I'm not trying to redefine omnipotent spider - it either means "all" powerful - or it doesn't! Omniscient either means "all" knowing or it doesn't. "omni = all" that is it's meaning. if Your religion want it to mean less than that, then tell every other source of definition available to include your meaning into it.

Spider's question is "Why would they invent this story - and then die to maintain it?"

The True Authorship Of The New Testament by Abelard Reuchlin, first printed in the United States in 1979.1 It talked about an inner circle or inner ring, the most exclusive club in history, who knew the ‘Great Secret’. In this circle were those religious, political and literary leaders, who knew the truth about Jesus, but did not want anyone else to know. What struck me was that this book came to the same conclusions that I had.

The Gospels are an invention designed to manufacture a new prison-religion.

The book doesn’t go into all the symbolism I have documented here, but it does name the family and others who wrote the New Testament and the codes they used to ‘sign’ their authorship. One of these codes, interestingly, is the number 40 I highlighted earlier.

Forty was also represented by the letter M, as in Mary. The letter M is very significant to the Brotherhood still today and we see it everywhere in the symbol of the McDonalds fast food chain. We will see later how the big corporations use Brotherhood symbolism in their logos and names. M means Mary or Madonna, who means Semiramis.

The wealth of evidence in Reuchlin’s book, much of it complex and dealing with esoteric mathematical codes, is extremely compelling. I do recommend you try to get hold of a copy if you want the full details. The opening paragraph encapsulates its findings:

“The New Testament, the Church and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso (pronounced Peso) family, who were Roman aristocrats. The New Testament and all the characters in it - Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, John the Baptist - all are fictional. The Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story to a specific time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is fictiotional!) characters.”


David Icke, The Biggest Secret.

SHOW ME THE CONTRADICTION......GOD WAS VERY HAPPY WITH CREATION OF BOTH EARTH AND OF MAN.........IT WAS ONLY AFTER MANS STUPIDITY DID HE GET DISPLEASED.......


Reach people reach....we showed you]




so show us.....back up your lameness.

To catch up - it was determined that Krimsa did not do an exegesis on the subject - and was formulating an idea about the matter of "unclean" from the portion of Leviticus that she had read.

At least that is the perception from her own testimony. The idea that unclean was a spiritual reference (which came from who knows where) was brought in from another part of scripture that did not relate to the passage.

But - hey, believe whatever you want. Cain killed Abel - judaism is a murderous religion.
Everyone has to kill there brother. The bible says so.

1)Ok here is something interesting . . . don't you think if God wanted to write a book it would be so amazingly written as to not have anything of which to argue over? (just thought all the strife in the forum is the last thing god would want his flock to pursue . . regardless of interpretation)

Or is its obscurity another test? Maybe you are not passing . . . .



2) Oh spider Id love to see your evidence that creation took 7 days . . . that would really make my day. In fact id love to have any evidence of any miracle EVER.

Still waiting spider...sure is a lot of flip flopping going on here. God is nice, god is mean and evil. Hmm, just like man? Interesting. Still waiting for you to explain how that defines an "unchanging character" as you put it. Also to rebut JB. You have done neither. Im not really sure here who contradicts themselves more, god or you? That is assuming you are still trying to argue that the bible was written by this "omnipotent being" Sure is a LOT of evidence piling up here to the contrary.

"Fear and doubt would only be appropriate if something could threaten God or if God didn't know everything. God is omnipotent and Omniscient, so God cannot feel fear or doubt."

So he is omnipotent? Yet he seems to be angry enough to feel plenty of fear and doubt. Can you explain this one also? Those would appear to be very human feelings.

Oh and spider, who is doing the insulting here? This guy is nuts. Or whatever it is. Irrational. You have yet to present a logical debate not based on your own opinions and emotions.

I didn't lose my temper in this thread. Even if I broke every rule in the forums in other threads, that has nothing to do with this thread. You are being biased and ignoring the fact that Abra didn't have evidence. What was his evidence? Assertions. Assertions without evidence are called gratuitous assertions and should be ignored. Can you explain WHY Abra doesn't need to provide evidence, when the rules of debate require it?

You can go here to read about the rules of debate, you will see that I copied/pasted most of them.

http://www.triviumpursuit.com/speech_debate/what_is_debate.php

To me it's clear that as soon as the Bible is recognized as being nothing more than the unwarranted superstitions of men, it makes perfect sense. It's perfectly clear why men would make these things up. Moreover, most of the superstitions that are in the biblical picture of God were also in just about every other manmade superstition of the Mediterranean region. Including the idea of making blood sacrifices to appease the Gods. They didn't even come up with something new.

As a manmade superstitious myth it makes perfect sense.

Of course this is important but was glossed over totally.

What are you talking about? You have not even addressed the contradiction. Either God is happy with his creation or he is not happy with his creation. Im asking, which is it?

FC person has been rude, hateful and nonsensical. You have lost your temper several times on this very thread and posted nothing but your opinion spider.

I ask the both of you to simply follow some decorum and debate rationally. Too much to ask? Evidently so.

If you really wanted to know you would ask God...not insist on endless debate & arguements which falls far too short for understanding.

I'm sure you would not like the answer anyway.

Still waiting spider...sure is a lot of flip flopping going on here. God is nice, god is mean and evil. Hmm, just like man? Interesting. Still waiting for you to explain how that defines an "unchanging character" as you put it. Also to rebut JB. You have done neither. Im not really sure here who contradicts themselves more, god or you? That is assuming you are still trying to argue that the bible was written by this "omnipotent being" Sure is a LOT of evidence piling up here to the contrary.

"Fear and doubt would only be appropriate if something could threaten God or if God didn't know everything. God is omnipotent and Omniscient, so God cannot feel fear or doubt."

So he is omnipotent? Yet he seems to be angry enough to feel plenty of fear and doubt. Can you explain this one also? Those would appear to be very human feelings.

I hate to sound like a 2 year old but this is a valid question in fact. You hear it often. If god, like all you Christians claim, is omnipotent, why would he create this document that’s so full of holes and open to so many loose interpretations and causes so much arguing and heated debate? Wouldn’t he just stream line it so we all get it telepathically and it all makes perfect sense to every man, woman and child? Dogs and cats even? You know how picky cats can be? I mean it’s far too vague for thinking people to accept with a straight face...

These attempts to make God look bad is really showing nothing more than the lack of PERSONAL responsiblity for one's OWN choices.

In any case...the attempts to blame God for wrong choices should take closer examination. All the debate techiques will never stand up to the truth when it hits a man's own heart.

I'm sure you already know the truth & refuse to believe it. That's a choice you have to live with but others don't.

What Jeannie has said here make absolute perfect sense.

Spider's arguments make absolutely no sense at all if you even stop and think about them for a mere brief second.

Jeannie is suggesting that God is smart enough to build into the universe an autopilot system of justice that requires no baby-sitting.

Spider is trying to claim that it makes more sense to believe that an omnipotent being is keeping track of each individual person and passing personal judgments upon they every action.

Which makes more sense?

Jeannie is actually giving God credit for being smarter.

And I'm in total agreement her assessment. A God who is smart enough to build 'judgments' into the very fabric of life so that they are automatically implemented without any need to baby-sit them would be a far superior God to one that is hanging around trying to pass judgments on every single little action of every single person who ever lived.

That picture is extremely illogical and nonsensical.

So if we're going to apply logic and reason, then karma clearly wins out over a godhead who judges everyone individually on a personal basis. That idea is totally unreasonable.

I submit that Spider's arguments on this matter are totally unreasonable and illogical. He's not arguing reason or logic. He's just desperately trying to reach for the most absurdly unreasonable possibilities in the hopes of making the stories seem to be even remotely plausible. It could be made to work if we are willing to believe that God is totally illogical and unreasonable.

But why should we want to believe that? God is supposed to be all-wise, not all-absurd.