Total posts: 3,179
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Most branches of modern science were founded by Christians or deists.No, they were founded by men who lived in societies where they would be outcasts if not arrested and jailed/killed for not being Christians. You are so lucky to be living in a secular society where your religion no longer rules the lives of others who want nothing to do it.
No, you are wrong. Men of science were Christians or deists who were trying to explain more of their existence to the glory of God. They identified with Christianity or deism and were trying to think God's thoughts after Him.
I am not lucky to be living in a secular society for there is no solid morays or values in such a system and no ultimate explanation for anything, thus you can't make sense of anything ultimately. Your limited mind is always grasping for the next "best" ideas on existence and meaning. You are at the mercy, way too often, of dictators and oligarchs who try to impose their relative shifting standards on others through force or emotional appeal rather than sound logic. There is no such thing as right and wrong in such systems but only preferences and feeling. Now in your country (the USA, I'm presuming) your Democrat party system of thought is trying to mimic socialist governments which never work and suppress individual freedom through massive and tax binding government. Everything becomes expendable to the State. The opposition is shut down, as witnessed on educational campuses and by news media and Hollywood based ideology. One of the last hopes of freedom is being put in danger by such stupidity of Democrats who fail to see the big picture. In the meantime, China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, build their military might and are neglected while these stupid Democrats change the focus and try to undermine your duly elected President.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I'm just pointing out that every worldview tries to make sense of existence but only one can99.99% of worldviews don't give a fat rats arse about existence.Do you not care about whether you live or die?For the one I am and for the other I will, what could I possibly care about that?
You sidestep the question as usual to misdirect.
What you have said is that you are alive and that you will die and you accept that but if someone threatened your existence right now with death would you care? But as I said, this misdirects what I was getting at.
In your everyday life do you try to make sense of existence by adopting particular positions? Sure you do. Those positions, your worldview, shape how you look at your existence. Obviously, that is true. Your worldview, as does every worldview, attempts to understand why you are here and supply the meaning. For an atheist, your existence is explained in a limited way by natural unintelligent random processes. There is no ultimate meaning in such a process, yet you are constantly on about meaning and values. You raise a big stink about the biblical God who you hate. Thus, you do not remain consistent with what your worldview is governed towards, no ultimate meaning. You keep borrowing from the Christian system of thought that understands meaning comes from a necessary meaningful Being and our thought process is consistent with its core beliefs. Yours are not. Thus, it is undermined whenever you speak. You betray what you cling to by your inconsistency.
You make meaning for the protection of your existence and hope others buy into that meaning because it means you live longer, so existence is important. But without an absolute, unchanging best, a fixed and ultimate standard, all you can do is try to outdo some other relative standard that competes with yours. Your system does this with an emotional appeal or by force (if it has the means). But when you come down to the nitty-gritty, your system is no better than any other because you can never point to a best, just something that is evolving and morphing into something else. Thus, what was once proclaimed as "good" and "right" is now seen as "bad" and "wrong." So Hitler's killing of six million becomes no better than any other social convention. It is just whether those in power can get away with it.
So, if you want to live with what I consider such a stupid system of thought, that is your option.
Created:
Posted in:
If God and Jesus are the same, as many Christians will have us believe, having the same mind, knowledge and power, then why would Jesus (god) beg himself (god) in the garden of Gethsemane, to spare himself ( god) from having to be crucified?
God being one in essence and unity is three in Persons. The Son took on humanity, thus having two natures in the one Person. To redeem humanity He lived the life we could not before God by becoming a human being. He was perfectly righteous and obedient as a human, thus He is our righteous standing before God. We have sinned, thus we bear guilt before God, but Jesus took our punishment (for those who believe) after living a perfectly righteous life. Thus, not only is God's righteousness met but also His wrath is judged by that one act done on behalf of the believer.
Thus, acting in His human capacity He identified with humanity, nevertheless, He gave way to the will of the Father so that all righteousness would be met and all judgment on behalf of believers accomplished, for there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1)
Matthew 26:39And further, why would Jesus (god) ask himself why he (god) has forsaken himself (god) by allowing himself (god) to be crucified?
Because He was acting in His human capacity in order to accomplish all righteousness and pay the debt of sin that those who believe would have life in His name.
Matthew 27:46This is truly a awkward subject for many Christians to discuss considering that it gives the impression that if God & Jesus are one and the same as they believe, then it shows real signs of schizophrenia at worse and a delusional disorder at least.
You confuse His laying aside His deity in order to fulfill what no other human could do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Religious people often seem to be at odds with science because they believe it threatens their religion.What I am wondering is, do you ever wish you lived in a world without science where your religion could flourish unimpeded?
I see Christianity with science. Most branches of modern science were founded by Christians or deists. They wanted to understand the universe God made so you come at the problem from the wrong angel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I'm just pointing out that every worldview tries to make sense of existence but only one can99.99% of worldviews don't give a fat rats arse about existence.
Do you not care about whether you live or die?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Have you read the book of NUmbers? 31:18: "Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."
There are no comments in this post from me, including the underlined.
It doesn't matter what they were "used for" or even how they were treated.
Do you think these virgins would survive harsh treatment from other cultures in the ANE unless Israel protected them?
The men, on the other hand, were a threat to the survival of Israel.
I think the women were a threat in influencing the nation by seduction and because of their bitterness and sorrow for the death of their husbands and sons.
If any modern day military killed every man, woman, child, and baby of a nation, but only spared the young girls, they would be considered monsters.
You are applying modern situations to an ancient culture. We don't live in similar times.
These young girls would eventually be absorbed into the culture of Israel and increase the population of Israel, but they would not be forced into a marriage they were against or raped. That was not the intent of the decree even if some strayed by their practice.
Do you think these young girls would present the same threat that a woman or man or a young boy who grows up that opposed Israel would?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Harikrish
First, do you believe it reasonable to believe Jesus wrote about in the NT was a historical person?Christianity has reduced its core beliefs to worshipping a dead Jewish corpse named Jesus who died for their sins 2000 years ago. The creation and evolution theories are immaterial to Christians because the path to salvation is not how we got here but who can get us out of the mess we are in. So while scientists argue, the dead Jewish corpse remains the only viable solution.Harikrish biblical scholar and spiritual leader.
Harikrish, you are clueless because to date you have rejected the Chief Corner-stone while building an elaborate house of cards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Precisely my point. You don't know but you exclude the biblical God as making sense of it. How do you know?The "YHWH" doesn't explain anything.
Sure He does. Whether you like it or not the biblical reason is logical. Life comes from the eternal LIVING God, mind and conscious comes from such a necessary Mind and consciousness. Islam has a lot of the teachings about God in its teachings too, but we as Christians believe it does not worship God as He truly is. They claim the same about our beliefs, but our belief predates Islam.
You're a meaningless worm doomed to eternal hell-fire UNLESS you follow Levitical law.
The Mosaic law was just a shadow of what was coming. It pointed to something (or to be more precise Someone) far greater, thus it was just temporary and designed to teach and lead us to the greater reality, which is Jesus Christ. He is revealed on every page of the OT for those who are discerning and can see the teaching. I have laid out the spiritual truths in as much as I understand them on many occasions. These shadows and types of Jesus Christ are laid out time and time again in the NT (Matthew 4:16, Luke 24:26-27; 44-45, Colossians 2:17, Hebrews 8:5, Hebrews 10:1, 1 Corinthians 2:10-16, 2 Corinthians 3, especially verses 15-18, Hebrews 3-4, and on and on it goes and can be demonstrated.
I'm not sure how you imagine that particular belief makes your life any more "meaningful".
How? You are not a biological bag of atoms and chemical reactions, a freak of hopelessness in a meaningless universe making up all kinds of morals and values that in the long run mean nothing. There is a purpose there for those who find it by the grace of God. There is a love awaiting those that surpass our finite understanding of this mortal and physical life.
A life apart from God lacks this meaning and purpose and derives its own short-lived purpose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You're wrong. The principles behind the Mosaic Laws are the same that apply to Christian teachings, and as I pointed out in one of my last three posts, they revolve around the love of God and the love of humans which is a summary of The Ten Commandments (Exodus. Love does not kill (i.e., murder), it does not slander, lie, steal, covet things that belong to others, disrespect, etc. These same principles are taught in both testaments and can be demonstrated to those who do not see this (which would be you).Your god's morality is dependent on the time and culture in which it is practiced. Certainly not the never changing basis that you claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
This might also be seen from the fact that war/violence was NOT a major source of 'real' slaves in the ANE (nor OT). For example, even though there were large numbers of war-captives in the ANE, they were generally NOT turned into slaves, but rather into tenant-farming, serfs:
"Within all the periods of antiquity, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Hittite, Persian, and other Oriental rulers carried away great masses of captives from their victorious battles. But only an insignificant part of them was turned into slaves; all the others were settled on the land as palace and temple serfs….The question arises, why the masses of war prisoners were not enslaved. Slavery was the optimal form of dependence, and very often there was no shortage of prisoners captured in war. Besides, there were no legal or ethical norms preventing these prisoners from being turned into slaves. But this happened in a negligible percentage of cases, while the overwhelming majority were settled in places specially set aside for them, paid royal taxes, and carried out obligations, including military service." [ABD: s.v. "Slavery, ANE"]
"War is only mentioned as a source of slavery for public institutions. The most frequently mentioned method of enslavement was sale of children by their parents. Most are women, evidently widows, selling a daughter; in one instance a mother and grandmother sell a boy…There are also examples of self sale." [HI:HANEL:1.199]
The same, of course, can be said of Israel. For example, even in wars on foreign soil (e.g., Deut 20.10,10), if a city surrendered, it became a vassal state to Israel, with the population becoming serfs (mas), not slaves (ebed, amah). They would have performed what is called 'corvee' (draft-type, special labor projects, and often on a rotation basis--as Israelites later did as masim under Solomon, 1 Kings 5.27). This was analogous to ANE praxis, in which war captives were not enslaved, but converted into vassal groups:
"The nations subjected by the Israelites were considered slaves. They were, however, not slaves in the proper meaning of the term, although they were obliged to pay royal taxes and perform public works." [ABD, s.v. "Slavery, Old Testament"]
And since most slavery was done through self-sale or family-sale, it was likewise voluntary (at least as voluntary as poverty allows), cf. Lev 25.44 in which the verbs are of 'acquisition' and not 'take' or 'conquer' etc.
· Treatment : Slaves were frequently mistreated by modern standards, and punishments were extreme.
The images we have of the Old American South are filled with mistreatments, and we need no documentation of that here. The ANE, on the other hand, was much less severe, due largely to the differences in the attitudes of the 'master' to the 'slave'. Slavery in the ANE was much more an 'in-house' and 'in-family' thing, with closer emotional attachment. However, there were still some extreme punishments in the ANE, but the biblical witness is of a decidedly better environment for slaves than even the ANE. Exodus 21, for example, is considered by many to be unparalleled in respect to humanitarianism toward slaves, and we shall return to this in detail below. [Suffice it to mention here that Ex 21.21 restricts the treatment of the slave to be no more severe than what the community/elders could do with a regular, free citizen. This restriction on an owner should make one ponder what in the world the word 'property' might mean in such a context! But more on this in a minute…]
But in the ANE slaves were generally protected from over-abuse (under normal conditions, runaways were a problem, as we shall see):
"[Slaves were generally afforded protection from] Excessive Physical punishment. Even chattel slaves appear to have benefited to some extent from this protection" [HI:HANEL:1:43]
And all the records of the period seem to indicate humane treatment:
"First, let us set apart the slaves--the booty of war or in servitude for various reasons--who by definition were totally dependent on their masters, although the latter appear to have treated them fairly humanely, and more like domestic servants." [HI:ELAM, 114]
· Treatment : As a matter of course, slaves lived in radical separation from their owners and did not participate in many of the 'benefits' of the owners' fortunes.
We have already noted that in New World slavery at least two-thirds of plantation slaves would have lived in barracks (field-slaves), and not in intimacy with owners (domestics), whereas in the ANE/OT, the vast majority of the slaves were domestics under the same roof. In the ANE/OT, we don’t have the 'gangs' of agricultural workers we will see later in Republican Rome and in the New World:
"Moreover, in general there were probably only a few in each household [in Israel]--there is no indication, for example, that large gangs of them were toiling in deplorable conditions to cultivate big estates, as in the later Roman world" [OT:I:101]
"Both types (Hebrew, foreign slaves) were domestic slaves living in their owners' homes, not members of slave gangs working on plantations." [Notes, Jewish Study Bible, Ex 21]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
So, [NS:ECA:4:1190] point this out: "New World slavery was a unique conjuntion of features. Its use of slaves was strikingly specialized as unfree labor-producing commodities, such as cotton and sugar, for a world market." and Britannica: "By 1850 nearly two-thirds of the plantation slaves were engaged in the production of cotton...the South was totally transformed by the presences of slavery. Slavery generated profits comparable to those from other investments and was only ended as a consequence of the War Between the States." (s.v. "Slavery")
In the ANE (and OT), this was NOT the case. The dominant (statistically) motivation was economic relief of poverty (i.e., 'slavery' was initiated by the slave--NOT by the owner--and the primary uses were purely domestic (except in cases of State slavery, where individuals were used for building projects).
The definitive work on ANE law today is the 2 volume work [HI:HANEL] (History of Ancient Near Eastern Law). This work (by 22 scholars) surveys every legal document from the ANE (by period) and includes sections on slavery. A smattering of quotes will indicate this for-the-poor instead of for-the-rich purpose for most of ANE slavery:
§ "Most slaves owned by Assyrians in Assur and in Anatolia seem to have been (originally) debt slaves--free persons sold into slavery by a parent, a husband, an elder sister, or by themselves." (1.449)
§ "Sales of wives, children, relatives, or oneself, due to financial duress, are a recurrent feature of the Nuzi socio-economic scene…A somewhat different case is that of male and female foreigners, called hapiru (immigrants) who gave themselves in slavery to private individuals or the palace administration. Poverty was the cause of these agreements…" (1.585)
§ "Most of the recorded cases of entry of free persons into slavery [in Emar] are by reason of debt or famine or both…A common practice was for a financier to pay off the various creditors in return for the debtor becoming his slave." (1.664f)
§ "On the other hand, mention is made of free people who are sold into slavery as a result of the famine conditions and the critical economic situation of the populations [Canaan]. Sons and daughters are sold for provisions…" (1.741)
§ "The most frequently mentioned method of enslavement [Neo-Sumerian, UR III] was sale of children by their parents. Most are women, evidently widows, selling a daughter; in one instance a mother and grandmother sell a boy…There are also examples of self sale. All these case clearly arose from poverty; it is not stated, however, whether debt was specifically at issue." (1.199)
· Entry: Slavery was overwhelmingly involuntary. Humans were captured by force and sold via slave-traders.
This was true both for the Islamic slave trade and the European trade. So, Britannica:
"Slaves have been owned in black Africa throughout recorded history. In many areas there were large-scale slave societies, while in others there were slave-owning societies. Slavery was practiced everywhere even before the rise of Islam, and black slaves exported from Africa were widely traded throughout the Islamic world. Approximately 18,000,000 Africans were delivered into the Islamic trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean slave trades between 650 and 1905. In the second half of the 15th century Europeans began to trade along the west coast of Africa, and by 1867 between 7,000,000 and 10,000,000 Africans had been shipped as slaves to the New World.... The relationship between African and New World slavery was highly complementary. African slave owners demanded primarily women and children for labour and lineage incorporation and tended to kill males because they were troublesome and likely to flee. The transatlantic trade, on the other hand, demanded primarily adult males for labour and thus saved from certain death many adult males who otherwise would have been slaughtered outright by their African captors."
In the ANE (and especially the OT), the opposite was the case. This should be obvious from the MOTIVE aspect--these were choices by the impoverished to enter this dependency state, in return for economic security and protection. Some slavery contracts actually emphasized this voluntary aspect!:
"A person would either enter into slavery or be sold by a parent or relative. Persons sold their wives, grandchildren, brother (with his wife and child), sister, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, nephews and niece…Many of the documents emphasize that the transaction is voluntary. This applies not only to self-sale but also to those who are the object of sale, although their consent must sometimes have been fictional, as in the case of a nursing infant." [HI:HANEL:1.665]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
How about Exodus 21:17? "And if a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as the menservants do."
I think you need to educate yourself in the differences between biblical slavery or servanthood and what we witness in Rome, Egypt, or Greece or in the South in our era. You and others on this site continue to show an ignorance of the times and what they term slavery as opposed to what we term slavery. The kind of slavery or servitude God condomes Israel practice is different from the slavery practiced by Egypt or Rome or the Southern US in our day. Please understand the difference as I ask you to understand the difference between the meaning of Numbers 31:15 and what you are insinuating it to be.
Again, Glenn Miller on ANE slavery as opposed to what we associate with it today:
"Scholars in the ANE have often abandoned the use of the general term 'slavery' in descriptions of the many diverse forms of master-servant that are manifest in the ancient world. There are very few 'true' slave societies in the world (with Rome and Greek being two of the major ones!), and ancient Israel will be seen to be outside this classification as well (in legislation, not practice)...
Scholars in Cultural Anthropology are sensitive to this as well, and point out that New World slavery was quite unique, historically:
"Scholars do not agree on a definition of "slavery." The term has been used at various times for a wide range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and sweatshops, child labor, semivoluntary prostitution, bride-price marriage, child adoption for payment, and paid-for surrogate motherhood. Somewhere within this range, the literal meaning of "slavery" shifts into metaphorical meaning, but it is not entirely clear at what point. A similar problem arises when we look at other cultures. The reason is that the term "Slavery" is evocative rather than analytical, calling to mind a loose bundle of diagnostic features. These features are mainly derived from the most recent direct Western experience with slavery, that of the southern United States, the Caribbean, and Latin America. The present Western image of slavery has been haphazardly constructed out of the representations of that experience in nineteenth-century abolitionist literature, and later novels, textbooks, and films...From a global cross-cultural and historical perspective, however, New World slavery was a unique conjunction of features...In brief, most varieties of slavery did not exhibit the three elements that were dominant in the New World: slaves as property and commodities; their use exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedom..." [NS:ECA:4:1190f]
Generally, in the ANE, these 'fuzzy' boundaries obtain as well. "Slavery" is a very relative word in our time period, and we have to be very carefully in no auto-associating it with more 'vivid' New World examples. For example, in the West we would never say that the American President's Cabinet members were his 'slaves', but this term would have been applied to them in the ANE kingdoms. And, in the ANE, even though children/family could be bought and sold, they were never actually referred to as 'slaves'--the property aspect (for such transactions) did NOT define explicitly the notion of 'slavery':
"Freedom in the ancient Near East was a relative, not an absolute state, as the ambiguity of the term for "slave" in all the region's languages illustrates. "Slave" could be used to refer to a subordinate in the social ladder. Thus the subjects of a king were called his "slaves," even though they were free citizens. The king himself, if a vassal, was the "slave" of his emperor; kings, emperors, and commoners alike were "slaves" of the gods. Even a social inferior, when addressing a social superior, referred to himself out of politeness as "your slave." There were, moreover, a plethora of servile conditions that were not regarded as slavery, such as son, daughter, wife, serf, or human pledge."
Miller goes on to list a number of contrasts with what we call slavery and what the ANE use of the term means. You confuse today's standards as practiced in the US south or slave trade today with ANE standards for the most part.
As an employee, you are a servant or slave to your employer in that you have sold yourself to an owner or employer to do specific work for a period of time every day. Thus, you are obligated to perform what the owner or employer requires of you. It was similar to the father selling of the daughter to meet the debt load in the ANE...
Miller:
I want to set out the basic elements associated with historical slavery, as practiced in America before the American Civil War, and to offer some general contrasts with ANE slavery (I will look at OT slavery later in the article). (This is not meant to be exhaustive, but simply to highlight the aspects of the institution that strike our sensibilities today.)
Motive: Slavery was motivated by the economic advantage of the elite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Have you read the book of NUmbers? 31:18: "Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."
Do you understand ANE cultures in reference to Numbers 31:18? No, you don't. You assume they were used for sexually immoral purposes. Glenn Miller, among others, has written extensively on this subject as per his website:
"Secondly, the accusation that these girls were for “sex slave” purposes contradicts what we know about the culture and about the event. [But at least one of the writers above--to their credit--added the word ‘presumably’, realizing that the text doesn’t actually say anything about it…]
1. Most girls were married soon/immediately after they began menstruating in the ANE (circa 12 years of age), and since infant and child mortality was so high, the average age of the girls spared would have been around 5 years of age or slightly lower (life expectancy wasn’t a straight line, with childhood risks so high). Of all the horrible things ascribed to Israel in the OT, pedophilia is the one conspicuous omission. That these little kids would have been even considered as ‘sex slaves’ seems quite incongruent with their ages.
And, at this tender age, they would not have been very useful as ‘slaves’ at all! Children raised in Israelite households were ‘put to work’ around this age, sometimes doing light chores to help the mother for up to four hours per day by the age of 7 or 8 [OT:FAI:27], but 5 is still a bit young. Instead, the Israelite families would have had to feed, clothe, train, care, protect, and shelter them for several years before they could make much contribution to the family’s existence and survival. [Also note that ‘slavery’ in the ANE/OT generally means something quite different from “New World” slavery, which we normally associate with the world ‘slavery’, and most of what is called that in popular literature should not be so termed. See qnoslave.html for the discussion and documentation.]
2. Unlike the Greeks and Romans, the ANE was not very ‘into’ using slaves/captives for sexual purposes, even though scholars earlier taught this:
“During the pinnacle of Sumerian culture, female slaves outnumbered male. Their owners used them primarily for spinning and weaving. Saggs maintains that their owners also used them for sex, but there is little actual evidence to support such a claim” [OT:EML:69]
3. And the Hebrews were different in this regard ANYWAY:
“This fidelity and exclusivity [demands on the wife] did not apply to the husband. Except among the Hebrews, where a husband’s infidelity was disparaged in the centuries after 800 BC, a double standard prevailed, and husbands were routinely expected to have sex not only with their wives, but with slavewomen and prostitutes.” [WS:AHTO:39; note: I would disagree with the remark about ‘after 800 bc’ because that dating presupposes a very late date for the composition of the narratives under discussion…If the narrative events occurred closer to the purposed times, then this ‘disparagement’ applied earlier in Israel as well as later.]
4. Even if we allow the age range to be older, to include girls capable of bearing children, the probability is that it was not sex-motivated, but population/economics-motivated, as Carol Meyers points out [“The Roots of Restriction: Women in Early Israel”, Biblical Archaeologist, vol 41):
“Beyond this, however, the intensified need for female participation in working out the Mosaic revolution in the early Israelite period can be seen in the Bible. Looking again at Numbers 31, an exception to the total purge of the Midianite population is to be noted. In addition to the metal objects which were exempt from utter destruction, so too were the “young girls who have not known man by lying with him” (Num 31:18). These captives, however, were not immediately brought into the Israelite camp. Instead, they and their captors were kept outside the camp for seven days in a kind of quarantine period. (Note that the usual incubation period for the kinds of infectious diseases which could conceivably have existed in this situation is two or three to six days [Eickhoff 1977].) Afterward, they thoroughly washed themselves and all their clothing before they entered the camp. This incident is hardly an expression of lascivious male behavior; rather, it reflects the desperate need for women of childbearing age, a need so extreme that the utter destruction of the Midianite foes—and the prevention of death by plague—as required by the law of the herem could be waived in the interest of sparing the young women. The Israelites weighed the life-death balance, and the need for females of childbearing age took precedence.”
[But note that the traditional rabbinic interpretation of the passage is that all females which were capable of bearing children were killed—not just those who actually were non-virginal. This would drive the average age quite low, although the Hebrew text offers only limited support at best for their interpretation.]
[I should also point out that the “for yourselves” phrase (31.18) is NOT actually referring to “for your pleasure”, but is a reference to the opposite condition of “for YHWH” which applied to all people or property which was theoretically supposed to be destroyed in such combat situations. The herem (or ‘ban’) specifically indicated that all enemy people or property which was ‘delivered over to YHWH’ was to be killed/destroyed. By referring to ‘for yourselves’, then, in this passage, means simply ‘do not kill them’. This can also be seen in that this ‘booty’ was not ‘for themselves’ actually, but was distributed to others within the community.]"
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Again, it was a teaching of the Mosaic Covenant and it was used by God to teach ancient Israel (who lived in a different culture and times) some important truths that God is holy and they should be true in their relationship to Him. He demonstrates sin has consequences.So then the moral code prescribed in the bible is NOT unchanging. It applies differently across time. TOday, for example, it's not okay to stone someone. Back then, you think it was okay. Or at least you'd have said it was moral.
Basic principles of it are, such as are found in the Ten Commandments like do not kill, steal, lie, commit adultery, covet, dishonour mother and father, and commands such as Love God and put Him first, love your neighbour. These principles are found in both testaments. Jesus summed up the law of God in two commands - love God as the first and most excellent command and the second, love your neighbour. The Old Covenant (the 613 Mosaic Commands) was a covenant made with Israel as it related to ANE culture. Jesus came to fulfill the Law of Moses, in fact, the whole law and commands of God.
Why was a woman stoned to death? It was for unfaithfulness and sexual promiscuity.But the penalty WAS okay then. Not okay now. Right?
Different times and different cultures but the question is why were they stoning the woman to death? It was for sexual immorality. That principle has not changed. God still tells us it is a sin. The method of dealing with adultery changed.
Again, this is a change in the moral code: we see it as immoral today to stone a woman who sleeps with someone out of wedlock to death today. Are you saying WE'RE IN THE WRONG NOW and these women should be stoned?
The moral code never changed in that sexual immorality and adultery was never right, either in the OT or NT. The difference is how God dealt with the sin. The punishment changed with the change in covenants. Jesus said,
Matthew 5:17-18 (NASB)
17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Where do you see the requirements of the Law of Moses/Mosaic Law in effect after AD 70??? You don't. The Mosaic Covenant was abolished.
The Book of Hebrews, evidently written before AD 70 had this to say:
Hebrews 8:13 (NASB)
13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
The covenant that was ready to disappear when the author of Hebrews wrote (many believe the author was Paul based on similarities of writing style, although knowing who the author is was not deemed essential) was the Old Covenant/Mosaic Covenant. The author continual compares what is, the Mosaic Covenant or the OT covenant system and economy with Christ and with what was shortly to come. There was a transition in covenants taking place between AD 30 and AD 70. God gave that generation 40 years to repent before He abolished that OT covenant Hebrews 3-4).
The penalty of sin is death by whatever means decreed. We all die physically. Israel was a theocracy. They lived under God's rules that He purposed for the culture they lived in. They are also an example and instruction to us regarding His holiness and presence.
Yes or no: is it ever okay to kill another person according to the ten commandments. "For the culture they lived in" once AGAIN undermines your contention that the biblical moral code is good for all time, all people, all culture.
Killing an innocent person (i.e., murder) - no, never okay. Thus, the biblical command or mandate states it is never okay to kill (murder, or intentionally and maliciously kill) an innocent person. That law has never changed for humanity.
They are both sinful but taking God's name in vain, IMO, is showing much more disrespect for your Maker since the first command is to worship God and serve only Him. Loving God and following His commands (in a perfect world) would not result in rape or any other sin.
You really think raping someone is a morally superior act to saying "god damn you" to the person who raped you?? Raping an ACTUAL PERSON? I want to give you a chance to retract this inanity. PLEASE rethink your stance here. It's ludicrous.
Raping someone is never condoned by God but condemned by Him. Where do you keep getting the idea that it is okay or morally superior to cursing God's name? They are both wrong but the one stems from the other. Once you lessen the value of God you lessen the value of others for every human being is created in the image and likeness of God. That is why Jesus said that loving God is the first and most important commandment and all others flow from it. If you love God how could you rape someone created in the image and likeness of God since God forbids it for moral and righteous reasons?
Not in God's sight. Again, you misunderstand ANE culture and the biblical standard. What Israel did and what God commanded are not always the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
What makes more sense: that it was designed to happen, to rip two galaxies consisting of hundreds of billions of stars and planets to shreds by smashing them together, when no human will ever be around to see it...or that it's just going to happen regardless because that's how gravity, momentum and a bunch of other invisible equations work?
It makes sense that if it was designed to happen for some reason the Designer knows the reason and has provided for this in His purpose.
What makes more sense, that mindless, chance happenstance caused laws and principles we discover, (such as the LAW of gravity that you mentioned), to explains this randomness or that there is a mind behind it?
The answer: A mind behind it, of course. There is no sense without a Mind behind it. S _ _ t happens for no reason if there is no intent or purpose. But that is not what you see. You derive and witness purpose in everything or else you would not be able to describe the hows and whys, it would be random and science would not be possible.
"Laws" generally speaking, have a lawgiver yet it is assumed (and presupposed) by most materialists and naturalists that there is no lawgiver behind these natural laws.What does it actually demonstrate regarding how these laws came to be? It is presupposed then the naturalistic worldview builds its premises to fit. The abnomities as pushed aside.It demonstrates to us that a Mind is more reasonable to believe in the formation of laws than blind chance happenstance since there is no reason behind an unintentional process (just fluke) and no reason that anything would be sustained since there is no purpose for its being sustained.Why would a mindless process be sustainable and why do we have this uniformity in nature? Make sense of why mindless processes sustain anything. Again, you assume they can.I'm not going to explain what presupposition is, again.
Again, every worldview presupposes its core beliefs and builds from those beliefs.
Again, your worldview does not have an answer to make sense so it excuses the question.
Your ridiculous 'et tu quoque" aside, starting at a neutral position is NOT the same as presupposing a magic being.
You ASSUME any position is neutral. It is not. Your position or a naturalistic one is magical in itself. Nothing created something and sustains something for no reason.
My argument makes every attempt to deal with the issues of origins, existence, and morality by comparing and contrasting what one finds with both Creator versus chance.
There is no neutral position. Either the universe is here by materialistic, natural causes or it has a supernatural Creator.
Magic being? I do not see God in this manner and the Bible does not reveal Him in this manner.
I don't know why the universe's laws sustain as they do. I just know they do, otherwise we woudln't be here.
Precisely my point - you don't know yet you reject God as a reasonable explanation and you reject any reasonable explanation because blind indifferent chance processes (fluke random chance happenings) lacks reason.
You have not 'made sense' of their sustaining, either. I still don't know what "make sense of" means, and I think you don't either. You're not making sense of it. You're assigning an unseen, undemonstrable cause. I've even asked you to demonstrate what you think 'making sense' of it means. You don't.
I can make sense of it - an intentional Being sustains it by His will.
Colossians 1:17
He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
I look at the unlikelihood of the contrary (many would say the impossibility of the contrary, but I'm watering it down so you don't flip out). My worldview is a reasonable deduction. You would have to start with the same presupposition of what is the most reasonable, and there is no reasonableness there with your worldview foundations.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present the classic argument from personal incredulity.
Which applies to your argument just as easily. You don't know nor can you offer a logical defence of your worldview yet you pontificate how things must have been via a process devoid of intelligence, being solely random chance happenstance (i.e., "I don't know why the universe's laws sustain as they do. I just know they do, otherwise we wouldn't be here."). Your view of things cannot make sense of itself. This has been my claim all along, yet you cling to this irrationality with incredulity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Intentionality is only possible with conscious being. The biblical God is revealed as such a Being. A rock lacks intention. It can't plan or purpose anything. It has no agency to do so. With evolution, there is no intent for anything to survive. It just happens. We deem those who do survive and pass on their genes the strong and fit yet it is not the purpose of evolution for this to happen. The Big Bang did not have the intent to bring the universe into existence. With a materialistic worldview, the universe just happened. There is no intent to sustain itself. It just happens. Go figure?This is not any attempt to demonstrate intent.
What is "intent"?
Definition of intent
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a: the act or fact of intending : PURPOSE especially : the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act admitted wounding him with intent
b: the state of mind with which an act is done : VOLITION
2: a usually clearly formulated or planned intention : AIMthe director's intent
3a: MEANING, SIGNIFICANCE
b: CONNOTATION sense 3
intent
adjective
Definition of intent (Entry 2 of 2)
1: directed with strained or eager attention : CONCENTRATED
2: having the mind, attention, or will concentrated on something or some end or purpose
So, to demonstrate intent you would have to demonstrate conscious intelligent being. That is what a personal Creator demonstrates. Blind indifferent unintelligent chance processes do not. You could also demonstrate the likelihood of purpose as opposed to chance is showing what appears to be purposeful.
Saying a rock lacks intention is something I agree with you on, then describing your take on evolution and the big bang is just dodging the question.
No, it is not.
The question for both origins and evolution is how (there is no "why" to it in a universe devoid of an intentional being creating it) a random chance, a blind process without intent can cause sustainability and uniformity? Since evolution and a chance universe (a materialistic or humanistic worldview that does not look to God/gods) is not my worldview I will expect you to answer this how question. I believe your answer will plead ignorance.
Can you or can you not DEMONSTRATE INTENT in the universe as it is? You can identify it in humanity but where and how did it come to be? It involves the arrival of consciousness. How does the conscious come from that devoid of it?
Again, what is necessary for intent - a necessary intelligent Being. I point to God creating the universe to be inhabited by humans, who are made in His image and likeness (thus intentional and an explanation of intent). His intent or purpose is that we have volition and that we may know Him and have a loving relationship with Him. So, His intent and purpose are that we also are intentional and purposeful.
Psalm 19:1
[ The Works and the Word of God. ] [ For the choir director. A Psalm of David. ] The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
The universe declares knowledge, information, intent, purpose.
Psalm 8:4
What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him?
From a Christian perspective, the universe does show design and this world does show that it was made for us, thus God was mindful of us (intent).
If the answer is no, just say no. Demonstrating intent would look like "I know the universe is built specifically to accomplish [THIS PURPOSE], because [EVIDENCE]." If the answer is you don't know what it's built to accomplish, then I have to wonder how you come by INTENT honestly.See above.
I have given you the answer. An intelligent Being (Creator) would demonstrate intent and purpose and we continue to see these signs in our universe.
I've asked this of you before and you never answered: what is the INTENT of crashing the Andromeda Galaxy in the Milky Way in hundreds of millions of years?
Again, from what we as humans know it seems to be the case so I can say that I don't know other than to display the glory and majesty of God by what He has made, thus we are in awe of the universe and are aware of this possible crash.
It's going to happen, mathematically. We won't be here to see it happen (I mean humans).
Again, your presupposition, not mine, based on the information currently available by the human finite mind.
What's the intent of the design then?
The design was marred by sin which brought the judgment and the flaw. God put decay, death and destruction into the big picture and separated humanity from Himself so that they would not physically live forever. He barred them from the tree of life as a consequence of sin and set about the world of relativism when humanity became the authority instead of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WisdomofAges
The ABRAHAMIC GODS are a JOKE...used to incite FEAR - INTIMIDATION - VIOLENCE all 3 are human INVENTIONS and are WORTHLESS............The TRUTH revealed.....but YOU ......PGA2.0................can't handle the TRUTH..........your BRAIN is saturated with BIBLE VERSE VOMITand Church brainwashing DOGMA....YOU are a slave to a Comic Book Story HOAX....as children are when they are exposed to Santa Claus...and become convinced they must OBEY the RULES in order to receive the GIFTS they DESIRE...this FORMULA for HYPNOSIS PSYCHOSISto accept what is told to them as FACT...is eventually understood by the child as a CLEVER HOAX....to teach them how to OBEY and be rewardedfor doing so....it's a simple technique = OBEY or be PUNISHED and SUFFER....this is the foundation of the JEW - JESUS - ALLAH GOD garbageThis FORMULA of OBEY or be PUNISHED is used by the Middle East JEW - JESUS - ALLAH Parasite VAMPIRE preachers who act like a GOD and through clever MIND CONTROL STRATEGIES dumb down the children and adults to accept their asinine GOD - Bible / Koran / Torah Comic Book VOMIT as an absolute TRUTH....Why then are 3 GODS needed ? 3 GODS remain from the thousands before them invented and worshipped in the middle East ?and what of all the other GODS humans invented and worship around the world in the PAST and PRESENT TIMES ?Oh RIGHT, according to the pathetic BRAINWASHED and DUMBED DOWN ......PGA2.0.......who is incapable of independent thought and reasoningall must accept his / her ? idiotic version of some comic Book Bible VOMIT and the GOD attached to it or forever be WRONG and CONDEMNED toHELL ! what a FOOL.....to believe this horrifically childish and OBSOLETE Cartoon GOD character = JEW - JESUS - ALLAH invented by old menin a long gone and absurdly IGNORANT era of humanity...whose only purpose was to assimilate and enslave weak minded humans int some idiotic CULTso the old men could play GOD with them ! what a JOKE....the ABRAHAMIC Jew - Jesus - Allah GOD hoaxes PROVE beyond any doubt how TRULY STUPID the masses of humanity are...so easily manipulated into slavery and servitude of an invisible SUPER BEING who itself is to FCKG LAZY to actually show up and guide its own idiotichuman creation from exterminating itself ! because his own creation does not believe he exist so they create other GODS ....!Like, HEY Joe...YOUR GOD SUCKS...let's create a new GOD and call it BETTY .....OK Joe said....and then we can go back to KINDERGARTENclass and make all the other kids OBEY our NEW GOD...BETTY ! or else we will tell them they will be expelled from school if they don't accept.......COOL ! Joe said.....now I to can PLAY GOD and make the other kids OBEY ME...because I am BETTY's Prophet...! Prophet Joe in the nameof "GOD BETTY" all must OBEY....Kneel for BETTY...beg for forgiveness...for YOU have SINNED and "BETTY" is angry with YOU....repent...CONFESS your CRIME of even existing as a SINNER...now fall on the floor and shake for "GOD BETTY" to prove your loyalty....then OBEY mePROPHET JOE....for only I am the speaker of GOD BETTY....all rise...and bow to me Prophet JOE....your guide and MASTER to all things "BETTY"OBEY....or be PUNISHED and SUFFER....so says "GOD BETTY" and I Prophet Jow will carry out all punishment...as it is written in the NEWERTESTAMENT.....the word of "GOD BETTY" the BETTY BIBLE....all kneel and thank Lord "BETTY" for this gift...the BETTY BIBLE" of verse VOMITfor all to LIVE and DIE by...............The Abrahamic GOD garbage is nothing more than a TROJAN HORSE PLOY used to assimilate truly STUPID humans into slavery of someidiotic JEW - JESUS - ALLAH GOD invented CULT .....truly the HELL on this EARTH these Parasite VAMPIRES are who fabricated this 3 GODgarbage hoax and the idiots that are HYPNOTIZED and FOLLOW this crap to their GRAVES...
A mad rave that makes me wonder how you could be taken as credible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
We have intentionality that is necessary for sustaining life and the universe. With blind indifferent chance happenstance, why do we see consistency and uniformity in nature (i.e., unchanging universal laws that govern the universe)?Please demonstrate the intentionality and give your best guess as to the AIM of this intention.
Intentionality is only possible with conscious being. The biblical God is revealed as such a Being. A rock lacks intention. It can't plan or purpose anything. It has no agency to do so. With evolution, there is no intent for anything to survive. It just happens. We deem those who do survive and pass on their genes the strong and fit yet it is not the purpose of evolution for this to happen. The Big Bang did not have the intent to bring the universe into existence. With a materialistic worldview, the universe just happened. There is no intent to sustain itself. It just happens. Go figure?
My answer to your question is "that's how the laws of physics work." THis is demonstrable.
"Laws" generally speaking, have a lawgiver yet it is assumed (and presupposed) by most materialists and naturalists that there is no lawgiver behind these natural laws.
What does it actually demonstrate regarding how these laws came to be? It is presupposed then the naturalistic worldview builds its premises to fit. The abnomities as pushed aside.
Why would a mindless process be sustainable and why do we have this uniformity in nature? Make sense of why mindless processes sustain anything. Again, you assume they can.
Please demonstrate how you came up with intent.
I look at the unlikelihood of the contrary (many would say the impossibility of the contrary, but I'm watering it down so you don't flip out). Try on a practical level rolling the same number repeatedly on a dice a million or a billion times. Now try fixing the dice so that the numerical results (intentional). Which is more likely in sustaining the same number - you intentionally fixing the dice or by them spontaneously turning us that number. Van Til put it this way:
It is the Christian's contention that all non-Christian worldviews are beset with internal contradictions, as well as with beliefs which do not render logic, science or ethics intelligible. On the other hand, the Christian worldview (taken from God's self-revelation in Scripture) demands our intellectual commitment because it does provide the preconditions of intelligibility for man's reasoning, experience, and dignity."
THEN DEMONSTRATE IT WAS JESUS. Good grief man.
I can give you good reasons but you are not open. What you do with the reasons it is another matter. Right now I am banging my head against a wall in dialogue with you because your worldview opposes Christianity and you are not willing to listen.
First, do you believe it reasonable to believe Jesus wrote about in the NT was a historical person?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
We have a source to base morality on that is not changing and relative, based on shifting human standards.So is it okay to stone someone for wearing clothes of mixed fabric? Was it ever?
Stoning was the consequences of sin.
Again, it was a teaching of the Mosaic Covenant and it was used by God to teach ancient Israel (who lived in a different culture and times) some important truths that God is holy and they should be true in their relationship to Him. He demonstrates sin has consequences.
Should a woman who turns out not to be a virgin be stoned in front of her dad's house? It was clearly okay in the bible, is it okay now?
Why was a woman stoned to death? It was for unfaithfulness and sexual promiscuity.
Again, we do not live in a Mosaic Covenant era. We, as Christians, live by the grace and mercy of God in Christ Jesus!
There were reasons for these commands related to the culture of the times (see ANE cultures and laws). These people were to understand the holiness of God and what it means to live in a covenant relationship (symbolic of marriage). It signifies to Christians a greater truth, our relationship to Jesus Christ, as does all of Scripture. God does not want us to compromise that relationship. Thus, the penalty for adultery or sexual immorality was death. There are various warnings of adultery in the NT.
Glenn Miller of the Christian Think Tank has written extensively on the subject of ANE cultures in relation to the Bible. You can find some of his articles on slavery, rape, and other issues that include stoning on the website that explains it far better for anyone interested. Not only is the biblical standard explained but so are other ANE cultures examined.
Was it ever? Is it ever okay to kill another person according to the ten commandments?
The penalty of sin is death by whatever means decreed. We all die physically. Israel was a theocracy. They lived under God's rules that He purposed for the culture they lived in. They are also an example and instruction to us regarding His holiness and presence.
What's more important: not taking the lord's name in vain, or not raping someone?
They are both sinful but taking God's name in vain, IMO, is showing much more disrespect for your Maker since the first command is to worship God and serve only Him. Loving God and following His commands (in a perfect world) would not result in rape or any other sin.
Is it ever okay to rape the women of a conquered army? Is it ever okay to sell a daughter into sex slavery? Was it ever okay?
Not in God's sight. Again, you misunderstand ANE culture and the biblical standard. What Israel did and what God commanded are not always the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
My version? I point to the biblical revelation. If you can prove I misrepresent that text then you win your case.So you're saying that in order to DISbelieve in something, it's incumbent upon the person to DISprove whatever that something is?
My answer was in reference to your statement, "Can you please explain existence making sense only if your version of God is in it?"
What is knowledge? Van Til (as quoted in my last reply to Secularmerlin) explains knowledge as justified true belief. You questioned my view of God, or as you expressed it, "your version." So my answer is in context to "your version."
If so, how did you disprove any single other god besides the one in the bible in order to choose to believe in him?
I would do so by showing the logical inconsistency of such belief, the very thing I do with atheism. I get them to trip over their own belief system in showing its inconsistencies and on how they borrow from my Christian belief system in making sense of reality.
Thus, every belief system has points of contention that I use to undermine it. I do not believe that Christianity does when rightly discerned since I believe the revelation is from an omniscient, objective, wise Being, not a subjective, relative position that is always shifting.
Do you really not understand why this is not how truth works? If you are making a claim ("THIS ONE GOD EXISTS" in this case), it's incumbent on you to provide the evidence supporting it. You've never done so. Maybe this time you will?
I have tried to open the discussion to such reasoning. You are not willing. Thus, there is no point in further discussion until it becomes a two-way discussion, a give and take.
Were Jerusalem and the temple destroyed in AD 70? Is this reasonable to believe?
Is it reasonable to believe from the evidence available that the OT was written before the fall?
Is it reasonable to believe that the curses of Deuteronomy 28 were applied to the Jews in AD 70?
Is it reasonable to believe that the Messiah was prophesied to come to a people in Mosaic Covenant relationship to God?
Is it reasonable to believe that the prophets give Israel warning of coming judgment by God?
Is it reasonable to believe that the Old Mosaic Covenant can no longer be lived as agreed to in Exodus 24:3,7 by Israel and commanded by God?
No, I ask how you derive existence from an unintentional and purposeless happenstance and how you make sense of it. If you choose a god of some kind I ask you to explain that god and if it makes sense.I gave you the example of the classical pantheon. Your response was basically "But they're not real like my god is, so it's not real." I've explained why it makes more sense than your god, too. You also said "Yeah but Jesus isn't in your story, so that's a problem." I await your detailed and evidence based refutation. Let me guess, the bible says the bible's true. In this case, I say the pantheon is real, therefore it's on you to prove it isn't, and my saying it's real is evidence that it's real.
My defence is the Christian faith, not some other religious belief. Give me specifics if you want to discuss another "god." Show me how they compare to the biblical God.
How do you make sense of the universe if there is no purpose to it?This question makes no sense to me. I don't understand what "make sense of the universe" means. I look forward to you explaining how you "make sense of" it, in some future post I'm sure, so I can compare what you're saying with this question and then try to answer to it. I also do not understand "purpose" in this context. Please clarify.
It means how do you make sense of why we are here from your worldview perspective? You build a whole philosophy of life excluding God so how does your belief system account for the universe?
Is there a cause to the universe? If so, what is that cause? (Please answer these three questions before we continue)I've answered these multiple times now. Don't know, don't know. So in order, don't understand your question, don't know, don't know.\
Precisely my point. You don't know but you exclude the biblical God as making sense of it. How do you know?
We find life coming from a living and necessary personal Being.Defining something as necessary is not demonstrating it as such.
It makes more sense than something not coming from being. Demonstrate "something" coming from non-being (and included in the something is living beings).
Next, show me where you EVER witness something living coming from something that is not living.
You've also said life can only come from life, so I'm curious where the life in this being would have come from (I'll save you the time: it came from the font of Special Pleading).
Again, it is a logical and reasonable inference. Do you understand that?
I've said that life coming from the living is something I can understand for it is something I witness and understand. It is not inconsistent with observance. I have also said that NECESSARY Being, transcendent Being of which neither you nor I am.
Oddly though, 900 responses later, you are STILL MISSING THE POINT OF THIS THREAD. The thread grants the above condition. The challenge is to get from here, which is deism, to your Jesus. Your lack of attempt here is telling.
And I have said that prophecy is evidence for it is based in history. I have also asked you to explain it by other means other than God and you keep saying you don't know, you have no idea. I have challenged you to make sense of it without this necessary Being. You keep telling me you can't. So, you are welcome to your belief system. It sucks but to each his own. Some people will always come up with another "what if" for the very reason that they don't want to believe, as the Bible points out. That is between you and God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Van Til expressed it this way:
"Whose perspective is intellectually justified, the Christian's or the non-Christian's? Many budding Christian apologists approach the answer to this question in a very simplistic and naive fashion, thinking that all we have to do is go look at the observable evidence and see whose hypothesis is verified. "After all," it is thought, "this is how we resolve disagreements in our ordinary affairs, as well as in science."[2] If a dispute arises over the price of eggs at the store, we can jump in the car, drive down to the market, and go look for ourselves at the price listed on the eggs. If scientists disagree over the claim that smoking causes cancer, they can run tests, do statistical comparisons, etc. In such cases, it seems that what we do, at base, is "look and see" if one hypothesis or its opposite is true. Of course, disagreements such as these can be readily resolved in this fashion only because the two people who disagree nevertheless agree with each other regarding more basic assumptions - such as the reliability of their senses, the uniformity of natural events, the accuracy of data reporting, the honesty of researchers, etc.
However, when the dispute is over more fundamental issues, as it is between believers and unbelievers, simple appeals to observational evidence need not be decisive at all. The reason is that a person's most fundamental beliefs (or presuppositions) determine what he or she will accept as evidence and determine how that evidence will be interpreted. Let me illustrate. Naturalism and supernaturalism are conflicting outlooks regarding the world in which we live and man's knowledge of it. The naturalist claims that what is studied by empirical science[3] is all that there is to reality, and that every event can (in principle) be explained without resorting to forces outside the scope of man's experience or outside the universe. Christian supernaturalism, on the other hand, believes that there is a transcendent and all-powerful God who can intervene in the universe and perform miracles which cannot be explained by the ordinary principles of man's natural experience. Now then, having well-accredited reports of a "miraculous" event is not in itself sufficient to change the mind of the naturalist - and for good reason. The naturalist's presuppositions will require him to dispute the claim that such an event really occurred, or alternatively, will lead him to say that the event is subject to a natural explanation once we learn more about it. Simple evidence need not dislodge his naturalistic approach to all things - any more than simple eye-ball evidence could ever in itself refute the Hindu conviction that everything about man's temporal experience is Maya (illusion). Our presuppositions about the nature of reality and knowledge will control what we accept as evidence and how we view it.[4]
Everybody has what can be called a "worldview," a perspective in terms of which they see everything and understand their perceptions and feelings. A worldview is a network of related presuppositions in terms of which every aspect of man's knowledge and awareness is interpreted. This worldview, as explained above, is not completely derived from human experience, nor can it be verified or refuted by the procedures of natural science. Not everybody reflects explicitly upon the content of his worldview or is consistent in maintaining it, but everybody has one nonetheless. A person's worldview clues him as to the nature, structure and origin of reality. It tells him what are the limits of possibility. It involves a view of the nature, sources and limits of human knowledge. It includes fundamental convictions about right and wrong. One's worldview says something about who man is, his place in the universe, and the meaning of life, etc. Worldviews determine our acceptance and understanding of events in human experience, and thus they play the crucial role in our interpreting of evidence or in disputes over conflicting fundamental beliefs.[5]
We saw above that apologetics, in the nature of the case, involves argumentation over the justification of belief or rejection of belief. And what we have just observed is that one's treatment of the issue of justification of belief will be governed by his underlying worldview or presuppositions. Effective apologetics necessarily leads us to challenge and debate the unbeliever at the level his most basic commitments or assumptions about reality, knowledge and ethics. Our approach to defending the faith is shallow and ineffective if we think that the unbeliever simply lacks information or needs to be given observational evidence.[6]
The Bible teaches us that the mental and spiritual perspectives of believers and unbelievers differ radically from each other. In principle, and according to what they profess, the basic worldviews - the fundamental presuppositions - of the Christian and non-Christian conflict with each other at every point."
The Bible teaches us that the mental and spiritual perspectives of believers and unbelievers differ radically from each other. In principle, and according to what they profess, the basic worldviews - the fundamental presuppositions - of the Christian and non-Christian conflict with each other at every point."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Prophecy is a vehicle that gives reason to believe the Bible because prophecy is supported by historyI have already explained why I remain dubious about prophecy after the fact, prophetic interpretations and also why even a bona fied prophecy is not evidence of your proposition. Do you have a secind best argument?
Well, there are so many, but I always come back to three basic arguments - 1) prophecy, 2) morality, 3) existence/origins (and making sense of them).
I never claimed to have such an explanation I simply do not accept yours.Exactly, you can't make sense of it within your worldview.Which whether true or false does not obligate me to accept your claims without any sufficient demonstration and I'm not sure how you would go about demonstrating any being that exists outside our local space-time universe
No, you don't have to accept them and how could I ever convince someone who does not want to be convinced? That is the question and I will not delude myself that I can do that (only God can). What I can do, however, is challenge your worldview and understanding as to how what you believe is possible when you get to the nuts and bolts of your belief system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Can you please explain existence making sense only if your version of God is in it?
My version? I point to the biblical revelation. If you can prove I misrepresent that text then you win your case.
I think you just say "because God's there" in essence, which literally explains nothing.
No, I ask how you derive existence from an unintentional and purposeless happenstance and how you make sense of it. If you choose a god of some kind I ask you to explain that god and if it makes sense.
I think you're confusing purpose (which I'd say is 'making sense' in this case) with cause (god's magic).
How do you make sense of the universe if there is no purpose to it?
Is there a cause to the universe? If so, what is that cause? (Please answer these three questions before we continue)
From the biblical God, we find what is logical and reasonable to believe.
We find life coming from a living and necessary personal Being.
We have a source to base morality on that is not changing and relative, based on shifting human standards.
We have intentionality that is necessary for sustaining life and the universe. With blind indifferent chance happenstance, why do we see consistency and uniformity in nature (i.e., unchanging universal laws that govern the universe)?
So, with God, we find what is necessary to make sense of existence, morality, origins.
And you've said the prophecy makes no difference to your belief in god, so why bother using that as a reason to convince anyone else? If it makes no difference to you and you believe, how on earth could it sway anyone who DOESN'T already believe?
I use it because it is an evidence God has given and I see it as evidence that is hard to refute with logic and reason because prophecy is based in history (His-Story).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I suggest you try explaining existence without God and see where you get in making sense of anything.Shifting the burden of proof.
I'm just pointing out that every worldview tries to make sense of existence but only one can. Prophecy is a vehicle that gives reason to believe the Bible because prophecy is supported by history that is reasonable and logical to believe. But you and others will not engage in this discussion. You keep falsely stating that there is no evidence for the biblical God and that is why I keep inviting you guys to engage yet you keep squirming out of the discussion.
I never claimed to have such an explanation I simply do not accept yours.
Exactly, you can't make sense of it within your worldview.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WisdomofAges
The ABRAHAMIC GODS are a JOKE...used to incite FEAR - INTIMIDATION - VIOLENCE all 3 are human INVENTIONS and WORTHLESS...When these absurd Comic Book Characters actually REVEAL THEMSELVES to humanity...then MAYBE there will be UNITY....the TRUTHhowever is all 3 Abrahamic GODS are human FABRICATIONS...twisted and spun into new versions of older no longer relevant GODS ?How is it that all the other GODS humans invented are NO LONGER VIABLE ? oh right....just accept some new comic book version of a GODas FACT and OBEY...this is the STUFF of TRULY PSYCHOTIC RETARDS....even the POPES are trashed..come and go like the GODS theyserve ! what a JOKE....Time for HUMANITY to rid EARTH of these 3 stooge Abrahamic GOD hoaxes.....What of the Billion CHINESE who spit on these 3 GOD FOOLS ? and the Billion INDIANS also...and a BILLION other HUMANS who understandthat these 3 GOD hoaxes are used for WAR...DEATH...DESTRUCTION ....not enlightenment and wellness....oh right they are ALL GOING TO HELLNo the JEW - JESUS - ALLAH GOD sheeple drone slaves are the HELL on this EARTH...hypnotized to murder all who do not accept and OBEYtheir idiotic GOD spin....everyone LOSES...Choose the JEW GOD...and the CHRISTIAN and MUSLIM both CONDEMN YOUChoose the JESUS .......and the JEW and MUSLIM CONDEMN YOUChoose the ALLAH........and the CHRISTIAN and JEW CONDEMN YOUWhat a CROCK OF SHT all 3 of these GOD hoaxes are....look at the Middle East RESULT......thousands of years and Billions MURDERED...They are TRULY HELL on this EARTH and must be reduced to MYTHOLOGY for mindless people....who can pray and drown in the DOGMAattached to these idiot GODS...but NEVER TO CAUSE HARM in their names EVER AGAIN...off to the Comic book shelf...JEW - JESUS - ALLAHGOD garbage HOAXES....
Says who, you? Big bloody deal! Who are you to pontificate what is and is not? Why would I believe what you have to say as you mascarade as the "Wisdom of Ages?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I see you as the one who is not being reasonable in seeing history is evidence that verifies prophetic claims.Oddly no matter how many times I point out that prophe y is insufficient to prove your claim you double down and just keep saying the same thing. I've even explained why it is irrelevant (there is no way to establish it's source beyond a reasonable doubt to say nothing of being able to test for said source scientifically) now please let's move on from your irrelevant red herring. Please. No really, please.
I see you as unreasonable in accounting for existence without God.
I suggest you try explaining existence without God and see where you get in making sense of anything.
I invite you to examine the possibilities of existence, morality, and origins. Make sense of them with an atheistic worldview or a worldview that denies the biblical God and see how you do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Hello everyone,- Anyone wishes to debate on the topic of Islam? Anything that relates to Islam, in religion, or scripture, or law, or theology, or spirituality, or tradition, or history...etc. If you do not wish to debate the subject, you are welcome to discuss it in this thread. All questions or objections are welcome.
I would just like to say that I enjoy watching Turkish TV series such as Resurrection Ertugrul https://www.netflix.com/ca/title/80127001, What Happens To My Family (Baba Candir - turkish drama | turkish (very funny), and Kurt Sejik and Sura https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Seyit_ve_%C5%9Eura.
Although we share much in common regarding religious values (and I appreciate this) I still believe your religion largely borrows from Christianity and misrepresents it in various ways. I think you would agree that one of us is wrong in our belief and I would argue that it is your belief. If I find the time I would like to delve into a few of your comments posted in this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
PS, I did not realize you had responded because you did not direct the post at me. I was just scrolling down to see what was new and came across your post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If you don't have such an explanation then how do you argue that the Christian God is not the most reasonable explanation?I do not claim that ANY explanation is more reasonable than any other. You have claimed that one explanation is more reasonable but you have not provided any SUFFICIENT evidence that this is the case.
Was Jerusalem and the temple prophesied to be destroyed before it happened?
Were they destroyed in AD 70?
Does not the OT provide a constant warning to these people that if they did not turn from idols to God He would judge them?
Were the curses of Deuteronomy 28 experienced by these people in AD 70? Josephus, among others, describes them taking place in AD 70.
Was the OT taken out of the way with a new covenant as per Jeremiah 31:27-40?
Can Jews still follow the letter of the Mosaic Law as stipulated in the Torah?
Was the promised Messiah prophesied to come to a people in Mosaic covenant relationship with God?
Were these people looking for the promised Messiah?
Did Jesus meet the prophetic message of the OT?
I could go on and on but is there historical EVIDENCE that these things happened, as prophesied?
Is it reasonable to believe any of these prophecies? Yes, or no, and explain why. Let us see if your answer reflects the history that we know and that is reasonable to believe. Go ahead!
I claimI do not care what you claim.
That is obvious. You can't explain something to someone who does not want to listen to the explanation.
Only what you can prove.
Again, what kind of proof would you accept? This is the problem we get into when two worldviews conflict and that is why Jesus said,
He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
He who has ears, let him hear.”
For the heart of this people has become dull, With their ears they scarcely hear, And they have closed their eyes, Otherwise they would see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, And understand with their heart and return, And I would heal them.’
But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.
Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.
So, what I am saying is that any evidence I present you will reject because you have explained above (see your underlined first statement) that you do not wish to understand it and weigh its logic and reasoning. I have been shut down from presenting the evidence and its reasonableness.
Indeed before you can use ANY PART OF THE BIBLE as evidence you must prove that the SPECIFIC PASSAGE being used is not simply a man made claim. The bible is USELESS AS EVIDENCE unless you can demonstrate that it is more than a claim. If you have no evidence to present that both extrabiblical and non-testimonial in nature (PHYSICAL EVIDENCE) then there is no reason to continue this disussion.And how would you do that (underlined)?I honestly don't think that you can.
Therefore, with anything I present (whether logical and reasonable or not) you will find fault.
You've been trying for awhile now and you don't even seem to understand why you need evidence for your claim.
You deny the evidence and shut it down. Again, was Jerusalem and the temple destroyed in AD 70? Was this predicted in detail in the OT and written down hundreds of years before it happened (is that reasonable to believe based on the evidence available?)?
You may have noticed (or not) but I have challenged yours and other worldviews to make sense of the universeI have noticed. The simple truth however is that even if EVERY OTHER WORLD VIEW PROPOSED BY HUMANS IS WRONG that does not make yours right.
Does it give a reasonable and logical explanation for our existence and the origin of the universe as opposed to blind, indifferent, mindless, chance happenstance that a worldview devoid of God would have to believe? Can your worldview make sense of existence and origins? I claim it can't. So, you are welcome to believe nonsense if you like but don't categorize my worldview is with yours.
No problem. We all make mistakes! I just wanted to make sure I got your meaning. I think I may be a little dyslexic too. Either that or careless. I use Grammarly to correct my mistakes.I appreciate your patience in this matter
It is no problem. I just wanted to make sure I was understanding you correctly. If you have questions with my statements please do not hesitate to find clarity by questioning them.
And I thank you for engaging!You are welcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Just to be clear it DOES NOT MATTER if I have an alternative explanation or not.
If you don't have such an explanation then how do you argue that the Christian God is not the most reasonable explanation?
Even if I provide NO ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION you must still prove your position and before you can use any prophecy as evidence of some god(s) you MUST SHOW that said prophecy was from the god(s) in question.
All the proof in the world is not enough for some people. They would refuse to believe because they want autonomy. If there is a God then we are responsible and obligated to Him. This is not a pleasant thought for most people because of sin.
I can provide a reasonable and logical defense of my faith. I claim that other faiths cannot. I claim that the Christian faith can make sense of things. I claim other faiths run into logical inconsistencies in both how they live within the boundaries of that particular faith (i.e., practically/application) and in theory (how they explain that faith).
Indeed before you can use ANY PART OF THE BIBLE as evidence you must prove that the SPECIFIC PASSAGE being used is not simply a man made claim. The bible is USELESS AS EVIDENCE unless you can demonstrate that it is more than a claim. If you have no evidence to present that both extrabiblical and non-testimonial in nature (PHYSICAL EVIDENCE) then there is no reason to continue this disussion.
And how would you do that (underlined)?
You and others don't seem to understand that what the Bible says is verified by other means in many instances. And where it is not the question of whose authority is correct in its assessment is another matter. You tend to believe your highest authority. Let me put it this way for you, if God exists then there is no higher authority I can appeal to. So the question becomes what kind of evidence does the "claims" in the Bible present to the reader? History is one such evidence. Another is making sense of a worldview. How logically consistent is it. You may have noticed (or not) but I have challenged yours and other worldviews to make sense of the universe, life, morality, and a whole host of other issues from within the framework of your/their particular worldview and still be consistent with that worldview. I don't think it can be done. I keep seeing people saying they can't be sure. Well, what is necessary for surety? Is it your subjective mind operating within the confines of your subjective experience? I know it is not mine that determines surety in and of itself.
On a separate note I apologize for my poor grammar and spelling. I am dyslexic and my disability is far more apparent in this medium than if we were simply conversing.
No problem. We all make mistakes! I just wanted to make sure I got your meaning. I think I may be a little dyslexic too. Either that or careless. I use Grammarly to correct my mistakes.
As always thank you for the conversation.
And I thank you for engaging!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Realization of what - the universe is here via random chance happenstance? How does that make sense of origin?It doesn't have to make sense.
But so much of it does. In a random chance chaotic mindless universe, why do you suppose why we can make sense of so much?
If there is no intent behind the universe why do you suppose we find conformity and uniformity of nature - laws, principles that are discovered rather than invented. These laws and principles exist whether you or I do or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What does it demonstrate unless there is meaning behind it?Humans assign meaning. Nothing is intrinsically meaningful.
Are you sure? Again, your statement is self-defeating. Why should I take any moral meaning out of what you say if there is no intrinsic meaning, nothing to base meaning upon?
Is that unreasonable to believe?It is never reasonable to believe a claim without sufficient evidence.
Again, you keep presupposing and insinuating there is no reasonable or sufficient evidence which is pure nonsense.
If the other hypothesis has little to zero explanatory power - yes.That is irrelevant unless you prove your hypothesis.
Again, failure to explain the alternative is reasonable (over and over again)??? Give me your reasons if you do not first presuppose an almighty God.
I can only prove it is reasonable. The rest is up to you since I can't make you believe in something you do not want to believe in. That, in fact, is the message of Hebrews 11:6.If you think I am able to.just believe whatever I want then you are quite mistaken. Beliefs are not a choice they are a realization.
Realization of what - the universe is here via random chance happenstance? How does that make sense of origin?
the Big Bang is the cause of itself in that nothing caused something to exist which goes beyond reason, the universe is eternal, which begs the question of how we ever arrive at the present, or something or Someone caused the universe to exist), or God creation.Without evidence I don't see how you could ever determine which (if any) of these possibilities is actually the truth. I'm afraid that without further information I must rejectvall these hypotheses.
Yet you cling to an irrational belief. Go ahead then.
Again, if you want to offer an alternative to these I'm listening.It doesn't matter if I add one new possibility or one hundred or none. Without any sufficient evidence we cannot know which is correct even if we eliminate some of the possibilities.
Again, I am trying to establish if you have a reasonable and logical explanation or whether you deny God on purely irrational motives.
Why is your past experience something that is reliable in determining whether God exists or not or can be demonstrated as reasonable to believe?I cannot be certain. If however my past experiences cannot be used to learn then I cannot learn and this conversation is largely meaningless.
And when will you ever reach a conclusion that is reasonable and logical and gives sufficient meaning?
You are not a necessary being. Your existence did not cause my existence.If I do not exist there is no reason for me to believe that you exist. From my perspective your existence is contingent on my being real (something I accept but can never be objectively certain of). Prove that you exist independent of my perceptions of you independently of my perceptions of you.
Keep having this conversation with yourself!
My existence is not contingent on your you. I do not owe it to your belief.
Your existence does not mean that what you believe is right or good is actually "right" or "good."Right and good are subjective opinions not quantifiable facts one cannot measure rightness.
If there is no objective, absolute, universal standard that right is based on then there is no such thing. "Are you willing to go there," he asked? (as he reached for his gun).
Now, if you want to believe you are that necessary being and you are having a conversation with yourself because you made me up then so be it.I've already told you I am willing to accept that you exist provisionally and as a convenience. That will have to be good enough since I have no way of testing "reality" for realness.
Then don't bother checking both ways before you cross the street.
I could offer you my email and pictures of myself and my family if I did not cherish my privacy. Would that convince you or would you still think of me as a figment of your imagination? And if the pictures were not enough I could agree to meet you. Would that be enough? At what point would you be convinced I exist or is this conversation futile?
you cannot make sense of it with the worldview you currently hold.You still don't seem to understand. I don't believe humans can make sense of it.
Why SHOULD I value your subjective opinion on anything then? You are speaking nonsense if you have no way of making sense of it. You have zero means of making sense of existence then, yet you are here. That has been my claim all along. Your worldview cannot make sense of why we are here.
I accept not knowing (even if I'm not entirely satisfied with it) I don't have to lie to myself and pretend I have the right answer I'm comfortable with admittingthat I don't know. Dude get comfortable with it humans don't know mist stuff.
Just use your reason. Can a mindless, illogical, irrational, impersonal process make sense of anything? If not, then why would you look for your answers in such a process?
You would have to borrow from my Christian worldview to make sense of originsWhy would I borrow from a worldview that simply accepts claims with no sufficient physical evidence? That isn't making sense of origins it's guessing at them.
First, it has sufficient evidence for those (what you call) claims. Second, find a worldview that can make sense of it or be left with the realization that ultimately life has no meaning. If you want to believe, then don't live inconsistently with that assumption when someone cuts in line in front of you or steals your food or rapes a loved one - it just doesn't matter. To make it matter implies that there is intrinsic value. VALUE is a personal qualitative sense.
How can you KNOW something is right or wrong unless there is an absolute standard to measure right and wrong against? Do you just make it up and call it "right?" Be honest with yourself and try answering these questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If we eliminate these two arguments what is your third best argument?
You brought it up.
I can only give you a good reason to why.But can you though?
Yes, I can. It is reasonable. Without a Creator what is your answer to why we are here? It would have to be irrational, non-thinking, unintentional, random, chance happenstance, would it not? Answer that question.
If not, give another alternative.
Why can't God reveal Himself in the form of these writings?I suppose some god(s) could but if that is the case I'm not sure how to distinguish between the "true" godclaim and the thousands of "false" godclaims.
I'm not talking of some god, I'm speaking of a specific God. You continually shift the conversation away from this specific God to some other unknown and unknowable god or gods.
The biblical God is the only one I will defend as the true God. With any other god or gods I am in the same camp you are, so let me get this straight, I'm speaking of the biblical God.
They All have a similar level of evidence. The anecdotal experience of its followers and it's scriptural writings/recitations. I swear I am having virtually the same conversation with Yassine. "Oh allah explains everything and you can't explain anything therefore allah". Please don't bother telling me why you think Islam is incorrect by the way it doesn't matter. Islam being incorrect does not make you correct.
The underlined is not true.
Over and over, you prove you are not interested in this evidence by constantly shifting the goalposts and bringing in other gods.
why would all the evidence in the universe not confirm Him in some way?That's a good question especially since all the testable evidence only confirms mundane physics at work.
Which fails to answer the question of "why?" Science is insufficient to answer such questions. Neither are human beings in an of themselves.
prophecy is a claim that is confirmed by history. It is reasonable and logical to believe.Prophesy is an irrelevant red herring.
Rubbish. You will do everything you can to avoid the discussion, won't you?
Since you do not have trust in God that would be your requirement that you dictate to God. The biblical God continues to demonstrate to the believe His existence every day in what He has made and through His word.Are you saying that your claims cannot be demonstrated to me until I accept your claim? That is the definition of confirmation bias. You don't have to believe in gravity for me to demonstrate it to you.
I am saying that God reveals Himself to those who accept Him for who He is, not that He doesn't give evidence for whom He is or His existence. The universe speaks of His existence.
You can't have a conversation with a non-existent being unless you are insane. You first have to believe He exists before you can have that conversation with God. Why would you bother otherwise? If I wrote you a letter you would first have to believe that someone wrote it before you responded to it. By our correspondence, you would get to know more about me. If on the other hand, you denied someone had written the letter you would not be inclined to reply to it. That is the significance to Hebrews 11:6.
I have offered many times to show others that prophecy is reasonably confirmed in history.Prophecy is an irrelevant red herring.
Then it is pointless to discuss this any further. You are not open to discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
UNLESS there is a necessary BeingHow would any being change the subjective nature of the human condition? Even if your claim is correct objective certainty is still probably beyond human beings.
Only if an objective source has revealed truth in such matters. If not then I am in the same boat as you are, ignorant.
Again, I can only demonstrate to a logical and reasonable degree.Yeah but can you because you keep not doing.that.
You keep shutting me down. "Prove God and don't use the Bible 'claim' in your evidence."
Thus, there is evidence of biblical veracity.If we grant that some prophecy from the bible camectrye[??? - came to be?] that is at mist[??? - most?] evidence of the veracity of the particular prophecy under discussion but not necessarily any other part of the bible please understand this as I have said it again and again. Prophesy (true or not) is irrelevant to the other claims made by the bible.
I do not understand the words in relation to the context that I have put question marks behind.
Again, prophecy is one verification that what is said is correct and can be trusted.
The flaw is from human beings, not God. Satan is described as a liar and the father or all lies. Does that mean God lied? No, it does not. My claim is that what God says it true.Firstly this is just a one long bald assertion but it doesn't matter if your [you're (or you are)] right or not. Let's assume that the flaws in the bible are from humans. There are still flaws. Unless you have some way of determining thevfkawed [???] passages from those which are not flawed the rntire [???] bible is questionable.
It is a summary of biblical statements. It is TRUE that the Bible does state that Satan is a liar and father of all lies. It is true that the Bible states that God is truth and does not lie.
You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
He who has received His testimony has set his seal to this, that God is true.
This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, “That You may be justified in Your words, And prevail when You are judged.”
Prove these statements are not true or are you just making a bald assertion? I have offered to give evidence that you keep rejecting and shutting down. Thus, you have proven over and over that you are not open to discussion. Why should I continue to bang my head against a wall?
I have offered to give evidence and most atheists shut down the conversation because they are not interested in anything but their own talking points.So far your best "evidence" is that there may be an irrelevant prophecy in the document that makes the claim you are supporting even though you have admitted that the book may contain flaws and even though books can contain both true and false information.You also mentioned that historic figures/places appear in the document that makes the claim but historical figures are included in works of fiction regularly so that is not strictly speaking evidence either.
You keep labeling prophecy as irrelevant. If someone predicts something and that something comes true is that not evidence of what they said was true?
The Bible does not claim to be a work of fiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Morality is what ought to beWhat makes what ought to be mire than a subjective opinion?
Do you mean 'more'?
Definition of ought (Entry 3 of 4)
: moral obligation : DUTY
If it is just a subjective moral opinion what makes it an ought? Why should I do something or be obligated to do something that is just your subjective opinion?
Again, if we are just biological bags of atoms why should my reactions be the same as yours?Clearly we do not always react the same. We react differently to anecdotal evidence for example.
How does this statement of your answer the question?
If my biochemical makeup makes me respond differently from yours what is right or wrong about that?Right and wrong are subjective opinions not quantifiable facts one cannot measure rightness.
Then what you are saying is that right and wrong is no more than a moral preference and Hilter's Germany is not more right or wrong than murdering an innocent human child or feeding a poor person who lacks the means.
You can state such things as "morality is subjective opinion" but you can't live by it when you are the next person in line at an Auschwitz. Then there is no subjectivity to it. You KNOW it is morally evil.
Why should I want your survival if your competing deters from my survival?Generally speaking it does not. Humans are a social species. We need one another to survive. I'm afraid this is a poor straw man.
Again, you are bringing a moral right and wrong into the equation that is either absolute and objective or it is just your personal opinion and means nothing to me as to why I should do what you propose. It can be argued just as well that it all boils down to whether I survive or not as to how I treat you. From an evolutionary perspective if it serves my means and that of my progeny then your survival is of no consequence unless I benefit from it.
My Christian worldview has a reason for your existence.It has a proposed unproven reason.
You keep saying that as if it determines the truth of my worldview. There are logical and reasonable proofs and evidence that I can back up my claims with. The claims do not stand solely by themselves as you have been insinuating all along.
Not only this, but it also boils down to your highest authority for that is what we are speaking about. We have to start somewhere. Why should I believe your subjective worldview as right and true on such matters?
I have not just used the claim. I have provided both logic and evidence of the claim in numerous posts through these threads.All of your arguments presuppose the existence of your god(s) they do not properly establish it however.
I only presuppose one God. And all your arguments do not. So what?
You keep shutting down any proof with statements like "it is a claim." I have said repeatedly that the claim has verifiable evidence behind it to back it up. You totally ignore this and continue to create a false narrative.
On any point? Are you sure of no objective certainty on any point or else what you have said is self-defeating? (i.e., You can't even be objectively certain on that pointThat is correct. Paradoxical as it may seem I cannot be objectively certain that no human could ever be objectively certain of anything because as a human I cannot be objectively certain of anything.
Are you absolutely sure of the underlined? You are creating self-refuting statements. If they are true they are false because they contradict the truth claims they try to establish.
If you cannot be objectively certain of anything then you cannot be objectively certain that the underlined statement is, in fact, true which undermines the statement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The Bible discloses the source of prophecy is God, the one true and living God. Prophecy is evidenced by history.Even if we do not dispute the efficacy of the prophecy this tells us literally nothing about the source of the prophesy and until we determine that some god(s) were necessarily the source the existence of some god(s) would still need to be verified independently of said prophecy. The prophecy's efficacy acy or lack thereof is not evidence of anything but the efficacy of that single prophecy and nothing more.
I'm not speaking of a single prophecy but hundreds of prophecies.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'll show you: if all life comes from life, where did Adam come from?Creating by the eternal LIVING God --> life from the living.So where did the life in the LIVING god come from?Again, I am speaking of all life that had a beginning. God, being without beginning nor end is excluded from such a definition. I asked you, "How can an eternal Being have a beginning to His life?"Yeah, that's exactly special pleading. I have no reason to believe anything is eternal, I mean can you show me eternal anything?
Life having a beginning is common sense that is no longer so common by either creation or chance happenstance. Somehow life originated. You as a person [humanity in general; even all life that had a beginning] are most probably here for only a small number of reasons when you speak of origins.
As for special pleading, I am repeating what Scripture discloses about this God as being without beginning or end. The concept is reasonable that an omniscient, omnipresent, necessary Being would not owe His existence to anything else or else we have an infinite regress. If you say there is no cause for the universe or life then you run into only a small handful of scenarios one of which is an eternal necessary being or self-creation which I believe is impossible (you can't create yourself for you would have to exist to do so).
Again, it is your PRESUPPOSITION that He does not exist, not mine.Would you say that you have a "presupposition" that leprechauns don't exist, and that in order to disbelieve in them, YOU have to go conclusively prove they don't? The correct way to do this, not to mention the best way to reduce your chances of getting fleeced by con men the world over, is to start with the neutral position and examine the demonstration and evidence. Otherwise you're going to buy a lot of snake oil. Please prove that lightning bolts don't come from Zeus.
Leprechauns are not probable from the evidence we have. God is. As I pointed out, there are only a couple of scenarios concerning origins and God makes sense.
Also, you are not neutral. You build on either one or the other presuppositions concerning origins and life. If you exclude God we will look at how you possibly arrive at your conclusions.
Therefore, your worldview is reductionistic. It can't make sense of these issues, which I have been claiming all along. It reduces existence to only a materialistic understanding which lacks what is necessary to make sense of your existence.You aren't making sense of your existence either, and I'm not sure why, even if whatever my worldview being reductionistic means is true, that means it's wrong somehow. I'll give you this, at least you're consistent: every one of these arguments you're making is argument from incredulity, argument from authority and argument from special pleading / special knowledge.
Sure I am making sense of it. From the living eternal God comes life. The necessary life is God. A life that begins must have an origin and the origin of all life in the universe is the living God. It is just common sense deduction. Please show me a life that does not originate from other life and how life would originate without God. We can then examine how plausible your scenario is.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Please show me the biblical passage that says "Verily, o yea, the LORD thy God will undermine the very essence of the great Roman Eagle, the ECONOMY! A pair of messiahs will arrive on this day and say "Told thee so!" and then all of my children will move into heaven with Me." I presume that's in the bible somewhere, and not in a footnote, and I presume it's specific, like McIlroy's dad.Please list the passage you are referencing.You're the bible guy, I'm asking YOU to show me that passage, Is there a passage that says that, or anything like that?
You made it up and you want me to find it.
First, George Springer was with the Astros in 2014 and a promising player. Although he was on the cover where did it prophesy he was to be the MVP? Second, the team was in a rebuilding in which they foresaw themselves as contenders in three years time. Where does the article say they would win 5-1The AStros didn't write the article about themselves. And you're holding the AStros to a standard far above your JEsus.
It was based on speculation and it came true. Big deal. Nowhere do I find it saying George Springer would be MVP. The writer is making a prediction because he likes both George Springer and the Astro's. He likes the way they are rebuilding so much he sticks his neck on the line predicting they will be World Series Champions and in 2017. Big deal.
But this is exactly the reaction I suspected: if it's not your specific prophesy, regardless of any other aspect, it's not a real prophesy (you did the same thing with the McIlroy one, in fact invoking the very criticism Keith has about your own prophesy: that there would be a driving force TRYING to make the prophesy happen, this is what people say about retrofitting history to fit non-specific non-actionable prophesies).
How can you manufacture a Messiah who would be born in Bethlehem and die on a cross, plus the 300 hundred more specific prophecies regarding Him?
How can you manufacture the destruction of the city and temple in AD 70?
THe bottom line is that the article predicted something that had never happened before, years in the past, with such specificity that you could have bet on it. Why isn't it as impressive? Because it doesn't contain.,,well, what exactly? It contains exactly the same amount of Jesus.
Rubbish. The Astro nor McIlroy prediction is nowhere near as detailed as the hundreds of biblical prophecies. Anyone can get lucky with a few but try hundreds that predict not only the Messiah but specifics of judgment upon these Mosaic covenant people.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
You are wrong, it is a prophetic message that happened. Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon and God promised once more that the temple and city would be destroyed. That did happen and it happened in AD 70. You cannot reasonably deny that it happened in AD 70. Not only was it prophesied here in Daniel but also in Deuteronomy 28 and expanded upon in the Olivet Discourse (which by the way Revelation is John's take on the Olivet Discourse). This can be thoroughly demonstrated. What is more, God's prescribed method of judgment is seen throughout the OT as by bringing one nation against another. I can draw parallel after parallel not only with Deuteronomy and Daniel but also Deuteronomy, Daniel and the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, and Revelation. There are hundreds of parallels and fulfillment that are not a coincidence.
Deuteronomy 28:25 “The Lord shall cause you to be defeated before your enemies; you will go out one way against them, but you will flee seven ways before them, and you will be an example of terror to all the kingdoms of the earth.
Matthew 24:16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. 17 Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house. 18 Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath.
21 For then there will be a great ribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.
For these Mosaic covenant people their peril would be the worst in their history, never again to be equaled. Their whole covenant would come to an end, their special relationship with God would be over and a new covenant made.
Deuteronomy 28:26 Your carcasses will be food to all birds of the sky and to the beasts of the earth, and there will be no one to frighten them away.
Matthew 24:28 Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.
Deuteronomy 28:32 Your sons and your daughters shall be given to another people, while your eyes look on and yearn for them continually; but there will be nothing you can do.
Deuteronomy 28:54 The man who is refined and very delicate among you shall be hostile toward his brother and toward the wife he cherishes and toward the rest of his children who remain, 55 so that he will not give even one of them any of the flesh of his children which he will eat, since he has nothing else left, during the siege and the distress by which your enemy will oppress you in all your towns.
Matthew 10:21 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. 22 You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.
23 “But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.
Deuteronomy 28:38 “You shall bring out much seed to the field but you will gather in little, for the locust will consume it. 39 You shall plant and cultivate vineyards, but you will neither drink of the wine nor gather the grapes, for the worm will devour them. 40 You shall have olive trees throughout your territory but you will not anoint yourself with the oil, for your olives will drop off. 41 You shall have sons and daughters but they will not be yours, for they will go into captivity.
Revelation 9:3 Then out of the smoke came locusts upon the earth, and power was given them, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
Deuteronomy 28:45 “So all these curses shall come on you and pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed, because you would not obey the Lord your God by keeping His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you. 46 They shall become a sign and a wonder on you and your descendants forever.
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
Deuteronomy 28:49 “The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as the eagle swoops down, a nation whose language you shall not understand, 50 a nation of fierce countenance who will have no respect for the old, nor show favor to the young.
The Roman emblem on their flag was an eagle. Many, many more comparisons between Roman and Scripture can be made.
Deuteronomy 28:52 It shall besiege you in all your towns until your high and fortified walls in which you trusted come down throughout your land, and it shall besiege you in all your towns throughout your land which the Lord your God has given you.
Deuteronomy 28:52 It shall besiege you in all your towns until your high and fortified walls in which you trusted come down throughout your land, and it shall besiege you in all your towns throughout your land which the Lord your God has given you.
This happened during the Jewish Roman wars leading up to and culminating in AD 70.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
How do you think the Jews of the first century thought about Daniel's prophecy?Do you think they were looking for a Messiah around this 1st-century period?Don't know.
That is the problem, you don't know yet and you don't want to know. You have no desire to understand how the audience of address, Daniel's people living under the Mosaic Covenant, would understand what was being said. I pointed out to you the Hebrew word can mean "seven" in this context yet it rolls off your back like water from a duck. I pointed out to you the principle of Sabbath rests Israel had neglected. I pointed out to you the curses of Deuteronomy for disobedience, which included the destruction of their land and city plus their exile from the land. I pointed out to you that they were already in captivity and God had given them another period in which to repent before judgment and then God would bring in the everlasting Jubilee. I pointed out to you that Revelation concerns Daniel 9:24 and its fulfillment, and Revelation is written to an Old Covenant people before Jerusalem fell in AD 70. It contains warnings in sevenfold judgments, as I pointed out to you in Leviticus 26. None of this is sinking in. You have blindfolds on because of your bias.
I'd bet the jews of the first century had spent a lot of time looking for a messiah, so maybe, and what the jews of the first century thought about something that didn't happen as prophesied to them, I can't say. Nor can you. And nor does the bible.
But it did happen and can be reasonably shown to have happened. Josephus describes the fall of Jerusalem in great detail. He also puts the writing of Daniel to way before the Maccabee revolt. I have documented this before.
I can demonstrate to a logical and reasonable degree. You have proven you are not interested. You have your own agenda because you don't want to hear.
As it is, your prophecy, "Rome will destroy Jerusalem in 490 AD," does not in any way appear in the bible.The "Concept of judgement" is not the same as "Rome will destroy Jerusalem in 490 AD." It's a concept, not a prophesy. A concept that did not require the bible at all.
But it is the same as the Romans but not in AD 490. I don't know where you get this date except perhaps that you made a mistake in what you wanted to convey.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Now I want to introduce you to another teaching, that God multiplies the curse sevenfold when the people do not repent. Thus, in Revelation, we see sevenfold judgments.
Do you understand this concept? Here it is in Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26:
Deuteronomy 28:25 “The Lord shall cause you to be defeated before your enemies; you will go out one way against them, but you will flee seven ways before them, and you will be an example of terror to all the kingdoms of the earth.
Leviticus 26:18
If also after these things you do not obey Me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.
Leviticus 26:21
‘If then, you act with hostility against Me and are unwilling to obey Me, I will increase the plague on you seven times according to your sins.
Leviticus 26:24
then I will act with hostility against you; and I, even I, will strike you seven times for your sins.
Leviticus 26:28
then I will act with wrathful hostility against you, and I, even I, will punish you seven times for your sins.
Do you now understand the concept of seven times more punishment?
Do you understand that the word for "week" is translated as "seven"?
2 heptad or seven of years, late, Daniel 9:24,25,26,27 (twice in verse)
seven, week
seven, week
Or shabuan {shaw-boo'-ah}; also (feminine) shbu.ah {sheb-oo-aw'}; properly, passive participle of shaba' as a denominative of sheba'; literal, sevened, i.e. A week (specifically, of years) -- seven, week.
see HEBREW
shaba
'
'
Brown-Driver-Briggs
verb swear (probably, so to say, seven oneself, or bind oneself by seven things, compare Thes (as alternative), Gerb108ff; Late Hebrew Niph`al= Biblical Hebrew;
***
see HEBREW sheba'
Strong's Concordance
sheba or shibah: seven
Strong's Concordance
sheba or shibah: seven
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
by sevenfold, teen
Or (masculine) shibrah {shib-aw'}; from shaba'; a primitive cardinal number; seven (as the sacred full one); also (adverbially) seven times; by implication, a week; by extension, an indefinite number -- (+ by) seven(-fold),-s, (-teen, -teenth), -th, times). Compare shib'anah.
***
Now I want to teach you another concept of why God's first period of cursing on Israel was 70 years and the one promised in Daniel 9:24 was 490 years. The Lord God wanted to teach the people that the seventh day as a day of rest and the seventh year as a year of rest for the fields so that the land could replenish itself. The seventh day and seventh year were holy to the Lord, the seventh day and the seventh year was to be a period of rest.
Leviticus 25:1 The Lord then spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai, saying, 2 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When you come into the land which I shall give you, then the land shall have a sabbath to the Lord. 3 Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard and gather in its crop, 4 but during the seventh year the land shall have a sabbath rest, a sabbath to the Lord
Leviticus 25:7-9 (NASB)
7 Even your cattle and the animals that are in your land shall have all its crops to eat.
8 ‘You are also to count off seven sabbaths of years for yourself, seven times seven years, so that you have the time of the seven sabbaths of years, namely, forty-nine years. 9 You shall then sound a ram’s horn abroad on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the day of atonement you shall sound a horn all through your land.
Remember a Sabbath is the seventh day.
Israel had neglected the Sabbath rest for the land for seventy years, as we are told in Scripture.
2 Chronicles 36:20-21 (NASB)
20 Those who had escaped from the sword he carried away to Babylon; and they were servants to him and to his sons until the rule of the kingdom of Persia, 21 to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths. All the days of its desolation it kept sabbath until seventy years were complete.
So Daniel 9:24 is a sevenfold judgment after the seventy years are complete. Seventy more sevens of years would be given Israel until God brought in the New Covenant and ended the Old Covenant and the new Jubilee.
***
Now more of the concept of a day for every year (besides 2 Chronicles 36:20-21):
Numbers 14:34
According to the number of days which you spied out the land, forty days, for every day you shall bear your guilt a year, even forty years, and you will know My opposition.
According to the number of days which you spied out the land, forty days, for every day you shall bear your guilt a year, even forty years, and you will know My opposition.
So God judged them for every day one year.
Matthew 18:21-23 (NASB)
Forgiveness
Forgiveness
21 Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus *said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.
23 “For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves.
So again, just like in Daniel 9:24 you have the forgiveness up to seventy sevens --> to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
You have not definitively proven it false. You have skirted the issue in your own interpretation where you take the word "weeks" as a literal period of weeks instead of years. Thus, our discussion is over since you will not proceed further."Weeks" = weeks. "Years" = years. If it meant years, it'd say years.
Okay, baby steps.
I want you to consider this truth - if God has revealed then His word will shed light on itself, God will provide the understanding. Do you understand that concept?
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.
Scripture interprets Scripture. God is capable of making Himself known through His word. His word provides understanding.
From Your precepts I get understanding; Therefore I hate every false way.
The unfolding of Your words gives light; It gives understanding to the simple.
[ Nun. ] Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path.
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
***
Now I want you to consider this, Daniel 9 reveals that Israel is already in captivity in Babylon for a period of seventy years.
2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, observed in the books the number of the years which was revealed as the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.
Daniel is partitioning God for mercy for his covenant people, Israel.
Daniel is partitioning God for mercy for his covenant people, Israel.
3 So I gave my attention to the Lord God to seek Him by prayer and supplications, with fasting, sackcloth and ashes. 4 I prayed to the Lord my God and confessed and said, “Alas, O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps His covenant and loving kindness for those who love Him and keep His commandments, 5 we have sinned, committed iniquity, acted wickedly and rebelled, even turning aside from Your commandments and ordinances. 6 Moreover, we have not listened to Your servants the prophets, who spoke in Your name to our kings, our princes, our fathers and all the people of the land.
So, the people have broken the covenant they agreed to with God and are receiving the curses spoken of in Deuteronomy 28.
11 Indeed all Israel has transgressed Your law and turned aside, not obeying Your voice; so the curse has been poured out on us, along with the oath which is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, for we have sinned against Him.12 Thus He has confirmed His words which He had spoken against us and against our rulers who ruled us, to bring on us great calamity; for under the whole heaven there has not been done anything like what was done to Jerusalem.
With the Babylonian captivity, Israel is experiencing God's wrath for their disobedience.
Do you understand this?
They are experiencing something that they have never before experienced under that covenant for their disobedience, per verse 12. I have provided Deuteronomy 28:15-55 with the underlined link so you can understand this curse of disobedience. Their whole heaven, their whole world is shattered, for nothing like this has ever been done to them since they agreed to the covenant.
Do you understand this teaching?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No, my claim is that the biblical God is true.I understand that this is your overarching claim but that requires independent verification. The bible by itself is by its very nature insufficient.
The Bible makes these statements or claims yet there is evidence that confirms them which you and others have demonstrated you are not willing to look at.
Is there good evidence for these claims - yes. Can you reasonably refute it? I do not believe so.
Is there good evidence that most or every OT writing is written before the 1st-century?
Did these OT writings contain prophecies on not only the destruction of the temple and city but also the entire OT economy?
Did these events not happen in AD 70?
Thus, there is evidence of biblical veracity.
There are lots of lies and liars in the BibleThen why are you attempting to use it as a source? Honestly.
The flaw is from human beings, not God. Satan is described as a liar and the father or all lies. Does that mean God lied? No, it does not. My claim is that what God says it true.
God is not one of them.Assuming such a being exists can you demonstrate that it is not a liar or is that just another bald assertion that I am supposed to accept axiomatically?
I have offered to give evidence and most atheists shut down the conversation because they are not interested in anything but their own talking points.
Satan was false in what he taught under the guise of truth.If Stan can do that then how can you be certain your personal religious truth is not him off some other force "teaching under the guise of truth"? Can you prove that Stan did not inspire the bible in order to influence humanity to evil?
I can only give you a good reason to why. What you do with it is up to you.
the Bible has a lot to say about.The. Bible. Is. The. Claim. Litteraly nothing it says is evidence unto itself.
A claim from your highest authority which is probably you.
Why can't God reveal Himself in the form of these writings? If God is the greatest conceivable being and He has chosen to reveal Himself in this manner then why would all the evidence in the universe not confirm Him in some way?
Again, prophecy is a claim that is confirmed by history. It is reasonable and logical to believe.
You must prove every claim presented in the book individually and independently. If that seems like can insurmountable task it could be because the evidence available is insufficient to demonstrate your claims.
Since you do not have trust in God that would be your requirement that you dictate to God. The biblical God continues to demonstrate to the believe His existence every day in what He has made and through His word.
I have offered many times to show others that prophecy is reasonably confirmed in history. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this before it sinks in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Any god that gives false information is not a god to be trusted.I agree.As I said before, I'm along with you in showing that no god makes sense except the biblical God. If you want to try and make sense of another, please do.I am not the one making a claim you are. It doesn't matter how many other hypothesis you can eliminate if you have not proven yours. The scientific method demands that we try our very hardest to disprove a hypothesis and if we cannot and another team cannot and several other scientists cannot then maybe maybeit's true. How would we even go about doing this with your proposed god(s)?You can go through life wandering aimlessly with no certainty because what you believe does not have what is necessary for certainty.I have no choice but to acknowledge that humans are mostly incapable of objective certainty on any point.
On any point? Are you sure of no objective certainty on any point or else what you have said is self-defeating? (i.e., You can't even be objectively certain on that point)
Nor can they be in regards to such things as origins, existence, morality UNLESS there is a necessary Being that has revealed as much to us. That is why your worldview does not have what is necessary to make sense of these things.
The fact that I try to avoid believing in what is not necessarily certain is precisely why I remain skeptical of your claims until thay can be demonstrateded.
Again, I can only demonstrate to a logical and reasonable degree. Can you? What you do and how you interpret the evidence is another matter. But the evidence is there that backs up biblical "claims."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The Bible does not contradict what we would expect from Almighty God.The bible is the claim and while it does in fact appear to contradict itself in several places it wouldn't matter if no contradictions were evident the claim still cannot be used as the evidence for itself.
I have not just used the claim. I have provided both logic and evidence of the claim in numerous posts through these threads.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
making sense of origins, morality, existence?Origins: I don't know why or how the big bang started and that is the earliest event we have observable evidence for. That means we cannot know how or why it began or even if how, why or began are sensible terms to use in this context.
Thus, you cannot make sense of it with the worldview you currently hold. That has been my claim all along and I have invited you to try. Thus far - zippo. You would have to borrow from my Christian worldview to make sense of origins.
Morality: morality seems to be a learned behavior.
Behaviour is what is. Morality is what ought to be. How does behaviour explain what ought to be?
Viewed in purely anthropological terms it would seem that working and living together helps pur species survive and reproduce and so we all enter into the social contract as an evolved behavioral trait. Even if there is more to it than that this is still technically true so if you claim that it is more it is up to you to prove that it is anything more.
Again, if we are just biological bags of atoms why should my reactions be the same as yours?
If my biochemical makeup makes me respond differently from yours what is right or wrong about that?
Why should I want your survival if your competing deters from my survival? If we are both competing for the same food source why should I think of your survival?
Why should I adopt what you deem as good for me? What if my genetic makeup determines that you are a detriment to my survival?
Existence: I feel as though I exist and other stuff would also appear to exist. These feelings and perceptions may or may not be illusory but even if they are I can still make observations and learn about my perceived reality and so I accept reality prima facie purely as a convenience.
Yet it does not explain why you are here. It lacks what is necessary to do this. My Christian worldview has a reason for your existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What demonstration? You just said you are not expressing anything.I am giving a demonstration of two things and then two more things. The words two and four are unnecessary in the process.
What does it demonstrate unless there is meaning behind it?
Just saying something like me being irrational doesn't necessarily make it so.Well stated. Do you therfore retract your claim that I am being irrational?
No.
What is irrational about not being able to see Spirit?What is rational about claiming a spirit exists if you cannot demonstrate that any spirits exist?
I can give reasons for the Spirit existing. God expresses Himself by His thoughts to us in which He reveals many proofs of what He says as true. Is that unreasonable to believe?
Make sense of the world without first presupposing God.Disproving other hypothesis does born in any way bring us closer to yours.
If the other hypothesis has little to zero explanatory power - yes.
Even if every other conceivable hypothesis could be refuted you must still prove your claim correct or there is no reason to accept it.
I can only prove it is reasonable. The rest is up to you since I can't make you believe in something you do not want to believe in. That, in fact, is the message of Hebrews 11:6.
It is beyond human epistemology to say what if anything caused the big bang and at least since then the universe has run on mundane physical processes to the degree that we can determine how the universe runs at all.
Yes, unaided it does go beyond human epistemology! But either we are speaking of self-creation (i.e., the Big Bang is the cause of itself in that nothing caused something to exist which goes beyond reason, the universe is eternal, which begs the question of how we ever arrive at the present, or something or Someone caused the universe to exist), or God creation.
Again, if you want to offer an alternative to these I'm listening. If not then what is more reasonable to believe?
You assume that God cannot be demonstrated to a reasonable degree to exist.I assume no such thing. In fact past experience has led me to believe that no theistic/spiritual/metaphysical claim can be adequately demonstrated. That is no guarantee that none ever will but the sheer number of directly contradictory claims and the absolute lack of physical evidence of any kind leads me to be somewhat skeptical.
Why is your past experience something that is reliable in determining whether God exists or not or can be demonstrated as reasonable to believe?
You are not a necessary being.Au contraire from my perspective I am the only necessary being (assuming even I exist which would explain why my nose itches sometimes) and I cannot be completely certain that you exist. I am prepared to accept that you do since my perceptions woild.seem to indicate that you do and because I enjoy these conversations and they would be less enjoyable if they were completely one sided.
You are not a necessary being. Your existence did not cause my existence. Thus, you are not necessary for my existence. You are not the being that all other beings come from. Your existence does not mean that what you believe is right or good is actually "right" or "good."
Now, if you want to believe you are that necessary being and you are having a conversation with yourself because you made me up then so be it. Shall you continue this conversation, Irene (me, myself and I)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You are being irrational. How can you see a Spiritual Being?You are being irrational. How can you see a make believe Being?
I'm not being irrational. What is irrational about not being able to see Spirit? It is you, not me, who believes God is make-believe.
You are being irrational. How can you see a non existent Being?
Are you saying that only what you can "see" exists? Is that a rational belief?
And what do you mean by "see?" Do you mean "physical sight" or understanding?
How do I see your thoughts? But I understand you have them. I can't physically grab them, nor smell them, nor hear them unless you express them, nor feel them, nor taste them. Does that make them unreal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You keep presenting the claim as thought it were the evidence. You claim to have answers but you have presented no sufficient evidence for any of the answers you propose. Instead you are trying to prove irrelevant issues and conflate them with your main point.
I presented some evidence from the claims. I can present much more yet it keeps being dismissed. There is an intricate network of prophecy that connects both testaments in ways those not well versed in the knowledge of the Bible miss. The claim and then the evidence was just ignored as per usual all the while claiming I did not present any.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Is your claim that it is impossible for any one book to contain both true and false things ?
No, may claim is that the biblical God is true. There are lots of lies and liars in the Bible, such as when Satan is involved, but God is not one of them. The Bible does not sugar coat our problem - sin. Thus Satan was false in what he taught under the guise of truth. So were false prophets which the Bible has a lot to say about.
Created: