re: Satanic Temple puts up display at Michigan Capital

Back to the actual original post, what do you think about the lady going ham and destroying the display that she didn't like?

LINK

#teamjesus....defending the freedom of religion everywhere!

(as long as it's Christianity)

quote:

---

Just a philosophical point. He's saying that Jesus making a reference to Jonah would be equally valid, whether Jonah was a literal historic account or an Aesop's Fables-type lesson.

---

If Jesus were simply a man perhaps. But Jesus wasn't simply a man, but God incarnate. Surely the God who created the very people you are speaking of would know whether they were real or not?

quote:

---

Interestingly, this all seemed to dry up once electronic verification methods showed up.

---

God went over 400 years between the end of the Old Testament and the New and never interacted with man that entire time. God lives out of time and isn't constrained by it. To us, this period of inactivity on his part seems long, to him, it isn't. He will reveal himself again when he wants to.

quote:

---

God went over 400 years between the end of the Old Testament and the New and never interacted with man that entire time. God lives out of time and isn't constrained by it. To us, this period of inactivity on his part seems long, to him, it isn't. He will reveal himself again when he wants to.

---

Well, it's been around 2000 this time, right? That's a third of existence if you buy the 6000 year argument, which I presume you do. Is that a correct assumption?

quote:

---

God went over 400 years between the end of the Old Testament and the New and never interacted with man that entire time. God lives out of time and isn't constrained by it. To us, this period of inactivity on his part seems long, to him, it isn't.

---

Convenient. Proved himself to a bunch of people that believed so much cockamamie bull shite that they are basically TOTALLY unreliable as witnesses. Tells people to spread the word cause apparently, spreading the word is REAALLLLLLLY important but, can't be bothered to show a damned thing when it would be easily spread.

Also, assuming everything in the Bible is true, why exactly is it reasonable of this God to demand I believe shite 2000 years removed from horrible witnesses but when folks at the time doubted, he just performed magic tricks all over the place to convince them!?!?

That's sort of absurd really. I mean yeah, if I was following some dude who claimed to talk to God and then, upon showing up to Lake Pontchartrain, he just said some magic words and the damned thing parted so I could walk on through, I'd probably be convinced too. That's not exactly a leap of faith there.

quote:

---

Convenient. Proved himself to a bunch of people that believed so much cockamamie bull shite that they are basically TOTALLY unreliable as witnesses. Tells people to spread the word cause apparently, spreading the word is REAALLLLLLLY important but, can't be bothered to show a damned thing when it would be easily spread.

---

God chose for man to believe on him in faith. Even Jesus told the disciples," you believe because you have seen, blessed is he who believes that hasn't seen."
Plus God does still speaks to his children through the ministry of the Holy Spirit and those that know him, know this as well.

quote:

---

This really isn't technically true through even a cursory reading of the Bible. He "proved" himself REPEATEDLY. He may think it's cool for people to believe that haven't seen, but that didn't prevent him from proving himself over and over again to those folks. What? Are Jesus' disciples not going to get into heaven just cause they had stuff proven to them? Yeah. I think not.

---

I was talking about the period after the resurrection when God chose to reveal himself through his word.

quote:

---

Merry Christmas, Rev. Glad you're fighting the good fight

---

Back at you Foo. Merry Christmas!

quote:

---

ou are claiming that there are no valid historical records to support the Old Testament--yet much of the Old Testament is, by definition, a historical record

---

LOL a historical record, tell you what please indicate which story in the Old Testament you feel is historical fact, and then just google it for historical evidence outside of the Bible and see if you find something.

You should probably read some historicity studies of the Old testament...just to get you started in some frame of reference its not historical AT ALL.

He is claiming the Bible as a source for the Bible, when all serious biblical scholars agree there is no evidence to support the happenings in the Old Testament, again, AT ALL.

Here is one quote for Tommy Thompson, a biblical scholar and theologian for nearly 70 years.

"There is no evidence of a United Monarchy, no evidence of a capital in Jerusalem or of any coherent, unified political force that dominated western Palestine, let alone an empire of the size the legends describe. We do not have evidence for the existence of kings named Saul, David or Solomon; nor do we have evidence for any temple at Jerusalem in this early period. What we do know of Israel and Judah of the tenth century does not allow us to interpret this lack of evidence as a gap in our knowledge and information about the past, a result merely of the accidental nature of archeology. There is neither room nor context, no artifact or archive that points to such historical realities in Palestine's tenth century. One cannot speak historically of a state without a population. Nor can one speak of a capital without a town. Stories are not enough."