-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K
Then, to say that we constantly finding knew things is erroneous. Have we become smarter than the founders of America? They founded this country based on the bible. Isaiah 35, The Lord is my Judge (Judicial branch), The Lord is my Lawgiver ( legislative branch), The Lord is my king ( Executive branch)
If we find anything knew, we will find it in the bible. In the OT, they were told to wash their hands. If they saw a bug crawl through a bowl, they were to take it outside the camp and break it. If was a metal bowl they to wash it with running water. All this thousands of years before men discovered germs
If we find anything knew, we will find it in the bible. In the OT, they were told to wash their hands. If they saw a bug crawl through a bowl, they were to take it outside the camp and break it. If was a metal bowl they to wash it with running water. All this thousands of years before men discovered germs
You're still missing the point. When someone says "yes, actually - Hell is mentioned in the Old Testament" you respond by saying that due to the nature of the discipline, they cannot know that this is true.
You admit this, and you say it applies to your own position as well - but if that is the case, you cannot know either. That means the point you were making in your prior argument about Hell being a creation of the human imagination that didn't exist prior to Jesus goes up in a puff, since the the premise upon which it is based cannot be reasonably shown to be true.
The point is very basic: if you maintain that we "don't know," then your previous argument (post #1155) is void of any legitimate argumentative force. It becomes nothing more than sheer conjecture on your part.
You admit this, and you say it applies to your own position as well - but if that is the case, you cannot know either. That means the point you were making in your prior argument about Hell being a creation of the human imagination that didn't exist prior to Jesus goes up in a puff, since the the premise upon which it is based cannot be reasonably shown to be true.
The point is very basic: if you maintain that we "don't know," then your previous argument (post #1155) is void of any legitimate argumentative force. It becomes nothing more than sheer conjecture on your part.
D
Sheol of the Old testament is Hades in the new testament. We see from the story of Lazarus the beggar and the rich man that after they died the angels carried Lazarus to a place called "Abraham's bosom" while the rich man found himself in a place of torment. The two places were separated by a gulf.
Even though we find this story in the New Testament, it is prior to Christ's death and was under the old covenant. So this must be the same place as Sheol.
Even though we find this story in the New Testament, it is prior to Christ's death and was under the old covenant. So this must be the same place as Sheol.
But why must everything be considered inaccurate? If Paul says in his letters that he went up to Jerusalem and met with James, the brother of the Lord, and Peter and John, must all this be wrong just because it is in the Bible? If Paul says he had his conversion experience on the road to Damascus, must this be wrong also? I agree not everything in the Bible is historically accurate, but that doesn't mean everything must be wrong.
Mega - why did you join your church? Didn't you know there were already enough Christians there? Do you go around Christian websites to expose yourself to different Christian denominations? Ridiculous.
1) I thought other atheists would welcome me.
2) I thought Christians would welcome other atheist's points of view and therefore welcome me..this seems to be a common theme here. New views, new thoughts, even opposing views are not encouraged in the Christian community.
I stand corrected, I guess.
1) I thought other atheists would welcome me.
2) I thought Christians would welcome other atheist's points of view and therefore welcome me..this seems to be a common theme here. New views, new thoughts, even opposing views are not encouraged in the Christian community.
I stand corrected, I guess.
M
Your views aren't new. They're just copy/paste from every other standard atheist I've heard. Some atheists stand out amongst the crowd of those that are too much like clones of yourself. I speak of atheists like Cycel and IntotheVoid, both of whom I've had enjoyable conversations with.
Case in point.
Case in point.
D
It is a well known fact the the bible is very accurate in terms of archaeology in the holy land. Even in terms of history the bible is accurate. Some critics had claimed that the bible was inaccurate because no such person named Pontius Pilate. Then a stone was discovered which bore his name.
Pilate Stone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pilate Stone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The supreme law of the land, written in the summer of 1787, includes no references to religion -- including in the presidential oath of office -- until the conclusion of Article VI, after all that dull stuff about debts and treaties: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (There is a pro forma "Year of the Lord" reference in the date at the Constitution's conclusion.)
Original intent? "No religious Test" seems pretty clear cut.
The primacy of a secular state was solidified when the First Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. According to Purdue history professor Frank Lambert, that "introduced the radical notion that the state had no voice concerning matters of conscience."
Beyond that, the first House of Representatives, while debating the First Amendment, specifically rejected a Senate proposal calling for the establishment of Christianity as an official religion. As Lambert concludes, "There would be no Church of the United States. Nor would America represent itself as a Christian Republic."
Original intent? "No religious Test" seems pretty clear cut.
The primacy of a secular state was solidified when the First Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. According to Purdue history professor Frank Lambert, that "introduced the radical notion that the state had no voice concerning matters of conscience."
Beyond that, the first House of Representatives, while debating the First Amendment, specifically rejected a Senate proposal calling for the establishment of Christianity as an official religion. As Lambert concludes, "There would be no Church of the United States. Nor would America represent itself as a Christian Republic."
M
And we're not opposed to people coming in here with different views. What we're opposed to is people coming in here thinking they should have free reign to bash Christians and Christianity as much as they want without consequences. I wouldn't expect to be able to go to an atheist site and bash atheists and atheism as much as I want without consequences.
K
Ben Franklin's speech to the continental congress 1787.
We have arrived, Mr. President . . . at a very momentous and interesting crisis in our deliberations. Hitherto our views have been as harmonious, and our progress as great as could reasonably have been expected. But now an unlooked for and formidable obstacle is thrown in our way, which threatens to arrest our course, and, if not skillfully removed, to render all our fond hopes of a constitution abortive.
It is, however, to be feared that the members of this Convention are not in a temper, at this moment, to approach the subject in which we differ, in this spirit. I would, therefore, propose, Mr. President, that, without proceeding further in this business at this time, the Convention shall adjourn for three days, in order to let the present ferment pass off, and to afford time for a more full, free, and dispassionate investigation of the subject; and I would earnestly recommend to the members of this Convention, that they spend the time of this recess, not in associating with their own party, and devising new arguments to fortify themselves in their old opinions, but that they mix with members of opposite sentiments, lend a patient ear to their reasonings, and candidly allow them all the weight to which they may be entitled; and when we assemble again, I hope it will be with a determination to form a constitution, if not such an one as we can individually, and in all respects, approve, yet the best, which, under existing circumstances, can be obtained.
(Here the countenance of Washington brightened, and a cheering ray seemed to break in upon the gloom which had recently covered our political horizon.) The doctor continued:
Before I sit down, Mr. President, I will suggest another matter; and I am really surprised that it has not been proposed by some other member at an earlier period of our deliberations. I will suggest, Mr. President, that propriety of nominating and appointing, before we separate, a chaplain to this Convention, whose duty it shall be uniformly to assemble with us, and introduce the business of each day by and address to the Creator of the universe, and the Governor of all nations, beseeching Him to preside in our council, enlighten our minds with a portion of heavenly wisdom, influence our hearts with a love of truth and justice, and crown our labors with complete and abundant success!
The doctor sat down, and never did I [General Dayton] behold a countenance at once so dignified and delighted as was that of Washington, at the close of the address! Nor were the members of the Convention, generally less affected. The words of the venerable Franklin fell upon our ears with a weight and authority, even greater than we may suppose an oracle to have had in a Roman Senate! A silent admiration superseded, for a moment, the expression of that assent and approbation which was strongly marked on almost every countenance.
We have arrived, Mr. President . . . at a very momentous and interesting crisis in our deliberations. Hitherto our views have been as harmonious, and our progress as great as could reasonably have been expected. But now an unlooked for and formidable obstacle is thrown in our way, which threatens to arrest our course, and, if not skillfully removed, to render all our fond hopes of a constitution abortive.
It is, however, to be feared that the members of this Convention are not in a temper, at this moment, to approach the subject in which we differ, in this spirit. I would, therefore, propose, Mr. President, that, without proceeding further in this business at this time, the Convention shall adjourn for three days, in order to let the present ferment pass off, and to afford time for a more full, free, and dispassionate investigation of the subject; and I would earnestly recommend to the members of this Convention, that they spend the time of this recess, not in associating with their own party, and devising new arguments to fortify themselves in their old opinions, but that they mix with members of opposite sentiments, lend a patient ear to their reasonings, and candidly allow them all the weight to which they may be entitled; and when we assemble again, I hope it will be with a determination to form a constitution, if not such an one as we can individually, and in all respects, approve, yet the best, which, under existing circumstances, can be obtained.
(Here the countenance of Washington brightened, and a cheering ray seemed to break in upon the gloom which had recently covered our political horizon.) The doctor continued:
Before I sit down, Mr. President, I will suggest another matter; and I am really surprised that it has not been proposed by some other member at an earlier period of our deliberations. I will suggest, Mr. President, that propriety of nominating and appointing, before we separate, a chaplain to this Convention, whose duty it shall be uniformly to assemble with us, and introduce the business of each day by and address to the Creator of the universe, and the Governor of all nations, beseeching Him to preside in our council, enlighten our minds with a portion of heavenly wisdom, influence our hearts with a love of truth and justice, and crown our labors with complete and abundant success!
The doctor sat down, and never did I [General Dayton] behold a countenance at once so dignified and delighted as was that of Washington, at the close of the address! Nor were the members of the Convention, generally less affected. The words of the venerable Franklin fell upon our ears with a weight and authority, even greater than we may suppose an oracle to have had in a Roman Senate! A silent admiration superseded, for a moment, the expression of that assent and approbation which was strongly marked on almost every countenance.
The Constitution and the views of these Founding Fathers trump all arguments about references to God in presidential speeches (permitted under the First Amendment), on money (not introduced until the Civil War), the Pledge of Allegiance ("under God" added in 1954) and in the national motto "In God We Trust" (adopted by law in 1956)
Last edited: