PGA2.0

-->

@SkepticalOne

I don't follow that distinction. The Christian church does not stand untainted by the world (and neither does any other religion that I know of). There are plenty of examples of 'wordly stains' on the church.

Even though we are frail and tainted in ourselves,

Here's what I got from that:
'You're right the church is stained, so, it's a religion like any other..., but, I think my religion is better and should have a privileged place in schools anyway'.

Religion is "do, do" to earn your salvation or make yourself right with God. Christiinity is what Another has done for you. That makes it different from other religious beliefs. What makes you so good that you think you are better than those who have faith in Jesus, stained and all? Christianity focuses on our righteousness before God. How would you meet that standard? How do you meet its criterion?

Have you ever disrespected God? Have you taken His name in vain?

Have you ever been angry with your brother or someone unjustly? Jesus equated that to murder. Have you been complicit in shedding innocent blood? Have you defended the innocent?

Have you ever committed adultery? Jesus defined that as lust for a woman.

Have you ever coveted something not your own?

Have you ever lied? Do you misrepresent the truth? Do you know what the truth is?

Have you ever dishonoured your parents?

Have you ever stolen?

Have you ever been hypocritical?

Have you promoted what is evil? How do you know?

Have you ever falsely beared witness against someone else, slandered, or miligned their character?

Do you promote stife for people of biblical faith?

Are you for or against Jesus?

Who fled on the Mayflower? What principles did they build upon?
As I said above, this is a whole other debate. Start a thread if you want to discuss it.

You mentioned it. Let me remind you:

"David Barton and Christian Nationalists have done much to distort the facts, but America was not founded on Judeo-Christian values. That's a whole other debate though."

Why should I value David Barton's opinion? Why should I value Christian nationalism? Did the founding fathers of your country believe in a deity and many specifically in the Judeo-Christian God? What of the Declaration of Independence?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I'm just answering your charges. Is you aim just to state things without accountability? Do you want me to remain silent and let you control the whole narrative?

Our belief in built upon a [insert attribute here] like no other religious belief,
Still claimed by adherents of every religion.

And not every religious belief is true since every religion makes absolute claims that contradict other religions. I only defend my Christian beliefs since I do not believe other worldviews are based on truth. That is where my arguments come from.

It [Pastafarianism] is just fiction made up in 2005 to mock Christianity and that you also use as a club, IMO.
...I didn't bring it up, and I certainly haven't clubbed you or anyone with it.

In your profile, you stated it was your religion. When I questioned you on some of its tenants you say you do not believe in them. Thus, my conclusion is that you are using that platform to mock and make fun of the Christian belief.

I ask you what would be necessary for our knowledge of origins since you claim ignorance? Is that something you have an answer for because I do.
You've mistaken having an answer with having knowledge.

I have what is necessary for such knowledge of origins, a God that has revealed Himself to His creatures. It is necessary for an absolute, objective, omniscient, unchanging, eternal God to reveal what happened for us to have certainty of such things as origins. Do you have what is necessary? Your opinion is not necessary regarding morality, origins, existence. I would still form my own relative views regardless of whether you exist and you would do the same whether I existed, so neither of us meets the criteria for being necessary for the knowledge of such things as our origins, morality, existence. But to have an objective view God must reveal.

Not only that, I make the claim that I do not believe you are capable of making sense of such things because once again you do not start from what is necessary.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

I'm not sure who and what you are referring to when you suggest "more Faith".

Faith has two main sub-definitions.

1. A general trust in day to day stuff....I have faith in the weather forecast etc.

2. Strong belief in doctrines of religion.

I have no strong belief in doctrines of religion, and little faith in the weather forecast....Though it is fair to say that we all need to have faith in day to day stuff, or we would never get anything done.

So can you explain, why you think that I might have more faith than you?

And I would suggest that you and more specifically your brain, derives meaning, value and purpose and attributes it to a god, relative to programmed information....In exactly the same way (process) that SkepticalOne and myself attribute meaning, value and purpose in other ways.

And furthermore, there is no factual evidence for the existence of a god, only hypothetical suggestion....Hence, you have faith and we are sceptical.

The post was addressed to SkepticalOne. I just included you because I cut into your conversation. The "more faith" reference was addressing SkepticalOne, not you.

There is factual evidence that confirms the biblical words are true and reasonable to believe. You mention meaning, value, and purpose. If you do not believe in God how do you come up with these three specifics without it being nothing more than relativism? If you believe in a god, which one? Give me your absolute, objective best, the reference point you judge good and better against. If you can offer no final measure and reference point what makes your views as anything more than shifting and changing? If they are shifting and changing, how do you arrive at goodness?

I'll take a specific example, abortion, since SkepticalOne and I had a debate (actually two) on this very subject. How do you measure the worth of the unborn human being as an example of values?

Do you have what is necessary in what you believe about meaning, values, and purpose to make sense of these three qualitative terms? If so, do so. I challenge you.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@SkepticalOne

Yes - I believe religion shouldn't be taught as true or factual by government in schools. Do you disagree with that notion?

I make a distinction between religion and Christianity based on James 1:27, so what is classed as religion does not usually represent the true tenents of Christianity.
I don't follow that distinction. The Christian church does not stand untainted by the world (and neither does any other religion that I know of). There are plenty of examples of 'wordly stains' on the church. Regardless of the seeming no true scotsman in the works here, religious texts aren't the place to draw a definition of religion for secular government, and I highly doubt this definition of religion was discussed in the Continental Convention.

The church is not a building but a body of believer, of believers who place their faith in Jesus Christ and what He has done. They trust His word. They have faith in the substance of His word. They are given assurance of His word because of their faith. God confirms in them His truth. They understand the falsity of the contrary.

Even though we are frail and tainted in ourselves, we do not look to ourselves but to Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. Our works are nothing compared to His, who obtained eternal salvation not because of what we had done or could do, but because of His glorious righteousness. We, by faith, recognize His life lived in our stead, His righteousness in exchange for our unrighteousness, His penalty and payment sufficient before God, recognizing that He died in our stead, the righteous for the unrighteous. So, there is no boasting on our part in what we do but on what He has done for us!

We see the difference between Christianity and other religions in what we are incapable of doing in and of ourselves God has done for us. That is the faith we hold, the substance of the things we hope for and the assurance of things to come, and have come to us who believe. We believe. We see the difference between Christianity and other religions in that they are built upon our works, not the work of God. We rest in God.

Hebrews 4:8-10 (NASB)
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. 9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.

That day has come for us Christians for we not only have peace with God but we rest in His Son. By faith and with the reason provided by Scripture I believe that great day dawned in AD 70.

The stains of the church come from our disobedience, not our obedience or following Scripture, yet the blood stains of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice has done more than we could ever hope for, more than we can ever do. As Christians we are taught by His word to forgive others as we have been forgiven.

We understand that pure religion is to sacrifice ourselves for others, to help them in their times of need in as much as God has given us the ability, to put them before ourselves.

As for teaching Christianity as true, I agree that it is, so I see the benefits of teaching the Judeo-Christian belief system since your country was founded on many of its principles.

Yah...no. David Barton and Christian Nationalists have done much to distort the facts, but America was not founded on Judeo-Christian values. That's a whole other debate though.

Who fled on the Mayflower? What principles did they build upon?

As for the factuality of Christianity, I believe I can make a good case for it.

As do adherents of every religion.

Our belief in built upon a history like no other religious belief, an interaction. As I said, prophecy is a reasonable proof that is not easily explained away, as you have attempted to do through eisegesis. The problem is that in doing so you reflect on ideas that are not found in the Bible. You ignore the primary audience and interject your own.

Do you believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real as your religion states?

As I answered in an earlier post:

"Pastafarianism is not contrary to atheism, agnosticism, or even Christianity since it is not a belief in a real god, but a clever illustration of why government sponsored religion in public schools is a bad idea."

That is where you are mistaken. The Christian God is real and He has given you adequate proof of His existence not only through what is made but also by His Word, His Son, His Spirit, that you would be wise to take note of.

You hide your real belief behind this Pastarianism as a mascarade. You will not commit to saying that its tenants are real or true because you know, deep down, they are not. I ask you a simple question - "Do you believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real" - and you admit it is not a belief of a real god. It is just fiction made up in 2005 to mock Christianity and that you also use as a club, IMO.

You're asking a question that was already answered by a previous reply. If you're going to ask questions please pay attention to the answers.

That is the difference between our beliefs. You do not believe what you noted as your belief (Pastafarianism). IMO, you use it to mock the Christian belief. Why is it that you have such animosity for Someone you say you have no faith or belief in - the Christian God? You make it a point to center the Christian beliefs out as unreal yet you are inconsistent. What you say is not how you act. You charge the Christian God as non-existence and unreal while you critique Him as if He is real and as if it matters to you what He does. Why do you treat Him as if He is real if He is just a fiction? Why do you constantly think about Him? You get upset by the injustice of God in the Bible on the one hand then say He does not exist on the other. That is inconsistency.

You have as much faith as I do, I would say more, it is just directed in another direction, to scientism when you speak of origins.

Ultimately, I acknowledge my ignorance on the origins of life and the BB (until more data comes to light). Unless you're willing to admit faith and ignorance are linked, I don't think this is the direction you want to go.

Until more subjective opinion about origins comes to light?

I am not the one in ignorance towards the biblical God - you are.

I ask you what would be necessary for our knowledge of origins since you claim ignorance? Is that something you have an answer for because I do. I understand that you are not necessary, nor am I. And, you admit you are ignorant. I claim that is because you have not identified what (or rather, Who) would be necessary to make sense of origins. Both you and I are limited in our understanding, limited in our knowledge. Every human being, save one - Jesus Christ - is lacking in omniscience.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@SkepticalOne

Biblical faith is not defined by just one verse, but the whole context, the whole chapter speaks of a trust in God. You still have to trust in the substance of things you hope for, that God exists and is a rewarded of those who diligently seek Him. The biblical record is one of trust in Him identified by those who are faithful and distrust and doubting Him for the faithless.

You're assuming your conclusion when you pull verses which use 'trust' instead of 'faith', and your language is confused where you integrate "trust" into a Biblical definition for faith - "trust in the substance of things you hope for". The verses says 'faith is the substance of things hoped for', not 'faith is the trust in the substance of things hoped for'.

I am not confused, and yes, I trust the overall biblical demonstration of faith - trust in the substance of things hoped for, in a God hoped for and trusted in, of people believing God and acting accordingly. To believe you must trust. To place faith you must trust . Why would you put your faith in something you did not trust in? My conclusion is based on solid evidence, the word of God. These people believed God, they trusted God.

Galatians 3:5-7 (NASB)
5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
6 Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.

James 2:22-24 (NASB)
22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Abraham was looking for the substance of things not seen. In Hebrews 11 you quote one verse but you ignore the rest that describes that substance in believing God. Thus, Scripture says:

Hebrews 11 (NASB)
The Triumphs of Faith
11 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the men of old gained approval.

By faith these men of old believed God's word. They were sure of the conviction of the things hoped for because they understood that God does not lie. By faith they and all people of faith in the biblical God understand that what is seen, the physical, is not made by the physical, but by God. We understand God, by His Word, spoke the universe into being. So the substance of things hoped for, things not yet seen, including God, is the surety of our convictions. That is our faith, our trust has an object - God.

3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Hebrews 11:8-10

By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; 10 for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

The substance of the things hoped for was what Abraham placed his faith in, in the God who was able to deliver that substance.

By faith...[Abraham] believed in God's promise, the substance of which was the inheritance God had promised him.

By faith...(Abraham] was looking for the city of God. That was the substance he hoped for and believed in because he had faith that God was able to deliver it.

Hebrews 11:13-19

13 All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. 15 And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them.
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; 18 it was he to whom it was said, “In Isaac your descendants shall be called.” 19 He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type.

In faith...all {mentioned in the chapter] died, welcoming the promises of God from afar, having faith that God was able to deliver what He promised to those who put their trust in Him. Just like Abraham, they were looking for the substance of things hoped for believing God will make it happen because of their trust in Him.

By faith Abraham, who had been promised by God, believed in the substance of that promise and trusted God. He put his faith in the substance of God's words and trusted God was able to do what He said.

Through God, I understand the impossibility of the contrary, of His necessity in making sense of life's ultimate questions - origins, existence, morality, truth. I know His words are true. There is a conviction that come from my faith in Him. He opens His word to my spirit. He confirms His word in so many ways because I have placed my faith in His Son. I believe in what the Word says of Jesus. I understand how reasonable it is and how God confirms His Word by what He has made. Prophecy is just one of those ways that He gives evidence of His word in history.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@SkepticalOne

@zedvictor4

Brain function....The acquisition, storage, manipulation and output of data....Faith and scepticism are two labels that we apply to bits of this process.
Faith provides no reliable pathway to knowledge. Skepticism does.

I would like to cut in here with my two cents to your comment to zedvictor4, SkepticalOne.

You have as much faith as I do, I would say more, it is just directed in another direction, to scientism when you speak of origins. Are you applying this comment to yourself too? Faith in the biblical God does have its evidence, and the biblical God makes sense of meaning, value, and purpose. How does your Flying Spaghetti Monster do so?

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@SkepticalOne

Do you really believe in Pastafarianism
Yes - I believe religion shouldn't be taught as true or factual by government in schools. Do you disagree with that notion?

I make a distinction between religion and Christianity based on James 1:27, so what is classed as religion does not usually represent the true tenents of Christianity. Thus, I can agree that what is not pure should not be taught as true. As for teaching Christianity as true, I agree that it is, so I see the benefits of teaching the Judeo-Christian belief system since your country was founded on many of its principles. IMO, the further we distance ourselves from God the more riots and loots and social disorder we find within our socieities. I believe the Sermon on the Mount is worth teaching. The golden rule is worth teaching. The Ten Commandments are worth teaching.

As for the factuality of Christianity, I believe I can make a good case for it. The biblical God is certainly reasonable to believe and capable of making sense of existence. I believe God is true and every human, in his/her limited capacity, a liar. As for your "version" of truth, what is truth?

Do you believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real as your religion states?

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@SkepticalOne

Are you using the label to identify what you really believe in - a flying spaghetti monster, first revealed in 2005 - or are you just using the term as a form of mockery of religions in general, especially Christianity?
Neither.

Please explain further. What do you believe about Pastafarianism?

Do you really believe in Pastafarianism (what you have labelled yourself as), or is it just a platform to express your atheism, a smoke screen label to create attention to religion as absurd?

I would have thought that someone who claimed allegiance to such a religion would also adhere to its tenants and identify with its creator, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@SkepticalOne

The "many, many words" were an example of various thoughts on the subject, thus not just my opinion. They are confirmed by dictionaries, encyclopedias, and religious authorities as well as from the etymology of the word "faith." They do not deflect; rather they prove.
I have agreed faith *can* mean trust, but that is not the definition of faith provided by the Bible.

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Biblical faith is not defined by just one verse, but the whole context, the whole chapter speaks of a trust in God. You still have to trust in the substance of things you hope for, that God exists and is a rewarded of those who diligently seek Him. The biblical record is one of trust in Him identified by those who are faithful and distrust and doubting Him for the faithless.

Proverbs 3:5-6 [Full Chapter]

Trust in the Lord with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight.

Jesus constantly demonstrated trust in His Father and others recognized this faith.

Matthew 27:43

He trusts in God; let God rescue Him now, if He delights in Him; for He said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”

John 14:1

[ Jesus Comforts His Disciples ] “Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me.

Believing in Someone you have not seen requires a faith. And when we trust, when we place our trust in Him He does not disappoint if we do not give up.

Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

The same trust and faith could be said for Paul, as he said,

2 Corinthians 1:9

indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead;

He had faith in the substance of the things he hoped for and encouraged others to hope as well in the things not seen in the physical.

...meaning faith itself is evidence. "Trust" is not evidence - it is built on evidence. That being said, all the definitions you've provide do not argue against this point. There are multiple definitions for many words - that is not in contention. What is in contention is that a particular (Biblical) definition of faith is a dubious basis of reasonable belief, and most especially, knowledge.

The thing or objected hoped for - God - provides us evidence. His Spirit interjects with our spirits. We reason with God through His word.

Hebrews 4:12

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Those who place their faith in Jesus, and do not tun back, are rewarded by the knowledge of Him. When they read the Word they recognize who it is speaking to them through the message,

1 Thessalonians 1:8

For the word of the Lord has sounded forth from you, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith toward God has gone forth, so that we have no need to say anything.

1 Thessalonians 2:13

For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

Now, again, I have provided many Scriptural verses that give evidence of what I am saying. I do this not solely for you, as a witness against your opposition, for I believe you will reject it (your objections demonstrate this), but for those who are open.

Also, you should keep in mind, my reply was directed at posts which primarily railed on things unrelated to definitions of trust and/or faith - that is the gish gallop.

No, the word faith could be replaced by belief or trust depending on the context.

And, you are confusing an attack on a bad strategy as an attack on your character. That's your mistake. Even still, at no point have I refused to discuss this topic. I left it up to you to get back on track or end the discussion. That's not ad hom, buddy.

I will let others decide for themselves, yet when someone says to me that I am not honest but does not address the issue at hand I see it as an ad hom.

You said: "I do not 'trust' you mean to have an honest discussion..."

That did not address the issue (what I was arguing for and what I had said), it just focused on discrediting me as dishonest.

How many times have you skipped my questions while again charging gish gallop.

My faith is not a blind faith and yet while I do not see God in this physical dimension I know He exists. He continually confirms to me His existence by His Word, His Son, His Spirit, and by what has been made. Through Him I make sense of my existence.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@SkepticalOne

I also noticed you have once again changed your religious belief to Pastafarianism, from atheist and agnostic, and originally Christian. How steadfast is your faith this time?
More deflection, but this is amusing to me, so I'll play.

Pastafarianism is not contrary to atheism, agnosticism, or even Christianity since it is not a belief in a real god, but a clever illustration of why government sponsored religion in public schools is a bad idea.

Are you using the label to identify what you really believe in - a flying spaghetti monster, first revealed in 2005 - or are you just using the term as a form of mockery of religions in general, especially Christianity? Although you are free to believe what you want, how substantially can you defend such a belief?

I'm a proponent of true religious freedom (which is not religious privilege like some believe), and I don't see that changing.

I give you credit for that!

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@ludofl3x

Way to get the joke, bro.

I don't see the humour in it. The whole idea, IMO, is to mock and ridicule what Christians regard as holy and sacred.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@ludofl3x

Try not responding with gigantic strings of bible verses and opinions other than your own. Your posts are difficult to engage with, keep them tighter and then you'll get a conversation. I've told you this before, and you basically said "I'm not writing them for YOU." No duh, you're writing largely to hear yourself speak.

Where is this quote from, what post? I have stated I have not writing them for him alone but to provide a defence against the charges for whoever wants to read them.

There was a reason for my string of quotes. He continued to argue against my reasoning, thus I showed it was not upon my authority or thinking on the subject alone.

First, he does not accept the definition of faith included in a number of reputable sources. Thus, I provided a number of them. Then he does not understand the biblical significance of the word so I provided a number of verses that have been translated interchangeably as either faith, belief, or trust. Then I provided some etymology of the word. Finally, I provided the Strongs Concordance definition of the word faith, which includes the connotation "trust.". All of my examples show that the word faith is interchangeable with trust, thus synonymous.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

-->

@SkepticalOne

You're on the defensive again! When in denial use "gish gallop" as your form of escapism.
Typical gish gallop. Pointing out a tactic which disallows a real discussion is not defensive or escapism. ...especially since we've actually had that discussion before. In my opinion, the escapism here is throwing many many words on a page in an attempt to deflect from the actual discussion presented by the OP

Not at all. The "many, many words" were an example of various thoughts on the subject, thus not just my opinion. They are confirmed by dictionaries, encyclopedias, and religious authorities as well as from the etymology of the word "faith." They do not deflect; rather they prove.

And, its not ad hom unless it is an attempt to avoid the discussion - I'm trying to bring you back to the discussion rather than running across the countryside chasing rabbits. ;^)

You imply I am not meaning to have an honest discussion. You are not trusting my honesty. I am being as honest as I know how to be. There is no intent to deceive you or be dishonest in what I say. I am being sincere.

"I do not 'trust' you mean to have an honest discussion (based on our interaction thus far)."

You are changing the meaning of ad hominem now. Let me spell it out for you from a number of sources:

Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

(of a criticism, etc.) directed against a person, rather than against what that person says:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/ad-hominem

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy that involves a personal attack: an argument based on the perceived failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case. In short, it's when your rebuttal to an opponent's position is an irrelevant attack on the opponent personally rather than the subject at hand, to discredit the position by discrediting its supporter. It translates as "against the man."

https://www.thoughtco.com/ad-hominem-fallacy-1689062

The ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy associated with trying to undermine the opponent's arguments by personal attacks, through attacking their character or skill level, etc.

https://www.logicalfallacies.org/ad-hominem.html

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

The ad hominem fallacy occurs whenever the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing an argument is criticized instead of seeking to disprove the argument provided.

https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

The fallacy of ad hominem abusive occurs when someone attacks the person who is making the argument, rather than criticizing the validity of their argument. More specifically, it focuses on someone’s supposed failings that are unrelated to the issue at hand criticizing their personal attributes such as character, intelligence, physical appearance, or morals.

https://fallacyinlogic.com/ad-hominem-abusive-definition-and-examples/

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@SkepticalOne

I also noticed you have once again changed your religious belief to Pastafarianism, from atheist and agnostic, and originally Christian. How steadfast is your faith this time? To me (IMO), Pastafarianism is nonsense. Who revealed this stuff to you as reasonable or is it something your mind prefers to believe and trust in as you pick and choose?

It has only been known since 2005, per Wikipedia, and invented by a man, Bobby Henderson. What makes him right or an authority on anything? Your Bible, "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster," written by Henderson in 2006 is a satirical look at religion and cannot be taken seriously. There is ZERO evidence for his claims, such as - "an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe after drinking heavily."

Although Henderson has stated that "the only dogma allowed in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the rejection of dogma", some general beliefs are held by Pastafarians.

This is the dogma of Henderson that requires blind faith for anyone gullible enough (IMO) to believe it as reasonable, although it is just another way to decry Christianity and poke fun of it. That is the goal behind this "religion," IMO.

dogma

noun

1.a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true:

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@SkepticalOne

Your reductive representation of my view (provided over multiple responses) is not accurate, and your gish gallop'ed reply (what I read of it) attempts to address something that is not mine. I do not 'trust' you mean to have an honest discussion (based on our interaction thus far). If that changes, we can have a meaningful exchange. If not, it's a waste of time.

You're on the defensive again! When in denial use "gish gallop" as your form of escapism. Nice! What you call gish gallop is me providing proof of my claim.

On top of that add some ad homs by implying I am not honest. Then you imply I am not having a meaningful exchange because I probe into how your worldview is meaningful from your (or from an atheists/agnostics perspective) starting presuppositions - blind indifferent chance happenstance or ignorance.

Is it me who is not being honest here? Why can't you answer my questions and why do you ignore my followups. I am most willing to continue but I prefer a shared conversation with give and take.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@SkepticalOne

While your underlined statement can be true I have already discussed this in identifying three types of faith - 1) blind faith (as underlined in your last statement), 2) reasonable or rational faith, in which logic and reason is applied, or, 3) Irrational or illogical faith.
1 and 3 are the same thing, and 2 is no longer faith. If you have reason to believe, then you don't need faith. Share your reasons, not your faith...

Again, you are wrong. Blind faith is a belief that may or may not be true. It may believe in God as reasonable with looking into the evidence, thus without confirming the belief with evidence. Irrational faith is believing in something that does not make sense or goes against logic.

Number 2 (reasonable faith) is still faith with evidence attached. If you do not believe in God you explain existence and origins in other ways, such as blind indifferent chance happenstance since no intention or reason is behind the universe or existence. It still requires faith since you cannot test your belief by seeing or repeating the process or origins or life from non-life. What happens with the absence of belief in God is that you find other reasons for origins and existence. You construct a worldview and build on or confirm that presupposition by things that agree with it while ignoring those that do not agree with it. Thus, you have a confirmation bias. What you expect to find you find while ignoring the evidence that opposes your belief in naturalism and materialism.

It is something you do not wish to accept and are closed to, so you villanize my words as gish gallop.

I'll accept what can be shown with reason or evidence. Ive seen no argument or evidence that leads me to that conclusion. Your arguments from a particular theological bent are uncompelling to me. Those are arguments for believers.

Neither are atheists or agnostics that build in a number of presuppositions that do not follow from their starting point of either denial of God or ignorance of Him. They have to rely on blind indifferent happenstance that lacks intent, meaning, value, purpose to presuppose what they do. That means FAITH. They trust in something without conclusive proof, even ignoring the things that demolish the reasonableness of such beliefs. They are inconsistent when they take on such beliefs because they borrow from the Judeo-Christian framework, usually unknowingly. Thus, they do not work exclusively from their own system of belief but keep cheating by borrowing someone else's.

And, by definition, you have provided gish gallop - rapid fire assertions and misrepresentation that would take much longer to address than originally uttered. I wonder if you are capable on focusing on one argument at a time or limiting your arguments so that an interlocutor might be able to address them in one post? 2 long replies to my short statements doesn't bode well for that possibility.

No, I have explained or questioned why your system of beliefs fails. I have asked probing questions that the atheist or agnostic is either afraid to answer or does not have what is necessary to make sense of them. Thus, the sure defence is denial and avoidance. So, while I am able to answer everyone of your questions the same is not true of mine to you.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

-->

@SkepticalOne

Faith not synonymous with trust?
Nope. The words do not mean the same thing. I agree with your provided definition: "FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof". Trust implies a certitude too, but not in the absence of evidence.

Again, you are picking your definition from the meanings of the word, yet why would I place my trust in Someone unless I had faith in them?

While a word can have more than one meaning depending upon how it is used, the words faith and trust can most definitely have the same meaning and connote the same thing.

Maybe the following will convince you or show others how unreasonable your highlighted quote is. You are making up definitions to suit yourself while ignoring the long term, acceptable definitions these words have been understood to mean.

Faith:

2a(1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God

Also,

Definition of faith (Entry 2 of 2)

transitive verb

archaic

: BELIEVE, TRUST

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

***

noun

confidence or trust in a person or thing:

ORIGIN OF FAITH

1200–50; Middle English feith<Anglo-French fed,Old French feid, feit<Latin fidem, accusative of fidēs trust, akin to fīdere to trust. See confide

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/faith

***

faith

[ feyth ]

SEE DEFINITION OF faith

nountrust in something
nounbelief in a higher being; community of believers

SYNONYMS FOR faith

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/faith

***

Faith, derived from Latin fides and Old French feid,[1] is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

***

Faith is defined as belief with strong conviction; firm belief in something for which there may be no tangible proof; complete trust, confidence, reliance, or devotion. Faith is the opposite of doubt.

Where do we learn about the character of God so we can have faith in him? The obvious answer is the Bible, in which God reveals himself fully to his followers. Everything we need to know about God is found there, and it is an accurate, in-depth picture of his nature.

One of the things we learn about God in the Bible is he is incapable of lying. His integrity is perfect; therefore, when he declares the Bible to be true, we can accept that statement, based on God’s character. Many passages in the Bible are impossible to understand, yet Christians accept them because of faith in a trustworthy God.

https://www.learnreligions.com/what-is-the-meaning-of-faith-700722

***

Matthew 25:21 New International Version (NIV)
21 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

Matthew 25:21 Amplified Bible (AMP)
21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful and trustworthy over a little, I will put you in charge of many things; share in the joy of your master.’

***

1 Corinthians 4:2 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
2 In this case, moreover, it is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy.

1 Corinthians 4:2 Amplified Bible (AMP)
2 In this case, moreover, it is required [as essential and demanded] of stewards that one be found faithful and trustworthy.

***

1 Corinthians 15:14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.

1 Corinthians 15:14 Amplified Bible (AMP)
14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain [useless, amounting to nothing], and your faith is also vain [imaginary, unfounded, devoid of value and benefit—not based on truth].

Vain faith is not based on truth, whereas pure faith is, and the object of that trustfulness is God. We trust God above men.

Matthew 17:20

Amplified Bible
He answered, “Because of your little faith [your lack of trust and confidence in the power of God]; for I assure you and most solemnly say to you, if you have [living] faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and [if it is God’s will] it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you.

Little faith is a lack of trust in God.

Matthew 21:21

Amplified Bible
Jesus replied to them, “I assure you and most solemnly say to you, if you have faith [personal trust and confidence in Me] and do not doubt or allow yourself to be drawn in two directions, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen [if God wills it].

CJB

Yeshua answered them, “Yes! I tell you, if you have trust and don’t doubt, you will not only do what was done to this fig tree; but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Go and throw yourself into the sea!’ it will be done.

Faith, belief, and trust are often used synonymously in the Bible.

Mark 11:24

Amplified Bible
For this reason I am telling you, whatever things you ask for in prayer [in accordance with God’s will], believe [with confident trust] that you have received them, and they will be given to you.

I.e., have faith that they will be given to you.

Luke 1:45

Amplified Bible
And blessed [spiritually fortunate and favored by God] is she who believed and confidently trusted that there would be a fulfillment of the things that were spoken to her [by the angel sent] from the Lord.”

CJB

Indeed you are blessed, because you have trusted that the promise Adonai has made to you will be fulfilled.”

Romans 1:8

Amplified Bible
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith [your trust and confidence in His power, wisdom, and goodness] is being proclaimed in all the world.

CJB

First, I thank my God through Yeshua the Messiah for all of you, because the report of your trust is spreading throughout the whole world.

***

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance

assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.From peitho; persuasion, i.e. Credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself -- assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

Strong's Concordance

pistis: faith, faithfulness

Original Word: πίστις, εως, ἡ

Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine

Transliteration: pistis

Phonetic Spelling: (pis'-tis)

Definition: faith, faithfulness

Usage: faith, belief, trust, confidence; fidelity, faithfulness.

https://biblehub.com/greek/4102.htm

***

Synonyms & Antonyms for trust

Synonyms: Noun

History and Etymology for trust

Noun and Verb

Middle English, probably of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse traust trust; akin to Old English trēowe faithful

Trusting and not trusting

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/trust

***

trust

(trʌst)

1. reliance on and confidence in the truth, worth, reliability, etc, of a person or thing; faith.

Verb

trust - have confidence or faith in; "We can trust in God"; "Rely on your friends"; "bank on your good education";

trust

verb

1. believe in, have faith in, depend on, count on, bank on, lean on, rely upon, swear by, take at face value, take as gospel, place reliance on, place your trust in, pin your faith on, place or have confidence in 'I trust you completely,' he said.

believe in doubt, suspect, discredit, beware, distrust, mistrust, disbelieve, be sceptical of, lack confidence in, lack faith in

trust

noun

1. Absolute certainty in the trustworthiness of another:

belief, confidence, dependence, faith, reliance.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/trust

***

Synonyms: believe in, have faith in, depend on, count on More Synonyms of trust

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/trust

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@SkepticalOne

You made it personal when you questioned my belief or why I believe what I do.
I didn't question your belief, just the faulty reasoning by which you adopted someone else's religious beliefs (not necessarily those in the Bible) as your own.

Again, you are equivocating, trying to turn the tables on what I have said. My belief is in the Lord Jesus Christ. There as essential things about Him I must believe to be a Christian. If I am wrong in my interpretation, biblically speaking, point out my apparent misinterpretation. Whose religious beliefs did I adopt? Show me. Show me where my religious beliefs are not biblical.

I didn't read the rest of your post - sorry. It didn't seem relevant. I started a new thread based on an argument from your last reply.

That is because you have a particular agenda. I read every part of your posts to find out what you are saying. Regardless, perhaps other are interested in what I have said, so it is not solely for you that I explain myself.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

https://www.thoughtco.com/equivocation-fallacy-term-1690672#:~:text=Equivocation%20is%20a%20fallacy%20by%20which%20a%20specific,rather%20than%20just%20a%20single%20word%20or%20phrase.

-->

@SkepticalOne

I'm saying anything and everything can be believed "on faith".
Faith and trust *can* be synonyms, but not in this context. A religious faith is 'the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen'. Meaning faith is is not just trust, but, per the Bible, evidence.

Now you are walking back your original statement and trying to justify it by saying "faith *can* be synonymous, but not in *this* context?

Compare your two statements:

a) "Religious faith and trust are not synonymous."

b) "Faith and trust *can* be synonyms,..."

Which is it? You make an either-or statement then walk it back.

***

Equivocation is a fallacy by which a specific word or phrase in an argument is used with more than one meaning. It's also known as semantic equivocation. Compare this with the related term of amphiboly, in which the ambiguity is in the grammatical construction of the sentence rather than just a single word or phrase.

"Equivocation is a common fallacy because it often is quite hard to notice that a shift in meaning has taken place,"

"A religious faith is 'the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen'. Meaning faith is is not just trust, but, per the Bible, evidence.

What is the significance of those words? Substance of things hoped for? The EVIDENCE of things not seen? God opens up and confirms to our minds the evidence of things not seen through reason and logic, for those who persevere and remain steadfast, TRUSTING in Him without being swayed, our roots firmly established.

God provides EVIDENCE for things hoped for and not yet seen. There is substance in the things hoped for.

Romans 5:5

and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

Romans 8:25

But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.

2 Corinthians 1:7

and our hope for you is firmly grounded, knowing that as you are sharers of our sufferings, so also you are sharers of our comfort.

2 Corinthians 1:10

who delivered us from so great a peril of death, and will deliver us, He on whom we have set our hope. And He will yet deliver us,

Now, that is trust!

Colossians 1:22-23
22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

Again, in trusting in Jesus we understand that He is able to do more than we could ever hope for or imaging.

Romans 8:39

nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 14:4

Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

2 Timothy 1:12

For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.

Hebrews 7:25

Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

Those who have truly put their trust in Jesus Christ and rely on Him alone will never be put to shame. They will not turn back even if they may be unfaithful in meeting God just requirements in their own ability. That is why they do not rely or trust in their ability but in the ability of Jesus Christ, and His ability alone for their salvation and right standing before God.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

-->

@SkepticalOne

Faith is belief or trust and is something we tend to place in our origins and things we can't verify empirically, or with certainty. None of us were there to experience the origins of life, existence, or the beginning of the universe if it had a beginning. We cannot confirm scientifically origins in such things by repeating the process to confirm it.
Religious faith and trust are not synonymous. That's an equivocation. Trust is built on evidence, whereas faith is trust without warrant. Often when a believer is unable to describe a reason for his belief "I just have faith" is the justification. "I just have trust" (for no reason) won't work in the same way because the words don't mean the same thing.

Faith not synonymous with trust? You are trying to fit your definition to the word. Where do you get this stuff from? Why would you put faith in something or someone you do not trust? Faith has an object or person we put trust in. We, as Christians, place our trust in Jesus Christ. We believe that what the NT gospels says is His words and an account of His life, mostly the last three and a half years of His life.

***

Definition of faith
(Entry 1 of 2)

1a: allegiance to duty or a person:...

b(1): fidelity to one's promises

(2): sincerity of intentions

2a(1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God

(2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

b(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof

(2): complete trust

3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction

Choose the Right Synonym for faith
Noun
BELIEF, FAITH, CREDENCE, CREDIT mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer. my belief that I had caught all the errors FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof. an unshakable faith in God CREDENCE suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent. a theory now given credence by scientists CREDIT may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof. gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness

***

noun

confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/faith

That being said, there is nothing that cannot be believed on faith ...demonstrating faith is not a path to knowledge.

While your underlined statement can be true I have already discussed this in identifying three types of faith - 1) blind faith (as underlined in your last statement), 2) reasonable or rational faith, in which logic and reason is applied, or, 3) Irrational or illogical faith.

With reasonable faith, such as Christianity is, something (Chritian doctrine) and Someone (God) very specific is believed and trusted. Once you go outside the orbit of what is written with bazaar interpretations that do not represent the Author's words you are in the domain of irrational faith as applied to Christianity. For those who just trust without verification or finding reasons (blind faith), they are okay as long as their fundamentals are sound, IMO. There are some things you simply have to believe to be a Christian, such as in Jesus Christ (the object of our faith) and to an extent in His substitutionary atonement in meeting the requirements of God. Our good works do not meet the standard of God. Repentance for sin is also necessary, and some would argue water baptism.

Your last paragraph is a gish gallop wall of words. I'm cool with honest conversations, and that's not it.

It is something you do not wish to accept and are closed to, so you villanize my words as gish gallop. You are not the only scope or purpose of my words. I'm explaining something important, whether you think so or not. Then you ad hom me, implying I am not being honest. I was totally sincere in what I said.

***

Your thought process is misrepresentative and deconstructive. To say faith is not trust or synonymous with trust boggles my mind.

***

Faith, inner attitude, conviction, or trust relating human beings to a supreme God or ultimate salvation. In religious traditions stressing divine grace, it is the inner certainty or attitude of love granted by God himself. In Christian theology, faith is the divinely inspired human response to God’s historical revelation through Jesus Christ and, consequently, is of crucial significance.

In biblical Hebrew, “faith” is principally juridical: it is the faithfulness or truthfulness with which persons adhere to a treaty or promise and with which God and Israel adhere to the Covenant between them.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/faith

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@SkepticalOne

PGA2.0: Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the Word of Christ. Do you understand the deeper meaning there?
Faith can be used to prop up any belief..even those which are demonstrably false. This makes "Faith" a completely worthless basis for belief.

Faith is belief or trust and is something we tend to place in our origins and things we can't verify empirically, or with certainty. None of us were there to experience the origins of life, existence, or the beginning of the universe if it had a beginning. We cannot confirm scientifically origins in such things by repeating the process to confirm it.

Our worldview start with core presuppositions, for instance, either God is and He is our Creator, or chance happenstance is why we exist would be two such beginnings that we build upon. Another would be whether God is a personal being or impersonal such as "Mother Nature," such as a force, even though we give it human attributes in describing the natural realm. It requires faith for such core or basic beliefs since they are outside the scope of scientific verification in the sense that we are in the present looking back into the past. It is not repeatable or verifiable in that we can recreate the process to confirm it. Thus, for many, the present is the key to the past. This belief assumes that we can fathom how things were and their timeline from what is available to us in the present. For Christians, the biblical God is the key to the past.

Faith can be rational, irrational, or blind. We can have good reason for why we believe what we do, we can have poor and illogical reasons for our belief (or a reason that does not add up or make sense), or we can have no or very little reason, or blindly accept that we are here and that is enough for us. Although not all Christians have a rational faith based on reason and logic (some believe without question), we believe God has given us a rational mind to know Him and discover His majesty and the magnificence of what He has made and revealed not only in the created order - the universe - but also in the biblical testimony. And there are many confirmations that His word is true. Thus, we are capable of reasoning with God through His word. Thus, the universe is a reflection of our God. It pours forth His knowledge in the mathematical precision of the laws of nature we discover. It reflects His wisdom in the moral nature He has given us as reasoning beings. We can't adequately explain morality without first presupposing God as the source because morality is a mindful thing yet not every mind is necessary for the existence of morality. I would still function as a moral being if you did not exist, and visa versa. If morality is preferential (relativism) it begs the question of whose preference and what makes that good? It also begs the question of how there can be "better" or goodness if there is no best or ultimate measure/reference point. So, you derive values, meaning, and purpose that constantly impose themselves on your mind. You are constantly searching for meaning, you seek out and create purpose and values, but in a chance happenstance universe ultimately they are meaningless. Ultimately, there is no purpose. Thus, you are delusional. Thus, that worldview is inconsistent with your belief. Why do you still hold it? The atheist or agnostic keeps borrowing from the Christian worldview that gives such thinking a solid basis. You as a human being are drawn towards meaning and purpose. You would not be on this forum in this discussion if that were not the case. You continually find meaning and purpose when you investigate the workings of the universe (anthropic principle) for there is information in things in the universe. The logical reason is that God made them. Information hints at mindfulness and design. If you saw the words, "Welcome to England" on a billboard as you enter Heathrow airport you do not think that it just willy-nilly appeared over millions of years but that someone designed it to convey information to you. DNA is an informational system. You also find a causal tree of why events happen that you trace back to a point in time for everything that has a beginning seems to have something (or someone) behind it that gives it a reason for its existence. Everything begs intentionality and knowledge in our investigation of it, but again, blind indifferent chance happenstance is not intentional or mindful in any way so once again the atheist or agnostic is inconsistent from their core beliefs. Their core beliefs (what everything else rests upon) do not add up. Thus, the atheist or agnostic clings to a blind faith for their starting presuppositions that can include 1) there is no God, or 2) everything is a result of blind indifferent chance happenstance, and do not add up.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@SkepticalOne

The subject of this thread is about Christians not reading their Bible, and I've provided reasons why that statement may be true. You've not argued against my point, but have focused on me and how I have strayed from a path to your god. I'm not opposed to having that conversation (again), but this thread is not the place.

You made it personal when you questioned my belief or why I believe what I do.

How does what you said,

"What possessed you to pick up a Bible and not a Quran? Clearly, you were being influenced by culture, authority figures, etc., to believe the answers were in that particular holy book rather than another. You had beliefs about the Christian god before you had read the Bible. Our stories are not that dissimilar,"

relate to reading my Bible? Whether I had beliefs about the Christian God before I read the Bible does not necessary mean that I misinterpret it. I charge you do misinterpret, thus even though you may have read it you are not understanding the message and I provide reasons why.

YOU: "These difference between us, is that I turned away from my indoctrination."

You turned to another indoctrination. We all build on something to form our opinions and beliefs. The secular society you live in indoctrinates you.

I gave my opinion why your faith failed. And with that I charged that you did not have a good biblical understanding, judging on our past debates. The subject is "Christians don't read their Bible" so you are guilty just as much of avoiding the subject and are being duplicitous in providing a double-standard by your accusation. What you give an example of you doing is in avoiding the subject but you do not allow me to do the same. And, then again, I would say that a misinterpretation has to do with how you read the Bible as I explained in previous posts.

I addressed the particular passage and argued for why I believe what I do.

When I read my Bible I glean reason from its pages and I can make sense of why the universe and world is as it is. What about it is so unreasonable? In many of my posts with unbelievers, I provide evidence by the impossiblity of the contrary/reductio ad absurdum. I can give a reason for something (i.e., existence, life, morality) or give evidence of something by showing the unlikelihood or absurdity of the opposite or contrary. What was the purpose of this particular thread titled, "Christians don't read their Bible?" I would say that the chances are it was to discredit or shine a poor light on the Christian faith, mock the believers as clowns or people who cannot justify their belief system or not read the biblical message properly. I turn the tables on that discussion. Your faith outside of God is the absurd faith. I have questioned many times how you can make sense of meaning, value, purpose without presupposing God. I keep claiming you can't. I am totally dissatisfied with non-Christian belief systems in their ability to explain things. What are these titles designed to do? They are skeptical and they promote Christians to doubt their faith, like you did and admit to doing, oh skeptical one.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@SkepticalOne

These difference between us, is that I turned away from my indoctrination (ie. the unsubstantiated claims put upon me in my upbringing) and you did not.

No, you were indoctrinated into another system of belief that is inconsistent with its starting or core beliefs, the things that you would have to believe about origins.

You viewed your life experiences as validation of those claims and went to the source of the claims (the Bible), but that method can be used by a person of any faith in any culture (it would simply be a different Holy book).

Yes, it can, but the key is how the internal belief stacks up with reality. I claim yours does not, and I have discussed this in varied posts throughout our correspondence. I always come away very dissatisfied with your ability to explain and make sense of ultimate questions. Your worldview has no explanability when you lift up the hood and look at what powers your belief.

If the 'path to god' can be used by those who would oppose your particular god, then the reasoning is flawed. One person can validate their indoctrination with life experience and find Jesus, another can find Allah, another finds Vishnu, etc.

The evidence comes with the religious writing, and I would include atheism and agnosticism as a religious belief. I have explained why I do so many times before.

Not to mention, this speaks to my point, that the Christian belief (most often) comes before the investigation, and, because of this, not knowing the Bible and being a Christian isn't all that surprising.

Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the Word of Christ. Do you understand the deeper meaning there? To do so you would have to understand how Christ is revealed in every OT writing and in detail. The NT explains the typology to some extent. We, as Christians, discover it more as we study Scripture. I could lay it out in minute detail but the unbeliever seldom picks up on the UNITY of Scripture. Those who depart from the faith seldom understand the intricacy of Scripture. Not only this, but they do not understand the audience of address. Dispensationalism has made many doubt the audience of address. They no longer take the word at face value but apply all kinds of foreign and private interpretations to it. They make their own meaning instead of extracting the Author's meaning.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@SkepticalOne

PS. One thing I have come to believe about you is that you have a poor understanding of the Bible. I am given that insight by what you say. That was confirmed in our debates on prophecy. You practice eisegesis, not exegesis. Of our two positions/debates mine was more reasonable and followed the teaching of Scripture. Unfortunately, those who judge the debates also have an interest in determining the outcome. The overall bias on this and other debate forums is against the Christian worldview and thus it is confirmation bias, IMO. Your fatal flaw in our debates was that you ignored the primary, relevant audience of address and the biblical time statements. So, to you, "this age" became another age, "this generation" became another generation, "you" and other pronouns became general and universal applying to way future generations that have nothing to do with OT Israel and that covenant, instead of speaking specifically to the disciples and 1st-century Jews in that covenant relationship. You have a bias against Scripture that does not let you hear what the words actually teach/say and to whom. Thus, you interpreted your own meaning instead of finding the different author's (and ultimately, the Author's) meaning.

On top of this, you now look at life from a relativist, secular perspective and have much invested in this new foundation whose core beliefs are built on no foundation at all, no means of making sense, no means of visible support, but in mid-air. When you critique me, your own particular bias and investment comes shining through. As I have said, none of us are neutral, we all come to the table (so to speak) with a bias. Remember that - there is no neutrality! The question is as to whether the bias reflects the truth or not. So, which worldview is capable of making sense of existence? I claim that yours can't. It is inconsistent.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@SkepticalOne

That's the point, I was taught to believe in the Christian god (without question) long before I ever read the Bible...and the Bible spoke of a very different being. Anyone comparing my belief to the Bible would rightly come to the conclusion I hadn't read my Bible...at least not all of it.

For me, I was in a place of desperation when I turned to the Bible, and I read it the first time as though God were speaking to me.
What possessed you to pick up a Bible and not a Quran? Clearly, you were being influenced by culture, authority figures, etc., to believe the answers were in that particular holy book rather than another. You had beliefs about the Christian god before you had read the Bible. Our stories are not that dissimilar.

It was because even though my parents were not overly religious, even lived like atheists by their lifestyle to some degree, they did not discourage my faith. One of my fondest memories from my youth was of my mother and me kneeling by my bed and saying a simple prayer, "Gentile Jesus, meek and mild, look upon this little child. Pity my simplicity and suffer me to come to Thee. Bless Mommy and Daddy, cousins and friends, and make me a good boy, Amen."

Another is a Bible which I still have which was given to me by my grandmother with her written inscription quoting Jesus, "Suffer little children to come unto me." So, even though I did not know my grandmother well (I only met her a couple of times) I had an ally praying for my salvation. I also had other allies praying for my salvation later in life when I had a car accident in South Africa in 1979 because my roommate in the game reserve I worked on was a "born again Christian," so was another staff member. Four members in the car suffered life-endangering injuries, including me.

Other fond memories from earlier life were of a Christian family who befriended me and took me to a Presbyterian church on Sunday during my early teens.

So, when I ran into difficulty in my mid-twenties I had a foundation to turn back to and sought after God. When my father died in 1979, I went back to South Africa. His death triggered my quest for meaning in life. The events that happened after that orchestrated my coming to faith, as I look back on them; as I said the car accident being one of those incidents, but there were many other "coincidences" that drew me to God. My uncle who lived in a suburb of Cape Town would take me up the mountains to cut down a tree that was choking out the indigenous vegetation. As we climbed he would quote Scripture to me, "As you sow, so shall you reap..." I kept running into Christians during that period in my life who left an impression upon me. I kept having things happen that while uncomfortable lead me to seek meaning.

Although I accepted the teachings of Christianity in the early 1980s, I only started investigating the biblical faith when I started attending church, evangelizing, and meeting secular and other religious faiths roadblocks and contrary teachings to the Christian faith. I have spent extensive periods of my life investigating opposing beliefs and finding out what makes them tick. I have read extensively great Christian thinkers in trying to respond to unbelievers' objections. I have tackled a number of religious faiths in getting to their core beliefs. God has continually confirmed His Word during this time as being able to make sense of life's ultimate questions like no other religious view I have examined can, including atheism and agnosticism, especially atheism and agnosticism.

Where our "stories" depart is that during difficulties and times of testing I did not turn away from the faith and was rewarded for my perseverance. You turned away too soon. Through God's grace I pray that in His mercy He will lead you back from your apostasy to trusting Him, nevertheless His sovereign will determine what happens. So, go your own way, and may God be merciful to you and your family that you may find hope and life in abundance. Time will tell.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

-->

@BrotherDThomas

YOUR MORE THAN BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE: "As for the Old Covenant and covenant people Jesus came to in the 1st-century, those people no longer live in covenant relationship, and the Old Covenant is obsolete, no longer applicable to the Christian."

Again, you attack me, not what I have written. That shows the weakness of your argument. It reminds me of an immature bully in a playground. Show how what I have said is not true by proving what I have said is not biblical. Until you do that I will no longer respond after this post.

Listen up you minion of Satan,

Again, another ad home attack.

Ad hominem:

(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining

adverb

1.in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining
2.in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person

***

1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

where did I mention the Old Testament in my post #242 where Jesus CONDONES the murdering of ANYONE that curses their parents, whether the foundation of Jesus stating this biblical axiom is in Matthew 15: 1-4 which is the New Testament, or the Old Testament that He refers too does not matter! Like your equally Bible dumbfounded Tradesecret, are you now calling Jesus a LIAR in Matthew 15:1-4?!

Jesus continually referenced the OT. Matthew makes this point obvious when he frequently wrote:

Matthew 4:4

But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’”

Matthew 4:7

Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

Matthew 4:10

Then Jesus *said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’”

Matthew 21:13

And He *said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’; but you are making it a robbers’ den.”

Matthew 26:24

The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”

Matthew 26:31

Then Jesus *said to them, “You will all fall away because of Me this night, for it is written, ‘I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered.’

Matthew 7:29

for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.

Matthew 21:42

Jesus *said to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures, ‘The stone which the builders rejected, This became the chief corner stone; This came about from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes’?

Matthew 22:29

But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Matthew 26:54

How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?”

Matthew 26:56

But all this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures of the prophets.” Then all the disciples left Him and fled.

Luke 24:27

Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

Luke 24:32

They said to one another, “Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?”

Luke 24:45

Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,

John 5:39

[ Witness of the Scripture ] You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;

Just like these first century Jews you continually prove that you do not know the Scriptures or who it is that the Scriptures reference and constantly point to.

John 1:11-12 (NASB)
11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

His "own" were the Jews, the people spoken of by the prophets. That is the primary audience of address and He teachings constantly refer to the OT Scriptures. That is all they had during Jesus earthly ministry. His teachings were an expansion of those words. He spoke of one having authority in all matters of God, not like the Scribes and Pharisees who taught on the traditions of men, like you do.

Your complete Bible ignorance has no bounds!

Again, more ad homs.

What part of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount don't you understand relative to the Old Testament writings are to be followed now and forever as stated by none other than, Jesus???!

Jesus H. Christ, it is to bad that DEBATEART can't give an impromptu live test relative to the Bible before one can become a member, which would quickly eliminate the PGA2.0's, and most importantly, the equally dumbfounded of the Bible, the Tradesecrets from being able to join! LOL

Again, you poke fun of and mock the Lord Jesus Christ with such cavalier and smug insults to His holy name, as underlined. Then you supply more ad homs without any biblical support.

Address my biblical proofs, not me personally or I will ignore all your comments again. I have shown that Jesus taught from the Scriptures, and the Scriptures were the OT.

Matthew 15:4 & Mark 7:10 –> Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 5:16,

Exodus 21:15

“He who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

Exodus 21:17

“He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 20:9

‘If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him.

Deuteronomy 27:16

‘Cursed is he who dishonors his father or mother.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

-->

@BrotherDThomas

YOU AGREEING WITH JESUS AND TRADESECRET RELATIVE TO MATTHEW 15: 1-4 QUOTE IN YOUR POST #212: "I see nothing wrong with TradeSecrets opinion since he is expressing a biblical perspective and how he sees it as should be applied today." YOUR ADDITIONAL QUOTE OF SAME, POST #235: "TradeSecret is not promoting violence. He is stating what he believes the Bible teaches"

Okay, then you as well promote that anyone that curses their parents ARE TO BE PUT TO DEATH today and into the future! Since Tradesecret got a free pass on this issue where moderator Ragnar did not think that he violated the COC rules on promoting criminal activities and threatening or promoting violence against any person or persons in the future, then you shall receive the same pass as well, praise! To jog your memory, Tradesecret stated: “And I would think that if people do curse their parents - unless there is a jolly good reason to do so - then they should be put to death." Hmmmmm. :(

Here you go, doing what you always do, putting words in my mouth. I said there was a lesson to be learned, that it is good to obey GODLY parents, that our time on earth would be prolonged. I gave the reason; they provide wise council. God appointed them as our guardians until we reach an age of accountability and are able to reason soundly for ourselves. Godly parents should be consulted, even after we leave the nest. Wise counselors give sound perspectives.

As for the Old Covenant and covenant people Jesus came to in the 1st-century, those people no longer live in covenant relationship, and the Old Covenant is obsolete, no longer applicable to the Christian. It has been met in Jesus Christ in whom we put our trust and allegiance. We live under a new covenant before God, one of grace and mercy, not of works. No human being has been successful in living in complete obedience to that old covenant, except Jesus Christ. He became a human to fulfill the Father's wishes, and was completely obedient to the Father. You, nor I am.

Here is the blatant irony, if YOU murdered your offspring because they cursed you as Jesus says you are able to do (Matthew 15:1-4), then you would be tried and more so than not found guilty of this offense. Why? Because that is the law of man today in the year of 2020 in the USA and other countries. Besides, Jesus' inspired words states that you are to obey mans laws: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." (Romans 13:1-2).

We are to obey the laws of the land in as much as they don't go against the greater authority - God. For instance, I do not accept abortion as morally permissible except when the woman's life is in danger and the unborn's life has not developed enough to save it.

I use the resource that God has given me, I protest in a non-violent way by using my voice, my intellect, to oppose unjust practices, and I pray to God for His justice to prevail on unjust rule.

BUT WAIT! Then we have Peter that states the opposite in the following: " But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29). WHOOPS!

A. We are to obey man's laws in 2020, and Jesus agrees because He instituted said laws through Himself for man.
B. Peter says to obey Jesus' laws rather than man, which include murdering of anyone that curses their parents (Matthew 15:1-4)

You confuse the OT with the new. Matthew 15:1-4 is addressing a specific 1st-century audience as the primary audience. Note the boldened text below.

Matthew 15:1-12 (NASB)

Tradition and Commandment

15 Then some Pharisees and scribes *came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” 3 And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” 6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:

8 ‘This people honors Me with their lips,

But their heart is far away from Me.

9 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,

Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’”

10 After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, “Hear and understand. 11 It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”

12 Then the disciples *came and *said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?”

Where is your name or mine mentioned?

Again, Jesus is addressing an Old Covenant people concerning the Mosaic law. As for Jesus' instruction to His disciples:

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
5 “Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
10 “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

NOW WHAT???! WHATS THE LATEST APOLOGETIC AND INSIDIOUS SPIN ON THIS PREDICAMENT OF CONTRADICTION? I need to know the latest spin from you guys, and at the same time, how to look intelligent looking in the aftermath when I use said spin on this topic, so I can continue to promote our perceived ever loving and forgiving Jesus to others, okay? Thanks.

There is no contradiction. You confuse two covenants.

The latest spin? Consider yourself as the one spinning out of control of reason.

The Jesus you say never existed?

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

-->

@Stephen

Is Jesus God Jehovah or not?
Yes, Jesus is God.
Let's try that again. Is Jesus also the God Jehovah?
I thought I had already answered you.

You haven't. Is all you have done is circle the question. And we all know why?

He answered adequately but you don't like the answer. How did he not answer your question?

Your god is a killer of innocents no matter in what guise you prefer to address him as. Unless of course, Jesus is a different god to Jehovah. Which the bible states that there are indeed many other gods.

Again, this is what you get when you adopt a god of who you know nothing and from a time and place you know absolutely nothing at all about.

Newsflash, we all die a physical death. It is what happens after that is the issue. Whether you consider yourself innocent (delusional, IMO, to think this way and that you have done nothing wrong) or not, you are going to experience physical death.

It is your presumption that we know nothing about this God. Even you know something of Him for you speak of Him frequently, although you speak of one who only knows about Him, not knowing Him personally.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@SkepticalOne

It is not for me to judge, but IMO, you were not steadfast, you turned back before receiving the prize.
You're right- its not for you to judge. Also, there was no "turning back". I had only known a world in which I believed God was a part at each of these milestones.

I just think of verses that reiterate that thought and suspicion. It is between you and God and I hope for God's mercy upon you. I think of the warnings in love of what someone is in danger of losing or has lost and also I am reminded of the many invititations in Scripture to turn back or hold on to a sure foundation. How sure is the foundation you are currently building upon? When faith is tested and a person holds firm the reward is experienced.

1 Corinthians 15:58

Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.

Colossians 1:11

strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience; joyously

Colossians 1:23

if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

1 Thessalonians 1:3

constantly bearing in mind your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father,

2 Thessalonians 3:5

May the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God and into the steadfastness of Christ.

Hebrews 6:19

This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil,

2 Peter 3:17

You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,

Matthew 13 (NASB)
Jesus Teaches in Parables
13 That day Jesus went out of the house and was sitting by the sea. 2 And large crowds gathered to Him, so He got into a boat and sat down, and the whole crowd was standing on the beach.
3 And He spoke many things to them in parables, saying, “Behold, the sower went out to sow; 4 and as he sowed, some seeds fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate them up. 5 Others fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil. 6 But when the sun had risen, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. 7 Others fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked them out. 8 And others fell on the good soil and *yielded a crop, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty. 9 He who has ears, let him hear.”

20 The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away. 22 And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. 23 And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty.”

That's the point, I was taught to believe in the Christian god (without question) long before I ever read the Bible...and the Bible spoke of a very different being. Anyone comparing my belief to the Bible would rightly come to the conclusion I hadn't read my Bible...at least not all of it.

For me, I was in a place of desperation when I turned to the Bible, and I read it the first time as though God were speaking to me.

I've read my Bible many times since and I understand God differently from you. I see and understand His love and also His justice. I see the problem of humanity trying to live according to each person's merit instead of by trusting in the merit of Another, greater Person.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@SkepticalOne

The average believer sticks pretty closely to what they were taught by their parents/religious leaders (and not necessarily the Bible ) - appealing to the fringe believer isn't going to make your point.

One of the problems is that a number of the Christians you are talking about (who followed a church doctrine as a child) are the ones who end up converting to Christ.

How can that be if they are supposedly already Christian?

There is no conversion when a Christian make a public profession of faith. It is their priorities that change not their beliefs.

Speaking from personal experience, I didn't start believing in the God of the Bible when I made a profession of faith in the Baptist church, and it was not 'finding God' or Biblical study that led me to get confirmed in an Episcopalian church. This seems to be the norm and goes to my point: Christian conceptions of god aren't necessarily related to the god described in the Bible.

It is not for me to judge, but IMO, you were not steadfast, you turned back before receiving the prize. You speak from personal experience but again, IMO, you turned back to your old way of life before knowing God.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@ludofl3x

That thought is absurd. Why would we, as Christians, believe in something or Someone who is irrelevant?

As Christians, we believe that what you believe about God affects how you spend eternity. How can that be irrelevant?
This is a question for Tradesecret, as I can't explain why you believe in something that's irrelevant.

That is the point, believing in God is not irrelevant.

Religious meaning man-made beliefs. As believers, we do not believe Christianity qualifies in this category.
Is this what you meant, Tradesecret? Essentially, anyone who ISN'T a Christian is following a phony 'religion' straight to hell? I don't get it, you guys are both Christians, but saying totally different things. Tradesecret seems to say if you don't follow the bible, even if you're a sinner, it doesn't really matter, but YOU, PGA, seem to be saying there's no way to be saved WITHOUT the bible, and following the rules in it, at the very least repenting, but TradeSecret's gay friends are still going to heaven. How weird! And how, pray tell, do you know Christianity isn't man made? What supports that?

Yes, Scripture teaches one true belief, the rest man-made. Logically, only one belief in God, if any, is true since the different religions conflict on what they believe about God. As a Christian I claim that belief is Christianity and I can reasonably confirm this with the evidence available. I believe the evidence and reason for Christianity far outdistance any other belief system, including the measely atheistic one.

TradeSecret and I believe the same essentials, but where we do dispute Scripture is our guideline - the word of God.

As for being saved, God instructed His disciples to go into all the world and teach and preach the Good News. That still continues today. There are two ways of offering the truth, IMO. One is through pre-evangelism or showing how belief systems fall apart (except for Christianity) and self-destruct when examining their core tenents or beliefs. The other is through God's word, whether orally transmitted or read. We, as Christians reason through Scripture.

God's Spirit speaks to those who are receptive through the Bible. In the Scriptures, God levels with humanity on its problem and the solution. The Bible does not save. God saves through His Son, His Spirit, His Word, and that could be transmitted by believers. Faith in Jesus Christ, a trust, reliance and dependents on Him and what He has done, is what saves. Believing God and what He has said is what saves.

The question is, do you or will you believe God? He saves. We do not save ourselves. Salvation is not what we do to earn a right standing before God. That right standing has been earned through Jesus Christ.

The Bible is a unique collection of writings. There are many reasonable verifications in it, such as the prophetic message over time. There is also the unity of these writing, all confirming specific things about God and humanity. With unbelievers, I always challenge them to make sense of their own belief systems once they dismiss God. Take a look at your own beliefs and see how you can make sense of them. Go ahead. Make sense of morality for me without God. I challenge you. Show me how you have certainty in anything without such a necessary being. Why should I believe you??? What is so great about what you believe??? Give me reasons why what you believe is true and reasonable. Can you? Try. I do not believe you have a belief system that is capable of doing so. But, please try. I invite you to try.

God chose through His own sovereign will to give humanity a volition.
So was it just dumb luck Judas turned Jesus over to the Romans?

No, but the point is that Judas CHOSE to betray Jesus. God as omniscinet knew Judas would, yet Judas chose.

It does not depend on our "decency". The Bible makes it plain that no one will stand just on their own merit since once you have broken a single command of God you no longer meet His perfect standard. God will not compromise His purity for those who will not follow His decree and will since it compromises justice.
Again directly contradicting Tradescret, a fellow Christian. Which one of you is right, how can I tell?

Right about what, exactly?

Your version of god sounds like a real dickhead, almost like a pointless bureaucrat: doesn't matter if you're the greatest person who ever lived, charitable, honest, helps out in the community, doesn't discriminate against his fellow man, if you don't tick that "I'm a Christian" block, sorry charlie, you burn forever in a lake of fire. Perfect justice! :-)

And your judgment of God sounds like you put yourself in His place. You have taken upon yourself what belongs to God alone.

How good are you? How is good and right measured by you? Are you being hypocritical when you condemn God? Who are you to criticize God?

Romans 9:20-22 NASB

20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

For someone who doesn't believe in God why do you care so much that it upsets you? You acknowledge Him even when you deny Him.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

https://randalrauser.com/2011/04/why-is-god-necessary/

-->

@ludofl3x

I agree that religion is totally irrelevant. And this is what a lot of Christians say as well.
Do your fellow Christians agree that being a Christian is irrelevant?

That thought is absurd. Why would we, as Christians, believe in something or Someone who is irrelevant?

As Christians, we believe that what you believe about God affects how you spend eternity. How can that be irrelevant?

I'm glad you and I could find some common ground, Tradesecret. We both see religion as totally irrelevant. The Judas question: why should he repent if he only did what god planned for him to do in order to fulfill his whatever it was?

Yes, religion is irrelevant. Religious meaning man-made beliefs. As believers, we do not believe Christianity qualifies in this category. The Bible say:

James 1:27

Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

That is what religion should be, how we worship God by such actions, not to get merit or put us in good standing, but out of love.

God might have had a plan which was always going to come to pass - but every individual within that plan still has to bear the responsibility of their own actions.
This seems cruel: he plans for you to commit whatever acts you're going to commit, then holds you responsible for committing them?

He PERMITS injustices for a time, for a season, but you should know that what we do will be accountable before God. Those who stand in Christ will be judged under His merit, not our own miserable merit. God is not the one doing the action, each person chooses. They have a will in which they choose.

An immutable plan means you have no choice but to follow the plan (think of a rat locked in a maze: there's only one way out, the rat can't CHOOSE how to get out). Either it's a plan, or it isn't.

There is a way out, whether the rat finds it or not depends on what way it travels. The Bible makes it plain in a number of ways that there is a way acceptable to God that leads to life, that those who follow that way will not perish. God, as sovereign, chooses what the way is that meets His justice as well as displaying His grace and mercy for those who follow the way.

Unless you mean we can depart from said plan, which...challenges both omnipotence and omniscience, but allows for free will. In the end, I guess what difference does it make, as religion is completely irrelevant, so long as you're a decent person, even if you denounce Jesus, you're probably going to heaven, according to what you've said. So Judas has to be there. He was a follower of Christ and was only doing as he was made to do.

How does that depart from His omnipotents and omniscience? God chose through His own sovereign will to give humanity a volition. He chose that humanity would choose in Adam and when Adam chose God provided, by His grace, another way to meet His good, just will. He knows what way you will choose but allows you your choice. Unless He steps in by His grace and through His Son, Word, and Spirit, you will ignore and forsake God. Will you listen to His word? Can you hear it? At present, you choose to be hostile to Him. You choose to resist Him. Thus, you get what you seek unless His grace is heard by you. That is an act of God. Faith comes through hearing the message, but not all hear.

It does not depend on our "decency". The Bible makes it plain that no one will stand just on their own merit since once you have broken a single command of God you no longer meet His perfect standard. God will not compromise His purity for those who will not follow His decree and will since it compromises justice. Thus, you have two choices, answer to God on your own merit or on the merit of Jesus Christ. So, those who stand on their own merit will not be in God's presence in heaven but cast away from that unique and beautiful fellowship.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

-->

@BrotherDThomas

PGA2.0 SORROWFUL QUOTE: “ I see nothing wrong with TradeSecrets opinion since he is expressing a biblical perspective and how he sees it as should be applied today. Are opinions now taboo?”

Yes, this “biblical perspective” and Tradesecrets OPINION promotes violence and criminal activity towards a person which is against the COC rules, GET IT, MAYBE? 2+2=4. Take your Satanic blinders off!

This is a ridiculous statement. TradeSecret is not promoting violence. He is stating what he believes the Bible teaches. There is a promise in the Ten Commandments that honouring your parents leads to a longer life.

12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you.

There is a reason that their life's would be prolonged for honouring godly parents. Godly parents give wise council and protect their children from harm.

Those teachings apply to an OT people and OT economy. The land spoken of was the Promised Land they were about to enter. Spiritually, we too enter the Promised Land, but not an earthly kingdom but the heavenly country. We, as Christians, do not enter the physical land of Israel. Thus, in everything OT there is a typology and symbolism here of a greater truth. We, as Christians, live under a new covenant. Jesus is addressing the people He was prophesied to come to, an OT people. That is the primary audience of the address. Pay attention to the nouns and pronouns if you want to understand the Author's intended audience.

PGA2.O REMOVING ONE FOOT TO INSERT THE OTHER QUOTE: “I see the verse TradeSecret references as applicable to the OT economy and old covenant people that Jesus was addressing. We, as Christians, live under a new covenant but the message is still relevant to us in the sense that there is a lesson there for us, we should honour our parents if they are God-fearing that our lives would be long. “

You show yourself to be as ignorant as Tradesecret when it comes to Bible precepts! Jesus stated that you are to follow ALL, and I repeat, ALL of His words, including the Old Testament 613 laws from His time until the end of the earth in His Sermon on the Mount! How utterly and blatantly ignorant do you want to get by promoting that just because it is in the Old Testament, you don’t have to follow the passage in question where parents are to MURDER their offspring if they curse them?

It is not me who is ignorant about Scripture. Jesus said that not ONE jot or title of the law or the prophets would disappear until everything was accomplished.

Matthew 5:17-18 (NASB)
17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

The Jewish OT economy and way of life passed away in AD 70. Their heaven and earth, their Jewish economy and temple system of worship, everything they worshiped and live by ended in AD 70.

The prophets were sent to an Old Covenant people.

The Law of Moses was given to OT Israel who agreed to live by all the 613 laws and Ten Commands given at Mt. Sinai.

After AD 70 there is no more priesthood, as stated in Deuteronomy, representing the people before God. There were no more animal sacrifices taking place to atone for the sins of the people as stated was necessary by the Law of Moses. There were no more feast day sacrifices, no more genealogical records (destroyed with the temple, and there was no more temple for the people to meet at and worship God in.

So, it is you, not me, who does not understand Scripture. You brush over all the relevant words to paint a false picture of what happened and to whom.

Do you want to remove the Ten Commandments from being displayed around the nation, because they are in the Old Testament area of what you mentioned, Bible fool! YOU ARE PATHETICALLY DUMBFOUNDED REGARDING THE SCRIPTURES!

The Ten Commandments have been met for Christians in the Lord Jesus Christ. He has fulfilled all righteousness required by God on our behalf. Thus, we are judged on the merit of Another - Jesus Christ - in whom we place our faith and trust. Thus, our Substitute has met the requirements of God on our behalf.

Ephesians 2:8-10 (NASB)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Our faith in Jesus Christ transforms us, not our works of "righteousness." I don't stand before God on my own righteousness (heaven forbid). My righteous acts do not measure up to God's righteous standard. Only Jesus, among those who are accountable, has accomplished God's righteousness.

YOUR CRYING AND WHIMPERING QUOTE, BOO HOO, SNIFF, SNIFF: “But if BroThomas is going to play at that point the finger game then consider BrotherDThomas as fueling the fire with ad homs and insightful words that insult Christians in almost every post he addresses them while poking fun of Someone and something they hold dear.”

+++++. First thing, this is a discussion forum about religion, where this specific thread is relative to Jesus, get it? If you find yourself unable to defend Jesus in certain instances, or for being a serial killer, then leave, it is as simple as that, understood? Besides, Jesus stated the following that we have to take into account, instead of you crying like a little baby in front of the membership, understood Bible fool? “You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 10:22 ++++++

Then apply the underlined standard to yourself. You have too often made it a thread attacking TradeSecret and myself, among other Christians, not discussing religion. Not only this, when you use Scripture you separate the audience of address from the context and make the main audience of address ourselves in the 21st-century. You deconstruct the verses to suit your own interpretation, ignoring what they actually say while supplying a private understanding. By collapsing context you make the verses a pretext. Then you ignore other verses that teach the same message, but instead, from one verse you supply your own false message. In OT times some may have recognized you for what you are, a false prophet and teacher, and you may have suffered the consequences of such actions as stipulated by the OT Law. As Christians, we are not yoked to that law. Jesus has set us free by fulfilling the law on our behalf. For those who are not Christians, they show they agree with many aspects of the OT law, thus, they are judged on their own merit, not the merit of Christ. Do you realize how far short they fall in their own merit?

YOUR QUOTE GOING AGAINST THE COC RULES: “I hope you, Ragnar, will not consider barring TradeSecret for this for I will be very disappointed.”

OMG! Why don’t you just tell Ragnar to remove all the rules of the COC and be done with it, where we all have free rein to do whatever we want? Go ahead, tell him! Oh my, when will you get out of your child like "crying state" where you will be disappointed if Ragnar actually follows the COC rules, boo hoo, boo hoo, sniff, sniff, how insipid can you get in front of the membership? LOL!

You need to pay attention to your own violation of the CoC, and the constant barrage of ad hom attacks you issue against others. You not only insult them but what they hold dear. Yes, many Christians are willing to discuss these issues with you until you show that your agenda is one of mal intent. From my perspective, you only see things one way and that is not as Scripture discloses them to be. IMO, you are not thinking logically, not reasoning rationally, but from a spirit of ill-will. Others may think so also.

I believe I could very easily document a hundred examples of your ad home attacks and your unkind words about Jesus and Christians.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

and that children should honor their parents.

And the punishment for children not honouring their parents is what?

The Brother accused Jesus of being a killer in his human form.

No I believe the Brother is suggesting that Jesus as Jehovah from the beginning killed innocent people including children. You just want to ignore this fact.

God never allows the innocent to perish without restoring them to a better place. The Israelites were instructed to train their children in the way of God from an early age so that when they were older they would not depart from it. There is an age when we start reasoning as children about God and about right and wrong. A godly parent teaches their children the difference between right and wrong.

Since the Fall, the wages of sin have been death. This death that God spoke of in Eden was at first just spiritual death, or separation from Him. God told Adam on the day he ate of the fruit he would die. Adam did not die physically that day, but spiritually. Remember, there was also in the Garden the Tree of Life in which Adam and Eve could freely partake in but after Adam sinned God exiled both of them from the Garden before they could take of it and live forevermore. God also gave punishment for disobeying Him. He cursed the ground, cursed Satan, and gave the woman a reminder of what sin causes by giving her pain in childbirth.

17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;

Cursed is the ground because of you;

In toil you will eat of it

All the days of your life.

18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;

And you will eat the plants of the field;

19 By the sweat of your face

You will eat bread,

Till you return to the ground,

Because from it you were taken;

For you are dust,

And to dust you shall return.”

22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

Is Jesus God Jehovah or not?

Yes, He is, so what? Within Him (Jesus) resides two natures, that of God and that of man.

God never takes an innocent human life without restoring it because He is just and good. Since the Fall human beings know our lifespan is limited on earth. Thus, they have only so much time and no longer in which to contemplate about their life here and about God.

In the OT, in protection of Israel and in judgment of sinful nations that continually taught their people evil things and tried to destroy Israel, God bought judgment. God also continually warned Israel that if they disobeyed Him and followed other gods He would also remove His hand of protection from among them. He continually disciplined them until their sins reached the limit, then He allowed them to reap the consequences of their actions by removing His hand of protection and allowing other nations to impose their evil will on Israel. Deuteronomy 28 is the covenant conditions of blessings and curses the people (Israel) agreed to.

So, to those who are diligent in the word they learn that God is just and good, that He protects those who seek and turn to Him, but He also disciplines them, allowing them to experience the actions of what humans who do not know God do, and also the consequences of their own actions when they ignore the good that God has revealed to them to do.

Sin is living outside the light and scope of God. It is thinking that humans can decide for themselves what "good" is (humanity is the measure), the problem being that without the absolute standard, the true measure, the best - God, we as humans only have relativism as our shifting standard. Thus good is thought of as evil and evil as good. Talk about a twisted value system. Without God the measure is lost, the reference of better or right becomes meaningless since it can mean whatever someone wants to make it mean.

Isaiah 5:21

Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever in their own sight!

Judges 17:6

In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.

Judges 21:25

In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

-->

@Barney

@Tradesecret

@BrotherDThomas

TRADESECRETS QUOTE THAT WILL FOREVER TAKE AWAY WHAT CREDENCE HE HAS LEFT WITHIN THIS FORUM: “And I would think that if people do curse their parents - unless there is a jolly good reason to do so - then they should be put to death.”

The post in question where Tradesecret stated the COC infractions:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3557-what-is-your-favorite-argument-for-the-existence-of-god?page=9&post_number=203

Moderator Ragnar: Barring Jesus’ direct words in Matthew 15: 1-4, where He condones the offspring that curse their parents are to be put to death, and under the DIRECT Code of Conduct of DEBATEART, is it proper for you to either report the quote that Tradesecret made above in “threatening” the life of another in the future to the proper authorities, or ban him altogether, or for a certain time period? Like Stephen has said in another thread, we have both been banned FOR A LOT LESS than what Tradesecret has just horrifically stated! Since you are known for being outright fair to the membership, then is it time to set another example in using the adage: "what's good for the goose is good for the gander?"

Post 203: "Your third verse is an OT quote which says - to kids to honour their parents - and he who curses his parents should be put to death. Notice Dear Brother that if no one curses their parents - then no one dies. And I would think that if people do curse their parents - unless there is a jolly good reason to do so - then they should be put to death. It does not make Jesus a serial killer for quoting the OT and it certainly does not make him a serial killer for supporting a good relationship with parents. You are grasping for straws ."

I see nothing wrong with TradeSecrets opinion since he is expressing a biblical perspective and how he sees it as should be applied today. Are opinions now taboo? I see the verse TradeSecret references as applicable to the OT economy and old covenant people that Jesus was addressing. We, as Christians, live under a new covenant but the message is still relevant to us in the sense that there is a lesson there for us, we should honour our parents if they are God-fearing that our lives would be long. But if BroThomas is going to play at that point the finger game then consider BrotherDThomas as fueling the fire with ad homs and inciteful words that insult Christians in almost every post he addresses them while poking fun of Someone and something they hold dear. Where is his respect for what others hold dear if he wants to point the finger? How about questioning that from a myriad of posts?

That is why I will not discuss with him because he turns everything into one big fictitous masquerade of misquoting and tearing verses out of context, collapsing the context, ignoring the audience of address, and a thousand other abuses of Scripture.

I fully believe in freedom of speech and your American 1st and 2nd Amendment rights of expression (freedom of speech) and religious freedom (for all). I see nothing in TradeSecrets comments that warrants what BroThomas is asking for you to consider, Ragnar. Remember, we as Christians put up with lots of verbal abuse too. I understand, as you point out, that religion is a touchy subject. I turn the other check for the most part because I realize that people who speak this way are not open to discussion. If I do continue, I do it to illustrate a point by trying to engage in reason from the verses in question and the general teaching on the subject.

I hope you, Ragnar, will not consider barring TradeSecret for this for I will be very disappointed. I stand united with TradeSecret and his words:

"I do not deny that the words quoted above were mine. I can only note that it was not my intention to incite violence against parents or children and in fact believed that I was suggesting that the family unit is a good thing which is why Jesus was making such a point."

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

I would like to have a Christian on this website present me proof that Lucifer became Satan...

-->

@Tradesecret

These people who offer the suggestion of Jesus being Satan show their lack of biblical understanding, IMO. They refuse to argue their case effectively.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

I would like to have a Christian on this website present me proof that Lucifer became Satan...

-->

@Tradesecret

I would like to have a Christian on this website present me proof that Lucifer became Satan rather than Lucifer becoming Jesus.

Thanks in advance.
Not sure how many Christians would suggest that Lucifer became Jesus. In fact that would make the person a non-Christian. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. He is the eternal Son of God. He was never anything but the eternal Son of God.

The idea of associating the two is absurd and hundreds of passages tell otherwise.

Satan or the devil or the serpent or the beast or whatever he is called - adversary, etc is a fallen Angel. Created by God and who chose to reject God. He was never an arch angel. He tempted humanity - he tried to belittle Job - He tried to outsmart God - He tried to tempt Jesus. Jesus talks of seeing him and his demons - fall from heaven.

Yes, Hebrews, as one of many references, makes it clear that Jesus is not an angel, although the title of "The Angel of the Lord" is used of Him in the OT. The attributes of the two are opposite also.

Hebrews 1:6-14 (NASB)

6 And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,

“And let all the angels of God worship Him.”

7 And of the angels He says,

“Who makes His angels winds,

And His ministers a flame of fire.”

8 But of the Son He says,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,

And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.

9 “You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;

Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You

With the oil of gladness above Your companions.”

10 And,

“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,

And the heavens are the works of Your hands;

11 They will perish, but You remain;

And they all will become old like a garment,

12 And like a mantle You will roll them up;

Like a garment they will also be changed.

But You are the same,

And Your years will not come to an end.”

13 But to which of the angels has He ever said,

“Sit at My right hand,

Until I make Your enemies

A footstool for Your feet”?

14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?

The righteous angels never sought worship. They understood that only God deserves that. God requires worship of Himself only and we see Jesus getting the same worship given of the Father in the gospels.

He filled the heart of Judas with greed. He has a placed reserved for him in Hell along with his demons.

I know there are passages in Ezekiel which talk about Cyrus as the morning star - and proud - but I think this is talking about the nation not the devil.

Outright it is. You can argue that the typology is used of the devil also. There are parallels.

Lucifer means light. Yet I am not sure whether this refers to Satan. I suppose it could.

And yet there is not light in Satan, he just masquerades as light. Satan fell from the light of God. Again, the parallels are there.

Hence - Jesus is God and divine. Satan or the devil is only a created being. One is the creator - and one is not.

Too true!

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

-->

@ludofl3x

Do you think things exist that have no explanation for their existence???
What's the explanation for your god's existence? Does it have one? And does any other something share this explanation?

NOTE: Failure to answer yet another question. You continually pass the buck. I'm asking for your explanation.

God is a necessary Being to make sense of existence. I do not believe anything else qualifies, however you are welcome to argue for something else.

"All the evidence suggests that the universe and its component material parts, energies, laws, et cetera do not exist of necessity. Rather, they are contingent. So what explains their existence? To appeal to more contingency merely begs the question. Eventually we have to arrive at an answer in terms of something which exists of necessity."

I would argue you nor I am necessary for the existence of the universe. If you did not exist I would still perceive it and visa versa. I would also argue that blind chance happenstance cannot make sense of origins or why things remain constant/sustainable (i.e., laws which allow us to predict). The Bible says universe conveys information.

Psalm 19:1-3 (NASB)

The Works and the Word of God.

For the choir director. A Psalm of David.

19 The heavens are telling of the glory of God;

And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.

2 Day to day pours forth speech,

And night to night reveals knowledge.

3 There is no speech, nor are there words;

Their voice is not heard.

Or do you want to argue the universe is necessary (your choice)? To do so you will have to argue for an eternal universe, IMO, otherwise it is contingent once again on something else. Do you want to argue for an eternal universe, and how does that stack up with the available evidence we have of it?

Am I not allowed to investigate your belief system and reason for your statements?
Sure, ask away, but even if my argument is wrong, that doesn't make your argument right.

We are arguing for diametrically opposite views - God or no God. One of us, logically, is wrong. Either God exists or He does not. He cannot exist and not exist at the same time.

Certainly doesn't make it sound. You use this trick a lot, asking me if X is more reasonable than Y, when neither X nor Y are dependent on each other.

It is not a trick. Either we are here because of blind, indifferent chance happenstance which I argue has no explanatory power, no intent, no agency, or we are here because of the purpose of a necessary being. Perhaps you could find another reason, like you are creating an illusion. So, the question is, why are we here? Why do we exist and what best explains our existence? Do we come from a necessary Being who is intelligent, mindful, purposeful, reasoning, like us, or do we somehow derive our existence from blind indifferent, purposeless chance happenstance? Of these two, which is more reasonable an explanation? If you say blind, indifferent chance happenstance then explain how it is more reasonable. If you say, "Who cares?" it appears you do or you would not be having a meaningful exchange.

Again, are you going to brush of my questions as fluff or boring?

It also doesn't mean "more reasonable" = "true." Demonstrably true is all that matters, and to date you have not grasped this concept.

Oh no, I do grasp it. Demonstrate anything to me regarding origins that you know is true. Demonstrate that your worldview can make sense of origins. That is the difference right there. Your starting point (blind random chance happenstance) leads to a dead-end in making sense of anything. Now, if that is how you want to live your life (seeking a dead-end) then why are you trying to make sense of it? Why are you living as if it matters? That is INCONSISTENT from your starting point. Your starting point makes you a walking contradiction. You borrow from my Christian framework in making sense of things.

Now, the reason that you seek meaning and purpose, I say, is because you were created for a purpose and you never achieve that purpose unless you find God.

A book making a claim isn't evidence for the claim itself, especially when you juxtapose how young the book is compared to all of time itself, if god were real why would he wait so long to write a book about it, why would it make it so insanely difficult to verify its existence if it cared about the inhabitants of this planet?

You assume two things, perhaps more. You assume that either the universe is old, or you assume that without human beings it would have meaning, other than for God. I could argue against both of those assumptions. Let me add two more assumptions you make, 1) that the books (66 different writings by around 40 different authors) are not a revelation from God and 2) that it does not supply sufficient evidence. The evidence it contains is sufficient for God's purposes.

As for the book, it is unique. Why would God write "a book" about creation in which He reveals Himself to His creatures? Because He made you in His image and likeness for a purpose. Being made in His image means you too have a will; you make choices. How would He allow for us to verify the book is true or reasonable to believe? First, His authority would be a compelling reason. Second, ultimately making sense of existence without God is improbable/impossible and unreasonable. Third, the book would contain information that is confirmed by various means, such as history or reason.

There's no reason to believe whatever this entity might be is your god, if it's there, either. You admit you suppose it is, then when asked "why is Vishnu wrong" you basically say "because the bible says so" or "my way makes more sense to me" without acknowledging that it makes LESS sense to the majority of humanity on earth.

You are wrong, there is reason to believe this biblical God. He has attributes that are necessary for the existence of the universe, for one. The Bible, I contend, has confirmations and a unification other religious writings do not have. It deals with a history of a people and their relationship to God. They are used by God to introduce us to Him.

Make your argument independent of what you imagine my argument is. All I'm saying is I don't believe in anything supernatural, in any different space time continuum, because none of that has been demonstrated to be true.

Since you do not believe anything supernatural my suspicion is well founded. You are a naturalist, a materialist, a secularist, and I would hazard an empiricist. How am I doing?

I argue your mind is not open to God. I can't convince someone who is not willing to consider the evidence. But what I can do is expose the folly of your belief system, maybe not to yourself but to others. I will start with your next comments which I will save for a separate post. I will also remind any other person reading this that you are playing a great game of dodgeball! Evade my questions and deny the incapability of your thought system in explaining origins! Great job!!!

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

-->

@ludofl3x

He exists outside of space/time continuum.
Please show me how. Alternatively, show me something ELSE that exists outside of the space time continuum. No one even heard of Jesus until 2000 years ago, and God maybe 3000 or 4000 years prior to that, using even the most generous of the dating techniques and assuming all the writings were fact (like that global flood!). How's that support this theory that they exist outside of space and time?

I can only offer you what is reasonable to believe. What you do with it is your own business.

Exhibit A - It is reasonable to believe the universe had a beginning. If you do not accept this you must believe the universe is eternal. Is that the case? Which avenue shall we go down?

Exhibit B -I can offer you the Bible and its evidence. The Bible speaks of being His word and that word as the greatest authority. If you do not accept this, I ask you, what is your greatest authority? Is it yourself? Are you your final reference point? Is it some other subjective, limited, relative human being on the matter of the existence of the universe and yourself? Is that the case? If so, who is this authority or authorities and why should I believe them?

As for Jesus, the OT points continually to Him and the NT points continually to references of Him by quoting the OT.

As the for dating techniques, what is reasonable to believe? Do we have evidence the OT was written before the 1st-century? Do we have sufficient and reasonable evidence that the NT canonical writings were written before AD 70? I believe the evidence is more reasonable for this pre AD70 dating. I am willing to debate this with you, either here or in a formal debate.

1. Everything that (begins to) exists has an explanation for its existence.

Can you show me something that exists that has no explanation for its existence?
This is a shift in the burden of proof. I'm not making the claim that everything that exists (why is the parenthetical there, is that yours or his?) has an explanation for its existence. That's your problem. I'd say cool, now let's see something that exists but somehow never began to exist and we'll talk!

It is a question. I have already given you my reasoning. I am inquiring into your reasoning and explanation. Do you think things exist that have no explanation for their existence??? I'm I not allowed to do that? You keep asking me for my reasoning. Why can't I ask you for yours? Is this a two-way dialogue? Am I not allowed to investigate your belief system and reason for your statements? In this way the two sides of thought regarding this matter can be measured by others.

Then why exist
What's your answer? Is it Jesus? That doesn't make any sense either. I don't know "why"I exist, but I know I'm going to die someday and I want to leave the world a better place for the people who come after me, in some small way, even if I'm not remembered in fifty years. It's pretty straightforward.

My reason, because I have a purpose for my existence, because there is meaning for why I exist.

Since you know you are going to die one day I would suggest you find out as best you can since one of us is wrong and if it is you, you will be held accountable. Do you leave the world a "better place" if there is no ultimate reason for it to be better, and what do you mean by better? Better requires a best, a final measure or it can mean anything, thus nothing suginifcant.

Can you make sense of the universe? It appears not:
You've repeatedly demonstrated you can't either, except I'm not hte one saying "I can make sense of this unsolvable problem, just by saying Jesus did it this way and therefore it makes sense."

But I can - God, a necessary Being who gives it its existence then sustains it. What sustains your universe? Blind indfierent chance? No reason?

I'm happy to converse but you can keep the walls of text, they're boring and I don't have all that time.

I do not supply them just for your benefit alone. I want others to understand the deficiency of your worldview.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

-->

@ludofl3x

the biblical definition of God speaks of Him as an eternal being. I am not SP that, the Bible says as much. Thus, it boils down to who you place your ultimate authority in. You added "except this one thing," and yes, the parentheisis are mine. I added that. Here is my statement and the highlighted text above is your addition.
Your addition of (begins to exist) implies that you don't think god began to exist and therefore doesn't need an explanation according to the premise itself.

Leibniz believed that for something to exist there was a sufficient reason. Thus, the sufficient reason, Leibzin believed, is God. So when he stated his first premise in the causal argument, I believe he was arguing for what began to exist - I.e., the universe.

“There is,” Leibniz writes in the New Essays, “a moral and voluntary element in what is physical, through its relation to God. . . . [B]odies do not choose for themselves, God having chosen for them” (A VI, 6, 179 [NE 179]). Mechanical bodies, understood as phenomenal hunks of matter, do not exhibit intentionality. Thus, they do not frame their own ends in the way that immaterial substances do. Still, there is a sense in which they are subject to final causes, for they act for the ends that God has set for them, and they do so by way of mechanical efficient causation. Thus, there is some suggestion that Leibniz held that both efficient and final causation permeated the universe at multiple ontological levels.

https://iep.utm.edu/leib-cau/

So, I believe when he offered premise 1 he had in mind a beginning, hence the brackets I inserted, since it is my own thought on the matter.

Not only this, but even without Leibniz, I believe that the material universe has a beginning (when we speak of beginnings we speak in relation to time) and God does not begin since He is eternal, existing outside the space/time continuum.

With an infinity of time how would you arrive at the present from the past and get to the future? Everything would be present. Time is meaningless in infinity - timeless. We, as creatures, have a beginning and we relate to time. We categorize time into seconds, minutes, days, weeks, years. We are able to measure the start of something from its end.

Definition of eternal

(Entry 1 of 2)

1a: having infinite duration : EVERLASTING eternal damnation

b: of or relating to eternity

c: characterized by abiding fellowship with God good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?— Mark 10:17 (Revised Standard Version)

2a: continued without intermission : PERPETUALan eternal flame

b: seemingly endless eternal delays

3archaic : INFERNAL some eternal villain … devised this slander— William Shakespeare

4: valid or existing at all times : TIMELESS eternal verities

1a, states having infinite duration. There is no easy way to describe eternaity without putting some time reference into explaining it. The biblical God explains eternity as "I am." He is. That includes past, present and future since He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Alpha and Omega signified that God is the beginning and end of all created things. Eternality is an attribute of the Judeo-Christian God.

You mean to tell me you didn't put this in here as a way to keep the door ajar for an eternal something? Maybe I misread. But I didn't, because you then say "the bible says god's eternal." As usual, claim as evidence. "The bible says this" doesn't support that being true, you know that already.

In such matters a person believes according to their highest authority. You disbelieve in God because you think you are the final court of appeal. You weigh the opinions of subjective minds on the matter because you do not recognize an objective, absolute authority. That is the difference in our two beliefs. You plead for your limited authority. I plead for a necessary authority that can make sense of the universe. I believe the Bible offers many proofs or reasonable evidence for the existence of God. I believe God is the answer on the impossibitity of the contrary. I do not believe it is possible for mindless, dumb, indifferent chance happenstance to cause let alone sustain the universe. When I engage with disbelievers I ask them what is reasonable to believe. I do not see an atheist as having a reasonable belief once his/her foundation or starting presuppositions are examined. It is as simple as that.

You claim God does not exist or there is no evidence for His existence.

I claim God does exist and the evidence is found in what is made (the universe/us) and via a written revelation in which God chooses to make Himself known to His creatures.

So, I reason the evidence for God is available in many ways and everything about us, but three ways encompass them all, IMO - 1) by what is made (the complexity, unity and diversity of it, as well as its sustainability), 2) the Bible (claims to be His word or interaction with us and is steeped in history - people, places, events in history), and 3) a personal relationship with God in accordance with His requirements (as stated in the Bible) and obtained by a reasonably justifiable, not blind faith.

When I pray, I witness answers to my prayers. God confirms His presence in many ways to my mind. My mind is opened to His word and what it says. What He says makes sense. Events, upon reflection, and people bear witness to answered prayer. I see many things that coincide with my asking God. Not only this, my mind reasons about existence and what is necessary or best explains it. It continually informs me of what can make sense of it. For example, I argue for knowing and explaining right and wrong (morality). How do you make sense of it from a subjective standpoint with no fixed ultimate reference point? Do you think you have what is necessary to make sense of it? If so, I challenge you to do so. The same with existence. Do you, once you deny a Creator, have what is necessary to make sense of it? I challenge you to make sense of it.

What do I get when I offer these chllenges - waffling and incoherence. I even get people state, "I don't know." Yet they rule out God based on naturalism and materialism as their solution. They come to the table with their preconceived opinions and work strictly within the bounds of such starting points - the natural realm or physicality/materialism. They try to explain things from the perspective of humanity as the ultimate measure. The question is which subjective persons in humanity do they point to as their final authority?

They don't have what is required to make sense of existence. Their intellectually elite gatekeepers they appeal to as their relative gurus are who they point to, if not themselves. Their pride and confirmation bias get in the way of thinking clearly on the issues for they always come to the table with their baggage in hand. And they cling to that baggage like their is no tomorrow.

John 8:31-32 (NASB)
The Truth Will Make You Free
31 So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

I do believe you are in bondage to a lie. You are so engrossed in it that when someone tells you what is true you don't hear it. Jesus summed it up on the principle of two foundations:

Matthew 7:24-29 (NASB)
The Two Foundations
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”
28 When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; 29 for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.

Your heart belongs to where you place or rest your ultimate or final authority in, God or humanity. Now contrast the two. One is absolute, the other relative. One is objective, the other subjective. One is all knowing, the other is ignorant. Upon hearing the biblical message and upon presenting the evidence what do most people do? They dismiss it as special pleading, not realizing they are just as guilty as they plead from naturalism. What is able to help you make sense of existence, God or chance happenstance? Is the answer in the box (the universe) or outside it? What say you? Are you going to find the answer within the universe or within yourself? Or do you think you have the answers and can explain them? Explain them, or I leave you to your subjective, limited self and ignorance of life's ultimate questions or at least their answers.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

if the Dems are elected

Then it will be back to business as usual. More dynasties in control of failing cities and more scapegoats.

Heaven help your country then. I say you'll be fried.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-excursus-on-natural-theology/excursus-on-natural-theology-part-6/

-->

@dustryder

Yikes, you're really drinking the kool-aid aren't you?

Can you blame me? And I'm not even an American. (^8

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

-->

@ludofl3x

I can't do that to your satisfaction, only my own.
I know. The rest of it is all dissembling to try and avoid this point: you cannot do it to anyone's satisfaction but your own. The rest of your wall of text is kind of moot from there.

No, I can do it to lots of peoples satisfaction because they are open to the discussion. I have learned when someone is not open they will find ways to shut down the discussion and be skeptical of every point. Even though evidence exists they refuse to look upon it as evidence because it does not meet their worldview parameters.

Just as you special plead that God does not exist or is not reasonable to believe?
Do you know hat special pleading is? I know I've explained it to you before. "Everything that begins to exist has a beginning, except this one thing." The bold is special pleading and really the central pillar to your argument. How do I do this, analogous to what you think I believe? Where is the "except" that would denote special pleading?

Yes, I do. I have probably twenty to thirty books on logic and/or fallacies but even that does not make me an expert but still a novice.

I never included God in everything that began to exist since the biblical definition of God speaks of Him as an eternal being. I am not SP that, the Bible says as much. Thus, it boils down to who you place your ultimate authority in. You added "except this one thing," and yes, the parentheisis are mine. I added that. Here is my statement and the highlighted text above is your addition.

1. Everything that (begins to) exists has an explanation for its existence.

Where do you see "except this one thing?"

If the tables were turned and you are made aware of your inconsistencies would you still claim your exception? Your exception is that the universe exists apart from a creator, solely by natural causes, which is the automatic default once God is denied.

Wiley Blackwell, Bad Argumentation, p. 220:

"SP involves breaking rules of fair play, usually in a way that benefits the ruler-breaker, and hence can be thought of as a form of argumentative cheating by applying a double standard."

You work exclusively from nature as the answer once you deny God. Thus, believing a naturalistic explanation as the only explanation (no other exception) or working entirely from such a belief (begging the question) creates doubt to a belief in God. Naturalism can also bring other fallacies into play such as the Naturalistic Fallacy or the Either/Or Fallacy. From our previous discussions you have appealed to ignorance, poisoned the well, created red herrings, and used a variety of other fallacies that I failed to mention. You continually beg the question in your arguments against God, but then that is the nature of claims without explanation.

One establishes whether a claim is true or false, reasonable or unreasonable with evidence. Evidence can be of a direct, sensory kind, or through the testimony of others who are trustworthy.

Then there is the logical and coherency test. Does the claim fit this qualification?

Does it fit the correspondence test of truth?

Can your argument be reduced to absurdity (reductio ad absurdum)?

Can something be inferred?

How do the premises hold out and does the conclusion follow? Is the argument sound and valid?

Is the argument deductive or inductive?

Is the argument a formal or informal fallacy?

Is the logic categorical or propositional?

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

-->

@ludofl3x

OK, then please demonstrate conclusively something eists outside of space and time.

I can't do that to your satisfaction, only my own. It boils down to what you will accept as an authority (Hebrews 11:6) or evidence. There is the most reasonable evidence for my belief.

Then demonstrate that something is the god of the bible.

I do not follow? God is not a something but a Someone. I don't believe something is a reasonable deduction. Something lacks agency, intent, purpose, meaning, intelligence.

It shouldn't be hard. I didn't make any argument at all. I'm just saying that "Everything that exists has a cause, except this one thing that exists outside of space and time" is not a sound argument. It's special pleading and undemonstrated.

Just as you special plead that God does not exist or is not reasonable to believe?

The God of the Bible is demonstratable through reason in many given ways. The Bible claims to be His revelation. You guys never stay with the prophetic argument once I present it. I believe that is because, generally speaking and it has been my experience, your biblical understanding as tied in with history is poor.

I have yet to see anyone give a solid explanation for morality apart from God. There are any number of reasonable arguments I could present and have presented in the past as to my reason.

Not believing in God is irrational. It leaves no ultimate reason for your existence.

Leibing's thinking jumps to a specific conclusion from premise 1 that is entirely unearned: a specific character. What is the explanation for the existence of this being?

Is the premise reasonable to believe?

The explanation? God is a necessary Being and necessary to make sense of existence. You are not necessary. I can make sense of it without your presence. (^8

The premise in question:

1. Everything that (begins to) exists has an explanation for its existence.

Can you show me something that exists that has no explanation for its existence? The problem without God, it becomes speculation. God is necessary for the knowledge of such things as beginnings (and ultimately anything).

It is "it didn't have a beginning"? Why doesn't this same exception potentially apply to the universe itself, exclusive of god or gods?

God is not an "it." Pantheism or panentheism makes little sense.

Why? Scientists look for causes in explaining physical events (law of causality). God, as a spiritual being, is not a physical event but a Person. He exists outside of space/time continuum.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3716

Why? We gather that the universe had a beginning. That is reasonable to believe. One of the current models is the Big Bang. Some indications of the BB (or an origin) are background radiation, the universe is expanding, it is running out of usable energy (2nd law of thermodynamics).

We go back in history to the beginning of events, but an infinite number of days have no beginning or end, yet today is an end of history to date. Therefore there is not an endless number of days before today. There is no future yet. (^8

If there were an infinite number of days before today, how would you get today, the present? (Only in theory [...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3...], not practically) Everything would be the eternal now. Yet we are here in this present day, and we know there were past days. We have not experienced future days. The future does not exist for us yet we can speak of it as something that will one day be our present.

You can't speak of time without a beginning, and you can't add to something infinite. Thus, for us, at least, there seems to be a beginning.

Explain how it (exceptional potential) can apply to the universe also. What are the means that a random chance universe has of sustaining itself? Chance is willy-nilly. There is no reason behind chance, no agency, no intent and purpose, no value, no meaning.

When you speak of time, you talk about a beginning.

When we speak of physicality, are you saying the physical always existed or are you opening it up to a possibility?

Now, if something came into being, what is the cause of that beginning? What are the means or agency involved? If you are speaking of something from nothing or self-creation, explain how this is possible???

***

If the box begins to exist (an analogy for the universe), something outside it must have created it. If the physical universe (the box) had a beginning, its existence must be accredited to something beyond this physical, temporal framework since self-creation is illogical.

***

Is that a reasonable statement? If not, explain why. If not, then give another explanation.

Please do not talk past my questions. I am trying to discover how consistent your worldview is in making sense of the universe and your existence.

Let me guess, is it because "math works," because "these books say so," or "because how else would it work?"

I would say that it is a reasonable deduction. Mathematics is a mental process. It requires a mind to conceptualize. The problem is these formulas we use to describe functions of the universe are principles we discover. We don't invent them. They function in a specific manner regardless of how we feel about them. Your existence does not depend on them existing.

Why does anything exist?
You know very well I have answered this: I don't know and I'm not sure it matters.
It seems to matter very much to you. Is there a reason and purpose for your life, or are humanity and organic life just a biological accident?

I think you are very inconsistent with your comment. If there is no reason for life, then what does it matter what we do? You continually show it matters by your values and even with your criticism of God. Why would you care about a fictitious God as unjust? Why do you care that others believe in this God? I care about what you believe. After all, I believe it ultimately matters and that you will be accountable for your life because I think this life is not all there is to existence.

You're the one who claims all the answers with the "makes sense of the universe" baloney, which you never show actually making sense in any way that I understand the phrase.

I never claimed I have all the answers. That is a misrepresentation. I claim God has the answers, and I can know inasmuch as He has revealed, provided I correctly interpret His revelation.

It requires minds to make sense of anything. The question is which minds are necessary since there is much conflict in regards to origins. Who is right? Which view is correct? What means do you, a subjective being, have in determining this?

Can you make sense of the universe? It appears not:

"I don't know and I'm not sure it matters."

These are the answers you give in making sense of things. That reassures me of your incompetents in making sense of and explaining origins adequately. To you, you are not sure it even matters. Somehow you exist, and you are not sure it matters. Then why exist (to be or not to be, that is the question)? I would say you live very inconsistently regarding what you say (you're not sure it matters) and what you do. You take much care every day to make things matter, to guard your life - for what? And you treat God as if He matters since you quibble over whether He is good. With a worldview without God, ultimately, there is no reason. Ultimately, nothing matters.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

-->

@ludofl3x

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
In order for the universe to have a cause, then, there must have been an uncaused first cause (a cause outside of time and space).

You see the problem here, right? Your conclusion not only assumes there's something outside of time and space, but your first premise says everything has a cause and therefore cannot logically lead to a conclusion hinged on something having no cause. It's contradictory. And even if it were right, there's no connective tissue between this 'something' and any specific god.

The conclusion is valid and sound. You are begging the question that there is nothing outside of time and space.

The scientific evidence is in favour of a beginning. Opposite this is the problem of an eternal universe. And if you want to ask the question of meaning why plays an important part. Why does anything exist? Why looks for a reason. In solving the problem of the universe you too look for meaning. When you assume everything has an explanation within the universe your scope is limited to what is inside the universe, inside the box, inside the room. By interpreting everything from a natural perspective, inside the universe, your mind is closed to anything outside the universe, but from looking from inside the universe is there sufficient evidence to suggest everything comes from inside the room? If you are speaking of the universe having a beginning the answer is no. The reason is that you would then be speaking of self-creation (something that does not exist creating itself from nothing). Thus, self-creation is a self-refuting principle.

In addition there is the problem of an explanation for everything that exists. Leibniz's thinking goes like this:

1. Everything that (begins to) exists has an explanation for its existence.

2. If the universe has an explanation for its existence God (a necessary Being) is the explanation.

3. The universe exists.

4. The universe also has an explanation for its existence.

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.

Premise 1, IMO, is the weakness in that it brings up the question of whether everything that begins to exist has an explanation, or are there "brute facts." Are there things that have no explanation? Thus, the question is are there brute facts? Van Til argues that there are not. Premise 2 places that explanation in God. We know the universe exists. Thus, granting there are no brute facts, the conclusion follows, even if you don't like it.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

Everything in your 'essay' was pure ad hominem attack on Biden and those that support him, I fail to understand what you are saying to make me support Trump. I also do not believe your ad hominem attacks are remotely accurate but that is a given considering how different your and my outlooks are in the first place.

I never presented the facts, just wanted to rant because I am revolted on what is going on in your country, even though I'm not American. I believe what I said is substantiated. I only referenced Biden twice in Post 32. The rest was on the crooked Democrat Party and they are liars.

So, what I am saying is that it is very obvious what is going on with the spin, lies, and duplicity of the Democrat Party. They built the Muller investigation and an impeachment trial on a phony Russian dossier and a Trump phone call. They knew before hand that the dossier was constructed on false information yet they initiated four FISA applications based on fabrication. During the impeachment they selected only their own witnesses and never allowed the Republicans to cal their own witnesses.

Obama and Biden were in on the witch hunt. The whole Democrat Party tried to rig the 2016 election and then cover their tracks. The information keeps coming out on this coverup. AND, if the Dems are elected this perpetuated lie will never again surface and be exposed for what it is. I hope (I pray) there is justice in your country.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@ILikePie5

Anyone watching the House Judiciary Committee hearings today? What a farce. The Dems ask a question then either drown Barr out, or cut him off, or do not allow an answer. Talk about leading questions to serve their disgusting means and control the narrative. This is sickening. Does anyone else here think these Dems are mean, malicious liars who spin the truth and deny fairness?
It’s disgusting. The GOP members have to give up their questioning time to allow Barr to answer the allegations put forth by the Democrats. If they just want to give speeches, why the hell did they call him to testify in the first place. If you’re a peaceful protestors in a violent area, you are no longer a peaceful protestor. Go where there is no violence occurring or apprehend the rioters and hand them over to the police. It’s a shame the Democrats can’t condemn the violence occurring. I haven’t heard one Democrat say “do not attack the federal courthouse or do not attack police.”

They can't condemn it because largely Dems are doing the destruction and the Party doesn't want to lose their own supporters.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in: