Total posts: 3,179
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
We inherit that sinful nature.Ok, so nobody is innocent.
Only those who put their trust in the work of another, Jesus Christ, and what He did on their behalf and those He died for. I believe Scripture teaches Jesus died for the "little children." He likened His kingdom to belonging to such as these little children. He warned of hurting the least of these little children.
The elect or those saved by His grace are innocent. They were secured in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world. He knows those who are His. As for the believer, He is our federal head. He represents us.
just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard. 3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said,
“As I swore in My wrath,
They shall not enter My rest,”
although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”;They shall not enter My rest,”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
PGA2.0,Are you trying to outdo the fake Christian Ethang5 in running away from the scriptures as well? Huh? I addressed your comical biblical ignorance in post #50 within this thread, and as of yet, you have not answered this said post whereas you have addressed others subsequently. Why? Are you as embarrassed as Ethang5 with your bible ignorance as well?
Sir, you are being a hypocrite. I do not see you addressing the 200 alleged contradictions. Your previous post was also full of accusations that I find out of place for those who profess Yeshua/Jesus. I also find, from your disclosure in Post 50 that you have a weak understanding of Scripture.
The two of you are just another example of why many do not join Christianity in the 21st century, and that is because of your Satanic actions of truly not knowing the Bible like you think you do! Thus far, we will mark you as just another RUNAWAY from the Bible's true words by not addressing my post #50. You are truly predictable, and at your expense upon Judgment Day.
You are judging me for my profession of faith. I am willing to formally debate it with you and find out what your foundation truly rests upon. You apply one scriptural reference while ignoring another. You actually make a big song and dance of a verse of Scripture I used. I will address it later once I think about your post further. I am not impressed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Then, "goodness" has no identity. It can mean whatever you (or the social group) want it to mean.Welcome to planet Earth.
So how can you call it good if good lacks an identity? As I said, why would or should I believe you? You are the blind leading the blind. You lack what is necessary to make sense of morality. Your views are not logical and you are welcome to them. Finally, I do not believe you live experiential (in practice) with what you state publically. I think you KNOW some things are definitely wrong and others are definitely good. I hope you do. Thus, inconsistency is evident and I do not trust or believe inconsistent thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you are not sure then your statement itself fails to meet an objective standard in its own right. Why should I believe your opinion?It depends on your Standards-of-Evidence and your understanding of Efficacy and Logic.
My standard for evidence is what is true, reasonable, and logical to believe and know. If your standard is subjective and has no objective reference point I question it for its validity. I believe the biblical God is the necessary ultimate standard for objectivity in origins and morality since He meets the fixed and unchanging final reference point plus the universe is His creation, per the Bible. There are various reasons for believing that of which ultimately making sense of anything is a huge factor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
But killing an innocent human being...According to Christian doctrine, there is no such thing.
There are always those who have not committed a particular sin such as killing an innocent person so they cannot be charged with it; they are innocent of it.
Remember "original sin"?
The sin of Adam is imputed to us because he was our federal head and represented us. His act of disobedience has affected all of us. We inherit that sinful nature. It rubs off on all of us. Through Adam's act of disobedience, sin entered into the world.
I believe there is an age of accountability when we become answerable for our actions because we are able to reason about right and wrong. But as for a little child or the unborn who have as yet done no wrong they are considered innocent in the eyes of God. Jesus died on the cross to save them, hence, He could say that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. Thus, I believe they have been covered by His righteousness if they die before the age of accountability where they understand their actions as right or wrong. Jesus, the Second Adam, is the federal head (represents) of all those who believe and for all those that He died for. Thus sin is imputed to Him instead of the believer and His innocence is transferred to the believer.
Now, if we kill one of those little children or harm them we are accountable to God.
Doesn't god kill innocent teeny-tiny-babies every-single-day through miscarriage?
Yes, He takes their life or allows it to be taken by those who know better but ignore His decrees. He has the ability to restore them to life and in a better place. You or I do not. Since we are created in the image and likeness of God, per the biblical teaching, that life is sacred and should be treated with dignity and respect.
Why does god do that?
Sometimes, and to a large extent, it is we who do it but God allows it or else He does it for His purposes.
Doesn't the good-ol U.S.A. incarcerate innocent children?
Quite probably. So what is your point?
Are homeless people "innocent" if the crime they are charged with is vagrancy?
It depends on the law to its vagueness, the person, and where they reside among other things.
At Common Law the term vagrant referred to a person who was idle, refused to work although capable of doing so, and lived on the charity of others...
In addition, the term vagrant has been replaced by Homeless Person as a way of describing a person who is without means or a permanent home.
Where there are places set up for homeless people and many refuse to live there but encroach on public areas or private residential areas where they become a nuisance as well as a danger to the health of the general public. San Francisco is a case in point. Needles, fecal matter, rats, disease, uncleanness, mental health problems, etc.
Homeless Person
An individual who lacks housing, including one whose primary residence during the night is a supervised public or private facility that provides temporary living accommodations; an individual who is a resident in transitional housing; or an individual who has as a primary residence a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.
Innocence seems to be rather subjective.
Innocent is being not guilty of sin or wrongful action. It can include a particular sin or wrongful action too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you think Chairman Xi cares if you survive?All humans (mammals) are inculcated with a basic value hierarchy from birth.(1) Protect yourself(2) Protect your close friends and family(3) Protect your territoryYour relationship with your parents is your model for your gods.
Are you speaking generically or specifically?
If the latter, no, it is not. I never once, not once in my life, saw my mother or father go to church. I never once in my life remember my father talking about religion or the Christian God other than to jokingly say that he was a bush Baptist (we lived in isolated communities in Africa before moving to the capital).
Both my parents were alcoholics, yet I loved them and they loved me. That is more than some families get. The point, they lived as pagans/atheists in the sense that religion or God/gods were unimportant to them.
That's why gods are most often portrayed as king-sided-humans.Your KING is modeled after your eldest sibling who's left in charge while your parents are away.
Again, I do not recall my sister ever going to church or speaking about religion during my youth. She is ten years older than me. Apart from a brief two year period during my early youth she went to boarding school and I never really knew her until I was perhaps ten years of age and she had finished school and was living at home again.
They continuously warn, don't make the gods mad! Do what I say or else they'll punish you!
Again, I don't believe in gods as anything other human creations. I believe in the one and only true God.
Each of us devise our own strategies to accomplish these (3) primary-goals and juggle these power-models.Many if not most of these strategies involve disregarding and or violating the rights of our competitors.
That is not the Christian way although I believe Christianity does speak truth to power as well as the powerless.
We like to call this NATURAL-LAW.ANARCHISM = LAW OF THE JUNGLE
Again, I do not believe in macroevolution. Natural law to me is discovering how God has designed nature and makes it uniform by the laws that sustain that uniformity.
Without some mechanism to defend the defenseless, then AUTOCRACY (FASCISM) is inevitable.
That mechanism is not socialism or liberalism either, IMO. Judging from the elected Democrats (generally speaking and IMO), they are nuts. These people have a screw loose and those who vote for them are gullible or brainwashed by their propaganda.
HUMAN-RIGHTS BECOME MEANINGLESS.
They are meaningless without an objective, absolute, universal, unchanging standard and reference point - God.
The biggest proponents of ANARCHISM are the rich and powerful.If you are pro-anarchism (Autarchism/Voluntarism/Minarchism) and you are NOT rich and powerful, then you have been BRAINWASHED.
I am a capitalist, not a socialist or anarchist for what it is worth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
The question is would you fault me if I saved 1000 less developed human lives instead of the child?"Fault" you, no. It is, however, inconsistent with your stance that embryos have the same intrinsic value as a baby. Otherwise, because while neither is appealing, generally we'd want to save the most lives in a situation like that, you'd have to choose to save a percentage of the 1000 (if you really want to be specific about the wombs, it's a fertility clinic, at least 200 of the 1000 would have parents waiting for them, because they are grown for applicants, not just wily nily, and each applicant would likely have more than one embryo grown then selected for viability and implanted: 1000 / 5 = 200 applicants, 200 wombs, all 200 selected for most viable). Would you allow someone whose OB told them "I'm sorry, but your embryo is non-viable, it will be born, live a short and painful life," would you allow that person to choose to abort their baby?
Again, you paint a hypothetical situation in which you only give two undesirable possibilities and no additional information. Hypothetically, I can only save one or the other. I don't know the kind of pain the embryo will go through if it does, but I do know the kind of pain the three-year-old will go through. I also know that the parents, grandparents, other siblings, neighbours, and so on, will experience a lot of emotion and trama since they have invested a lot into the three-year-old life. I don't think the same degree of attachment has been made with the embryos. I would like to save both the child and the embryos, but with your scenario, I can't.
Such an event is designed to find fault in whatever position is taken. That is just the way the hypothetical is designed. So no matter what side I take, you bet, there is going to be fault found with either hypothetical choice. It is a dilemma. Am I inconsistent with my view that both have equal value by saving one and not the other? I fight to make known to others the pro-life position. When I debate the subject I feel sometimes those I debate are playing a game with how many wins they can rack up. They don't care about the injustice abortion causes (over 1.5 billion human lives lost, not hypothetical lives but real lives, mainly because of a choice not to take responsibility for their actions).
My point is you don't preach that you're pro life under conditions, right? It's not pro life so long as the baby has a personality, or parents, or feels pain, or isn't mentally disabled, physically deformed. Yet here you are, making that very same distinction in saving the baby: I saved the baby because I'm not sure the embryos are going to survive. I'm not saying you're a bad person for doing it, I'm saying it merely demonstrates that you do not, in fact, believe that 1 embryo = 1 baby. In fact you don't even think 10 embryos = 1 baby. We all choose the baby because it's a baby. An embryo is a clump of cells. I don't see them as the same and I don't claim to.
I object to the pigeon-holing as a fact that I don't think the 10 or 1000 embryos are as intrinsically valuable as any other life. Yes, I identify and relate more with the child yet I see both groups as deserving of life and protection.
I object to that painting of personality by one and not the other. The embryo has a personality also. All human beings by nature are personal beings. The embryos are undeveloped. The difference is that with the three-year-old we experience that personality. With the embryo, we have not witnessed it as of yet. It is growing into what it is.
Now you critique me for saving the three-year-old but my choice is not to KILL another human being. The choice of a woman seeking an abortion is to intentionally kill another human being. Do you find that wrong???
I look upon it as a crime to kill an innocent human being. Do you?
My choice is to protect the unborn's life and fight for its rights. You give me an either-or situation. If I saved 1000 over the three-year-old you would critique me over that decision too. There is no winning in such a scenario and that is the purpose of such scenarios. IMO, it is a psychological ploy to sway opinion and take away from the important issue of what the pro-choicer is doing. They are intentionally choosing to kill another human being. In your scenario, I am intentionally choosing to save a life in an undesirable situation when no matter what I do life will be lost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Lol. Stephen posts a wall-o-text, and then calls the Christians answer, "tedious convoluted drivel" and goes on to continue posting mountains of tedious convoluted drivel.
I just wanted to point out that all his charges have reasonable and logical answers that these biblical haters ignore, and as you say with the wall of texts (four pages on 200 supposed contradictions), they can't see the speck in someone else's eyes because they have a plank in their own. It is also known as hypocrisy.
I would never go through the whole list. It would take to long.
I know you have to demonstrate that PGA, but you are a more patient man than I.
I don't know about patience, ethang5. (^8
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
1. Both the one child and the thousand embryos are human beings (I contend from conception). Debatably, the fertilized embryos, to continue living, will eventually have to be transported to a womb.Since I did not know whether wombs were available or the thousand will survive for a long period of time I would save the child.Since the child will feel more pain at its stage of development I would save the child.So you've made the decision that the embryos are less valuable than the three year old, because they aren't viable, they don't all have wombs. This is problematic: if 1% of the 1000 embryos have a reasonable chance at survival, then there are at least 10 viable babies you're letting burn. If all human life starts at conception, and these 1000 embryos are past conception, and 10 post fertilization embryos have a chance at survival, by simple math, that box is ten times as full of life than the single three year old. Also, you have decided that a less-than-viable embryo, even one, is worth less than a living baby. They're both the same, right? I mean you can't believe in aborting non-viable embryos identified in utero, right? You're also valuing the child's pain over the embryos. Why?
I've made the decision based on the sure thing, the degree of pain, although I do not know that as factual, and my bias. I have also based it on the fact that all human beings are intrinsically valuable and I can only save one or the other. Either choice would have been valid based on equality but like you, I have a preference for the one that is born rather than the many that are not. Generally speaking, there are emotional attachments and investments by the parents and others that have not been formed to the same degree as with the unborn. But I recognize based on biblical principles that all human beings have intrinsic value and I believe abortion is morally wrong because it is not up to us to take an innocent life.
Thus, establishing both human beings it comes does to a preference or choice for the individual doing the saving since one or the other will die. Even so, I think most would save the child.2. Morally, both the thousand embryos and the child are equally valuable if all human beings have intrinsic value.3. Now, if not all human beings are not intrinsically valuable then how can you object when one class of human beings is exploited, dehumanized, devalued, discriminated against, to the point of death? You are being inconsistent in your thinking if not all human beings are equally intrinsically valuable.So, the question to you is, Are all human beings intrinsically valuable?The thousand embryos and the one child are not equally valuable. 1000 embryos, according to your beliefs = 1000 lives.
According to my beliefs? It is either fact or it is not that embryos are living human beings. What say you?
Thus, yes, 1000 lives will be lost but will those lives be lost also without having wombs to grow in since I am not aware of an embryo surviving artificially outside of a womb for very long. Since I don't know the circumstances with the embryos I go for the one sure thing. Then there is the unknown to me of whether in the early stages of life the unborn feel pain as of yet. I know the child does, so my compassion and bias go to the child.
Not embryos. It does not appear that you think embryos have the same intrinsic value as a single child. Otherwise, you'd be choosing one life over at least 10, and that's if it's only 1% of the 1000. Is there a number where the embryo viability becomes more valuable than the single child? Is it 25? 100? 500?
I do think and recognize that embryos have the same value that the child has for every life is intrinsically valuable but I only have one of two options. Someone is going to die and that is beyond my control to prevent. I take what I feel is the sure thing, also taking into account I don't believe the embryos yet sense pain, at least not to the same degree that the child would. I also take into account the investment the parents and others have in the child that has a far greater degree of attachment than the 1000 embryos. They have not been nurtured by a woman whether that be the natural biological parents or a surrogate as of yet. Their personalities have not developed to the same degree. The level of emotional attachment has not developed to the same extent with the1000 embryos.
The question is would you fault me if I saved 1000 less developed human lives instead of the child?
Since there are only two options I feel either is a win-lose scenario.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Firstly subjective and objective are dichotomous. If one then not the other. Also natural selection can predict amd explain at least these four kinds of traits/behaviors.
Again, I hate that you give human characteristics to a chance happenstance. There is no intent behind evolution. Things just happen. It is not good or bad, just is.
Those that promote species interest (sometimes manifesting as altruism/empathy).
Again, there is no promotion in a random chemical reaction. Things just happen. You respond one way and someone else responds another. There is no right and wrong in that. You equate behaviourism to survival. A behaviour is, it describes the way things are, not the way they ought to be.
"Look, John jumps when I prod him with a stick in the ribs!" It describes the behaviour I generate when I prod John with a stick.
Now, why I ought not to do it is prescriptive and prescribes what ought to or ought not to be done.
Behaviour --> is
Good --> What ough to be.
Behaviour --> What is observed.
Good --> Mind dependent on what should be.
Those that promote self interest as individual survival is necessary for a viable species.
Granting that a viable 'species' is desirable.
What makes that morally good? If you are eating my food and it means I will not survive if you continue it is either one or the other unless my Christian values kick in, then I will gladly die that you may live.
Why do human beings seek goodness and make moral judgments in a meaningless universe? Even more to the point, in a meaningless universe why should they? We constantly seek meaning in such a universe. That should give you a hint. Have you thought that perhaps God has programmed us to be moral beings instead of random chance happenstance?
Those that are incidental but not detrimental to species or individual survival.Those which once promoted species or individual survival but which no longer serve their purpose in an organism's current environment.
Do you think Chairman Xi cares if you survive? Do you think he cares if the Chinese in Hong Kong survive if it does not serve his interests and he can get away with mass extermination? Possibly the only thing holding him back is world condemnation because most recognize that some things are morally wrong.
Do you think Kim Jong-un cares whether you survive? As long as he retains control he does not care about the majority of masses that do not serve his interests.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Killing humans is sometimes considered justified in all cultures. What is disagreed upon is when the killing of humans is justified. This is because it is subjective.
But killing an innocent human being (i.e., a human being who is not guilty of doing the wrong charged) should never be justified in any culture. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, okay, you're next! Still disagree? Is it subjective that killing innocent human beings is wrong? No, okay, you're next!
You see, experientially you can give lip service to such thinking (it is okay to kill innocent human beings) but in practice, it fails the experiential test.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Objective =/= agreed upon. Objective = irrespective of opinion.It does not matter how many people hold the same opinion. It is still an opinion and opinions are subjective by definition
But there again, a subjective opinion can line up with what is actually the case --> thus objective fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Like what? My opinion is that if you do not do as I say is 'good' and 'right' (subjective opinion) then I will punish you until you see things my way (objective fact).I do. There is no number of people who hold a subjective opinion that will transform a subjective opinion into an objective fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If what constitutes an offense is subjective then what does not constitute an offence is also subjective.
Whether the offence is right or wrong (morality) constitutes objectivity, or else it is not right or wrong, just preference. Objectivity is what is true to what is the case. If laws are made up and are subjective they are not based on right and wrong (morality) but on preference (likes/dislikes). The truth of right and wrong is not known by mere preference since preference is subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Innocent is prescriptive in this case not descriptive. We define innocent as not guilty of wrongdoing. Everyone agrees (most everyone anyway it is subjective after all and some people do believe in general purpose punishment as a deterrent) that we should not punish someone who is not guilty of wrongdoing. What we disagree on (because it is subjective) is exactly what constitutes wrongdoing. That innocent people should not be punished is generally agreed upon. Who I'd and is not innocent is not. Please do not conflate prescriptive language with descriptive language it only muddies the water.
All moral values are prescriptive.
Empirical values are descriptive since we measure them by sight, sound, touch, taste, and feel. That is not something you can do with qualitative values. They are abstract, not physical, in their very nature. Thus they have to have a non-physical fixed measure to exist, just like quantitative values have a physical measure and reference point.
That is the difference between an is and an ought. What is has a physical measurement. What ought to be has a different standard of measurement. That standard is a Mind. Morality exists within the mind and it can only derive its existence from an ultimate, objective, fixed necessary Mind, the final reference point for it to exist.
Now, I'm sure you would agree it exists? If not then don't object to someone torturing innocent people. There would be nothing wrong in doing so unless it is universally wrong to do so. Even more extreme, how does it pass your experiential test? What now happens if that someone joyfully decides to torture you for their mere pleasure? Still nothing wrong with it. What about your child? Still nothing wrong with it?
You see, in theory, you can say all morality is subjective but you can't live by theory. That theory just doesn't work in everyday life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If there is no evidence then there is no good, only opinion --> likes/dislikes. I think you can theories this but it does not pass the experiential test (you can't live with it). Thus, by necessity, there has to be an objective source for morality or morality is meaninglessness since it can mean what the subjective individual or group deems it to mean, and when two groups conflict then logically one has to be wrong. So again, objective morality is the more reasonable system of belief.If there is no evidence that there is any objective morality (no perfect standard that can be calculated mathematically or measured physically) but there is evidence that people hold different subjective opinions about morality then subjective morality has been demonstrated and objective morality has not. Under those circumstances it is more rational to believe in the proposition that has been demonstrated than the one which has not.
Not only this, I believe there are reasonable and logical proofs for God's existence presented not only in the universe (i.e., on what has been made) but also in the Bible which claims in various ways to be God's revelation to humanity.
Now, since we are flawed because of our humanity and sinfulness we only see in part whereas God sees the whole. Thus there are 'good' reasons not to kill innocent people, good reasons not to lie, good reasons not to commit adultery, good reasons not to steal. Not only are these a revelation of the biblical God but they make sense. We as human beings seem to understand them to a large extent. Thus they are innate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
But we're starting to go down a rabbit hole. I was interested in discussing whether morality is objective or subjective.Agreed. Math is really off topic. In order to prove morals are objective I propose you show a truly objective standard. One that can be measured like one measures the temperature of soup or the speed at which venus orbits the sun. Do you have such a standard and if so why do humans not seem able to agree on the small minutia of morality? If such a metric existed would we not simply be able to get out the moralometer and measure the badness in men's hearts? Why would we bother with legal systems and juries? Surely if morality could be measured we wouldn't need to judge people innocent or guilty. Judgement is by its very nature subjective. A judgement is essentially an opinion.
Judging someone as innocent or guilty implies a standard that is valid in determining this. Not only that, it would have to be objective and universal one or it is arbitrary, or as you say just an opinion. What makes your opinion any "Better" than mine? Nothing, not even brute force. All brute force does is forces you to do what I like. That in no way makes it good or better. And how would you ever determine "better" unless there is an objective best to compare better to in its degree of goodness? Since social rules and laws keep changing, and some would argue getting "better," how would you know what better was without a fixed reference point to compare it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So if there was no one to think it 2+2=4 would no longer be true???The universe would continue to move and if someone where alive to describe those movements they could invent language to do so but the movements are not the math describing the movements they are the movements. Math is a human invention used to give us convenient reference points when discussing the universe nothing more.
Now 2+2=4 does not depend on you or me thinking it, but I agree with you that it does require a mind for it to be known. Since it is always true regardless of whether you or I believe it, IMO, it requires a necessary Mind for its existence. We, as human beings, are just thinking the thoughts of our Creator, since as the Bible says, we are created in the image and likeness of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So are you saying that 2+2=4 is not always true?Math is a thought process. Without thoughts there is no math.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Anything derived from internal data processing is subjective.So I'm not sure if there is really such a thing as objectivity.Because to assume that one is proffering an objective thought is to be subjective.
If you are not sure then your statement itself fails to meet an objective standard in its own right. Why should I believe your opinion? It is worth no more than any other opinion. You can definitely state it but I don't think it meets the experiential standard (i.e., you can't live by it). As soon as you are facing a life and death situation in which someone deems your innocent child not worthy of living you know they are wrong. Then there are some things that are surely, definitely wrong. Do you disagree? If so would you be willing to put your thinking to the test? No, I don't think so.
I would suggest that social morality can only be a collective decision, based on a subjectively acquired consensus.
Then, "goodness" has no identity. It can mean whatever you (or the social group) want it to mean. Now, that may work in theory but you cannot live experientially with such conflicting states of contradiction. A=A. (good is good). Either it is good to kill your neighbour for pleasure or it is wrong to kill your neighbour for pleasure. It can't be good and bad at the same time and in the same manner.
Goodness either has an identity and is what it is or it does not exist. Goodness can't be the opposite of what it is (good is bad).
Thus, when you have two different societies (A and B) that both pass a law regarding the same thing are in conflict then one is wrong. Say Society A passes a law on abortion is good and a woman's right to choose as opposed to Society B passes a law that states abortion is wrong and a woman does not have the good/right to choose to kill her unborn, then one of the two societies has a wrong opinion of what is right and what is wrong regarding abortion. If goodness has an identity it can't be its opposite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Ethical laws are subjective opinions of morality enforced by the will of those who have the means to do so unless there is an objective, unchanging, absolute, universal source and reference point to ground good and evil upon.Morality is subjective, Law is objective and Ethics is the mixing of the two.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Sorry, a correction in my answer to you. I said:
"Thus, establishing both human beings it comes does to a preference or choice for the individual doing the saving since one or the other will die. Even so, I think most would save the child."
I meant, "Thus, establishing both are human beings, it comes down to a preference...."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YeshuaBought
I have been very honest. I have done nothing wrong.
You asked the question that generated this thread (Can Christians be prochoice?), and you and others have answered that question yet you have avoided answering my questions and reciprocating the courtesy in regards to your answer. You say to others, "Fair enough, I just wanted to debate this" (Post 12). Do you want to debate this or not? So far you have just called me names. I get it. I realize this is a very sensitive subject with you. I realize you don't like my answers or questions. That does not, however, justify your position.
As a fellow believer in Yeshua, I am trying to season your thinking on the subject and open your eyes to the other side of the equation and what is really taking place in the pro-choice position. I can understand ignorance in understanding things, but I believe you do not understand the heart of the problem or you are just ignoring it.
So what is the heart of the issue?
1. What is being killed?
2. Does it matter?
If you do not agree it is a human being I can enlighten you on that subject by showing you scientifically as well as philosophically and morally what it is and what is happening here.
Morally speaking, I can also show you that once you do not treat all human beings with "intrinsic value" (all human beings being treated with equal dignity and grace) you open the door for brutality and unjust practices not only by yourself doing the brutality but also from others doing the same brutality to you. Once we, as human beings, stop treating others with the same equality, dignity, and respect we hope they do to us (the golden rule of doing unto others as you would have them do to you) we are in danger of becoming savage barbarians.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YeshuaBought
Little girl, YOU are in denial, if you think a fetus without brain waves is a baby. Get off your high horse, before someone knocks you off.
Thanks for the replies! Now let us debate what you have said.
First off, my name is Peter. I'm not a girl.
Second, if you are going to base your justification on level of development (since the unborn by nature will develop all the traits of humanness that you have) then the principle of killing less developed human beings could apply to anyone less developed than those doing the killing. Reproductively, a two-year-old girl is less developed than a twelve-year-old girl or a twenty-year-old woman. Does that mean the more developed can kill the less developed? If not, then why should you have the choice to kill the less developed, biologically sharing your genetics (your very own unique offspring that biologically shares 23 chromosomes from you and 23 from your male donor), even though a less developed human being? Can you answer that question?
Third, you have done an excellent job of avoiding every question to date I have asked you. That makes me think you are in denial. Since you don't have a suitable and logical argument you brush my arguments off with ad hominem attacks.
So, let's try this again.
1. Is the unborn alive?
2. Is the unborn human?
3. Is the unborn a human being?
4. Is the human being a personal being?
5. When does personhood begin exactly?
6. Should all human beings be treated with equal dignity?
7. What makes us human beings?
Please answer these questions so I can understand your thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Let's do the thought experiment again: I didn't invent this one, it's not my creation, I just find it interesting.You are standing on the third floor of a burning hospital, at the top of a flight of stairs that will lead to your escape. To the right is the children's ward. To the left, the fertility clnic. Somehow, in the children's ward, you can see a three year old, frozen in terror, crying and needing help. One child, the last one left, and you're that child's only hope to survive. The the right is the fertility clinic. There's a case of 1000 fertilized embryos. If you pick up the child, you can't carry the embyros. If you pick up the embryos, you can't carry the child. Whichever you pick dooms the other, because the stairs will burn before you can get back.As pro-life Christians, which do you save?Don't add any conditions in: do you save 1000 or 1?
You can look at this from a number of vantage points.
1. Both the one child and the thousand embryos are human beings (I contend from conception). Debatably, the fertilized embryos, to continue living, will eventually have to be transported to a womb.
Since I did not know whether wombs were available or the thousand will survive for a long period of time I would save the child.
Since the child will feel more pain at its stage of development I would save the child.
Thus, establishing both human beings it comes does to a preference or choice for the individual doing the saving since one or the other will die. Even so, I think most would save the child.
2. Morally, both the thousand embryos and the child are equally valuable if all human beings have intrinsic value.
3. Now, if not all human beings are not intrinsically valuable then how can you object when one class of human beings is exploited, dehumanized, devalued, discriminated against, to the point of death? You are being inconsistent in your thinking if not all human beings are equally intrinsically valuable.
So, the question to you is, Are all human beings intrinsically valuable?
Created:
Posted in:
Adam did die the day he ate of it. There is physical death and spiritual death. Adam dies spiritually to God that day. That very day Adam and Eve were barred from the Garden and that close relationship they shared with the holy God because of sin. Jesus taught that a man (humanity) must be born again to either see or enter the kingdom of God. Spiritual birth is a restoration into the intimate presence of God. We are no longer considered enemies of God because of our sin and unrighteousness because of what Another has done on behalf of the believer.
Notice that God barred Adam from eating of the tree of life and living forever physically. So Adam did not die physically that day, only spiritually. Thus, the death experienced on that day was spiritual death, a killing of the intimate relationship with God where God shares Himself in close relationship to Adam and Eve. The Son became human to restore that relationship. Out of Him and what He has done, symbolically or spiritually speaking, comes living water and manna from heaven. Jesus gives us real life with God once again and restores the relationship.
Since God is Spirit those who worship must worship in spirit and in truth and that is obtained via Jesus Christ, the way and the truth.
So, as you can see, there is a reasonable and logical explanation for each of Stephen's alleged contradictions that make sense. It is through ignorance and misunderstanding of God's word that these alleged contradictions are charged. I tackled the first seven to give an example.
The NT is very concerned about the spiritual as opposed to the natural.
Created:
Posted in:
He deemed the creation "very good" until sin was found in it. Up until the point of sin, Adam had an intimate relationship with God in the Garden, signified with the expression of God walking with Him. At the point of sin, Adam was alienated from God and barred from His intimate presence. At the point of sin, Adam realized he was naked and at that point he was ashamed.
Genesis 6:6 shows the progression of sinful humanity to the point where God is so displeased with humanity that He judges them, yet spares the eight in grace and mercy.
Created:
Posted in:
Although God encourages reproduction there were times to rest and recover from this process.
Lev. 12:2b, 4
2b ‘When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean. 4 Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed.
This period was also for the recovery and protection of the woman. There is also a lot of symbolism involved. That symbolism signified the curse God instituted with the Fall, where He decreed that,
16 To the woman He said,
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
The period of uncleanliness can be explained in relation to the Fall. It was a reminder of the consequences of sin and the Fall and the woman's role in it. Since only the woman bears children through pregnancy it reminded her of the original sin and separation from God. During that time frame, she could not participate in worship in the presence of God as a reminder.
5 But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall remain in the blood of her purification for sixty-six days.
6 ‘When the days of her purification are completed, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the doorway of the tent of meeting a one year old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. 7 Then he shall offer it before the Lord and make atonement for her, and she shall be cleansed from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, whether a male or a female. 8 But if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, the one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”
I do not understand the difference yet between the duration of uncleanliness of the male and female offspring. That requires some additional verses that I am unfamiliar with at present.
The whole sacrificial system is a picture or shadow of Jesus Christ. The type (OT) points forward to the antitype (NT). We see that sin is costly. It requires a sacrifice to make amends. The problem was that the OT system of sacrifice could never end the process. As soon as another sin occurred another sacrifice was needed. Jesus' one time sacrifice sealed once for all time the righteousness that God sought from the sinner.
The sacrifice after that period of uncleanness was a restoration to relationship with God. The whole process is also a shadowing or type (it teaches the Christian a spiritual truth), a lesson if you like, of what takes place when a person is born again. That alienation is restored in Christ and the regenerated person has fellowship and intimate relationship with God once again. They are no longer unclean because the sacrifice of the One [Jesus Christ] is sufficient to meet God's holy and righteous requirements.
***
The laws of agriculture imparted by God to the Israelites were also a reminder of the curse of Adam's disobedience and the work and sweat involved in taking care of the ground.
Created:
Posted in:
4. On the first day, God created and separated light and darkness. Gen.1:3-5.On the fourth day, God again created and separated light and darkness. Gen.1:14-18.
Again, this surmise comes from misunderstanding of what is being said.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
Although God created and separated the light and darkness on Day 1 the division of light in Genesis 1:14-19 is for the purpose of timekeeping. Up until Day 4, there is nothing for humanity to use to keep track of time. To separate the day from the night that humanity could keep track of time God creates the sun, moon and stars (the stars in addition to the sun and moon also act as a reference point for navigation). He places them [sun, moon, and stars] in the expanse of the heavens and separates the two bodies, moon and sun, one for nighttime and one for daytime.
Created:
Posted in:
This alleged contradiction can be explained in one of two ways that come to my mind.
1. Again, the account of the Garden is after the six-day creation per Genesis 2:1-7. The animals in the Garden were created after the man. Since Genesis 2 is dealing with the Garden after the initial verses 1-7, it is describing specifics from the Garden.
Or,
2. Verse 18 and 19 may not be related in a sequential sense like you are implying but verse 19 separated in an informational sense. Verse 19 may yet once again be disclosing how the beasts and birds were created, also from the ground as the man was, to inform the reader how they were made. Then once He created the man He brought them to the man to name.
18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
Created:
Posted in:
20 Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.”
Again, this verse does not say God created the birds out of water (i.e., bodies of water like ponds, lakes, rivers, seas, oceans or whatever). It says to let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures (i.e., sea creatures) and let the birds fly above the earth. There is no information given here about where the birds were created, from the land or from the water.
Thus there is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 regarding the birds. Thus, Stephen's take is disingenuous once again.
Created:
Posted in:
Genesis 1 is a chronological order of the creation.
Genesis 2 is speaking of a specific event after verse 7, the creation of Adam. Verse 8 onward speaks of the creation of the place God prepared for him - the Garden and putting him in that place.
***
Genesis 2:1 summarizes the last chapter or something related to what was before, per 'thus.'
2 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
By the seventh day, God's work of creation is complete. 'Then' signifies something subsequent.
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.
I.e., Day 1.
5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
I.e., Now --> Still Day 1.
6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.
I.e., Consecutive days, per the Genesis 1 account.
7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Then implies after. From Genesis 1, this would be Day 6 when the man was created.
8 The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.
Subsequently, after creating the man and from the man the woman later on the same day, He then plants a garden (Eden) for the man and woman. The garden is made and planted after He creates the man and woman. Then, later, He puts the man and later the woman in the Garden.
9 Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Out of the ground,...what ground? The ground in the Garden of Eden. God causes every tree to grow in this garden, including the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Thus, there is no contradiction here. By excluding verses 1-4 you again omit relevant information. This is what detractors of the Bible always do. They remove the context or they read into the context things it does not say or teach (eisegesis).
Created:
Posted in:
Since Stephen has blocked me (IMO, blocking hampers my freedom of speech in responding directly to him yet gets to reply to my posts directly) I will answer a few of his alleged contradictions to show others he has no grounds for his charges.
I will take a few more of these alleged contradictions to give you the reader other examples.
Man was created equal, male and female. Gen.1:27.Woman was created as a companion to the man only after he rejected the animals. Gen.2:18-24.
Again, Stephen reads into Scripture. He manufactures a contradiction by doing this. His eisegetic take is noted. Where does it say that Adam rejected the animals? That passage tells how he named them. Again, God created the animals after their kind.
Genesis 1: 24-25(NASB)
24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
Adam was a different kind of creation and no companion was yet made for him. How is that a contradiction? As for being created equal in God's sight, that does not mean they were created with the same FUNCTIONS or roles. Since Adam was created first, Adam was given the task of headship over the woman. That is a difference of role and function, not of worth.
God made Adam, then Eve in His image and likeness, different from the animals, and to rule over the other creatures of the earth.
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Notice the distinction, God created him [Adam], and then it says, "male and female He created them." Adam first. It also shows that they were both created --> them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YeshuaBought
Just propaganda. What If I had been pregnant by my rapist? People like you would force me to give birth.
Not propaganda. I can get into the proof further. I think you are in denial of what the unborn is. We should get that established first. Can you scientifically establish the unborn is not a human being? I can establish scientifically/biologically and philosophically that it is. I am still waiting for you to challenge that assertion. Is it a human being? Go ahead, commit yourself one way or the other.
So far you have not been honest with yourself and avoided all my questions.
The societies we live in (the USA and Canada) gives the woman the "right" to kill her offspring. That is not justice IF the unborn is a human being. It is treated as a lesser being than what it is unless you can prove the unborn is not a human being. Go ahead.
Now, when it comes to rape, the unborn is the innocent victim here. It has done nothing wrong. I say castrate the rapist and throw him in jail, but should the unborn pay for someone else's sins? Where is the justice there?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YeshuaBought
Does my right to do with my body what I want to give me the right to kill another human being?I have the right to choose what to do with my body.
Created:
Posted in:
One other thing, are not children a gift and blessing from God?
And if you have had an abortion and are trying to justify it, God is a God of forgiveness to those who have placed their trust in Yeshua! We still make mistakes and do things we later regret.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YeshuaBought
Prove that it is a person before it has brainwaves.
Are human beings personal beings?
Do you have the same DNA now you had at conception? Did what you receive from your mother and father via sperm and egg determine you?
If so, then when does personhood being? I say it is at conception.
Is a one minute after birth a human being? Why not one minute before then? Are humans personal beings BY NATURE? Is the unborn a personal being by nature?
What I believe you are failing to take into account is that you are what you are from conception, just less developed than you are at birth or less developed at birth than you are at 10 and less developed at 10 than you are at 20. Does being less developed make you less of a human being? If so, then what is wrong with killing human beings less developed than you are? And what is wrong with others killing you because you are less developed than they are?
If you cannot define exactly when personhood begins you should give the unborn the benefit of the doubt.
I can get more into it if you like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YeshuaBought
You asked a question. Can Christians be pro-choice?It is not for you to say what values i have, or what I do w[ith] my body. I don't want sick children, and birth control can fail. What I do is between God, and me. Only He has any say in my life.
What do you think the unborn is?
Can I do with my body whatever I like? Can I use my body to kill other innocent human beings?
Yes, what you do is between God and you. I'm just giving you the feedback you asked for and hopefully making you think about what you are saying and what is at stake.
You have also failed to prove that an em[b]ryo is a person.
Are human beings personal beings?
Is the unborn a human being?
These are honest questions I am asking you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YeshuaBought
It seems arbitrary to me? Why stop there?Antichoice compassion stops at birth. You only care about the embryo, you don't care about the right to life of born people.
What is the difference between the unborn one minute before birth as opposed to birth?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YeshuaBought
Does that right include killing another human being?I have the right to choose what to do with my body.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YeshuaBought
How is that? I never questioned you being a Christian. I questioned whether your belief lined up with biblical values. Then I asked you some questions. Do you have an answer to them?Your no true Scotsman fallacy is noted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YeshuaBought
I say yes, because I am a prochoice Christian.
Then I say you are being inconsistent with Christianity in this aspect of your belief in being pro-choice, sister.
What is the unborn?
Is it a being?
Is it a human being?
Is it an innocent human being?
Is it wrong to kill innocent human beings?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
I apologize, but I am not interested in spending more time responding to your texts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
Although I recognize these and other faults in myself, I also recognize them in you. I know I am closed-minded. Truth is narrow. I am biased. There is no neutrality in belief. I can be stubborn, especially when defending the truth.If you believe something to be true, you are defending yourself in relation to that "truth" believed in, not truth itself.
I am defending the belief in total as reasonable and logical to believe. I also defend aspects of the belief as knowable. I am defending the worldview as the most sensible, reasonable, and logical of all worldviews that I know of.
Knowing what is not necessarily true does not demand that truth be known: only what truth is not.
True if you are saying what I think you are. I think you mean to say that knowledge can confirm that something is not true.
God is the same: to know all that God is *not* is the same pursuit as knowledge of truth.
I only defend the reasonableness of the Judeo-Christian God. I believe in only one true and living God.
What is God not, for instance? Please elaborate.
Can you prove that God is not, or more specifically the Christian God is not?
They each had their own scapegoat. The woman, in turn, blamed the serpent.Man -> Woman -> Serpentblame -> blame ->
--> Serpent
--> blame.
And God found fault (blame) with the serpent, also. The serpent tempted Eve with something that was not true, i.e., that she would not die for disobeying God.
4 The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die!
That was a lie perpetrated by the serpent.
Also, knowing good and evil is not the same as being like God in the sense that God does not do evil. By taking the fruit which God forbid (explicit warning not to eat it) there was a penalty, and they suffered that penalty as God promised.
Thus, God judged the serpent also.
14 The Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
Cursed are you more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you will go,
And dust you will eat
All the days of your life;
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.”
Cursed are you more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you will go,
And dust you will eat
All the days of your life;
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.”
So what is the original sin? Think about how men blame women for how men act and think about Islam.
The original sin was doing what God said should not be done which led to humanity knowing evil and practicing evil. It destroyed that close relationship they had with God in the Garden before this point and barred them from enjoying His presence in the manner He created humanity to do.
Only one of us can be right to what is the case, if either, since we both state opposites. Do you know you are right? If so, prove it.Right/wrong are according to a context, thus the context must be defined in order to collapse one or the other. The "us vs. them" mindset is a product of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil: division, instead of union.
Right and wrong are qualitative values that are made sense of only if the source is unchanging, absolute, eternal, all-knowing, otherwise its all relative and a preference. What makes a preference right unless it conformed to what was/is actually right and the case?
The us/them mindset in the Bible is a difference in doing good and evil and the consequences involved, plus the remedy. Since all accountable human beings have sinned we are all in the same boat and need a means that offsets that guilt; one that suffers the penalty of the guilt. Hence, the Son becomes human, lives a completely righteous life as a human being, then dies innocent for the sins of those who will believe in Him. Thus, He does on our behalf what we could not do in and of ourselves.
1. He lives that righteous life the believer could not on the believer's behalf.
2. He suffers the penalty the believer deserves (alienation from God) on their behalf (our Intercessor intercedes between God and the believer, like Moses, interceded between God and Israel).
If the original sin is to blame another for ones own iniquity, the expression:the accuser is the accused
You misunderstand what the original sin was, as I have pointed out. That sin was disobedience to what God commanded not to do.
Adam, as the federal head, represented humanity in choosing to eat the fruit. Although it was something both Adam and Eve partook of, Adam was the one who represented the rest of humanity as the one who was first created.
God place Adam as the head, not Eve.
The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.
Just as Adam represents humanity as the federal head of humanity before God because he was the first human being so Jesus, the Second Adam, represents believers before God as their federal head.
must always hold true for one who is ignorant and/or in violation of. Therefor, to try any/all accusations first with:Is the accuser the accused?
They were all accused and judged of wrongdoing and the man and woman tried the scapegoat excuse.
reveals ignorance from the start, but only as far as the one trying is themselves ignorant for what they themselves believe.
Yet God's word was explicit to them. The day they ate of the fruit would be the day they died to God. The day they ate they would be barred from His presence and excluded from eating of the tree of life and living forever more.
Again, the natural function of a man and woman together as one in marriage was built into the DNA of each. You are reading all kinds of things into the narrative that is not yet disclosed, like,"To the woman He said,“I will greatly multiplyYour pain in childbirth,In pain you will bring forth children;Yet your desire will be for your husband,And he will rule over you.”As it is with dielectricity and magnetism: both are required, and as they approach equilibrium, they approach infinitude.
You are reading into the text far more than it says in your comparison. Thus, again, you are guilty of eisegesis. You continually do this. It's like just because you can say it and you believe it then it becomes so in your view. This kind of thinking is totally ludicrous.
What you quoted is the result of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
True, it is the consequence.
It is true: the more a person does it, the more they suffer.
One sin resulted in the judgment. Just one.
The original sin was taking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. By taking it Adam discovered what evil was, disobedience to God's good commands.Taking the fruit is the same as believing to know good/evil.
Taking the fruit led to them knowing good and evil, not just good. They realized they did wrong before God and they hid from His presence.
(I believe) I know = ignorance
I (believe) I know --> reasonable belief --> is not the same as knowing but it usually signified the belief is reasonable. It could or could not be true to what is the case yet it is based on reason. Blind belief is not. It is totally ignorant since it does not base itself in reason.
I know (I believe) = knowledge
I know --> Justified true belief = knowledge.
It is possible that what the serpent said is also true: one will become like god knowing good/evil. There are two possible results from the same action. To call the serpent "evil" is to ignore the warning in the first place.
The serpent lied. That is evil.
There is a difference between God and humanity. We are limited beings and do not know all things in and of themselves whereas God does. He creates them and understands every function and purpose of all things. All created things exist and hold together because of Him.Therefor,+P is a body of belief-based ignorance-P is a body of knowledge-negating-belief-based-ignoranceand as one +P attains to its specific counter-part -P, one approaches any possible all-knowing god.
Since everything (the universe and all in it) would be created it would ring true to what God said about the universe and everything in it. We find meaning in the natural world. We are able to express that meaning in mathematical formulas and laws that signify what is the case.
God would know how He created and that creation would be supernatural. Without God, you look to the natural alone to explain existence. Without God, you look to chance happenstance (unintentional) to explain what is. It is not a reasonable belief and there are many gaps in such thinking.
Adam only knew of evil once he took of the tree of knowledge. Before that his existence only experienced good. Before that eating of the fruit, he walked with God and experienced His goodness. After that eating, he understood what it meant to disobey God and he experienced evil as well as good. He knew he was naked and he experienced shame.Hence the need to understand that each being is as their own Adam and thus to scapegoat the problem of "original sin" onto a scapegoat historical Adam is ignorant. This is precisely what religions do: institutionalize scapegoating. People dump their own iniquities onto figures like Jesus and/or join the House of Islam to scapegoat onto Jews/Christians/Atheists/Unbelievers/Infidels and become squealing and whining swine as the Muhammadans are.
No, historical Adam is not ignorance. That is what the Scripture reveals. It reveals that ADAM brought sin into the world. The Second Adam - Jesus Christ - is the scapegoat for sin. The sin of the world (for all those who believe in Him) was placed on Him. Jesus, the historical Person took upon Himself the punishment for believers. He is the ONLY ONE who could meet the righteous requirements of God on behalf of the sinner.
But the goat on which the lot for the scapegoat fell shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make atonement upon it, to send it into the wilderness as the scapegoat.
John 18:38b-40
And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and *said to them, “I find no guilt in Him. 39 But you have a custom that I release someone for you at the Passover; do you wish then that I release for you the King of the Jews?” 40 So they cried out again, saying, “Not this Man, but Barabbas.” Now Barabbas was a robber.
Just as the lot was drawn for the scapegoat in the OT so the lot was drawn as to who would be released and who would be crucified in the NT. Jesus was crucified beyond the city walls, in the wilderness, for the sins of the world. He is the NT believer's scapegoat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
Your statement is obscure. I have no idea what you are referring to. Are you referring to a scriptural verse? Are you referring to my statement?Casing my net to the right? What does this have to do with my comment?What do "these things" refer to, my statement or net casting?Satan, in those verses I referenced, is a personal being, given personal attributes. You take a narrative and turn it into a metaphorical or symbolic language without justification. Although it can mean adversary, the adversary in the NT is a particular being.You are taking too literally: these are stories. They are pointing at something metaphysical.
While the Bible contains a lot of symbolism and metaphorical language it is explained much of the time in Scripture so that people do not read their own private interpretation into the Scriptures.
2 Peter 1:19-21 (NASB)
19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
2 Timothy 3:15-17 (NASB)
15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
First, you have to pay attention to the language, whether plain narrative or figurative in nature. Second, you have to understand that narrative language is historical language and the OT is a history of God's relationship to specific people (Israel) and it traces the lineage of the Messiah back to the Fall. Jesus Himself treats Adam and Eve as historical people.
Matthew 19:3-5 (NASB)
3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
Mark 10:5-7 (NASB)
5 But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother Luke 3:38
... 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Regarding the genealogies, once you start reading into the accounts some metaphoric and some actual descendants you lose all credibility.
Also, to treat the whole Bible as one big metaphor is disingenuous.
Finger points to moon: do not concentrate on the finger, or you will miss the moon for the point of the finger.Cast right means do not think literally/physically, but metaphorically/metaphysically.
This is all your private interpretation, not based on the actual texts but on what you read into it. This is what cults and all those who misinterpret the Bible do.
"Shin" as the twenty-first letter of the Hebrew alphabet?Yes - it has three yuds/vavs on it, because it indicates:i. psychological beingii. emotional beingiii. instinctual (motor) beingall connected by a single base.
Where do you get this stuff from? I question the reliability of such speculation until you prove your sources are respectable and valid.
This is the first letter of Satan: indicates totality of being - psychology/emotion/action.Second letter is bind: for example, to believe something that is not actually true.Third letter is ongoing state.
Again, you make a big deal out of one letter and add all kinds of innuendo into it.
I have no idea what you are talking about. This is babel.Tried to make it easier for you.
Where are you getting your information from? Please reveal your specific sources. Is it just your own private and personal opinion or do you have some factual and verifiable evidence? If I do not get an answer I will not continue our dialogue.
'I am' refers to a person, 'that I am' suggests eternality.'I am' is not a (particular) person.A better English rendering would be "I be(come) as I be(come)"
The words are translated from Hebrew as "I am who I am."
I be? I become?
I be who I be?
I become who I become?
I be who I become?
One who is eternal, immutable, unchanging, does not become or come to be.
"The name's meaning
Exodus 3:14-15 This forms part of God's explanation of who he is. “I AM” (in Hebrew closely resembling “Yahweh”) expresses the ever-present, unchanging, totally dependable character of God.
***
(14) I AM THAT I AM.—It is generally assumed that this is given to Moses as the full name of God. But perhaps it is rather a deep and mysterious statement of His nature. “I am that which I am.” My nature, i.e., cannot be declared in words, cannot be conceived of by human thought. I exist in such sort that my whole inscrutable nature is implied in my existence. I exist, as nothing else does—necessarily, eternally, really. If I am to give myself a name expressive of my nature, so far as language can be, let me be called “I AM.”
Tell them I AM hath sent me unto you.—I AM, assumed as a name, implies (1) an existence different from all other existence. “I am, and there is none beside me” (Isaiah 45:6); (2) an existence out of time, with which time has nothing to do (John 8:58); (3), an existence that is real, all other being shadowy; (4) an independent and unconditioned existence, from which all other is derived, and on which it is dependent.***
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Exodus 3:14. God said — Two names God would be known by: 1st, A name that speaks what he is in himself, I AM THAT I AM. The Septuagint renders the words ειμι ο ων, I AM the existing Being, or HE WHO IS; and the Chaldee, I AM HE WHO IS, and WHO WILL BE. That is, I am He that enjoys an essential, independent, immutable, and necessary existence, He that IS, and WAS, and IS TO COME. It explains his name Jehovah, and signifies, 1st, That he is self- existent: he has his being of himself, and has no dependance on any other. And being self-existent, he cannot but be self-sufficient, and therefore all-sufficient, and the inexhaustible fountain of being and blessedness. 2d, That he is eternal and unchangeable: the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever.
***
I am that I am - That is, "I am what I am." The words express absolute, and therefore unchanging and eternal Being. The name, which Moses was thus commissioned to use, was at once new and old; old in its connection with previous revelations; new in its full interpretation, and in its bearing upon the covenant of which Moses was the destined mediator.
***
And God said unto Moses, I am that I am,.... This signifies the real being of God, his self-existence, and that he is the Being of beings; as also it denotes his eternity and immutability, and his constancy and faithfulness in fulfilling his promises, for it includes all time, past, present, and to come; and the sense is, not only I am what I am at present, but I am what I have been, and I am what I shall be, and shall be what I am.
***
What about them?They are not real/literal people. The "story" that people read, is actually a bunch of equations dressed up as a story. This is true even in the original Hebrew text: the real essence of the "story" has nothing to do with the story.
Jesus treats them as real people. I tend to believe Him over you and your opinion.
A bunch of equations? Again, you continue to give your own spin while ignoring the type of language used and what the passages actually say. This is called eisegesis.
"Elohim" is a masculine plural noun."in Our image"'In' -> Preposition'Our' -> masculine singular construct'Image' -> first person common plural."let Us make"'Let' -> Verb'Us make' -> Imperfect cohortative if contextual - first person common pluralBecause all singular entities take the default masculine.When elohim is the speaker, it identifies itself as "us/we" and the masculine designation of the Hebrew language is owing to the nature of the language, not the nature of elohim itself. Elohim is a folded circle: one side is bestowing/male, the other is receiving/female. To say Elohim is male, is belief-based ignorance and where religious patriarchy comes from that abuses women. The female is just as divine as the male: Eve means 'mother of all that lives'. Can not have creation without Eve.
Elohim is not an 'it' but a personal being identified in the masculine pronouns 'He' and 'Him.'
And Adam means the first man and the father of humanity. He was created first and to him is given the federal head, not the woman.
So you manufacture a shin in YHWH?Each person is their own shin, and each shin returns to YHWH which is what Yahushoa is.
Do you mean Yeshua?
Where do you get this stuff from? What are your sources for thinking this way?
Are you Jewish?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I just wanted to demonstrate that there are reasons and logic behind the Christian worldview that these guys continually overlook in their anger towards God.I get a person not believing the bible, but why the caustic anger?
I think the reason is you hit a nerve. Up until that point, 83 days later, you had assertions. After that point, you still have assertions that have not been justified. You have a failure to engage in the specifics that were posted except for Stephens one post which has been challenged. IMO, they ran away with their tails between their legs. (^8
***
Stephen says,
"I would have and was, going to given this pointless thread a wide berth until you posted this goading statement challenging atheist to post here with biblical contradictions, implying atheists were unable to find any because according to you; the faithful, there aren't any."
Again, I don't see his list as contradictions.
The question in regards to the alleged contradictions is just that, whether they are actually so or just made up through not taking verses in context or not having sufficient biblical and historical knowledge to reason it out. When I see a list that long I tend to read a few of them, seeing the answers behind these allegations, then ignore the rest. Now, I like it when Stephen got down to specifics with a few examples. The problem with responding to a few is that they tend to dump a whole lot more into the cauldron and ignore what has already been put into it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I could go into a lot more detailed account but that will suffice for now.You would be throwing your pearls....
Yes, well I won't bother. I just wanted to demonstrate that there are reasons and logic behind the Christian worldview that these guys continually overlook in their anger towards God. (^8
I doubt Stephen will challenge it.He'll find something to challenge.He quotes Jesus in Jn 8:14 saying, "Jesus can say on the one hand : if he bears witness to himself, his testimony is true. Jn.8:14.Jesus actually said, though I bear witness of myself....
I haven't checked the Greek. I used the NASB translation.
He changes (or the atheist site he mined changed) Jn 8:14 so that it "matches" Jn. 5:31 and then he can claim a contradiction.I certainly wasn't going to go into the detail you did. Thanks for doing that. It was an excellent post. I know you did it for people other than Stephen.
Yes, I did it for others.
His 200 alleged contradictions have reasonable answers, but it would be futile to go into each one. I have found the reply is always more of the same, then one more, then one more, then one more....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
Do you have to believe something before you can believe anything else?Knowledge does not come from a vacuum. You have to start somewhere. You first have to believe something, test it, and justify it is true before you arrive at knowledge.I don't understand your first question.
You start somewhere. That is a belief that is either confirmed as true, or you live contrary and irrationally to the truth of what is the case.
There are some presuppositions that we all hold in making sense of the universe and ourselves. Your starting belief about the universe would either start with God (or a Creator) or it would start with random, chance happenstance. From that starting point, you would build upon your belief to form a worldview. Some things would be confirmed by that starting belief and others would not. The point is that your whole worldview would originate and be built upon one of two or three possible starting points of view. Is your knowledge consistent with the starting point or original belief that all else rests upon.
Knowledge comes by way of trying belief: once a belief is falsified, knowledge not to believe it is attained. One need not believe they exist in order to know they exist. If one stops believing in gravity, gravity still has an effect. Similarly, if one does not believe in ones self, rather know ones self, one realizes it takes belief to believe ones self to be something they are not (!)
Yes, knowledge comes from testing beliefs (knowledge equals justified true belief).
Yes, knowledge comes from justifying whether a belief is true or false! If it is false you disbelief that premise yet you believe some other premise. If that premise is true to what is the case then you have a justifiably true belief.
And the counter to that is if you do not believe 'this' but 'that' (or not this) you still have a belief, an opposing or contrary belief. The person who says, "I believe in God" has a belief. The person who says, "I do not believe in God" still has a belief, that there is no God.Your latter example is not necessarily true: one can say "I do not believe in God" while having no belief there is / is not one.
Since you don't know or cannot verify it as knowledge it is still a belief, whether rational or irrational. In not believing in God you still have to understand what is meant by God and with Christianity the specifics of that God. Thus, you still have a belief that you presuppose as true yet can't justify it.
One can either know, or not know, absent belief. Belief means one does not know.
You can't know God does not exist. You would have to be all-knowing to know that which would by definition be an attribute of God. You only deceive yourself into thinking you know He doesn't exist, all the while thinking about what God is in denying Him.
Leaving only knowledge, which is a true justified belief. An absent belief of one thing is a belief on the contrary or opposite thing.Knowledge has nothing to do with belief unless it is of the degrees of uncertainty of the belief. Knowledge is negation of belief: turns a "possible true" belief into "definitely not (necessarily) true" which derives a knowledge not to believe.
Hence, knowledge is justifiably true belief instead of reasonably or irrationally believing. You can't have knowledge without first believing in some starting point and building upon it by either verifying it or disqualifying it as reasonable.
This justified true belief dogma is very destructive: trying to pass off ignorance as knowledge, just as religion would.
It is not ignorance. Justifiable true belief is knowledge. My belief is confirmed and true to what is the case.
Neither? So you have not begun to exist yet you know you are???Even though a baby of one day old exists is it aware or knowing it exists. It has not begun the thought process of knowing yet. It is still experiencing in its growth process yet is not reasoning its knowledge of its existence yet.My beginning to exist does not depend on my believing to exist.
But the knowledge comes after the awareness of your existence, not before. If you can't conceptualize and rationalize you can't know. A just born baby is not thinking about its existence in terms of knowing.
It has conscience: ability to inquire. That? That? That? That's unconditioned conscience: seeking to know.
Explained by being made in the image and likeness of God. As it grows these innate qualities start to develop but when it is born it is not thinking how it knows something. It just is aware, and that awareness grows by its belief system or is hampered by untrue beliefs.
That is the default state. Believing to know happens over time in relation to ones own belief-based ignorance.
And that belief based ignorance becomes justifiable true belief or knowledge of what is the case.
I know I am is a true, justified belief.No: it is a conscious acknowledgement of self, not a belief.
It corresponds to what is the case, thus it is justifiably true belief (aka, knowledge).
'I believe I am' is a true, justified belief. But it's not knowledge, because one can believe themselves to be something they are not, and thus:I believe I am...I know I am...
It can be either depending on whether it is known to be the case or not. If it is not known to be the case then it is still a reasonable belief, just not justified. You have to believe you are before you can know you are.
are the two trees as they exist locally in a being: two hemispheres of the brain wherein the right is higher (ie. closer to knowledge) and the left is lower (ie. closer to belief-based ignorance). Casting to the right means: left hemisphere to right hemisphere. The ship is the mind.
You are completely reading this into the text. You can't prove it by the text. All you can do is say, I believe it to be the case. The question is whether or not it is the case. It is not the case unless you can prove it. You have not.
Okay, yet acknowledgement of ignorance does not happen in a vacuum. You have to know other things before you become aware of things you do not know. That knowledge is based on a belief system that is confirmed to be the case. You can't build a house without a foundation.[1] The first fundamental knowledge/ignorance is of self. It is [2] technically the only thing to know. It takes belief to believe ones self to be something they are not.
[1] Are you sure? Prove it.
[2] There are many things to know other than yourself.
If you know one thing, that you do not know anything else, how do you know this? Again, knowledge has to be built on other knowledge. You have to start somewhere with a belief that is either confirmed or denied by what is the case."I know I know not" has to be a knowledge in relation to something else that is not known.Conscience is used to derive knowledge: it acknowledges things either as they are, or as they are not (ie. belief-based).
Yes, it is!
Yes, it perceives things as they are or as they are not. To perceive things as they are and to justify that they are indeed the case is justifiably true belief or knowledge.
I know I know not = conscious acknowledgment of ignorance (which pertains to a specific thing) = Any potential attainability to knowledge.I know I know not = All potential attainability of knowledge."One can not attain to something they "believe" they already have." Knowledge = justified true belief.Knowledge negates belief.
Does it? Do you believe this? Or do you disbelieve it?
'Justified true belief' is an attempt to turn ignorance into knowledge.
No, it is justifying a belief is true to what is the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
I see things in yourself that you do not know about yourself also. You are closed-minded, stubborn, and biased, yet you think you are right. So what? Prove it.You would believe you see things: it is already established you mistake belief as knowledge, and the ad hominem is a projection of your own nature.
Although I recognize these and other faults in myself, I also recognize them in you. I know I am closed-minded. Truth is narrow. I am biased. There is no neutrality in belief. I can be stubborn, especially when defending the truth.
Enmity results in projection (ie. Cain; tiller of ones own soil) thus the accuser is always the accused when from a place of enmity. This results in the projection of ones own nature as that of another: the same is the original sin of Adam attempting to scapegoat his own iniquity onto the woman. If you want to see what that leads to, look at Islam: men blame women for their own behavior. It is the same scapegoating.
They each had their own scapegoat. The woman, in turn, blamed the serpent.
It is human nature to not see faults in ourselves that we recognize in others, but I have examined myself in many of these areas. I know some of my faults. I know some of the problems I have. They have been identified and wrestled with by my mind.Your problem(s) is exactly what you accused me of.
Only one of us can be right to what is the case, if either, since we both state opposites. Do you know you are right? If so, prove it.
Where do you find this revealed in Scripture or are you just reading it in?GENESIS 3:12And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.When lower organ controls the higher organ (ie. sex controls brain) the potential for evil is present: lust (sum of all evil).
Again, the natural function of a man and woman together as one in marriage was built into the DNA of each. You are reading all kinds of things into the narrative that is not yet disclosed, like,
"To the woman He said,
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.”
Men who abuse their power over women (again, like Islam) are the exaggeration of the original sin. It destroys the 1:1 ration established at the onset by killing off the men and taking the women as war spoils, thus 1:4 and 1:9 for Muhammad. Islam is the original sin in perpetuity, so don't believe I have anything against anyone moreso than the House of Islam for being the House of Antichrist. It's just that the Christians are do nobody any favors worshiping a man as the Muhammadans do: the truth of the way of the living is not a man, it is a method.
The original sin was taking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. By taking it Adam discovered what evil was, disobedience to God's good commands.
Again, I am not following your reasoning or how you establish this.God is all-knowing for starters. He knows all transgressors."Do I believe God is not knowing of those who transgress the first warning?" What is the "first warning?"If God is all-knowing, God is all-knowing of:i. all belief-based ignorance(s) exist in and/or by way of belief-in-and-of-itself
There is a difference between God and humanity. We are limited beings and do not know all things in and of themselves whereas God does. He creates them and understands every function and purpose of all things. All created things exist and hold together because of Him.
ii. satan requires belief, thus
What has this got to do with God being all-knowing or all-knowing of?
iii. any/all not to believe.Hence the two trees in the garden:-1 KNOW <-*tree of living+2 any/all <-*creation-2 *not to* <-*destruction+1 BELIEVE <-*tree of knowledge of good and evil0 I AM (willing to...) <-*equal capacity for good/evil_______________Tree of living: 0 - 1 + 2 - 2 + 1 = 0 | I AM willing to KNOW any/all *not to* BELIEVE (I am...)Tree of G/E: 0 +1 - 2 + 2 - 1 = 0 | I AM willing to BELIEVE *not to* any/all KNOW (I am...)
Adam only knew of evil once he took of the tree of knowledge. Before that his existence only experienced good. Before that eating of the fruit, he walked with God and experienced His goodness. After that eating, he understood what it meant to disobey God and he experienced evil as well as good. He knew he was naked and he experienced shame.
Created: