof is because we are aware. You are yet to tell me what it is; what is it's origin?

finofaya

The fuss is about how God has not been proven and yet people act as if he has. You have built a system on him, when you cannot demonstrate that he exists.

The contention is on the demonstration you want. Remember, you tried to prove consciousness yet didn't come close. However, you still believe it exist. Am I to write you off as not being serious since you apply one standard to prove consciousness but refuse to use the same standard to prove God.

You said that there are things that we all believe in even tho we cannot prove them. I then said that if God is one of those things, it would be correct to say that there is no evidence for God. If there were evidence, we would prove him at once, wouldn't we?

Again, it's the criteria of evidence. In your evidence of consciousness, it was your awareness and knowledge of awareness; while that is not tangible evidence, it is inherent knowledge that confirms consciousness exist

That's some good work, but what you have said amounts to cross checking the bible with itself. I meant you, alexis, have you given the issue of God being principled any thought yourself? You know we have to validate religious books with our observations of the world. If we validated a religious book with itself, every religious book would be valid. For the religious book to be true, whatever it states must be obtainable in reality so that you could verify it by looking at reality. Haven't you wondered how people came to know God before the bible was written? The things that you see in the bible must have been there for them to see, even without the bible. So look outside the bible and try to see how principled God is.

It amounts to verifying the contents of the Bible with earlier documents that predates the Bible. For example, the Bible claims Jesus was born and was later crucified. You have to verify that by historical documents such as the Roman accounts. Most importantly, you have to cross reference it with multiple independent accounts to confirm if the event is true as described in the Bible.

Lol. If he says that he doesn't lie, and you see evidence that he has lied, it means that he was being true his nature when he lied by saying that he doesn't lie.

That is the point, if I see evidence He lied then I know the God as He describe Himself is arbitrary and has gone against His own principles

What makes your life worth living; free will or freedom from pain? Any human being who lacks free will but who is guaranteed not to ever experience suffering will live a happier life than you. Besides, the issue is not whether we should have free will, but whether we can have free will when we were made by an all powerful God who has forseen everything we are going to do and will not hesitate to change our paths.

If we all didn't have free will and programmed as robots, we will not be having this discussion. You will keeping looping and confirming that God is Almighty and even when your hand is cut off; you will have no idea of pain even when you are in pain. You will not have emotions, you probably will have kids with your mother (no harm intended). I will choose free will any day

Read Exodus 22:20. I didn't make it up. The 10 commandments come from the old testament too, so you shouldn't pick one law out of the OT and leave out the other.

No one said you made it up. I am saying that verse was addressing Israelites. There is no where there that it was taught to enforce it on non-jews. Also, the laws of Moses are different from the law of God (10 commandments)

Thanks for the honesty, really. Let's not add homosexuality to this discussion just yet.

Not my intention

What I was hoping you would see is that God does not have to obey any rules.

By principle He does

You are forgetting the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, where homosexuals were rewarded with death.

Don't be hasty to put words in the Bible mouth; read Ezekiel 16:49-50

davien:
.cool....remember to explain to me how the contradiction "just and merciful" go hand in hand with your "god" proof...

Cool what?

finofaya:
You think therefore you are. And you are aware that you are. That is the proof of consciousness.

I exist whether I think or not - that doesn't prove consciousness. I know that I am black has nothing to do with consciousness either. My point is simple - the evidence of consciousness is subjective and is possibly not realistic either. To a scientist, it doesn't exist and can't be proven in a lab. So, if you use the standard of proving consciousness; you should know that I can use the same standard to prove God

finofaya

The difference is that I didn't say that God cannot be proven.

So, if God can be proven; what is the fuss all about?

What things? Anyway, if God is one thing that we cannot prove, it is correct to say that there is no evidence for him.

You just said above that God can be proven but you are saying her that we cannot prove Him again. Remember the question I asked you earlier? What is consciousness? Can you prove it?

Have you given it any thought yourself, or do you just take the bible's word for it?

Of course I have. I don't believe the Bible because it said so. I will speak authoritatively for the New Testament. Every single claim made in the new testament can be traced to the earliest manuscripts that were used to compile the Bible. So, I take the New Testament account word for it because it tallies up with history which can be traced and verified. I visited the new testament museum in the US where some of the earliest manuscripts dating back to the 2nd century were compared with what we have in the present day Bible; if you re-construct them word for word; you will have about 99.6% accuracy to what you have in the Bible.

I don't think it matters to him. As long as he is our creator, he can have whatever other attributes. Like you say, he is supreme. It is immaterial to his nature if he is for example, jealousy prone or known to keep grudges.

God attributes is what He describes for us. For example, He claims that He will never lie. So, if there is evidence that He lies; then He is going against His nature and attribute.

I'm not talking about proof of them, but of the contradictions they entail. Our freewill against Gods infinite knowledge and power.

You want a world where we are all robots? Will you like your kids to do everything and anything you say no matter what you tell them to do?

Christianity is not the only religion there is. Anyway, the bible requires you to kill unbelievers. See Exodus 22:20.

Please read the Bible some more for more understanding. These are the laws set aside by Moses for the children of Israel. There is no where it claims that if you don't accept Judaism or Christianity; you should be killed and teaches Christians should do the same. Please be a lil more honest

The disapproval I mean is one which is grounded on religious injunctions. That is, you are disapproved of solely because you either do or avoid doing something that another's religion enjoins you to avoid or to do.

There is no denying that and you are right. People follow the teachings of their religions. It is always good to give deep thoughts about the ideas and freedoms we want to endorse. For example, a man and a man can't produce a child yet they want to have the right to adopt a child. Going further, if 90% of the world were homosexuals; how long would we exist as a culture and race? These are not religious questions but rather grass-root questions that we should not be ashamed of discussing.

Lol.

For real man

This is what I mean when I say that you expect God to act according to your expectations. Isn't it possible that God would rather do something else?

It is not my expectation Bros. God has set His expectations of what He wants from me - Treat others as you expect to be treated - that is the golden rule in the Bible.

It was just an example, let's not go into the pros and cons of it here. The point I was trying to pass across is that most people discriminate against gays based on biblical injunctions. Without religion, there really is no good reason to hate them. We do not dislike other people that do not reproduce, why gays?

The Bible doesn't teach hate for gays Bros - the act of homosexuality is what the Bible discourages.

finofaya:
I don't quite follow. It is what the definition says it is.

Definition is a label that describes consciousness but it doesn't explain it or tells us what it actually is. I am a human being but that doesn't tell you anything about who I am.

Going further - what actually is consciousness? Can you see it? Can you measure or test for it in a lab? What tangible evidence is there or consciousness?

finofaya

Thanks man.

No shaking

Are you serious? Okay o. Here's a borrowed definition that I don't fault: consciousness is the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

I didn't ask you to define it - I said what is it?