We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Doomsday today lol
| 127 | 14780 |
Today is the day that, or so camping claims, the world ends.
every one Die's today because the world ends. Or is this just another one of his wild theories. I cant help but laugh at this predicament.
- 127 Replies
Therefore, it makes sense that truth will be consistent
The Bible is not consistent withen itself you know.
Okay now everyone is off topic and I am getting lost. Put this on A diffrent thread.
It's sort of On topic actually. The validity of the Bible directly affects any doomsday predictions made with it/knowledge of it. If you believe that a rapture will occur because of the bible, then talking about whether or not the bible is true is semi-on topic.
I was off this thread for five days, and then you talk about mormonism behind my back? how dare you guys.
Mormonism does not pass this test. Consider laws of logic. As a Bible-believer, I believe that laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks, a standard for truth based off of God's nature.
there is some irony in what you just said. a bible believer thinking logically (atheists will love that one). if god never changed, then god would still throw fire and brimstone at us, even after christ came along. therefore, god has changed over time. we are humans, so we change just like god (who made us in his own image). if god never changed, we would never change as well.
here is something in ezekiel 37 that proves the stories in the book of mormon is true:
16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:
17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.
18 ¶And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us awhat thou meanest by these?
19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.
don't you get it, the prophets in the old testament knew all along that the people in the book of mormon were in the american continent, and they knew that the book of mormon would come as well to allow more people to follow the work and glory of god.
this is why mormonism is correct, because the prophets knew it was comming.
here is something in ezekiel 37 that proves the stories in the book of mormon is true
That prophecy is about the uniting of Judah and Israel. The stick cannot be the book of Mormon, because all that was written on it was, "Belonging to Joseph (that is, to Ephraim) and all the Israelites associated with him."
if god never changed, then god would still throw fire and brimstone at us, even after christ came along. therefore, god has changed over time. we are humans, so we change just like god (who made us in his own image). if god never changed, we would never change as well.
Scripture affirms that God does not change (Malachi 3:6). God's justice and love did not change when Christ gave Himself for us. God is able to respond to us differently and to forgive us because justice has been satisfied, but God did not change. Immutability (unchangingness) is not a characteristic that God created us with.
The Bible is not consistent withen itself you know.
I would argue that every alleged Bible contradiction can be resolved, and that the Bible nowhere genuinely contradicts itself. However, for the sake of argument, how do you know that contradictions are always false? I know because the Bible provides the basis for the law of non-contradiction. The best you can say is that they have always been false in your experience.
I can't believe I am saying this but can some athiest come and have a debate with him?
Yes, but if you actually read and studied the Bible, you would know that any predictions on the day of the rapture are invalid.
Matthew 24 "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son but the Father only."
I'm well aware of this. All I'm saying is that the only "evidence" for a rapture is according to the Bible. So it would stand to reason that if the Bible is incorrect, there will not be a rapture.
a bible believer thinking logically (atheists will love that one).
Scripture affirms that God does not change (Malachi 3:6). God's justice and love did not change when Christ gave Himself for us. God is able to respond to us differently and to forgive us because justice has been satisfied, but God did not change. Immutability (unchangingness) is not a characteristic that God created us with.
This sounds like an explanation after the fact to try and make it fit.
However, for the sake of argument, how do you know that contradictions are always false?
The contradictions may not be false, they may be just that. However, the contradictions point towards that God would not be perfect, nor all loving.
Since we have no evidence for God, it stands to reason that the Bible has contradictions due to it being a conglamorate of many different books. There were hundreds more "books" that people wrote saying things that contradict the main dogma that were not included in the Bible.
I can't believe I am saying this but can some athiest come and have a debate with him?
I've found there's not much to debate about Mormonism that can lead anywhere. It's a much more recent "update" to Christianity that patches some major bugs in the original. There are still things to pick at, but not really anything solid. Mostly all you can do is compare it to the main branch of Christianity and pick at some of the beliefs that stand out (Magic underwear ftw)
Most of it is in translation or taken-out-of-context.
Translation of anything messes with stuff. That's why translated copies of the Koran must also contain the original text in Arabic, so you can interpret the context better. They should probably do the same thing with all the bibles (I saw 1 once that had greek/hebrew translations included). That would solve a lot of problems.
I heard once that someone tried to argue that the Jews couldn't possibly carry the Ark (Ark of the Covenant) across the Jordan River because the ark (Noah's Ark) would of have to have been really really heavy.
lmfao when I was little and watching Raiders of the Lost Ark I was like "Where the heck's the boat?!"
Since we have no evidence for God, it stands to reason that the Bible has contradictions due to it being a conglamorate of many different books. There were hundreds more "books" that people wrote saying things that contradict the main dogma that were not included in the Bible.
The evidence is all around; it's how you interpret the evidence that matters. I start with the Bible because it is the only logical starting point. It's true that many books were written that were not included in the Christian canon. Is that because the early church censored anything that went against their agenda? No. There were certain tests applied to the writings. Did it come from an apostle or someone under the supervision of an apostle? Does it contradict prior revelation (the Old Testament/accepted New Testament writings)? Many of the writings that were not included in the canon could be excluded by mere virtue of the late date of their writing.
I must push my point about preconditions of intelligibility, though. Only the Bible explains the presuppositions we take for granted that make knowledge possible. Consider uniformity of nature. Christians believe that the universe will behave in a consistent fashion because an unchanging God upholds the universe by His power. Furthermore, God has promised a degree of uniformity (Genesis 8:22, Jeremiah 33:25). Therefore, when a Christian conducts an experiment and then repeats the experiment under the same conditions, he expects the same results. The atheist expects the same. However, the atheist has no justification for this. He cannot explain why the universe behaves consistently and in fact cannot even know for sure that it will continue to do so in all places at all times.
Only the Bible explains the presuppositions we take for granted that make knowledge possible. Consider uniformity of nature. Christians believe that the universe will behave in a consistent fashion because an unchanging God upholds the universe by His power. Furthermore, God has promised a degree of uniformity (Genesis 8:22, Jeremiah 33:25). Therefore, when a Christian conducts an experiment and then repeats the experiment under the same conditions, he expects the same results. The atheist expects the same. However, the atheist has no justification for this. He cannot explain why the universe behaves consistently and in fact cannot even know for sure that it will continue to do so in all places at all times.
All you're doing here is taking everything and just saying, "God did it." You have no proof that God is doing anything. We've observed how things react and forumlated laws and theories based on these.
All you're doing here is taking everything and just saying, "God did it." You have no proof that God is doing anything. We've observed how things react and forumlated laws and theories based on these.
Actually, I'm arguing that belief in the Bible provides justification for uniformity of nature; uniformity of nature follows logically from what the Bible teaches. However, in an atheistic worldview, belief in uniformity of nature is arbitrary. Why should the universe obey certain laws? Lots of things in the universe change, why don't laws of physics? And actually, you cannot even know that uniformity will continue if you reject the Bible. In the past, we've observed that there is a certain uniformity of nature. In other words, in the past, we've observed that the future reflects the past. However, this cannot be used to justify that in the future the future will reflect the past. That would be assuming what you're trying to prove. You have no way of knowing the universe will continue to behave the way it has in the past.
Actually, I'm arguing that belief in the Bible provides justification for uniformity of nature; uniformity of nature follows logically from what the Bible teaches. However, in an atheistic worldview, belief in uniformity of nature is arbitrary. Why should the universe obey certain laws? Lots of things in the universe change, why don't laws of physics? And actually, you cannot even know that uniformity will continue if you reject the Bible. In the past, we've observed that there is a certain uniformity of nature. In other words, in the past, we've observed that the future reflects the past. However, this cannot be used to justify that in the future the future will reflect the past. That would be assuming what you're trying to prove. You have no way of knowing the universe will continue to behave the way it has in the past.
You spewed out a lot in one paragraph. First off your religion does no better of a job at describing the uniformity in nature then any other religion. So this argument does nothing to support your particular religion. We have no reason to assume it is your God or anyone else's. Ultimately there is nothing supporting this as the reason why to begin with.
Yes we can't be 100% certain the laws of physics will completely break down tomorrow. However we have no reason to think they will.
A scientific law is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. What this means is that it's a statement of an objective repeatedly verified observation. In short we can say the universe will do things a certain way because we have observed it doing it this way and not any other way.
First off your religion does no better of a job at describing the uniformity in nature then any other religion. So this argument does nothing to support your particular religion. We have no reason to assume it is your God or anyone else's.
Actually, it does. Uniformity of nature should not be expected in any polytheistic religion. If the gods are constantly at war, in disagreement, and in some cases, can even die, why should we expect the universe to behave in a consistent fashion? It might be the case that some other belief system can explain one or two preconditions of intelligibility, but only the Bible can consistently explain everything that would have to be true to make knowledge possible.
Yes we can't be 100% certain the laws of physics will completely break down tomorrow. However we have no reason to think they will.
Actually, you cannot be .01% sure that the laws of physics will not break down tomorrow. It is fallacious to think that because in the past the future has reflected the past in the future the future will reflect the past. In other words, what has happened in the past is irrelevant to what will happen in the future unless the connection (uniformity of nature) is already assumed.
Thought I should pas this along.
A post rapture message from Harold Camping
Actually, it does. Uniformity of nature should not be expected in any polytheistic religion. If the gods are constantly at war, in disagreement, and in some cases, can even die, why should we expect the universe to behave in a consistent fashion? It might be the case that some other belief system can explain one or two preconditions of intelligibility, but only the Bible can consistently explain everything that would have to be true to make knowledge possible.
The Bible explains as much as any other religion does. Yes you could have uniformity with a polytheism, with the multiple gods working together. Even humans are capable of working together in unity for a common goal.
Actually, you cannot be .01% sure that the laws of physics will not break down tomorrow. It is fallacious to think that because in the past the future has reflected the past in the future the future will reflect the past. In other words, what has happened in the past is irrelevant to what will happen in the future unless the connection (uniformity of nature) is already assumed.
No it's not fallacious or irrelevant. Just like how I don't have to check to see if my chair will collapse under my weight every time I sit down. I can be reasonably sure it won't because of the past observations and experiences with that chair. As such I can make the prediction that the chair will support my weight.
However it is fallacious to think that something that has no observable evidence supporting it is the cause of everything.
You must be logged in to post a reply!