Notices
Results 1 to 34 of 34

Thread: The kingdom of heaven and the mustard seed......

  1. #1 The kingdom of heaven and the mustard seed...... 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Would anyone care to guess what Jesus means when he said "The kingdom of heaven is smaller than a mustard seed".


    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: The kingdom of heaven and the mustard seed...... 
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    Would anyone care to guess what Jesus means when he said "The kingdom of heaven is smaller than a mustard seed".
    Few people will get to go there.


    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark 4:30-32
    "With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it? It is like a gran of mustard seed, which when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on the earth; yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade."

    Thus the nature of the kingdom of God is found in the nature of life itself, for all living things are like the mustard seed. They all begin as practically nothing and they grow to become great things. So isn't the parable saying that the kingdom of God is all about growth and becoming and creating great things, and not in having. This should be clear because every rich man who has obtained great power and wealth must simply look for more. This is why typical views of heaven as a great and blissful vacation don't make any sense at all. Happiness is found in the conquest of new territories (metaphorically speaking). So in looking for the kingdom of God we must ask about what is required for such growth and becoming. Will we find growth in vacations or in challenges?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    just as a word of warning, the above poster does not know what he is talking about and his explanation is just no where near the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    i am not at home right now but if asked i will do some research and post some better explanations to back up my words above.

    i am not making a personal attack upon the other poster but simply pointing out that his words there are in error.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Just as a word of warning, the above poster has replaced the word of God with the traditions of men. He does not read the Bible to see what God has to say to him. He goes to ask men what the Bible means so that he can replace the words of God with the words of these men.

    We can understand somewhat why he does this, for in his other posts he has made it clear that he does not know how to use his brain to any great degree and the words of these men are so much easier for him to understand and parrot. The whole idea of people actually using their brain makes him feel uncomfortable and inadequate, so he declares to anyone who does use their brain that they are failing to humble themselves to God and accept what archeolgist and his people say that God has said.

    I am reminded of the middle ages before the printing press when people had no copy of the Bible in their own language to read and so they had to have someone else read the Bible written in latin or greek for them. It is funny how the rampant increase in functional illiteracy has brought the world full cycle back to that era of ignorance, where once again so many who call themselves christian have to have someone else tell them what the Bible says.

    Anyway while archeologist is going to ask these men he uses for a brain to tell him what this passage means, lets take another look at Matthew 13:31-32, and see what else we can find, "The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field; it is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches." The ideas expressed in this parable is the concept of growth, something small having great potential, and something else coming into it to take residence there. It is in fact surrounded by parables with these same ideas: there is the parable of seeds falling on different kinds of ground (some invaded by weeds and others by birds), there is the parable of the field of good seed which enemies invade by sowing weeds, there is the parable saying that the kingdom of heaven is like leaven (or yeast, which represents both growth and contamination), there is the parable of treasure buried in a field, and there is the parable of a pearl of great price.

    These are all about growth and about something small being greater in value than everything else, and it is about discernment and not being deceived by superficial appearances - understanding what is valuable and fighting for it. The idea of contamination is there because whenever something grows large enough for other to take notice, they try make use of it for the selfish purposes. So when Jesus brings the truth to set people free, he plants a small seed, but when it grows larger that is when the vultures come and try to twist his message of liberation into somthing they can use to manipulate and control people, and that is why those like archeologist try to make it all about obedience, for that is exactly what suits their agenda for turning it into a tool of power and manipulation. In this we can see how to discern the real message from the contamination for the real message will be one that cannot be used for power and manipulation. We find this in apostle Paul's declaration that Christ is the only mediator between God man. If God is the only pope (father), Christ the only master and the Holy Spirit is the only teacher (Matt 23:8-10) then Christianity becomes useless as a tool of power. If it is Christ Himself who gathers and leads the body and God Himself who speaks to each person, then there is no room for anyone to claim that they speak for God. Thus the power mongers and manipulators will attack such ideas and insist that it is all about humbling yourself and believing what they tell you and only what they tell you. These are the birds that come to nest in the tree after it has grown.

    Wikipedia makes a very interesting observation by comparing the mustard plant to the lebanon cedar which would make more sense if this parable was just about a small seed growing into a might tree. The mustard plant by comparison is a weed and that suggest that the kingdom of heaven is something that people try to prevent, stamp out or control. It was in fact forbidden by Jewish law to plant mustard in a garden presumably because it grew like kudzu to take over the whole garden. That is a very nice image for me for it brings us back to my earlier comments that the kingdom of heaven is not to be found in the garden (i.e. vacation). So many confuse the kingdom of heaven with the paradise of Eden and think it is all about "putting the genie back in the bottle" and returning mankind to the some original state, and this explains why those like archeologist make ignorance a virture. But while salvation brings a restoration of our relationship with God, the gospel is not about returning to the garden and ignorance.

    This article also makes the very interesting observation that Jesus use of parable indicates that he taught by encouraging people to think and explore the truth rather than dictate the truth in the manner of archeologist and his brainwashers.


    I am not making a personal attack upon the other poster but simply helping people to understand where he is coming from and why he behaves the way he does.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    wow, for my 4 lines we get an 8 paragraph response. some people take some things a little too seriously or personally.

    i do not have tim ethis weekend but will try to get some research done and post some differing opinions from the reactive m.m. next week

    He does not read the Bible to see what God has to say to him. He goes to ask men what the Bible means so that he can replace the words of God with the words of these men.
    this is so funny. as is ...

    Wikipedia makes a very interesting observation by comparing the mustard plant to the lebanon cedar which would make more sense if this parable was just about a small seed growing into a might tree
    talk about replacing God's word with the words of men. onedoes not go to wikipedia for spiritual guidance, they go to real men of God who know more than they do.

    i am glad i did not read the whole 8 paragraphs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    i think mitchellmckain is threatened by me or he wouldn't be so much on the attack.. of course i think that the other evolutionists are threatened by me as well as they continue to do personal attacks without provocation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    i think mitchellmckain is threatened by me or he wouldn't be so much on the attack..
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    talk about replacing God's word with the words of men. onedoes not go to wikipedia for spiritual guidance, they go to real men of God who know more than they do.
    I am reminded of the Om cult in Japan whose dogma taught that only their members should be considered real human beings and thus they set of poison gas in the subway to kill all the non-humans. Well regardless of archeologist's power mongering dogmas, Wikipedia is written by real men of all different persuasions and the fact that I mention them means that I respect what all sorts of people say without making sure that they are a part of some power block of mine, like archeologist.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i am glad i did not read the whole 8 paragraphs.
    LOL Of course not. It is no surprise that if that since functional illiteracy prevents archeologist from reading the Bible itself, then of course he would also find any serious and honest examination of a Biblical passage exploring many ideas to be too onerous for him to read.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i think mitchellmckain is threatened by me or he wouldn't be so much on the attack.. of course i think that the other evolutionists are threatened by me as well as they continue to do personal attacks without provocation.
    Hmmmm??? I wonder how he think that he threatens me personally? That archeologist and the people like him are a threat, is easy for everyone on this forum to see quite clearly: His nonsensical rhetoric is a threat to sanity and to clear and rational thinking. His fascist attitudes is a threat to religious liberty and the respect for the diversity of human thought. He comes here to attack science and to promote this agenda of those who made this propaganda "Expelled" which would try put the sciences back under the dominion of theology and to ban scientific inquiry into the origin of life and the species.

    Every ideal is naturally limited by its opposite. If we would uphold tolerance we must fight against those who are intolerant and who promote intolerance. If we would uphold reason we must fight against those who are irrational and promote irrational thinking. If we would uphold modern science for all the good it has done for mankind then we must fight against those who seek to destroy science by absorbing it back into theology to return us to the dark ages and fight against who would ban scientific inquiry to protect their ignorance.

    This biggest threat is that archeologist will make people believe the lie that Christianity represents intolerance, irrationality and the opposition to science, and thus he represents the same kind of threat to christianity that those terrorists on 9/11 represent to Islam, telling the world that Islam is all about terrorism and violence. While none in this forum would agree with the nonsense archeologist pushes about the theory of evolution there are many who would embrace this lie about Christianity with great enthusiasm. But however much Christianity transformed by archeologist into tool for power and manipulation is all about intolerance, irrationality and the opposition of science, this simply isn't what Christianity is really about. I think the more sensible and thoughtful people in the world can see that it is not the nutters who define what these religions are all about.


    I was confused by Kalister's "very happy" response until I noticed that he has changed his signature, which shed a little bit of light on it (perhaps?). Perhaps it is just that he knows me well enough. He knows that I can be an agressive poster and will go on rampage when I see a cause.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Wikipedia is written by real men of all different persuasions and the fact that I mention them means that I respect what all sorts of people say without making sure that they are a part of some power block of mine, like archeologist.
    wikipedia is the most uncredible source there is next to the wing nut fringe and the fanatics. one does NOT turn to a secular work which operates without the guidance of the Holy Spirit to make determinations about spiritual things.

    that is like allowing the fox to enter the hen house.

    It is no surprise that if that since functional illiteracy prevents archeologist from reading the Bible itself, then of course he would also find any serious and honest examination of a Biblical passage exploring many ideas to be too onerous for him to read.
    another personal attack from someone who doesn't know me but just hates what is being said. i will not read the rest of his post but will make time to do some research and post it on this topic next week.

    then people can compare for themselves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Who wants to know?
    Posts
    589
    This is a little bit of-topic from the mustard seed, but was there ever even a hint of some sort of evidence that backed the story of Daniel in the lions' den? I'm just asking, I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    why would there be evidence? this dependence upon evidence is very unrealistic as when you die, there will probably be no evidence you were ever alive. your home will be sold, your things sold, your i.d. will be destroyed and so on.

    do you want people to think you did not exist because there was 'no evidence'?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    why would there be evidence? this dependence upon evidence is very unrealistic as when you die, there will probably be no evidence you were ever alive. your home will be sold, your things sold, your i.d. will be destroyed and so on.

    do you want people to think you did not exist because there was 'no evidence'?
    Well, I'm dead, so I don't exist. Once I'm dead, I don't care.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    why would there be evidence? this dependence upon evidence is very unrealistic as when you die, there will probably be no evidence you were ever alive. your home will be sold, your things sold, your i.d. will be destroyed and so on.

    do you want people to think you did not exist because there was 'no evidence'?
    Actually thats a Straw man argument. I don't respond to Straw men. That argument has no relevance to why there needs to be evidence to make sure someone was actually alive.
    In fact you could say that little red riding hood doesn't need evidence that she existed, but believe me, she once existed and that wolf actually talked. Does that make any sense at all to you? You are gullible.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    why would there be evidence? this dependence upon evidence is very unrealistic as when you die, there will probably be no evidence you were ever alive. your home will be sold, your things sold, your i.d. will be destroyed and so on.

    do you want people to think you did not exist because there was 'no evidence'?
    Actually thats a Straw man argument.
    No it is not! You cannot even have a straw man argument unless you are responding to an argument and archaeologist was responding to a question.


    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    I don't respond to Straw men.
    This is also an odd thing to say when I don't see any demand for you to respond to something archaeologist said in response to tritai.


    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    That argument has no relevance to why there needs to be evidence to make sure someone was actually alive.
    What argument? There is only this simple question: Why should there be evidence that a particular person 2000 years ago was alive?

    OF COURSE, perhaps archaeologist deserves this kind of challenge because he makes precisely the same kind absurd challenges about evolution and we can reflect the same argument right back at him: why should there be evidence of every single link in an evolutionary development? After all in the case of evolution we are talking about millions of years ago and not just mere thousands of years ago.


    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    In fact you could say that little red riding hood doesn't need evidence that she existed, but believe me, she once existed and that wolf actually talked. Does that make any sense at all to you? You are gullible.
    Well obviously little red riding hood would not need any evidence of her own existence. So I imagine that you are talking about someone else needing evidence for a claim that someone actually found a wolf in her grandmother's bed responding to questions. But I would dispute even that. People can and will believe just about anything and you can demand evidence until you are blue in the face, but it is only you who will look foolish.

    Now I don't believe in talking wolves or in talking snakes or talking donkeys for that matter, but if someone else says they do believe in such things then my reply would only be to each their own, for this demand for evidence crap is just plain silly.

    Demands for evidence make sense in the case of science seeking to understand the how things are or in the case of the law seeking to punish someone for a crime, but a person's beliefs are really nobody's business but their own. Science expects evidence because it looks at the universal patterns of nature, and whether there was once a talking wolf does not fall into that category.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    We demand evidence of archaeologist because he intends to replace a well-established and pretty much proven theory with his own beliefs. He makes the transition from religious beliefs to scientific theory, so we must treat his beliefs scientifically.

    I have no objection to him believing in creationism, or anyone else.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Who wants to know?
    Posts
    589
    I'm sorry, I thought we'd established the fact that I wasn't trying to insinuate anything or trying to provoke anyone. I ws simply asking, because I know science and religion often go hand in hand, and I was just wondering if the "evidence factor" is consistent for both fields. I'm sorry my question has caused a little problem.

    why would there be evidence? this dependence upon evidence is very unrealistic as when you die, there will probably be no evidence you were ever alive. your home will be sold, your things sold, your i.d. will be destroyed and so on.

    do you want people to think you did not exist because there was 'no evidence'?

    Dental records.



    What argument? There is only this simple question: Why should there be evidence that a particular person 2000 years ago was alive?
    So that we can leave behind the shaky world of beliefs and enter the stable world of reality.


    People can and will believe just about anything and you can demand evidence until you are blue in the face, but it is only you who will look foolish.
    I'm sorry you feel that I'm making a fool of myself. In all honesty, I thought I was asking a legitimate-enough question. Apparently not.

    Science expects evidence because it looks at the universal patterns of nature, and whether there was once a talking wolf does not fall into that category.
    Why is a talking wolf becoming the main antagonist here? I was talking about a man being thrown into a pit of fierce lions, not some folk/fairy tale about a talking wolf and such. I am referring to a person considered to be very real and derived from the Bible, and yet you, MM, keep going back to the wolf! I'M NOT STUPID. I KNOW ANIMALS CAN'T TALK. I WAS ASKING IF THERE WAS ANY HINT OF DANIEL'S EXISTENCE BESIDES THE PASSAGES IN THE BIBLE. IT'S CALLED CURIOSITY. NOT ANIMOSITY.

    Wow. Forget it. I would probably lose this argument as is. Once again, I'm sorry I asked.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by tritai
    why would there be evidence? this dependence upon evidence is very unrealistic as when you die, there will probably be no evidence you were ever alive. your home will be sold, your things sold, your i.d. will be destroyed and so on.

    do you want people to think you did not exist because there was 'no evidence'?

    Dental records.
    Yeah! Nobody existed before Dentists kept records.


    Quote Originally Posted by tritai
    What argument? There is only this simple question: Why should there be evidence that a particular person 2000 years ago was alive?
    So that we can leave behind the shaky world of beliefs and enter the stable world of reality.
    In that case maybe we should all have our memories erased and only live in the here and now.


    Quote Originally Posted by tritai
    People can and will believe just about anything and you can demand evidence until you are blue in the face, but it is only you who will look foolish.
    I'm sorry you feel that I'm making a fool of myself. In all honesty, I thought I was asking a legitimate-enough question. Apparently not.
    No, I'm sorry. I really did not think that you were demanding evidence, I just thought you were asking a question. I took your "I'm just asking, I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck" at face value and so I responded to verzen not realizing that this was just BS like the beginning of your last post. Or maybe "tritia" is just verzen pretending to be someone else and getting confused about which name he is using, otherwise why would "tritai" be getting upset about what I said about verzen as if I was actually talking to tritai?


    (portion edited out as too unkind)
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    We demand evidence of archaeologist because he intends to replace a well-established and pretty much proven theory with his own beliefs. He makes the transition from religious beliefs to scientific theory, so we must treat his beliefs scientifically.
    Well yes, I did express sympathy with that sentiment. But joining archaeologist in his muddled thinking as fair turn around can encourage the habit of muddled thinking all the time, and so it is best to remind ourself of what is rational after all.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    i get the feeling that verzen lives in a state of denial, refusing to consider anything that dissents from his theory. putting on labels so he can dismiss them without blinking an eye.

    We demand evidence of archaeologist because he intends to replace a well-established and pretty much proven theory with his own beliefs
    i m just pointing out the errors of evolutionists andhow unproven the theory is, along with the weakness of the 'prediction' strategy. anyone can make a 'prediction' starting from the results and working backwards.

    it also doesn't take much guesswork to know how the result will be when predictions are structured: 'if evolution is true then such and such will happen' problem with that kind of predictionis it almost guarentees the results one wants, and fails to determine if any other alternative good produce the same result.

    the usurpers are the evolutionists, who have only been constructing their designer theory for 150 years. the Bible has survived mileenia, and thousands of challenges. evolutioonists need to take note, for they are not even close to the truth yet.

    I thought we'd established the fact that I wasn't trying to insinuate anything or trying to provoke anyone. I ws simply asking, because I know science and religion often go hand in hand, and I was just wondering if the "evidence factor" is consistent for both fields. I'm sorry my question has caused a little problem.
    sorry but i thought i had answered your question some what. we know that the 2 babylonian rulers mentioned in the book of daniel were real and alive at those times mentioned. but for daniel himself we would have to discover more written records to see how his life was recorded by the babylonians.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    i get the feeling that verzen lives in a state of denial, refusing to consider anything that dissents from his theory. putting on labels so he can dismiss them without blinking an eye.
    Yes I admit. I have a filter called Logic that prevents all the BS from entering my mind.
    You should really watch the video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TO...layer_embedded
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Who wants to know?
    Posts
    589
    sorry but i thought i had answered your question some what. we know that the 2 babylonian rulers mentioned in the book of daniel were real and alive at those times mentioned. but for daniel himself we would have to discover more written records to see how his life was recorded by the babylonians.
    Thank you. That was all I needed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    in a state of denial, refusing to consider anything that dissents from his theory.
    No comment.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Who wants to know?
    Posts
    589
    (portion edited out as too unkind)
    You didn't have to do that, you know. I could've lived with it. But thanks, anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    if anyonehas a problem with Jesus saying that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, they need to remember that jesus qualified that remark with the words 'thatthe farmer soweth in his field'

    smaller seeds are not sown by farmers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    I'm not sure the rest of us assume the bible is to be taken that literally, to be honest.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    I'm not sure the rest of us assume the bible is to be taken that literally, to be honest.
    yet when you criticize it, you are the most biblically literal people in existence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    I'm not sure the rest of us assume the bible is to be taken that literally, to be honest.
    yet when you criticize it, you are the most biblically literal people in existence.
    Yep for the fundamentalist Christian and the fundamentalist atheist, the word "God" refers to the same fairy tale.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    I'm not sure the rest of us assume the bible is to be taken that literally, to be honest.
    yet when you criticize it, you are the most biblically literal people in existence.
    Hehe, no.

    I think the bible is a book, and nothing more. Something meant to scare children into the christian faith.

    I take it as literally as I do any other fiction.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    I think the bible is a book, and nothing more. Something meant to scare children into the christian faith.

    I take it as literally as I do any other fiction
    what is your evidence that it is fiction? you cannot use evolution because it is simply an alternative, not real evidence that the Bible is wrong?

    you have no archaeological evidence, you have no physics evidence, no chemistry evidence, no literary evidence that the Bible is wrong so where is your proof?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    what is your evidence that it is fiction?
    Burden of Proof - Logical Fallacy. Even though he made the claim that the bible was fiction, there is no reason to believe that the bible is factual unless you are able to supply evidence for your claim that the things in the bible actually happened.

    you have no archaeological evidence
    It's impossible to find archaeological evidence to prove something doesn't exist. That would suggest that I would find nothing and thus that nothing would be evidence against your bible. Since nothing is impossible to try to remotely find in the dirt and use that nothing as evidence, you can't use that as an argument.

    you have no physics evidence, no chemistry evidence, no literary evidence that the Bible is wrong so where is your proof?
    Same as above. It's impossible to find nothing and then claim that the bible is false based on your ability to not find anything.
    Still, the burden of proof is on you to show us that the fantastic stories in the bible are true and actually happened since the bible itself is making the claim that it did happen. Since no evidence can be supplied that the stories in the bible are correct to begin with, I must conclude that those stories are just that, stories. And if someone were to say that it is fantasy, then they would be correct based on the non-existent evidence for your claim to begin with.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Who wants to know?
    Posts
    589
    what is your evidence that it is fiction? you cannot use evolution because it is simply an alternative, not real evidence that the Bible is wrong?

    you have no archaeological evidence, you have no physics evidence, no chemistry evidence, no literary evidence that the Bible is wrong so where is your proof?
    Where is your evidence that it is all true? Were you there to watch God point his finger at Earth and say, "Let there be life"? If so, please, do tell. I do so love to hear a good anecdote.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    I think the bible is a book, and nothing more. Something meant to scare children into the christian faith.

    I take it as literally as I do any other fiction
    what is your evidence that it is fiction?
    I merely proposed my preferred opinion for debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you cannot use evolution because it is simply an alternative, not real evidence that the Bible is wrong?
    A theory gains acceptance because it is proven; not because it can't be disproven.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you have no archaeological evidence, you have no physics evidence, no chemistry evidence, no literary evidence that the Bible is wrong so where is your proof?
    Again: I was stating my opinion.

    However, you should be looking for proof that it was real, not me for proof that it was not.

    The same as I do not look for proof that the world is not split into four corners which produce 96 hour days, as per time-cubism (http://www.timecube.com).
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •