Total posts: 3,179
-->
@HistoryBuff
Everyone in government will always be rich because you voted to give them more power every year.No, there are ways we can get money out of politics. But reducing the power of the government only increases the power corporations have over you. The government are the only ones with the power to reign in corporations.
What a laugh! What do you think the Democrats are doing? They are creating BIG government, government that dictates to you whatever they want it to. Those who rule control the agenda and with the Dems they are doing you no favours in their mad dash to power at all costs.
Created:
-->
@wlws9
Let's go back to my point which you clearly rejected.I quoted Richard Dawkins and "The Greatest Show On Earth" as a definitive work on the fact that life evolved as a result of evolution through natural selection.
So what? A definite work in your subjective eyes. So what? What exactly is he saying that you favour?
The findings are irrefutable and fully backed up with carefully researched evidence, none of which has been successfully challenged.
Such as what evidence?
So, the fact of evolution through natural selection stands and any notion or theory of creation is completely nullified. There is no God and life was not created.
All I ever witness is micro-evolution (change within a kind - fact), not macro-evolution (change of kind - speculation).
What evidence do you think have to support your (supposed) notion that God exists and we were created?
The impossibility of the contrary/the ability to make sense of origins because we, as Christians, have what is necessary to make sense of origins. With chance happenstance where do you get the agency from? What can "chance" do and how? Explain that, please.
The evidence is the Bible, 66 different books by about 40 different authors that claim to be God's revelation to humanity through a people (the Jews) that are verified to exist in history, as are names, places, events. Prophecy is a specific avenue of investigation. It is reasonable to believe.
Chance happenstance explaining our existence is not reasonable for it does not have the means of explanation for it is not a thing and definitely not personal but material. So what you have is subjective human beings interpreting origins from the present. Chance cannot think, cannot give meaning, cannot create for it has no intent or purpose. When we examine the universe we find information and complexity, from the macros to the micros. From the laws of nature, we are able to explain, in precise mathematical formulas, the operation of things in the universe - and in a general way, how it works. It seems like there is a purpose here that is not explained by blind indifferent chance happenstance. Why do we find consistency and sustainability from such willy-nilly happenstances? No reason, yet you continually find meaning. You continually find information. What is information? It is mindful. When you travel to NY City you find a sign conveying information - "Welcome to NY City." Did it just materialize out of nothing and for no purpose? No, mindful beings are informing you of something. The sign has a purpose.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Just so everyone knows, all the wlw alts are fake accounts by the moron Willows who has again broken into the site to tell us how terrible Jesus is - as a public service, (not because he is bitter and has OCD).
Well, thanks for the heads up. We were saturated with those posts before. It has been a while since I engaged with him. I will see how much he wants to dialogue. If it is anything like I experienced before I will give up quickly. I'm game for a good exchange though.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Your problem, IMO, is that you do not appreciate what you have.no, the problem in an economy that has been rigged to funnel as much money as possible to a tiny percentage of the population. I understand the US is more prosperous than other countries, but that doesn't mean it's economy isn't fundamentally flawed.
You won't find perfection. Would you rather live in a socialist country? That is the way you are going. Do you understand what socialism does?
Many problems in much of your economy have been created and perpetuated by the Democrat Party.the economic problems are caused by both parties. Both of them have almost identical fiscal policies. Basically, funnel as much money to the rich and corporations, then those corporations funnel some of that money back into the political campaigns of those politicians.
There is a glaring difference between the policies of the two parties. Again, which is the lesser of two evils? Which is more just? From an outsider it is obvious.
It has a priceless commodity they the people of those countries seek - freedom!no one is saying america shouldn't be free. But having a government run by, and for, the rich isn't freedom. It is tyranny.
No, what is happening on university campuses and indoctrinated into the school and education system is a robbery of freedom for those who are conservative and not politically correct. And if it can happen to those it can certainly happen to the rest. Your 1st and 2nd Amendment rights are in danger, IMO. Freedom of speech, freedom to carry arms, justice for all are under attack. These are some of the things you are in danger of losing along with your economic prosperity. Not only this, but the gatekeepers of your society (the media, arts and entertainment, politicians, the court system) are already liberal-minded and largely liberal governed. You are being indoctrinated and wooed by socialism. As I said before, examine where this has worked. Biden, with his new environmental and energy policies, will bankrupt your country. The change is more than you can handle (I think it is largely hype that you only have 12 years before it is irreparable). And what happens if it is achievable? What good would it do if you cannot curtail China or India or third world countries?
Not only this, but the Chinese threat is also growing. The Democrats have spent 3 1/2 years hunting Trump while ignoring your national security and foreign policy. Shifty Shiff as head of the foreign intel committee has been useless. Thank goodness the Trump administration is somewhat aware of this problem. I've watched a few programs about China and you should take notice. Bubbling Biden is not going to help the situation. He is going to feed power to China. And what about all the unfair trade deals that these liberal politicians have made that have given your countries wealth to others at your expense? Good luck with Biden. You will need it. He is about to make America unrecognizable if elected, in my opinion.
With the wrong person in office may cause irreparable damage.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
So, I'm interested in knowing some of the countries you have visited.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Yet people from all over the world flock to your country, fleeing from totalitarian and leftist governments. They want what you have. You want what they have. Why don't you move? They are willing. China has a big gap in the wealthy and poor too, yet the poor have no freedom of expression, cannot speak out against their government. Millions are persecuted and suppressed.so your argument is that there are worse places in the world, so we should do absolutely nothing about the problems in our economy?
Not at all. I think your country was doing remarkably well under Trump until Covid-19.
Your argument seems to be that it is no better than third world countries. I know a little about such countries. I've lived and worked in one and was born in another. Why do you think there are so many people fleeing other parts of the world to come to America? Your problem, IMO, is that you do not appreciate what you have. Many problems in much of your economy have been created and perpetuated by the Democrat Party. I already mentioned some major city's where this becomes evident because they have been in the hands of Democrats for decades in some cases. Take a look at Baltimore, NY, Chicago, Atlanta, Seatle, Portland, St. Louis, LA, San Fransico, as a few and tell me what they have in common. Many are also sanctuary cities. When are these people going to learn that Democrats can't solve their city's problems?
Although you are not as well-off as the billionaires, their companies give you jobs and raise your living standards far above these totalitarian regimes that oppress their citizens in every way while the rich feed off the backs of the poor in their exploitation. There is no synergism their.ok, so the people siphoning off the vast majority of the wealth let people have enough to stay alive (although in many cases they don't even do that), so we should just be super happy about that and continue to obey and serve them? That is a really shitty outlook on the world.
It takes money to create opportunities. You dry up that money and you will be another Venezuela where only the ruling class lives in luxury. Relatively speaking, your country is well off in comparison to most of the third world nations. It has a priceless commodity they the people of those countries seek - freedom!
Under the Democrat Party, they have given away your wealth, siphoning off and shutting down your factories and raped your economy with their massive senseless regulations. They have raised your taxes and want to do so in extraordinary ways in the future so that what you have now will quickly disappear. They want to open the floodgates to immigrants and give them health insurance, education, and other freebies at the taxpayer's expense. They want everyone to be equal (except themselves) and give you everything which will destroy creativity and reduce the incentive to work. Yet these crazies keep supporting their policies by re-electing them. States like NY and California are not good places to live anymore. San Fransico has a homeless problem. Open borders bring in drugs, sex trafficking, gangs, and those fleeing their own countries, some of which are the criminal element. You pay for that in many ways, including less secure cities. The Democrats do not work with the elected government for the betterment of your country. In everything they do, they oppose it and undermine it because they are so hungry for power that the people are forgotten about. They spin and lie and fabricate. They continually create social programs that fail. The crime rates in liberal, democrat-run cities spike. The poverty levels are bad. They promise everything and deliver no hope. They hate Trump because he has exposed their dirty dealings like no other. The Swamp has pulled out every measure to resist and subvert his agenda. He has done more than any president I'm aware of with 100 times the obstacles of any other president. That is the kind of person I would want as my leader. They call him racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, bigoted, hypocritically since they meet the bill twofold. I hope the American public is aware of the double standard and votes overwhelmingly to oust these Democrats from office. What have they done in the past four years that have been beneficial to your country? NOTHING. Are you going to reward them again?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Do you think it stems from indoctrination and effective propaganda machinery?Yes, but I don't just think it, I know its happening. My daughter, who is not 40, would come home from school telling me what she learned that day. Elementary school [K - 6] then middle, and high school, all in 70s and early 80s. The Marxist propagandas was in full display, then. She was telling me this slavery nonsense practiced by Washington, and Jefferson, et al. But, what she was not taught was that to abolish slavery then, prior to ratification of the Constitution, would collapse the South's economy immediately. The founders knew this would be disastrous, both abolitionists and slavers. Fortunately, they agreed to disagree, and many with reluctance, ratified the Constitution, and hoped a resolution would come. Being Canadian, do I assume correctly your ancestry is British? It took the British two full parliamentary efforts, and some 30 years to finally abolish slavery. It required of us a Civil War. It was never going to be easy, but both made the correct effort. Just so, I believe the effort of Marxism to infiltrate and control our government will take the same effort to eradicate.
I was born in Zambia, registered as Canadian born overseas. My father was born in Ontario Canada and my mother in the Cape Province, South Africa from British descent. I have experienced apartheid.
If I remember correctly you said you had worked in 30 countries. That is quite a resume. Like you, I have witnessed a lot of poverty. Zambia became one of the poorest countries in Africa after we left in 1970, even though at the time it was third in copper production in the world. The president invited the Chinese to help develop the country. I remember going to the yearly agricultural show in 1970 where everyone passing through the gates was handed a Red Book (the Communist Manifesto). Then Zimbabwe, next door, became Marxist after UDI (the Unilateral Declaration of Independence) was disbanded (I believe in the '80s). My uncle who had owned a farm there since before the 1950s had it confiscated by the government. Not only that, but his wife was also murdered by the farmhands. I've watched what socialism did to that country, again now one of the poorest in Africa along with another socialist state - Mozambique. Angola also fought a civil war with communist back guerilla fighters. Many countries in Africa have fallen victim to the Marxist socialist agenda. Your country is now being plowed by this radical movement. As you have noticed with your daughter, leftist ideology has gained momentum in the educational system. The door has been left wide open and now it has reached your members of Congress with Bernie Sanders, AOC, and the Squad (who is foolish enough to vote for these people?) having a major impact on which way your countries thought system is driven. I personally think that if Trump is not elected again your country is lost. What I don't understand is how the (supposed) silent majority remains so. I suppose that when the media shames anyone who opposes these leftist policies people just keep quiet and watch their country disintegrating with this zealot extremism. I only hope that enough people see what is going on and vote to stop it for another four years. Unless the underlying philosophies change it will inevitably become the norm, I fear, if it hasn't already.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
will you ever tire of making excuses for yourself? STOP! You do yourself no favors. Do I care if Bezos is 1 in 1,000,000? Should you? I guess if you're convinced you'll never make it, I guess you won't. No, I'll guarantee it. Like I saId: YOU AND YOUR MIRROR. CHANGE THAT GUY. Best place to start.
Not only this, but George Soros and Bezos also promote the undermining of your current government, IMO. They fund leftists groups and ideologies to destabilize your country and its values and turn it into their utopian Shangrila which will fail you even more as they get richer. It is all about power. The Democrats are all about power. They don't care about Americans as anything other than a vote, IMO. They are masters of propaganda and creating group-think, funnelling thinking to their political and monetary advantage. People like Joe Biden and his family have gotten rich from his public office from my understanding.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
That is such a load of crap! What, you abdicate control of your destiny that easily? Get an education. Learn to think critically. Use your head to whorl smart, not just hard. Is that so hard?I have an education. I do think critically. I see that the vast majority of wealth is controlled by a very few number of people. They have, over the course of decades and even centuries, designed an economic system that protects them and their class. They have systematically devalued labor and experience and concentrated as much wealth and power into their own hands.So yes, if you work hard all your life it is possible to succeed. But you will never be among the top 1%. You will never be wealthy or powerful enough to make any real change. But that is how they sell the lie.And the current economic crisis has actually highlighted that point. The people who are critically important are the people who run our hospitals, drive the trucks full of goods, stock our grocery stores etc. But those people are getting completely screwed over. It isn't them the government is spending trillions of dollars to support. It is businesses and millionaires/billionaires. When it comes down to it, the system is designed to protect the rich, not you.
Yet people from all over the world flock to your country, fleeing from totalitarian and leftist governments. They want what you have. You want what they have. Why don't you move? They are willing. China has a big gap in the wealthy and poor too, yet the poor have no freedom of expression, cannot speak out against their government. Millions are persecuted and suppressed. That is what we witness on college and university campuses where any conservative or Republican voice is drowned out. Those liberal, leftists who promote free speech are the ones who violently act against any view that opposes their own with college riots and hateful protests. This crowd of leftists mob your cities, creating police-free zones while their anarchy and control harm those who dissent. The victims are the residents. These people treat others with intimidation and their property with extreme disrespect. They break through gates, vandalize, murder, and rob all in the name of BLM, a decoy for their real agenda. They kill black people while blaming the police. Their violence affects whole neighbourhoods and cities. And the Demos are the ones who either support them or are silent on the moral and social wrongs they bring to and continually propagate. The Demos are the ones who prop up and support their failing neighbourhoods and school systems.
Although you are not as well-off as the billionaires, their companies give you jobs and raise your living standards far above these totalitarian regimes that oppress their citizens in every way while the rich feed off the backs of the poor in their exploitation. There is no synergism their.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
If you elect Joe Biden, your taxes are going up, and Mt. Rushmore is coming down. Don't you dare tell me that only the one-percenters will be taxed; that you'll skate. Don't be an idiot. You already want to have free higher education, and medicare for all. Just to cover the current government expense, taxing just the one-percenters, even at 100% [they get no income] you will fund the government for less than six months. Who pays the rest? You, you, and you, and me. Now add your Green New Deal, which estimates are anywhere from $7T over ten years, to $30T over ten years. That's close to, to exceeding an additional $1T per year. Add medicare for all; that's a trillion more. Per year. Add free education, free abortions, free child care, free energy [yes, you're proposing that], and a living wage payment even if you don't work, free benefits for illegals, and on, and on. So don't give me your crap that the one-percenters can pay for all that, so, you won't have a tax increase. Your Marxism is a failed social contract. It has never lasted anywhere tried for more than 100 years. Meanwhile, the system you're throwing away has endured 230 years. You tell me which has a better chance of survival. But, go ahead. Vote for Joe Biden. You cannot even tell me when you elect him who the President will be, because it ain't Joe Biden. He's a puppet. Who's really your Marxist overlord? You don't know, do you?
But why does it appear that around half your country is buying into this Bolshevik BS? Do you think it stems from indoctrination and effective propaganda machinery?
Like you probably think, this election is the most important your country will ever face. We witness every day the anarchy taking place in liberal Democrat-run cities and states. The Democrats as a party are silent on the violence and killing of blacks killing blacks, blacks injuring and killing black police officers. It makes me wonder if they really believe BLM or whether the Dems are using the Marxist movement (both founders are Marxist) for political gains. The Democrat-run mayors and councils try to defund those who protect their communities. Not only this, but these same Democrat-run cities also promote a form of education that is not working - a public school system controlled by big government. Time after time these African American communities vote for a failing Party that promises everything but never delivers. These cities continue to be, year after year, some of the worst run in America. At election time every two and four years we hear the same rhetoric about how racist the Republicans are when it was the Democrat Party that originally supported slavery, some of its members supported the KKK, and promoted segregation. The Democrats are the cancel culture party, oppressors of free speech, stand for revision of history, promote censorship of any political decent, demonize the opposition, charge sports teams and their fans as racists, push changing team names proudly adopted because of the strength of the name (like The Washington Redskins). The Demos also push socialism, a system of government that has never worked wherever it is tried but slowly erodes the freedoms of its citizens. Isn't that what is happening right now in your society by that Party? The Demos have very few constructive policies but use their platform to villainize and character assassinates those who oppose them and dare show the consequences of such vile ideology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@wlws9
........by ignoring my posts which have been granted the last word on the subject. (Posts 84, 85, 87) I was looking forward to a heated discussion. Or is everyone just taking a break?Allow me then to make the last word on the subject.There is and never was any such thing as the resurrection of any sort any anyone who earnestly believes such an absurd fairy tale is clearly deluded.Similarly, anyone who preaches such nonsense is a dishonest liar.
I love it when people blanket their false charges with indirect accusations! Basically, you are saying that all Christians believe in fairy tales and are liars.
Nice discussion! Not a shred of contrary evidence, just assertions.
There are 66 different books by around 40 different authors spanning over a thousand years that all have common themes of sin, salvation, redemption, a revelation of God and the Messiah. Prophecy always points to a right relationship with God, judgment, the Messiah, and a new covenant. Prophecy is specific to an Old Covenant people and records their dealing and rebellion against God and God's faithfulness in that covenant. The resurrection is witnessed by at least eight NT writers, who willingly die in proclaiming the message of God's good news in Jesus Christ.
There has never been a figure/Person in the whole of human history who has influenced and changed so many people to live in God's grace by trusting in Him as this Jesus Christ. You do not recognize His greatness because you do not want to, instead, opposing Him with every fabric of your being (if I am identifying you correctly from your previous alias, if not sorry for the misdiagnosis).
Assuming you are this person:
Why? Why do you spend so much time and energy opposing what you call a fairy tale? Why do you appear so angry over the biblical teachings? Is it not good to love others and want the best for them, to devote oneself to helping those less fortunate, to do what is in one's means to fight against injustice and when possible to give food and shelter to the poor and needy, to change lives for the better? Do you not want others to have hope and inspiration?
Created:
-->
@wlws9
Irrefutable evidence. You first. Present your concrete evidence. Where do you observe a change in kind? What is intended by chance happenstance? How does such a process even happen? Who is Richard Dawkins that I should believe another fallible, subjective limited in knowledge human being?I can see how perhaps you are so mixed up and confused.You see, I correctly cited viable, authoritative evidence to back up what I stated.
Which post was that?
Looking through your posts I can see not one iota of evidence to back your stance (presumably of creation) and it is very telling that you seem to be unaware of who Richard Dawkins is.
I was using reason.
What would you accept as evidence? I have tried a discussion on the evidence and very few want to engage in disputing it. If I got a commitment to have a reasonable and civil discussion I would present it yet again.
It is a common characteristic of those who firmly believe in God to shun and ignore facts in order to protect themselves from their ill-gotten, absurd beliefs.
What facts are those?
Created:
-->
@wllws9
That is your presupposition, your personal opinion, built upon a particular worldview, or do you have concrete evidence as my previous comment asks?The irrefutable evidence is that life was formed through evolution by natural selection and there is no evidence whatsoever as to life being intended.The undisputed evidence that backs my claim is clearly and comprehensively tabled in the book by Richard Dawkins...The Greatest Show On Earth.Are you able to present any concrete evidence that contradicts such facts?
Irrefutable evidence. You first. Present your concrete evidence. Where do you observe a change in kind? What is intended by chance happenstance? How does such a process even happen? Who is Richard Dawkins that I should believe another fallible, subjective limited in knowledge human being?
Created:
Posted in:
Is it just me or are most agreeing that my posts and points on the resurrection are sound on this thread? It seems a funny way to end this discussion by ignoring my posts which have been granted the last word on the subject. (Posts 84, 85, 87) I was looking forward to a heated discussion. Or is everyone just taking a break?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
So are you of the opinion that this blue-eyedness makes them less human? And what kind of evolution are you speaking of, micro or macro of which I mean a change from one kind to another (macro) or adaption of/in the kind (micro)?No. It was an example that it’s not far fetched and not racist to say skin color is a part of evolution. Being more evolved doesn’t mean you’re superior or inferior. It can but doesn’t have to.
Perhaps we can in part agree here! I agree that "ability" should not equate with human worth. the two are separate but too often treated equally. Where I disagree is that it is not far-fetching. I believe lesser or inferior beings (since they don't survive or adapt as well) is a concept indoctrinated into people by the teaching of Darwinism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Where is the proof? Because some people have not been as educated or indoctrinated in some cases, does that mean they are less human than others?I never said that. That’s a strawman fallacy. I’m just saying science states that some humans are less evolved than some for the better or for the worse. That’s not racist by any means.
No, you did not say they are less human. But you are saying "science says." I'm asking if such thinking can produce the idea that less evolved means less human. I will focus on what you said (underlined) as a platform for other actions that may come from those core beliefs. What do you think these scientists mean by less evolved? "Less" as a term of diminished human value? Would you say that has been the way many have interpreted it (social Darwinism)? Or less in a sense of diminished ability to cope? Does less mean inferior? Because some people are able to adapt to the sun better than others does than make them lesser human beings? Some imply this lack of evolutionary adaption does make others lesser beings just because they are lacking something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
again, it's just a meaningless word now.but if Darwin came to conclusions via the science available to him at the time, I don't see any of those applying.
If you don't see someone as being as evolved as you are you tend to discriminate against them in your thinking (at least, perhaps even in your actions) of yourself as superior, not equal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Never said that science or scientists believe Darwin to be racist and that would be an appeal to authority, but his various writings speak for themselves.Nature is not racist, it does not discriminate who or what it kills and it is not always the strongest that survives. Racism is a human concept since there is no biological basis for race, we are all humans with the same blood the same DNA structure and only really minor differences in outward appearance.
Stephen may have read it but here is the original edition and what it says:
ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES.
OR THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.
By Charles Darwin, M.A.,
Fellow Of The Royal, Geological, Linnaean, Etc., Societies;
Author Of 'Journal Of Researches During H.M.S. Beagle's Voyage Round The World.'
From the First Edition
OR THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.
By Charles Darwin, M.A.,
Fellow Of The Royal, Geological, Linnaean, Etc., Societies;
Author Of 'Journal Of Researches During H.M.S. Beagle's Voyage Round The World.'
From the First Edition
***
Darwin teaches there are favoured races. He coined the term "Natural Selection" that he believes determines and demonstrates which races are favoured, the natural selection being whatever survives or is fittest is determined to be stronger or favoured by evolution. With Natural Selection, he personifies nature continually in his descriptions, as if nature "selects" anything. What he means is what by chance "survives" survives. There is no "selecting" here. Sometimes those in an isolated harsher environment over time develop an immunity to some element that others less conditioned would not survive from. Perhaps their skin darkens to the sun through climatization and the trait is passed from generation to generation, protecting the individual better than those who are new to the environment. Thus, he believes some humans are not as evolved as others. His principle of macro-evolution (change from kind to kind) is not something proven but supposed by the principle of micro-evolution (adaption within the kind) which is demonstrable. The weaker are considered lesser or inferior which can lead to an elitist position that history shows results in discrimination against the "weaker" or less evolved. This discrimination led to social Darwinism as practiced by Hitler and others who took the principle into their own hands and tried to speed it up. Examples of discrimination against others cite the South African policy of Apartied based on some races as being more favourable than others. The caste system in India recognizes a hierarchy in place. Many societies can be shown to support a "we" versus "them" mentality, especially when cultures emerge such as with colocalization and conquests.
Believing that some "races" are not as developed or evolved creates an elitist mentality. Instead of viewing all human beings as equal we now get a hierarchy or superiority by those who are considered the stronger, who then exploit the "weaker" or less fortunate.
Darwin (ch. 4): "Natural Selection: its power compared with man's selection, its power on characters of trifling importance, its power at all ages and on both sexes...and unless profitable variations do occur, natural selection can do nothing...Man can act only on external and visible characters: nature cares nothing for appearances, except in so far as they may be useful to any being. She can act on every internal organ, on every shade of constitutional difference, on the whole machinery of life. Man selects only for his own good; Nature only for that of the being which she tends. Every selected character is fully exercised by her; and the being is placed under well-suited conditions of life...natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life."
The personification is wide-spread.
***
Darwin takes a process that intelligent human beings manipulate, crossbreeding of domestic stock, which he calls "domestication" or "domestic production" to show that change or variation in a kind of animal or plant can produce a change of a kind over time. That is his leap of faith.
Darwin (ch. 4): "We may conclude, from what we have seen of the intimate and complex manner in which the inhabitants of each country are bound together, that any change in the numerical proportions of some of the inhabitants, independently of the change of climate itself, would most seriously affect many of the others. If the country were open on its borders, new forms would certainly immigrate, and this also would seriously disturb the relations of some of the former inhabitants.
New forms? Do they stop being human beings and become other kinds of beings? Are there new kinds of beings that resemble us in some ways as human beings here on earth? Or do we just witness adaption taking place within a kind - human beings adapting to their environment?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
but to your topic, is it racism if Darwin was basing what he thought on the science and things they knew at the time? Just because they were wrong and the science then is very poor compared to what we know now doesn't mean it's racism.something else to consider the word racism has really lost any meaning and effect because of how it's easily used and misused, but such is human language.
What is your definition? Here is a dictionary definition. In which sense are you using the term?
Definition of racism
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a: a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b: a political or social system founded on racism
3: racial prejudice or discrimination
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Science is not a person or persons. Thus it is not racist.I agree. It’s not racist to say blue eyes are more common with white people and are a result of evolution. Humans are no exception to evolution.
So are you of the opinion that this blue-eyedness makes them less human? And what kind of evolution are you speaking of, micro or macro of which I mean a change from one kind to another (macro) or adaption of/in the kind (micro)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
If science believes what Darwin believed about' favoured races' then ,yes, science is racist.If science says black people aren’t as evolved genetically as white people, is that racist?
Where is the proof? Because some people have not been as educated or indoctrinated in some cases, does that mean they are less human than others?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Actually, I think the cancel culture is ridiculous, although I don't care about statues,
I agree wholeheartedly about the cancel-culture. I take exception about statues. They tell a story of our past, whether good or bad and are a reminder. While I do not think some of these people memorialized by statues should be idolized we should not forget that past. Tearing down statues is something you find in totalitarian societies. Whatever does not meet the ideology of the elite who control the masses is eliminated in such authoritarian and big-government countries. Your society, aided by the mainstream media, is sending a message that anything goes, as long as it meets their particular agenda.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
With all the statues and images being destroyed I haven't heard about any Darwin images being cancelled.His books and other writings are about as racist as anything I've read.Is Science racist?
Science is not a person or persons. Thus it is not racist. Scientists, those who participate in science, can be. Social Darwinism has caused many problems, of which racism is one of them when it has been adopted into cultures.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Then I question whether you know the Christian God.I do not know the Christian God; I know of the Christian God. And why are you qualifying God with the adjective, "Christian"?
That is just my point, you don't know Him.
Why? Because logically there can only be one true and living God, and I believe that God is the God revealed in the Bible. I state that based on many pieces of evidence and will gladly argue for this God against your belief. Is that sufficient?
How well do you think your Confusism stacks up against such a God?Fairly well. I don't see how Tien is any less existent than God.
How do you test for Tien's existence? What kind of proof has Tien left you that he/she/it actually exists? Is it wishful thinking?
That one and only God has revealed to humanity in two ways, through what was made and via written revelation. How does your god of Confusism do that?Through the Mandate of Heaven and Confucius.
What is that and how do you verify it is true? If your god is not a personal being, as you state, how did you get this "Mandate of Heaven and Confucius?" Did Confucius just invent it?
The Judeo-Christian has confirmed Himself in various ways and confirms it with our spirits via His Spirit. There is a way to know and reconcile with this God according to this word, and that is through His Son.So then, once again, why do you qualify God with the description "Judeo-Christian?"
Because I believe the evidence points to the Jewish Scriptures as related to the Christian Scriptures and speak of the same God, just in a greater revelation.
Is [your] god a personal god?Tien is not a personal God.
Really? What is Tien then? I will stop using the pronouns "he" or "she" and call Tien "it."
How do you account for consciousness and personhood if Tien is not personal?
Who or what is your god?"My" God does not register. God is not possessed.
What is it, then?
Are you it.I don't practice suitheism.
Are you a pantheist or panentheist then?
is [your] god an actual being?What do you mean by "actual"? Material? Or does the distinction not matter?
It matters a lot. Is your god real (exists) or a figment of your imagination.
A factory is a large scale operation in comparison. You may grow a few tomatoes, and even sell them, but once you go into larger-scale production in which goods are produced for commercial use and have an automated production line you are entering the factory atmosphere. People do not usually live in factories. They work there. The HOME and factory are usually separate abodes, although the two can be in the same buildingWe're not discussing "usual behavior" since "usual behavior" doesn't qualify their descriptions.
Do words have meaning or have you lost the law of identity to your vocabulary? (I.e., A=A)
Words convey a specific meaning. They represent and are necessary for communication. Don't blur the difference between a house and a factory without qualifying what you mean. House =/= factory. House = house. Factory = factory. A building that "houses" both is possible (pardon the pun), but it is an exception to the general rule and needs to be qualified.
Usually, a description of a factory would not include bedrooms, sometimes exclude a kitchen, a den with fireplace, and family members.Where in your cited description of a house does it state that a house necessitates a bedroom, kitchen, or den?
A house is a living abode. We don't usually have our abode in factories. A house has a place to eat, a place to sleep and a place to s_ _ t. A factory does not usually have a place to sleep. A word that describes the place we sleep is called a bedroom when it is walled and separated from other areas. Yes, some people do not have such rooms. I speak of what is common. A factory does not usually have bedrooms. Houses usually do have bedrooms.
So while there are similarities the two very seldom match the qualifications of both.What qualifications? Once again, point out to me the exact description that precludes a house from being a factory, and vice versa.
I have not argued a building called a house cannot ALSO act as a factory or visa versa. To call a house a factory would be adding to our normal understanding of what a factory is and such distinction needs to be qualified since what is meant is not in the standard meaning of the word factory, to call it a house. The definition of a house is not the same as that of a factory. To call the two the same needs qualification. If the BUILDING you call home also is being used as a factory I have no beef about that.
Does anyone else here believe that a factory is the same as a house???You're appealing to incredulity. We're discussing whether the descriptions of a house and factory, and the argument that both can be the same, demonstrates a contradiction.
I appeal to common sense. While the two can share functions common to each individually, in the same building, that is an exception to the norm.
What I am saying is don't blur the distinction that gives words meaning (in context) without qualifying what you mean.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Your statements are a little vague. I'm not grasping the significance of what you said here. Can you rephrase or expand on those thoughts? AYOU: "How are these principles intelligible independent of our minds when our minds are used to rationalize?"They exist without you thinking them. They are (or do you deny this?), and they are independent of your and my mind but still need mindfulness to know.You assert that they are independent of the mind; how does one know this? How can one know this? In order to "know," you require the use of your mind; so then how does one "know" of that which is independent of one's mind? In order to do this, one would have to control (reduce variance) for that which you allege "is" independent of the influence, conceptions, rationalizations, and manipulations of one's mind. That is, to isolate and extract and observe how it behaves. Consequentially, the use of the mind would be prohibited. That means, no math; no science, no language, no logic. What's left? Irrationality.
I assert they are independent of our human minds. Can you show me a mind that is necessary for them to exist, a necessary mind? You insist mind is necessary for the existence of the physical. Which mind? Is your mind necessary for such existence? I say they will exist if you do not. I will still perceive and experience the physical. So, how can one know? On the impossibility of the contrary. Some things are just plain illogical and irrational to think. They make no sense. They go against what coherent. Even so, you are welcome to think such nonsense. Your limited, subjective mind does not have what is necessary. I will argue that you are not having this conversation with yourself.
If only you exist you will address yourself. Here you go, "I am delusional!" There, you have stated this since only you exist.
Why are you having a conversation with yourself? Are you lonely? Just create a fictitious being to converse with. Oh, you are, or should you say, "I have!"
Since I have created this conversation with myself, I win! My ultra-ego, who I am talking to, is wrong! That ultra-ego is insane, therefore...(fill in the rest)
***
The inconsistency of your thinking is troubling to me who claims I exist apart from you.
No math, no logic - how so? God (in three Persons), is that necessary mindfulness that we originate from and owe our being. How is that irrational? From the living comes life. From conscious beings come other conscious beings. From the loving come other loving beings. From personal beings come other personal beings. From intelligent mindful beings come other intelligent, mindful beings. Do you ever witness otherwise?
So, without minds, there would be no physical objects? Is that what you are saying? How do you explain the universe before mindful beings? Was there such a thing?Even if your mind was not, there would still be these four physical objects (2+2) I keep bumping into or knocking over or feeling, and acknowledging with my mindful conception through consciousness.Without the mind, physicality would be irrational. Even when considering somatosensation, and the process of interpreting information from stimuli, what would any of that be without conception and rationalization? One "feels something." What's the difference between feeling something and not feeling something? What if one couldn't verbalize that sensation? What if there was no language? Once again, in order to assert that there's something which "is" independent of one's mind, one would have to control for independence.
What I am saying is that your mind is not necessary for physicality. I can still sense the two plus two. If I was not here, someone else would sense it or do you believe that only your mind exists? So what I am saying is that this physicality is not something that depends on your mind or mine. They are not necessary for it. This same physicality would exist if either you or I did not, or do you believe there is only you and you are having a conversation with yourself? If so, I'll leave you to do that. In such a case, I would suggest you re-examine yourself. With such thinking, you are obviously capable of more than you give yourself credit for! Why not just materialize your heart's desire?
What I am saying is which mind is necessary for physicality? Is it yours alone? (All by yourself?!!) So no individual human mind is necessary, or do you believe the first one was?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@RationalMadman
Pack a toothbrush.
How long do you think I will be waiting for? (^8
Hopefully, RationalMadMan will address this matter quickly. It will be interesting to see what he is reading into Scripture and how valid his inferences are.
Created:
-->
@wlsw9
.........you realize an intelligent being put it in place because it conveys information. It did not just willy-nilly come into being.I think you will find that all intelligent beings "willy-nilly" came into being.
How? Why? When?
Just as all life on earth came "willy-nilly" into being.
That is your presupposition, your personal opinion, built upon a particular worldview, or do you have concrete evidence as my previous comment asks?
Anybody who erroneously chooses to believe otherwise is egotistical and self-centred.
Can you apply the same standards to your belief or is it elitist, egotistical and self-centred in its own right? Just a question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@RationalMadman
There's many, I'll get to it later.
Okay, Ethang5 and I will keep waiting.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Faith or trust or hope or choice in something tangible within the context of a perceivable experience, is somewhat different to faith in one particular hypothetical deity.
Origins are not tangibly verified in one sense that none living were there at the beginning, and everyone in the present is looking back in time and assuming the present is the key to the past because the present is what we have to measure the past. You have just as much faith in your presuppositions (even more I might add) as a Christian does in theirs. Yet what is the more reasonable position? Your deity, if not a Creator, is yourself. Your denial, if you deny, sets you as the final arbitrator. Without a Creator, there is no one higher in determining how you will live than you. You decide and call what you will and will not believe from a subjective standpoint because you have no objective criterion to reference in the case of origins. It is speculative. There are many theories of origins where humanity decides they are the measure of all things.
Created:
-->
@Athias
I like to point out that these mathematical equations (proofs) that you speak of that describe the laws of nature, such as the law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, speed of light, etc., are principles we discover, not what we invent. They operate apart from any one of us thinking them. They are intelligible, suggesting a necessary mind (since our minds are not necessary for these laws to exist) has put these laws into place. So, we have a more plausible explanation than the materialist who is operating on the principle of blind, indifferent, chance happenstance.Can one control for this? That is isolate that which we perceive from discovery and rationalize through conceptualization and that which which we allege is independent from the former? How are these principles intelligible independent of our minds when our minds are used to rationalize?
Your statements are a little vague. I'm not grasping the significance of what you said here. Can you rephrase or expand on those thoughts? A
YOU: "How are these principles intelligible independent of our minds when our minds are used to rationalize?"
They exist without you thinking them. They are (or do you deny this?), and they are independent of your and my mind but still need mindfulness to know.
I think I understand what you are saying and if so I agree wholeheartedly and like what you are saying! God is Spirit and thus not physical in nature. Thus, it is with our minds that we contemplate and know Him. The mathematics we use to describe the laws of nature are also mental. We use our minds to conceptualize these laws. So, the materialist is using a double standard. He/she is working beyond what can be proven by the pure physical. The concept of twoness is not tangible, nor are the principles of mathematics we use to describe the physical workings of the universe. So, once again the materialist is inconsistent and hypocritical in his/her thinking and borrows from another worldview that does make sense.Not just used to described but to inform (i.e. mathematics and the physical laws of nature.) Other than that, you hit the nail right on the head.
True, information is mindful. If you see, "Welcome to Canada" (and I use a Van Tillian argument) as you cross the border you realize an intelligent being put it in place because it conveys information. It did not just willy-nilly come into being. In every aspect of this world, we see information contained in the micros to the macros. That is a good point.
God best explains the laws of mathematics and the physical laws of nature.
But are you saying that two physical objects plus two physical objects can equal something other than four physical objects?Yes. Even if one argues that we replace the forms that one alleges "identify," what defines it being four physical objects? Our descriptions. Our conceptualization.
So, without minds, there would be no physical objects? Is that what you are saying? How do you explain the universe before mindful beings? Was there such a thing?
Even if your mind was not, there would still be these four physical objects (2+2) I keep bumping into or knocking over or feeling, and acknowledging with my mindful conception through consciousness.
But do we derive 2+2=4 from the mind of God as our source?I don't presume to have access to God's mind.
Then I question whether you know the Christian God. How well do you think your Confusism stacks up against such a God? That one and only God has revealed to humanity in two ways, through what was made and via written revelation. How does your god of Confusism do that? The Judeo-Christian has confirmed Himself in various ways and confirms it with our spirits via His Spirit. There is a way to know and reconcile with this God according to this word, and that is through His Son. Is your god a personal god? Who or what is your god? Are you it, determining all things or is your god an actual being? I'm interested in your answers so that I can analyze them further.
The definition of a house and a factory are not the same. Thus, there is a contradiction in terms unless further explanation distinguishes and contains a combination of the two definitions within the one structure.House - A structure serving as a dwelling for one or more persons, especially for a familyFactory - A building or group of buildings in which goods are manufactured; a plant.Look at those descriptions again. Neither excludes the other. A house is actually a place where goods are manufactured (e.g. food, clean clothes, etc.) And what do you see in the description of a factory that would exclude a family from living in it?
While neither excludes the other the definition and description of the two usually do.
A factory is a large scale operation in comparison. You may grow a few tomatoes, and even sell them, but once you go into larger-scale production in which goods are produced for commercial use and have an automated production line you are entering the factory atmosphere. People do not usually live in factories. They work there. The HOME and factory are usually separate abodes, although the two can be in the same building.
Usually, a description of a factory would not include bedrooms, sometimes exclude a kitchen, a den with fireplace, and family members. It would include big machinery, a production line, many workers who are from different families, etc. So while there are similarities the two very seldom match the qualifications of both. Does anyone else here believe that a factory is the same as a house???
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Yet you display this same kind of faith except you place it in things rather than God. When you take that bungee jump off a 1000 foot building you weigh the options and BELIEVE your chances of the bungee cord breaking as small, so you take the leap. Your faith in things is demonstrated every day.Except if he does a bungee jump, can the presence of the bungee cord be independently confirmed? He has faith in the idea that whoever fastend the cord did so properly, after the proper training, but he doesn't make the leap if someone says "Trust me, there's a bungee cord tied to you" without looking at the actual bungee cord, right? THe bungee cord doesn't only function if he BELIEVES it's there. It functions regardless. Unlike the way you describe anything to do with god: you have to believe it first, then you can confirm your beliefs. This, of course, is just confirmation bias.
How did the bungee cord get there? Someone MADE it. It did not just appear out of nothingness. There were design and purpose in it and its function. It was made by a purposeful being. Do you trust in the maker, that there were no flaws in the bungee cord, that appropriate tests were done on it and it passed the inspection? How old is it? Are there stress fractures in it? Is the bungee line inspected for security? It functions only because it was made with purpose and designed for a specific function. There is a casual tree as to why it does what it does. There were an agency and intent in designing it and putting it in place. It did not just suddenly appear there. To think otherwise would be to confirm another bias. Which is more reasonable to believe? Which is confirmed through our observation and logic.
When you take that leap you rely on the safeguards of others for your well-being. Many, throughout history, have tested and relied on the biblical God for life, and life in abundance. Many others watch from the sidelines. Our faith in God is a reasonable faith and leap, not a blind one like that of the atheist and denier who has not inspected the bungee line nor does he/she have a clue in how it got there. He/she thinks it magically appeared from nothing or it has always existed, without it having intent or agency. Poof!
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
If you think otherwise, let's see your reasoning. I bet it is extremely inconsistent with chance happenstance or materialism. The universe requires a Creator/God to make sense. Of course, you are welcome to stumble about while denying Him.My reasoning for 2+2=4? Are you essentially arguing that because 2+2=4, Jesus? You are making a giant leap from "because we've figured out math, the universe requires a creator, AND that creator is Jesus. Can you explain the difference between me stumbling around and you knowing JEsu made math work, like in practical every day terms? What's the impact on your life, or what's the negative impact you perceive on my life? You have not once answered these questoins, in spite of saying rather arrogantly you've 'made sense of the universe.'
I'm saying that of the two beliefs, God or blind chance happenstance, God is the more reasonable. You admit we discover these laws of nature and we can formula them in mathematical principles and laws. Since mathematics is a mindful process it is reasonable to believe a Mind is behind the universe, more reasonable than blind chance. It is called weighing the two options.
From a strictly materialistic worldview, how do you explain why we discover these things from a mindless, purposely, meaningless void? And how can you ever be sure? You do not have what is required for surety. Thus, you stumble and bumble your whole life through while arguing what eventually will be meaningless. Why do these things matter to you? Are you trying to hedge your bet?
The impact on my life is that I have what is necessary for meaning and purpose. Provided this God exists there is a certainty since this God has revealed Himself to humanity. When I examine the Bible I see unity and purpose in its writings. I understand in every book of the Bible there is a revelation or typology of Jesus Christ. I can make a logical argument that verifies this is reasonable and true. I understand the verification process through other means also, such as history and prophecy which is reasonable to believe since there is evidence available that confirms my belief is reasonable. When I look at the universe and humanity I reason that God is reasonable but blind, indifferent chance happenstance is not. From necessary life come other life, from conscious Being comes other conscious beings, from meaning and purpose, come purposeful beings. Without a Creator, the universe has no intention, no purpose, no agency, no meaning. Yet I continually find these things as I examine the universe. I ask the denier of a Creator how this blind, indifferent chance happenstance is able to sustain these natural laws indefinitely and get no answer or an unreasonable answer. I see how from the axiom of chance happenstance these God deniers relay on very little explainability power, that ultimately leads to a dead-end, yet they cling to this illogical belief while scoffing at the believer? It does not make sense to me, nor can it. I keep begging the unbeliever to explain him/herself and I get silence or a redirected assault on my belief. I ask the unbeliever to make sense of morality and all I get is subjective relativism as they adopt from the Christian view on what is necessary. They state one thing while their lifestyles reflect the opposite. Thus they are inconsistent in everything they do and say - very hypocritical.
We don't make them up. We discover them.True!Thus, it is reasonable to believe a necessary Mind has put them in place. It speaks of intelligence. It is not reasonable to believe these laws or principles came about by chance happenstance.This is the leap. There's no reason to make this conclusion based on what you've laid out. All you can conclude is that the principles in question are consistent for some reason. Anything beyond that requires one of two things: evidence that can be demonstrated independently (not your feelings), OR a leap to an unjustified conclusion. You're making the latter.
We both start with the leap. Does your leap make sense? It starts with two logical starting points - God or chance happenstance - and examines each as to the likelihood. It examines what is behind believing in each worldview. It examines the evidence and presuppositions held and behind each belief as to which one can make sense of being, the universe, morality, purpose, meaning, knowledge, etc. We both (you and I) start with building on one of these two presuppositions to form our worldview, the way we choose to look at everything, for these starting positions affect everything else we believe. Without God, you rely completely on a naturalistic, materialistic explanation. Thus, I ask which is more reasonable? And the very concept of reasonableness is a mindful one.
Purpose and meaning require intent and agency.Can you demonstrate that these two things are "built into the universe"? Or are you just going to say "THAT'S THE ONLY WAY IT MAKES SENSE!" (argument from incredulity / ignorance)
I can demonstrate that one makes sense of meaning and purpose and the other does not. So, with the one, a person does not live consistently with their starting presuppositions. That should be deeply troubling for it shows irrationality.
God, the ultimate Being (outside of our time continuum)Where can I confirm the existence of this other time continuum? IF I can do that, I can find whichever god lives there? And who created this other time continuum, since nothing can create itself?
You could spend your entire life examining every belief system or you can take another leap (you already took one in believing in blind indifferent chance happenstance) and trust the biblical God. For those who do He continually confirms His existence and Word as true.
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.
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.
You are not going to find God by denying Him. How could you ever do that? You would first have to believe He is and trust (have faith in) Him before you will find Him.
Do you ever expect to find out whether God exists by constantly denying Him?
Your faith (what you rest your worldview upon and build upon, or your starting point) is blind; mine is reasonable. That should tell you something but you are in denial.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Christianity is undoubtedly a demonstrable faith...As demonstrated by faithful Christians.It is the hypothetical basis of faith, that is not demonstrable.
Yet you display this same kind of faith except you place it in things rather than God. When you take that bungee jump off a 1000 foot building you weigh the options and BELIEVE your chances of the bungee cord breaking as small, so you take the leap. Your faith in things is demonstrated every day.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well stated.
Not a leap of faith (as ludofl3x stated) where the Judeo-Christian God is concerned, but a reasonable faith, not an irrational or blind faith. Christianity is a demonstratable faith.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
IOW's is it possible, ever, that 2+2 can equal something other than 4 (an eternal truth)?Not without changing the definitions of "2" and "4," no. 2+2=4 is demonstrably and irrevocably true.I believe mathematics and logic require a necessary mindful being since they exist regardless of your belief.Seems a leap and completely unnecessary to me. You can neither demonstrate this requirement as necessary, nor can you advance the ball from "mindful being" to Jesus. We've had this discussion. You just say "It's what I presuppose, and that's exactly the same as you presupposing the neutral position." Usually accompanied by the wall of text and a few bible verses. But if that belief is all that keeps you from eating children or whatever it is you think non-believers MUST do because thay don't believe, then by all means, it's fine to believe whatever it is!
Logically, what is the more reasonable and more consistent to what we see, understand and witness? Blind, dumb, indifferent chance happenstance?
Is your mind necessary for 2+2=4 to be true? If you did not exist but I did, would it make any difference whether I believed this or not as to its truthfulness? Thus, I charge it is not necessary for you to exist and it still is true. It is not necessary for me to exist and it still is true. But to think it, it requires a mind. Without any mind, it could not be known. But would it still be true? The principle of addition seems to be built into the universe, just like natural laws seem to be built into the universe. We don't make them up. We discover them. Thus, it is reasonable to believe a necessary Mind has put them in place. It speaks of intelligence. It is not reasonable to believe these laws or principles came about by chance happenstance. That does not explain how they are sustained, indefinitely. Purpose and meaning require intent and agency. Chance happenstance is not a thing. It can do nothing. For everything that has a beginning, there seems to be a cause. Or do you think some things are self-creating? Think about that. How can something that does not exist create itself? It is a self-refuting principle. Thus, God, the ultimate Being (outside of our time continuum), is the most reasonable answer for the physical universe and our conscious being.
If you think otherwise, let's see your reasoning. I bet it is extremely inconsistent with chance happenstance or materialism. The universe requires a Creator/God to make sense. Of course, you are welcome to stumble about while denying Him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
See PGA? The fact that Zed thinks I must have travelled time to know about the thousands of copies found all over the world from different times shows he hasn't a clue about his chosen subject. Thanks for the post, you are always a wealth of useful information.
I don't understand anyone who says there is no evidence. The skeptic just doesn't like where the evidence leads (Deny, deny, deny).
It is clear to me now why God revealed the bible the way He did, the slow revelation, the various newer found copies validating the older. The gradual building of verification from multiple translations, many times, and many cultures. The bible is validated much better that way than if He had just had us get it at once from the ancients.
Considering the odds against the faith, the early persecutions, we still have the best record from antiquity. Ron Rhodes article sums it up nicely:
"The New Testament Versus Other Ancient Books
There are more [New Testament] manuscripts copied with greater accuracy and earlier dating than for any secular classic from antiquity...
Norman Geisler makes several key observations for our consideration:
- No other book is even a close second to the Bible on either the number or early dating of the copies. The average secular work from antiquity survives on only a handful of manuscripts; the New Testament boasts thousands.
- The average gap between the original composition and the earliest copy is over 1,000 years for other books.
- The New Testament, however, has a fragment within one generation from its original composition, whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autograph [original manuscript], most of the New Testament in less than 200 years, and the entire New Testament within 250 years from the date of its completion.
- The degree of accuracy of the copies is greater for the New Testament than for other books that can be compared. Most books do not survive with enough manuscripts that make comparison possible.
- From this documentary evidence, then, it is clear that the New Testament writings are superior to comparable ancient writings. "The records for the New Testament are vastly more abundant, clearly more ancient, and considerably more accurate in their text."
I still believe most scholars make errors in the dating process, as for instance below of Revelation. I believe there is good internal evidence from Revelation coupled with history to show that all or most prophecy in the book applies to before AD 70. Since I favour full Preterism I argue for all. For instance, most scholars believe:
"In about A.D. 185, Irenaus wrote that the book of revelation was composed, “almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”10 Domitian reigned from A.D. 81-96, which is one of the reasons many scholars believe the book of Revelation was written by the Apostle John sometime in the 90’s. Thus, P98 was likely copied within about 100 years of the original autograph."
There is no evidence of this late date around the time of Domitian from Revelation itself once you understand the imagery. The evidence from Revelation puts the writing in the reign of Nero, and his prosecution, about AD 64-68.
and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while.
The one that is would be Nero. Also, just a brief comment on other evidence that speaks of an early dating would be the references to "Babylon the Great" has fallen, meaning Jerusalem, the seven churches John is writing to about the soon coming, the judgment referring to Israel with references to 144,000 from the 12 tribes and,
Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.
In the OT, that verse refers to Israel, not some nation today. Those who had Jesus pierced were the Jews. They handed Him over to Pilate to be killed. Most of the NT points to a soon-coming judgment on OT Israel. I could provide hundreds of verses to confirm that. Pay attention to the primary audience of the address. We are a secondary audience.
You and I know that the resurrection is a historical fact. And though the bible's validation was enough for me, I now have personal experience of my risen Lord.Up from the grave He arose!With a mighty triumph over His foes!He arose to victory from the dark domain,And He lives forever with His saints to reign.
Frank Morison who wrote a little book about the resurrection that breaks down the objections as not reasonable.
The immediate thoughts of a skeptic are to strip God of His supernatural abilities and try to understand everything from a naturalistic perspective. Thus, they cannot take Him at His word.
That sounds amazing. I have experienced God opening up Scripture to my understanding. I had a friend who was a "Word of Faith" believer if you know what that means (not biblically sound, IMO). He told me that I could lose my salvation, that I could take myself out of the hands of God. I prayed for a long time about this, perhaps over the course of a year or so, I'm not sure how long. Then one day, being very frustrated, I began to read the NT from cover to cover and everywhere God's word showed me who was doing the saving. He will save His people. Salvation is a gift from Him, not by our works, but by His.
God confirms His word to those who believe! Paul told Timothy to study to make himself approved by God. We know we know while the skeptic scoffs. (^8
Created:
-->
@Athias
The underlined is puzzling to me. I understand forms to be conceptual. Would you agree? Thus, they are intangible, non-empirical, non-physical.So, without people, are there still these forms? Does 2+2 still equal 4, or does that now become a logical impossibility?When I state that forms are meaningless without people, yes, I'm stating that it becomes irrational. According to materialist standard, numbers have no material or chemical properties. Therefore, they would be nonexistent; yet applied mathematics is credited for the substantiation of physical laws. How then can the immaterial/nonexistent interact with the existent, let alone inform it?
I think the underlined is well said! We use symbols and words to express what does not exist physically. We can describe the nonphysical or things that do not exist physically through these means.
IOW's,1) are you saying that 2+2=4 is not an eternal truth, 2+2 could equal something other than 4, perhaps in another possible universe,2) that before humanity began that equation was not a logical necessity, therefore twoness did not exist, thus there were no forms since forms require meaning,3) there was still a necessary personal being, God, making it necessarily true?1. Two plus two can equal something other than four in this universe. Arithmetical standards need only be manipulated.
But are you saying that two physical objects plus two physical objects can equal something other than four physical objects?
2. I suppose one could make that conclusion based off that which I stated. But I wouldn't because I don't presume to be an observer of nothingness.
I would not either, because I believe God exists and therefore is the necessary being. Nothing is not a thing. Nothing cannot create anything for that would be an illogical and self-refuting concept of self-creation.
3. Did God make two plus two equal four true? No.
But do we derive 2+2=4 from the mind of God as our source?
While I agree there is a logical contradiction if this is an either-or situation when no third possibility, such as an "and" exists. The third possibility can happen in this scenario with a house and factor combined at the same place (i.e., a person has an assembly line in his basement or garage). Thus, the building functions as a house and factory for the occupant.There is no contradiction. No description of a house excludes it from being a factory, and no description of a factory excludes it from being a house.
The definition of a house and a factory are not the same. Thus, there is a contradiction in terms unless further explanation distinguishes and contains a combination of the two definitions within the one structure.
House - A structure serving as a dwelling for one or more persons, especially for a family
Factory - A building or group of buildings in which goods are manufactured; a plant.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I have no idea why you're asking me: 2+2=4 with or without people to name "2" and "4", we are not required at all for that to be true in my view.
It is a little heady.
I'm asking you if you believe that materialism or empiricism alone explains the problem of the is-ought fallacy (what "is" as opposed to what "should be") since 2+2=4 is conceptual and cannot be grasped physically since concepts are intangible? I'm not speaking of the physical brain, but the mind where intellect and consciousness abide unless you think the two are the same). If materialism, the mind is a physical thing along with everything else that exists. Do you believe concepts are physical things, produced by the mere physical reactions? If so, please explain further. Do you believe the principles of addition or mathematics require minds, and if minds which ones? It is obvious that principles of mathematics do not exist only in your mind or my mind alone, but applies universally. Now, if universal, they exists apart from your mind or my mind. Thus, our minds are not necessary for the existence of these mathematical laws/principles. They are non-physical. You can't grab hold of twoness. And if twoness is a product of the mind that is intangible, are principles like the laws of addition (2+2=4) always true. If they are always true (universal), do they not require an absolute, objective, necessary eternal mind as their source (an eternal or forever concept) since we discover them, or is it possible that 2+2=5 can also be true some times and in some possible worlds? IOW's is it possible, ever, that 2+2 can equal something other than 4 (an eternal truth)?
Since mathematics requires mindfulness and the principles of mathematics exist regardless of whether you believe them, your mind (or mine) is necessary for their existence, but mindfulness is necessary for their existence.
The same goes for logic and rationale. The laws of logic are not something physical but they apply universally and without them, you could make sense of nothing. They, again, are mindful, but your mind is not necessary for their existence. These principles of the mind seem to exist regardless of whether you do.
I hope that is a little clearer, although this is difficult to conceptualize and explain. Hopefully, you see where I am coming from. I believe mathematics and logic require a necessary mindful being since they exist regardless of your belief.
Created:
-->
@Athias
That's an astute observation which undermines their--as in materialists--standards.
Materialists or empiricists do have a problem in explaining how they get from the physical to the intangible, non-physical.
I've posited before that everything we perceive is contingent on our minds--especially our conceptualizations and our rationalizations. So then what is the epistemological significance in making a distinction between the immaterial and that which materialists allege is material? Particularly when physical laws (allegedly material) are DEFINED by mathematical proof (immaterial)?
Good point!
The question I never see answered by strict materialists (who deny God or a supernatural being) is how does something without consciousness become conscious?
I like to point out that these mathematical equations (proofs) that you speak of that describe the laws of nature, such as the law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, speed of light, etc., are principles we discover, not what we invent. They operate apart from any one of us thinking them. They are intelligible, suggesting a necessary mind (since our minds are not necessary for these laws to exist) has put these laws into place. So, we have a more plausible explanation than the materialist who is operating on the principle of blind, indifferent, chance happenstance. For the strict materialist, the question is, how do you get information and more importantly constancy (uniformity of nature) from a natural universe devoid of a necessary mind?
So when an atheist attempts to trivialize God by asserting something to the effect that "God exists only in the mind," it's replete with double standards because the physical science off which they base their contentions is defined by that which, one can easily argue, "exists only in the mind" with the use of a standard that is identical to their own.
I think I understand what you are saying and if so I agree wholeheartedly and like what you are saying! God is Spirit and thus not physical in nature. Thus, it is with our minds that we contemplate and know Him. The mathematics we use to describe the laws of nature are also mental. We use our minds to conceptualize these laws. So, the materialist is using a double standard. He/she is working beyond what can be proven by the pure physical. The concept of twoness is not tangible, nor are the principles of mathematics we use to describe the physical workings of the universe. So, once again the materialist is inconsistent and hypocritical in his/her thinking and borrows from another worldview that does make sense.
Created:
-->
@Athias
The underlined is puzzling to me. I understand forms to be conceptual. Would you agree? Thus, they are intangible, non-empirical, non-physical.So, without people, are there still these forms? Does 2+2 still equal 4, or does that now become a logical impossibility?When I state that forms are meaningless without people, yes, I'm stating that it becomes irrational. According to materialist standard, numbers have no material or chemical properties. Therefore, they would be nonexistent; yet applied mathematics is credited for the substantiation of physical laws. How then can the immaterial/nonexistent interact with the existent, let alone inform it?
True, that is the is-ought fallacy, isn't it? It brings up the problem of how you get an is from an ought, something intangible, non-physical, and abstract from the physical, empirical, or the prescriptive (what should be) from the descriptive (noticed behaviours and actions).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And Mr Ethan has first hand evidence....Wow....Perhaps his input into the time traveller thread would be enlightening.
Not first-hand evidence but first-hand testimony. That testimony is from 1st-century believers who encountered the Jewish Messiah, or the influence from these eyewitness believers on their disciples. They wrote an account of His life as it applies to salvation, humanity's problem, and through faith a restored relationship with God to all who believe.
We, today, do not have the original manuscripts these 1st-century believers wrote but when these manuscripts were written to a particular church they were copied and sent to other churches, and so on. We have so many copies, from so many regions, from so many periods of history (over 5000 full and 24000 part manuscripts) that we can compare one with another to confirm what the originals said. And the earliest copies of antiquity surpass any other ancient documents of the time in number and earliness.
As Mr Ethan's time traveller pontifications are breath-taking.Not that one would expect republished transcriptions to not display some level of consistency....It would be an object defeating exercise otherwise....wouldn't it?
And the documents from history do contain that consistency and confirm the accuracy of what we read today. We have translations in almost every language currently spoken, and those translations rely on the original Greek language copies. So they are not translated from Italian to German and then from German to English. No, they are translated from Greek to Latin, from Greek to German, from Greek to English.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
And scripture writers probably just recorded, embellish and recounted tales....The word "scripture" though latterly attributed a sort of spiritual quality, nonetheless simply means writings.Do you expect me to believe this fanciful mumbo-jumbo? What early writings do you have to confirm your idle speculation? Out of the over 5000 manuscripts and 24000 partial manuscripts, we have a consistent record.Exactly PGA. When ever an atheist says scripture writers probably just recorded, embellish and recounted tales, I'm astounded at their lack of knowledge.If scripture writers probably just recorded, embellish and recounted tales, the thousands of manuscripts we've found from over several ancient time periods could not be as consistent as it is. Many authors were dead long before others scripted their copies, many were from different countries, cultures, and of different languages.What do you say to someone who displays a breathtaking lack of knowledge about the topic on which he's pontificating?
I say, read up on the early church fathers and examine the bias of the 17th-19th century German higher critics which was influenced by the Enlightenment period where humanity, not God, became the measure of all things. Darwinian evolution bias is also a fascinating study in the influence of modern scientific thinking on origins. (^8
"The higher critical methods described below grew out of a German school of Biblical studies in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Important names in the development of higher criticism include Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–1872) and David Friedrich Strauss (1808–1874); the origins of higher criticism are deeply intertwined with rationalism and naturalism. The concepts and methods behind higher criticism were carried from Germany across Europe, finding homes in the United Kingdom and France, among liberal Anglicans and Catholics respectively. In later times, higher critical methods were deployed in conjunction with the contemporary philosophical trends to de-historicize Scripture."
"In his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (Cap. vii-viii), 1670, Spinoza came out boldly and impugned the traditional date and Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and ascribed the origin of the Pentateuch to Ezra or to some other late compiler.
Spinoza was really the fountain-head of the movement, and his line was taken in England by the British philosopher Hobbes."
Spinoza was really the fountain-head of the movement, and his line was taken in England by the British philosopher Hobbes."
""Higher criticism" originally referred to the work of German biblical scholars of the Tübingen School. After the groundbreaking work on the New Testament by Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), the next generation, which included scholars such as David Friedrich Strauss (1808–74) and Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–72), analyzed in the mid-19th century the historical records of the Middle East from biblical times, in search of independent confirmation of events in the Bible. The latter scholars built on the tradition of Enlightenment and Rationalist thinkers such as John Locke (1632–1704), David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gotthold Lessing, Gottlieb Fichte, G. W. F. Hegel (1770–1831) and the French rationalists."
If you want to understand a movement or a particular line of thinking find out who influences the movement and what their beliefs encompass.
The Tübingen School set the table for a modern liberal interpretation of Scripture, IMO.
Here is another source for you as a Christian might be interested in to better understand the problems and dangers we encounter in higher criticism today. It examines the group-think, application, and influence of a particular worldview bias used in examining Scripture, as put forth from a Christian writer:
Created:
-->
@Stronn
That's the error in your reductio ad absurdum: you haven't substantiated a contradiction, let alone a "self-contradiction"; if person A believes there's a house, and person B believes there's a factory, then what changes? Person A still believes there's a house, and person B still believes there's a factory. If they invite Person C to observe and person C agrees with person B, all that changes is the number of people who believe it's a factory. You cant test for its material composition, but that would not yield much of a result.In reality there cannot be both a house and a factory. Belief does not change this. At least one of them does not exist at that address.
While I agree there is a logical contradiction if this is an either-or situation when no third possibility, such as an "and" exists. The third possibility can happen in this scenario with a house and factor combined at the same place (i.e., a person has an assembly line in his basement or garage). Thus, the building functions as a house and factory for the occupant.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
@Athias
Based on the part about math and numbers alone, you and I are never going to come to an agreement on who's right,I'm not trying to have you "agree." I'm trying to inform you. Numbers are a form. Without people, those forms are meaningless.
The underlined is puzzling to me. I understand forms to be conceptual. Would you agree? Thus, they are intangible, non-empirical, non-physical.
So, without people, are there still these forms? Does 2+2 still equal 4, or does that now become a logical impossibility?
IOW's,
1) are you saying that 2+2=4 is not an eternal truth, 2+2 could equal something other than 4, perhaps in another possible universe,
2) that before humanity began that equation was not a logical necessity, therefore twoness did not exist, thus there were no forms since forms require meaning,
3) there was still a necessary personal being, God, making it necessarily true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Manuscripts.That's another one of those words that attempts to give credibility to the tale....Because something is a "manuscript" it's undoubtedly true then.
Scripture is an internal witness and evidence that is history and backed by history. The external evidence is the information we get from sources outside these manuscripts.
It's the credibility of the data that is in question, rather than the medium it is written upon or the number of times it has been rewritten.
You have convinced yourself of that. What do consider discredited? Almost any piece of contrary evidence has a logical explanation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
None contrary. Some would say the evidence against is the lack of evidence period.
So, I would argue your non-evidence gives less reason to believe His non-existence or non-resurrection. The evidence for His existence and resurrection is far greater and logical to believe. People in history are stating their eyewitness testimony. Something extraordinary happened that they want to share with the rest of the world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Interesting points. But let me ask you this:Does the fact that the men of the gospels were actively trying to spread the faith have any impact on the credibility of their testimonies?
Here is an answer for you, besides the repeated claim of them all to be speaking the truth:
Luke 1:1-4 (NASB)
Introduction
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
Introduction
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
RELIGION POLL #1: What is the best argument for/against the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, and why?no first hand accounts of the phenomenon
This is simply not the most reasonable explanation based on early evidence. There are accounts. Those accounts give evidence they were all written before AD 70. At least eight of the NT writers were disciples that verified they witnessed the resurrection, going into all the known world preaching that message. Paul says all the disciples (excluding Judas) were witnesses of the resurrection along with 500 more.
paucity of reliable, testable accounts
They are the most testable of all documents from antiquity because of the number of copies and partial manuscripts and the closeness to the time of the event. I believe I can give more reasonable evidence than you that every NT writing was written before AD 70. There are also the early church fathers who confirm who wrote the accounts. They attribute the Gospels to the four authors and being closer to the times of the resurrection the churches that the original manuscripts were written to would know from whom they had received them. They would protect and cherish the writings of these apostles and copy them to send to other churches as encouragement. That is only logical to believe.
Again, I question the truthfulness of your statement as the most plausible explanation.
the phenomenon is not repeatable in spite of billions of observations of human death
You are looking for a physical resurrection. I believe it is a spiritual resurrection. Did Adam die the day he ate of the fruit? No, he died spiritually to God that day, however. That is why Jesus taught the reader that we must be born again (regenerated spiritually) to either see or enter the kingdom. Besides that, Jesus taught His kingdom was not of this world/realm. This resurrection is repeated every day. Believing the One God sent is eternal life, life without end. Those who believe (truly trust, place their faith in) have (present tense) eternal life.
This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
[ The Promise Is Eternal Life ] This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.
And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
[ This Is Written That You May Know ] These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
In short, lack of evidence
In short, plenty of historical evidence that you choose to disregard. You choose to deny it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
I'd agree that accounts 100 years after his supposed death are too young to be reliable. Is there a particular reason you regard the writings of the apostles as historical?
That is a dangerous presupposition. What are the reasons you do not? Is it 17th-19th century higher criticism? What do the earliest historical manuscripts tell us regarding the canonized writings?
One particular reason would be the impact of His teachings on the world. Another is the number of early copies of the gospels and epistles as compared to any other writing from antiquity. Still, another would be the internal consistency of the 66 writing we call the Bible. Yet another would be prophecy. Another would be the necessity of God revealing Himself to humanity for us to know Him. You see, atheism can't make sense of origins. Morality does not make sense without a fixed, ultimate, absolute, objective, unchanging reference point. Other than that all you have is moral relativism. How does that make anything good/right? Subject to who? Who is your final authority? Another reason is that the Judeo-Christian system of belief makes sense and has explanatory power. Ultimately, either God or chance happenstance. Your choice, but I can pull apart a non-biblical belief system by examining its explanation of origins - origins of the universe, life, morals, knowledge, etc. I can also show the consistency of the biblical God and that system of belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
When did Dr Franklin ever say so much?.....They are usually a one syllable person.And scripture writers probably just recorded, embellish and recounted tales....The word "scripture" though latterly attributed a sort of spiritual quality, nonetheless simply means writings.
Do you expect me to believe this fanciful mumbo-jumbo? What early writings do you have to confirm your idle speculation? Out of the over 5000 manuscripts and 24000 partial manuscripts, we have a consistent record. The disciples/apostles mostly went to their deaths proclaiming what...a lie? Would you willingly die for a lie, to deceive millions and billions with a false testimony while at the same time preaching something that is noble and good? Is it good to place others before you? Is that noble? Is it good to feed the poor, look after orphans and widows? Is it good to love instead of hate and seek the best interest of your neighbour?
How would you make up a fictitious being and in every NT canonized writing write about an existing OT system of worship with the warning of quick, soon, sudden judgment? (i.e., it hasn't yet happened) That system of worship was not replaced with the New Covenant until AD 70. Until that point in time, that generation, the two covenants lived side-by-side.
The apostle Paul summed up our belief like this:
1 Corinthians 15:1-22 (NASB)
The Fact of Christ’s Resurrection
15 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.
The Order of Resurrection
20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
The Fact of Christ’s Resurrection
15 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.
The Order of Resurrection
20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
Paul died in 64-68 AD during the reign of Nero. That would mean that all those epistles attributed to him were written before that time frame. Not one of those epistles speaks of an already destroyed temple and city yet all speak of soon-coming judgment and the end of the age (of temple and Old Testament economy).
If you want to make outrageous statements then back them up with proof that we may discuss this further. Why do you guys almost always make these unhistoric assertions or cut and paste from some atheist website that garbles the facts available?
Resurrection in order of probability, most likely first:1. Mythological fantasy.2. An alien beamed up into a spacecraft.3. A god's son ascending to heaven on a cloud.
4. THE God's only Son ascending to heaven.
The cloud imagery is metaphorical and if you compare OT Scripture to cloud imagery you find that when spoken of the Father or God in the OT it always was figurative and symbolic of God bringing judgment upon a nation. In the same manner, Jesus was going to bring judgment on Israel during His Second Coming, which happened in AD 70.
Matthew 16:27-28 (NASB)
27 For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.
28 “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
27 For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.
28 “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
1. The Son of Man [Jesus] comes in the same manner, the same glory as of the Father (like Father, like Son). Thus, a diligent student of the word will find out how the Father came in judgment in the OT. Clouds speak of judgment and reward. And every time God came in judgment in the OT against a nation He used another nation of people to judge, as Jesus did by using the Roman armies in AD 70. Josephus records the destruction of Jerusalem and it is like reading the curses of Deuteronomy 28.
2. Repaying every man according to his deeds speaks of judgment.
3. Jesus said truly that some standing amongst Him will not die before His coming. He told them (pay attention to the audience of address) in numerous places that He was coming again to THAT adulterous and wicked generation. He told them to watch for the coming of the age in the Olivet Discourse dialogue (i.e., Matthew 23-24; Mark 13; Luke 21; Revelation 1-22).
4. The kingdom came in AD 70. Just like the OT, God gave Israel 40 years (one generation) to repent and enter the promised land. (see Hebrews 3-4)
Don't give the Scriptures a superficial reading and think you know it. If you want to understand God's word abide with His required means. Any point above you may want to argue go ahead. Try and pick apart the Scriptures and see how foolish your argument becomes. They are a united revelation from Genesis to Revelation. Every OT book contains imagery and types and shadows of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Created: