1) Prove God exists. Look at His big MUSCLES!

2) Prove the Bible is the Word of God. If it's good enough for St. Thomas Aquinas AND Mel Gibson, it's good enough for me.

3) Prove that belief in God makes one morally superior to someone who does not believe in God. Ummmmmm...damn. I lose I guess.

So what if aeryk is an idiot. Does that mean you have to act like one, too?

How am I being an idiot? My article was a response to another specific article, and this is the only thing that I am really making an argument agains. My larger point is a completely neutral one, mainly that everyone should stop trying to convince everyone that God does or doesn't exist, because it won't work.

I apologize if this offended you at all, but to be honest, I really haven't attacked anyone or anything (but a specific other article). This is a continuation of a debate, which started with Aeryck's articles.

Your questions....
1) Prove God exists. (without citing the Bible)
2) Prove the Bible is the Word of God. (without citing the Bible)
3) Prove that belief in God makes one morally superior to someone who does not believe in God. (without citing the Bible)

Come on philomedy your smater than that.

The first two are kind'a like trying to prove the power of a stick of dynamite with out lighting the fuse. But the two are very similar in that when their power is manifest it will be too late to make your decision.......

The 3rd is a gramatical error, the believer is not morally superior to someone who does not believe in God, he is just forgiven.

philomedy, how long will you kick against the pricks?

preacherman

The first two are kind'a like trying to prove the power of a stick of dynamite with out lighting the fuse. But the two are very similar in that when their power is manifest it will be too late to make your decision.......

Not really. It is asking you to prove the power of a stick of dynamite without referring to its instruction manual, whose author cannot be found or even proven to exist, without again referring to the very manual that I am asking you not to cite. And you're smart enough to know that you're not going to get anywhere with me when you insert subtle claims about me going to hell into what would otherwise be a productive discussion.

The 3rd is a gramatical error, the believer is not morally superior to someone who does not believe in God, he is just forgiven.

Again, prove it. (without citing the Bible)

philomedy, how long will you kick against the pricks?

What's a prick? I'm not familiar with this expression.

What's a prick? I'm not familiar with this expression.

It's what the Lord said to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus... that is where Saul met Him face to face Acts 9.

Saul was a religious man, prior to this experience, so religious that he persecuted those who followed Christ.. consenting to their deaths, reaking havock on the church, hailing men and women into prison because the beleived the Word of God and in His Christ.

When Saul finally came face to face with the risen Lord.. He told Saul, "it is hard for the to kick against the pricks". Acts 9:5 In other words how long will you continue to reject the Holy Spirits conviction concerning the Truth of Christ.

The anaolgy came from the day when ox were used to plow the fields. The ox was a large and powerful animal, but oft times very hard headed and head strong. The farmer would use an ox goad (prick) as a guide the ox in the direction he wanted hime to go. As the farmer would prod the hip of the ox in attempts to steer in in the right direction the ox would kick against the prick.

I can understand the anaolgy because like Saul I kicked against the pricks for 28-years.

preacherman

I see.

Yes, sorry, to me it is idiotic to start the same kind of discussion which aeryk and the others of the JU Inquisiion enjoy. It isn't going to matter whose perspective the original blog is from, it is an invitation to do their usual bland junk.

All you do by aping them is encourage their combative behavior.

Yes, sorry, to me it is idiotic to start the same kind of discussion which aeryk and the others of the JU Inquisiion enjoy. It isn't going to matter whose perspective the original blog is from, it is an invitation to do their usual bland junk.All you do by aping them is encourage their combative behavior.

If you don't want to continue the debate, walk away. I wasn't really to let it end, so I continued it. Don't call me idiotic because of it.

I'm beginning to think that the actual, underlying purpose of these confrontational articles on both sides (whether the creators of them are conciously aware of it or will admit it or not), is to rack up JU points. Was that obvious? I'm new here, you know. Is it something that everyone knows but doesn't talk about? Is it a revelation? (pun intended.)
None of my three articles have that intent and they're not getting many replies. (How's that for a subtle plug?) hahahaha I've seen others that are the same.

Typical woman, her face always in food.

That's funny!

I'm beginning to think that the actual, underlying purpose of these confrontational articles on both sides (whether the creators of them are conciously aware of it or will admit it or not), is to rack up JU points. Was that obvious? I'm new here, you know. Is it something that everyone knows but doesn't talk about? Is it a revelation? (pun intended.)None of my three articles have that intent and they're not getting many replies. (How's that for a subtle plug?) hahahaha I've seen others that are the same.

This isn't so in my case. If you look at my body of work, you'll see that I write as much useless garbage as I do confrontational stuff.

The first two questions are more or less unanswerable. If the best smarty men the world has produced in three thousand years have been unable to eliminate the need for faith in spiritual matters, JoeUser isn't going to close that gap anytime soon. Sorry, guys. I don't mean any offense, and I applaud your valiant efforts, but that's just the way it is.

But the third question is trivial to answer. If there is a God of some kind, who by its very being defines Good and Evil, then anyone who seeks a sincere relationship with such a being is by definition morally superior to anyone who rejects the Ultimate Good. In fact, Christinity defines morality in precisely this way. Those who love the Good, and seek it out, and devote their lives to it are morally superior to those who reject Good and seek out Evil instead.

I mean, duh.

The first two questions are more or less unanswerable

This is my point exactly.

then anyone who seeks a sincere relationship with such a being is by definition morally superior to anyone who rejects the Ultimate Good. In fact, Christinity defines morality in precisely this way

Having a relationship with God should not matter when it comes to morality. Regardless of what one believes, if you are a good person, you should be recognized as such. There are atheists who do no wrong, just as there are religious individuals who lead bad lives.

This isn't so in my case. If you look at my body of work, you'll see that I write as much useless garbage as I do confrontational stuff.

Look iconoclast, philomedy and I go back a long way. We have argued tooth & nail about a lot of issues..... the only difference between us is that my stuff is not "useless garbage" it has eternal consequences.

Except a man be born again, he can not see the Kingdom of God.

preacherman

Look iconoclast, philomedy and I go back a long way. We have argued tooth & nail about a lot of issues..... the only difference between us is that my stuff is not "useless garbage" it has eternal consequences.

I don't know that you meant to highlight my response here, but just to clarify, I was not referring to your posts as useless garbage. I was referring to my posts that don't have any real points, like the one about condoms that I just put up, or the one with my picture. I apologize for any misunderstanding. But...you wouldn't be implying that all of my stuff is useless garbage, would you?