|
Post by mslo79 on Apr 3, 2019 23:38:50 GMT
gozYou are missing a MAJOR thing there in my post... it's not me that's ending the debate, but Jesus Christ's own words that end the debate. BIG difference. basically the debate is over given my post there quoting the bible. to state otherwise is like basically saying Jesus Christ is wrong and your right and it's impossible for Him to be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 3, 2019 23:44:24 GMT
goz You are missing a MAJOR thing there in my post... it's not me that's ending the debate, but Jesus Christ's own words that end the debate. BIG difference. basically the debate is over given my post there quoting the bible. to state otherwise is like basically saying Jesus Christ is wrong and your right and it's impossible for Him to be wrong. NO, not at all. IF Jesus/God is wrong and the Bible is wrong, then there is every reason to debate this. It probably is wrong IMHO and my humble opinion has just as much worth as yours as YOUR Jesus says we are all equal in his sight. BTW your arrogance is astounding. Goz vs Jesus is just as fair a debate as any other except that it is YOU saying what YOU believe and interpret Jesus says, whereas MY words are direct from me.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS⺠on Apr 3, 2019 23:46:14 GMT
Can't really argue with that. Of course you can, and I do. IF Jesus is God (?) and God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, then Pilate is not guilty as he was just fulfilling God's plan to kill his son(?) and resurrect him(?) and start Christianity. Lol at holding onto that nugget
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 3, 2019 23:55:19 GMT
Of course you can, and I do. IF Jesus is God (?) and God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, then Pilate is not guilty as he was just fulfilling God's plan to kill his son(?) and resurrect him(?) and start Christianity. Lol at holding onto that nugget Prove it wasn't so. It basically boils down to the fact that Christians hypocritically give their God 'discretionary' power when it comes to free will' of his supplicants'. When it suit the story they have free will and act on it and then get blamed. When it doesn't suit the narrative, it is not relevant. It was the same with the whole Adam and Eve thing and is in fact it is the fatal logical flaw in the whole Christian narrative. No wonder you say LOL, because just like Cody, you can't actually refute it nor make a cogent argument as to why Pilate is guilty when under your own Christian morality he only is guided by God's will and intent.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Apr 4, 2019 0:12:29 GMT
gozBut it's not as we are talking bible stuff and based on that Jesus Christ is God. so based on that, His words speak with absolutely authority. it can't be questioned. What's you and I being equal in some ways etc have to do with what God Himself said in the bible in relation to this topic? our personal opinions mean nothing in a topic like this since the clear answer is what I quoted there from the bible direct from Jesus Christ. I am not the one questioning the Word of God. someone who questions that is like saying they know more than God. hence, they are the arrogant ones. It's not what I believe is said there, it's just too obvious to question it. look at the wording, as it's obviously saying Pilate has committed sin on some level. hence, he's guilty. just not as guilty as someone else etc. here is the words again to make things more clearer for you... "Therefore the one who handed Me over to you is guilty of greater sin." ; the key words... 'greater sin'. so Pilate has still sinned, just not as greatly. hence, Pilate is guilty on some level at the very least and why it makes perfect sense to say he's 'guilty' in the poll.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2019 7:19:16 GMT
The verdict is in. The jury finds Pontius Pilate innocent by a majority verdict of 7 to 5 (with 4 people not understanding the question, and liking cake). The defendant is free to go.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Apr 4, 2019 8:37:49 GMT
Iâd have voted for cake. He was part of the process, a cog in the machine.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Apr 4, 2019 9:10:31 GMT
The verdict is in. The jury finds Pontius Pilate innocent by a majority verdict of 7 to 5 (with 4 people not understanding the question, and liking cake). The defendant is free to go.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 4, 2019 9:36:10 GMT
goz You are missing a MAJOR thing there in my post... it's not me that's ending the debate, but Jesus Christ's own words that end the debate. BIG difference. basically the debate is over given my post there quoting the bible. to state otherwise is like basically saying Jesus Christ is wrong and your right and it's impossible for Him to be wrong. But the verse you quote does not prove your point.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 4, 2019 12:35:37 GMT
Guilty ; that's not debatable either given the words of Jesus Christ Himself which cannot be questioned by anyone since what He says is always correct... given those words Pilate is clearly guilty. so those who voted 'innocent' are simply wrong. this ends the debate in the topic since Jesus Christ cannot be wrong as He's God. I hate to break it to you, butt you can't stop debate by claiming you are right when others disagree with you. Nonsense, that is lesson one in religion 101. You can and do stop debate by claiming you are right when others disagree with you. Who knows how many denominations might spring up if folks are allowed to invent their own versions?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS⺠on Apr 4, 2019 14:27:17 GMT
I hate to break it to you, butt you can't stop debate by claiming you are right when others disagree with you. Nonsense, that is lesson one in religion 101. You can and do stop debate by claiming you are right when others disagree with you. Who knows how many denominations might spring up if folks are allowed to invent their own versions? Not really The biggest problem with religious debate is the refusal to be open minded. Goz has repeatedly defined omniscience and omnipotence to reflect her view. NOTHING can change her mind about it. So if no evidence to prove a point is presented then why would someone be open to be wrong in the first place. I dare people to prove me wrong all the time. How is it my fault that they suck at it?
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Apr 4, 2019 14:50:01 GMT
goz You are missing a MAJOR thing there in my post... it's not me that's ending the debate, but Jesus Christ's own words that end the debate. BIG difference. basically the debate is over given my post there quoting the bible. to state otherwise is like basically saying Jesus Christ is wrong and your right and it's impossible for Him to be wrong. That's so cute. Is that what they told you in Sunday school?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 4, 2019 16:50:03 GMT
Nonsense, that is lesson one in religion 101. You can and do stop debate by claiming you are right when others disagree with you. Who knows how many denominations might spring up if folks are allowed to invent their own versions? Not really The biggest problem with religious debate is the refusal to be open minded. Goz has repeatedly defined omniscience and omnipotence to reflect her view. NOTHING can change her mind about it. So if no evidence to prove a point is presented then why would someone be open to be wrong in the first place. I dare people to prove me wrong all the time. How is it my fault that they suck at it? I was being partly facetious, but also...not. YOU might have failed religion 101 and ended up open-minded, but many pass it with flying colors...you know what I mean. In fact the very fact that YOU have trouble getting people to debate you openmindedly suggests they passed religion 101, my version.
Anyways, what kinds of evidence do you accept that could prove you wrong?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 4, 2019 20:58:18 GMT
I am waiting for 'Goz Almighty' the movie. Who do you think should play me? Meryl?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 4, 2019 21:03:46 GMT
Nonsense, that is lesson one in religion 101. You can and do stop debate by claiming you are right when others disagree with you. Who knows how many denominations might spring up if folks are allowed to invent their own versions? Not really The biggest problem with religious debate is the refusal to be open minded. Goz has repeatedly defined omniscience and omnipotence to reflect her view. NOTHING can change her mind about it.So if no evidence to prove a point is presented then why would someone be open to be wrong in the first place. I dare people to prove me wrong all the time. How is it my fault that they suck at it? This hilarious! MY view on 'omniscience and omnipotence' (you forgot omnipresent)? How can there POSSIBLY be any other view than the dictionary definitions as applied to these states. They are absolutes. He either is omniscience and omnipotence and omnipresent or he isn't, in which case he wouldn't and couldn't be God.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS⺠on Apr 5, 2019 11:18:03 GMT
Not really The biggest problem with religious debate is the refusal to be open minded. Goz has repeatedly defined omniscience and omnipotence to reflect her view. NOTHING can change her mind about it. So if no evidence to prove a point is presented then why would someone be open to be wrong in the first place. I dare people to prove me wrong all the time. How is it my fault that they suck at it? How does one prove themselves right regarding their own personal religious beliefs? Do you suck at that? I never discuss my beliefs. The arguments here have little to do with belief beyond telling me what mine is. The theophobiac doesn't usually have a religious belief or at least doesn't follow the one they are whining about anyway, so the arguments are based on presumptions of belief and immediately antagonistic. The arguments are more: That isn't debating absolute right or wrong, that's simply failing at debate in the first place. A good debate is not about sharing opposite opinions and sticking to our guns about it. Probably the only exception to that outline is Eddy who at least posts a million out of context scriptures to prove his point.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS⺠on Apr 5, 2019 11:25:59 GMT
Not really The biggest problem with religious debate is the refusal to be open minded. Goz has repeatedly defined omniscience and omnipotence to reflect her view. NOTHING can change her mind about it.So if no evidence to prove a point is presented then why would someone be open to be wrong in the first place. I dare people to prove me wrong all the time. How is it my fault that they suck at it? This hilarious! MY view on 'omniscience and omnipotence' (you forgot omnipresent)? How can there POSSIBLY be any other view than the dictionary definitions as applied to these states. They are absolutes. He either is omniscience and omnipotence and omnipresent or he isn't, in which case he wouldn't and couldn't be God. What dictionary are you reading that assigns blame to one who is omniscient or omnipotent? Further, if you did find such a dictionary that says someone being omniscient or omnipotent is automatically culpable for EVERYTHING other people do, then why would god fit that definition?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 5, 2019 20:40:15 GMT
How does one prove themselves right regarding their own personal religious beliefs? Do you suck at that? I never discuss my beliefs. The arguments here have little to do with belief beyond telling me what mine is. The theophobiac doesn't usually have a religious belief or at least doesn't follow the one they are whining about anyway, so the arguments are based on presumptions of belief and immediately antagonistic. The arguments are more: That isn't debating absolute right or wrong, that's simply failing at debate in the first place. A good debate is not about sharing opposite opinions and sticking to our guns about it. Probably the only exception to that outline is Eddy who at least posts a million out of context scriptures to prove his point. This post is hilarious, well done you. YOU cannot explain the duality and inconsistencies of God's alleged (by you) omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience ( or are you backing down on this total concept of an all seeing all knowing god you rely on in other arguments) and the also ( alleged by you) concept of human free will... and 'I" am the illogical one, without credence in a debate? You HAVE to be kidding, you give credibility to Eddy who post Bible verses (IMHO amongst other pertinent points) and not to those of us who post logical discussion points? You are a joke...an arrogant misguided joke.
|
|