Total posts: 3,179
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You're shifting the goal posts/changing the subject by adding miraculous claims. Where did I even mention miraculous claims?You don't have to mention miraculous claims the implication you are attempting to make is that if some people/places in the bible really existed then some god(s) claimed by the bible must necessarily also exist.
It gives credibility to the claim to have historical evidence that collaborates it.
If I am mistaken and you accept that some people/places in the bible having existed is not evidence that anything else claimed by the bible wpuld bevtrue then apologize but in that case I'm not sure why you brought it up.
You were the one who claimed there was no evidence offered in the Bible, that it was a claim unsupported by evidence. I have shown this claim of yours is not true. That is all I set out to do at this particular time. That is why I brought it up.
Each confirms a biblical claim via historical knowledge. The Bible lists a particular people and history confirms these people existed.If true it only confirms that some historical places/figures were included in the bible which does not in itself act as proof that any other aspect of the bible is true.
What do you mean "if true?" History, where records are still available, reveals that these people, places, events actually existed/exist. They are confirmation.
As I pointed out in another post, archeology also confirms the biblical message.
The character of Jesus confirms the biblical message as C.S. Lewis pointed out in Mere Christianity. He is either Liar, Lunatic, or Lord because of what He taught is noble and loving. Not only this but many of His band of disciples died excruciating deaths because they would not deny who He was and that He had risen from the dead. That alone would make Him different from any other religious leader/teacher who is still entombed in the ground and their graves are venerated.
Not only this, Scripture can be demonstrated to show there are a type and shadow of Jesus in every OT writing. The OT as a physical history of a people, a worship system, places, and events, which is a foreshadow of what was to come and the reality is Jesus Christ.
Prophecy is a confirmation of the message. The OT revolves around God's relationship with real people, the Jews/Israel. Many prophetic writings are confirmed in history - what was predicted comes to pass. It also revolves around the promised coming Messiah and a better covenant.
The Bible does not contradict what we would expect from Almighty God. It gives a reasonable explanation for the universe, existence, and morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Argument from incredulity. (I cannot think of a better explanation therefore mine must be correct).
I'm asking you to make sense of another. I gave you two of the most plausible explanations for the universe, existence, morality. Either God or Chance. You said neither. So what is left? Go ahead and state what you believe. Let's see how much sense we can make of your belief one I break it down to its key foundational tenets.
I have stated that the biblical God makes sense. I invite you to demonstrate your belief can make sense of itself and you have not helped yourself. You have already stated you just don't know.
In truth even if I have no evidence for any other hypothesis I am under no obligation to accept yours and in fact I cannot without sufficient evidence.
That is right. You are under no obligation. You can go through life wandering aimlessly with no certainty because what you believe does not have what is necessary for certainty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Logically, two gods that contradict each other in what they state cannot both be true. The writings of all regions have contradictions so if God has revealed Himself and there are many religions claiming their god is true it cannot be so.Even if we accept this as an axiom it does not bring us any closer to any particular god(s).
It brings us closer to only ONE God.
Also this does not apply to all god(s) proposed by humans and also does not preclude any god(s) which do exist giving us false information, deliberately or accidentally, about their attributes and the existence of any other god(s).
Any god that gives false information is not a god to be trusted. 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. The biblical God is explained as the one true God and His revelation gives many reasons to believe He is. The Bible is authoritative. Prophecy is just one vehicle that points to His truth. His Son is another. The unity of the Bible is another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Then what exactly are you expressing?I am not expressing anything I am just holding up fingers. The rest is up to you. What I believe or express is irrelevant to the demonstration itself.
What demonstration? You just said you are not expressing anything.
You are being irrational. How can you see a Spiritual Being?You are bring irrational. Why would you believe in something that cannot be demonstrated to exist?
Just saying something like me being irrational doesn't necessarily make it so. What is irrational about not being able to see Spirit?
You assume that God cannot be demonstrated to a reasonable degree to exist. Make sense of the world without first presupposing God. I challenge you.
You are not a necessary being. What do you have to offer in making sense of origins, morality, existence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I have said many times that a non-Christian worldview can't make sense of the "why." It can't give a reasonable answer for the "why" of origins, existence, morality. It has to borrow from the Christian worldview to do so.That's odd I'm not sure I've ever heard a reasonable answer to any of those things. After all "some god(s) did it" does not answer any why it only appeals to a larger mystery.
I will never argue for any god but the biblical God. If you want to do so then be my guest.
You have already said you "don't know." That makes sense of nothing. The Christian God gives reasons for our existence. We have reasons why. You do not. And the reasons make sense. They are reasonable.
Isaiah 43:6-7 (NASB)
6 “I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’
And to the south, ‘Do not hold them back.’
Bring My sons from afar
And My daughters from the ends of the earth,
7 Everyone who is called by My name,
And whom I have created for My glory,
Whom I have formed, even whom I have made.”
And to the south, ‘Do not hold them back.’
Bring My sons from afar
And My daughters from the ends of the earth,
7 Everyone who is called by My name,
And whom I have created for My glory,
Whom I have formed, even whom I have made.”
WHY: God created us for His pleasure, that we whom He created were created for His glory, that we would know of Him and His love and that we would understand that glory and majesty that is God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Did the Bible claimI'm not sure how else to say it doesn't matter what the bible claims.
That is your assumption and bias, not mine.
What about the archeological evidence? Does it confirm people, places, events that are stated in the Bible?I am unaware of any archeological evidence that supports any miraculous claim from the bible.
Then you are not aware of Nelson Gleuck who confirmed much of biblical archaeology or Sir William Ramsey who set out to prove the churches in Paul's missionary journeys did not exist and ended up becoming a Christian.
Although Ramsay was educated in the Tübingen school of thought (founded by F. C. Baur) which doubted the reliability of the New Testament, his extensive archaeological and historical studies convinced him of the historical accuracy of the New Testament...
When he first went to Asia Minor, many of the cities mentioned in Acts had no known location and almost nothing was known of their detailed history or politics. The Acts of the Apostles was the only record and Ramsay, skeptical, fully expected his own research to prove the author of Acts hopelessly inaccurate since no man could possibly know the details of Asia Minor more than a hundred years after the event—this is, when Acts was then supposed to have been written. He therefore set out to put the writer of Acts on trial. He devoted his life to unearthing the ancient cities and documents of Asia Minor. After a lifetime of study, however, he concluded: 'Further study … showed that the book could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement' (The Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 85). On page 89 of the same book, Ramsay accounted, 'I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it there [in Acts]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment...'
Do/did the tribes and nations spoken of in the Bible exist?Assuming they do how does that confirm any other biblical claim?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Did the Bible claimI'm not sure how else to say it doesn't matter what the bible claims.What about the archeological evidence? Does it confirm people, places, events that are stated in the Bible?I am unaware of any archeological evidence that supports any miraculous claim from the bible.
You're shifting the goal posts/changing the subject by adding miraculous claims. Where did I even mention miraculous claims?
Do/did the tribes and nations spoken of in the Bible exist?Assuming they do how does that confirm any other biblical claim?
Each confirms a biblical claim via historical knowledge. The Bible lists a particular people and history confirms these people existed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I have said many times that a non-Christian worldview can't make sense of the "why." It can't give a reasonable answer for the "why" of origins, existence, morality. It has to borrow from the Christian worldview to do so.That's odd I'm not sure I've ever heard a reasonable answer to any of those things. After all "some god(s) did it" does not answer any why it only appeals to a larger mystery.
Some things make sense. Others do not.
I narrowed down existence starting via a couple of reasons. You did not agree with either of these scenarios but you did not supply another alternative that you see as reasonable. I asked you whether chance or God or some other reason was more plausible to believe. I do not see your answer.
How does consciousness come from something void of it? Where do you ever see it happening? We reproduce after our kind. Living beings give birth to other living beings. It is reasonable to believe. It makes sense. We see it. What is more reasonable to believe?
What was before the Big Bang (how do you know) or are we speaking of something from nothing/self-creation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
gods are contradictory thus only one is logically justifiedPlease explain your logic.
Logically, two gods that contradict each other in what they state cannot both be true. The writings of all regions have contradictions so if God has revealed Himself and there are many religions claiming their god is true it cannot be so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What makes you think that holding up two plus two fingers is not expressing a mathematical concept?If I hold up two fingers and two fingers and you cime to the conclusion that 2 + 2 = 4 then I am not the one using mathematical concepts you are.
Then what exactly are you expressing?
If you are using mathematical concepts yourself then hopefully youbwould see the logic of conceding that math exists at least intellectually. Of course if you do not understand mathematical concepts I may be unable to prove it to you with or without mathematical concepts.The bottom line is I don't care what it says in your book I want to see god(s') fingers.
You are being irrational. How can you see a Spiritual Being?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Okay then, what do you think explains why we are here if neither God nor chance happenstance is responsible?I do not think we have an explanation. There is not enough evidence to support any given hypothesis. This in no way obligated me to accept either of the explanations you have presented.
Your worldview does not have an explanation because it is reductionist. It tries to reduce everything into your small box instead of seeing the bigger picture and what makes sense. I have said many times that a non-Christian worldview can't make sense of the "why." It can't give a reasonable answer for the "why" of origins, existence, morality. It has to borrow from the Christian worldview to do so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
the Bible claimsClaims are not evidence they require evidence. Hopefully this clears up why some of is do not accept your claim.This just goes to prove you skimmed past the rest of my post in which I said that the claims are backed up by historical EVIDENCE. Historical evidence collaborates with biblical claims.I went back and reread your post just to be certain. I do not actually see any citation of any kind that would support your claims. Also history is riddled with exaggerations and apocryphal tales so I would very much prefer archeological or geological evidence to historical evidence.
Which post? I've covered historical evidence in many posts. Did the Bible claim Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed again? Was it destroyed again? Did the Bible claim a new covenant would be initiated with the people of Israel? Is that not what the NT is all about? Can the Jews under the Mosaic Covenant still follow that covenant after AD 70? What does history tell us?
Do/did the tribes and nations spoken of in the Bible exist?
What about the archeological evidence? Does it confirm people, places, events that are stated in the Bible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
God when the Bible claims it is His revelation of Himself and of creation?Where does this god claim that?
The biblical revelation claims it is from Him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If I asked you to demonstrate that 2+2=4 and do not use any mathematical concept do you think that would be reasonable?I don't know if it's reasonable but I would hold up two fingers and two fingers and let you do the rest. That is what a demonstration is. If you could kindly just have your god(s) hold up some fingers we could clear all this up in short order I'm sure unless of course the god(s) in question are unobservable in which case we at be at an impasee.
What makes you think that holding up two plus two fingers is not expressing a mathematical concept?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Okay then, what do you think explains why we are here if neither God nor chance happenstance is responsible? I say God because gods get narrowed down to a supreme being eventually for the very reason that gods are contradictory thus only one is logically justified and gods do not have the qualities of the biblical God thus they too were created beings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
the Bible claimsClaims are not evidence they require evidence. Hopefully this clears up why some of is do not accept your claim.
This just goes to prove you skimmed past the rest of my post in which I said that the claims are backed up by historical EVIDENCE. Historical evidence collaborates with biblical claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
So then the only place you can prove that your god is the one who created the universe is in the document that claims he created the universe.
Where does the revelation of the specific God of Christianity and Judaism come from? It comes from a people who claim to have recorded what He revealed and through their relationship with that God. Thus, to discuss this specific God we must look into that revelation. Does it make sense? Does it conform to what is? I claim it does.
This makes the document more important than the being: without the document there's no way to know the being.
True, there is a way of knowing about this Being, but no way of personal or intimate knowledge of Him.
It also only puts your god on equal footing with any one that appears in any holy text or any text at all (unless you can provide a discernment between 'holy text' and 'run of the mill mythological fiction).
No, by comparing and contrasting holy texts we find that the biblical text has a better foundation and more proofs/evidence of its truth claims in history. Many have taken on such claims.
It's less than a compelling position from a neutral perspective. More than one religion claims their texts or founding tenets are holy, and this position also doesn't address why a religion without holy texts, like a native American religion, must be incorrect, or is at least inferior to those with writings.
One thing is sure, they can't all be true since they state contrary things. The question is what kind of evidence these native religions have for their belief systems and do they correspond with what is in a reasonable manner?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I would argue on the impossibility of the contrary. I don't understand how a universe without a necessary Being is possible.You keep stepping in this.Then explain how it is possible and how it makes sense. I want to see the logic of your position once you jettison God as to how it is possible or makes sense.I'm putting this here for clarity sake. For the sake of THIS TOPIC, I'm granting that indeed a necessary being is not only possible, but it is what created the universe. The challenge is to connect 'necessary being' to the character bolded without either asserting it or pointing to a holy text, because that's a claim, not evidence, and every faith with holy texts will make the same claim with the same level of certainty. NEcessary being, agree. Particular being, please demonstrate.
Again, how is the underlined reasonable when speaking of this specific God when the Bible claims it is His revelation of Himself and of creation?
Please make sense of this for me.
If I asked you to demonstrate that 2+2=4 and do not use any mathematical concept do you think that would be reasonable?
If you want me to discuss how belief in God, as Creator, is necessary for making sense of morality or existence or origins, I can offer that argument but it does not point to God specifically, just to a Creator.
Would you agree that there are two logical views of existence, either we are created or we are here by chance happenstance? Please answer this. I could add a third or possibly a forth scenario but I don't think they hold up (i.e., it's all illusion).
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
We've been through this, the two are independent of each other. And I'm willing to answer any questions, but start a topic specific to them. But this was in response to my quetion DO YOU KNOW WHAT SPECIAL PLEADING IS? And you then answered with the above then immediately demonstarted that you don't understand it. Watch: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?"
Is it reasonable to believe that God - an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, unchanging Being; the greatest possible Being - is the source of life?Demonstrate the existence of this being, because stuff that doesn't exist doesn't cause anything else to exist, right? Then, demonstrate this being is the character in the bible. Then we can have a basis of discussion. But 700 responses in the other thread, not one step toward doing so.
Again, it is your PRESUPPOSITION that He does not exist, not mine. I believe He exists and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. You do not. That is not my problem, it is yours. Again, I ask, how will you believe if you refuse not to believe? How will you believe when you continually deny Him His existence? What could I persuade you of that you will not dismiss? Why would I even bother? You presently fall into the category of the seed that falls on the rocky ground. It does not germinate. It does not have sufficient requirements for its germination. As Jesus put it, you do not have ears to hear (at least not presently).
You plead God is not the reasonable answer without alternative justifiable reasons. You dismiss the reasoning without hearing it.This is not special pleading in any way. You seem confused. There's no need for me to offer you an alternative justifiable reason (though I have, with the greco-roman Pantheon and you've not refuted it yet).
1. Why would I begin until we have ironed out whether you are even interested in hearing the explanation and evidence?
2. We are not discussing the Greco-Roman pantheon. You created the framework - which has to do with Daniel's seventy weeks and what that means.
You're offering a supernatural, undemonstrated explanation, and I'm just saying I have no reason to believe that unless you can show me otherwise.
I have offered to explain why historical evidence gives good logical reasons to believe the prophecies are true. Since we are caught up on the "weeks" and you will not accept the reasonable explanation on what is meant we are at a stalemate. Why should I go further? It will keep coming back to this question which you have failed to give support for your belief in it being literal weeks, not years. I gave you verses from Scripture (i.e., Scripture reveals Scripture/it is its own interpreter) that supports the meaning I derived. I gave you both Jewish and Christian understanding of what the passage means. You know better, therefore the discussion can go no further. I do not believe you are being reasonable. You want a literal/wooden meaning on everything. I do not look at Scripture in this way. I believe the context and other teachings on the same subject supply the meaning. I believe there is a literal and figurative language. There is meaning that needs an understanding of how the original audience of address understood the passage.
I have no idea why you think I'm not answering whatever questions you are asking. I have no idea where life came from, how it started, why the universe is here, or if there's a why at all. That's my answer. I guess at least we're off the prophecy kick now that you've said it's not key to or even part of your belief process. Progress!
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. Yet you argue over and over for its validation by refuting mine. You build your understanding on a house of cards or what the Bible calls sinking sand. The wind blows and it does not a have sufficient foundation for it to stand.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
There are beliefs in gods. These tribes worship idols. They understand that wrongful action deserves punishment.But they don't have Jesus as a mediator. So they burn in hell, because all of the knowledge that was presented to them had nothing to do with Jesus or God, or the bible or anything else, so according to your doctrine, they are eternally punished.
What is eternal punishment? It is living outside or excluded from the light and love of God. That is my belief, and why do you receive such punishment? You REFUSE to live by the light of God. Why would God accept such a relationship of someone who continually rejects and denies Him, who continually does what is wrong in His sight and will not seek His terms of reconciliation? If you think your life is so pure and you are so innocent you have no worries.
Because the stuff about what "some people suggest" and what you "believe based on some scripture", that's all NOT scripture. Why does this make you so uncomfortable that you have to read anything into it? It's the perfect justice! Isn't it?I truly believe any innocent life, such as an infant, will be with God in heaven for the reason that Jesus said,Please cite the scritural support that shows you can get into heaven without believing in Jesus.
I have never taught that for those who are accountable to God, yet I have also pleaded that how could God punish someone who has not yet done evil, even if they have Adam's nature imputed to them?
Matthew 1:21 (NASB)
21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
If salvation depended on us we would not need a Savior. We could save ourselves, yet this is not the teaching of Scripture. It is God who does all the work of salvation, not us, as if we could live up to His perfect standard or righteousness on our own accord.
This brings up yet another question, Did Jesus die for specific people or did He just die that salvation could be possible yet not realized?
***
One common belief needs to be addressed in passing. Many who believe in a “universal” or non-specific atonement, assert that while Christ died for all, His atonement is only effective for those who believe. We shall discuss the fact that faith itself is the gift of God, given only to the elect of God, in the next chapter. But for now, we defer to the great Puritan writer, John Owen, in answering this question:
"To which I may add this dilemma to our Universalists:—God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: “If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?” Ps. cxxx. 3….If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why, then are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.” But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then he did not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will." (John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1985) pp. 61-62.)
Not your interpretation, I want the verse that says "verily I say unto thee on this day, all people who are good, especially the tiny children even if they're born in Australia which I've never spoken about or you've never heard of, but trust me it's a place and children die there before they will ever hear of me, and I don't want them to be in trouble over it forever." Or something along those lines.
You fail to understand the scope of the atonement, as pointed out by John Owen and taught in Scripture. To understand it further you should pay attention to who is doing the saving. If it is us in any way then what do we need of a Savior? If Jesus Christ died to save His people, how can any be lost? We definitely see some are lost and the Bible makes some universal statements lie John 14:6 or Acts 4:12. It is through Jesus people find salvation, for all those He died for, for all those who will believe. Do you have the choice to believe? Have you heard the message? If so, then you are responsible for what you have heard, yet presently you reject the message.
Since various verses teach there is none who are good, none who have done right it depends on Another (one who has met God's righteous measure and paid the atonement for believers), not on us, and it depends on what you believe about that Someone.
I have offered to show you the justification and evidence yet you continue to avoid going there.You have continued to assert and believe what you believe without justification in any way. This is a two-way street. You are examining my worldview, but I am also examining yours. When I continue to ask you to make sense of your statements you ignore my requests. Where is the give and take?You continue to point to your claim as your evidence.
I have given you the biblical "claim" and have offered to give you the historical evidence that supports this. I have offered to give this supporting evidence yet you will not recognize it. What do you want me to do? Do you want me to give it despite your unwillingness to hear (cognitive dissonance)?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Your off topic again.
You made the charge. I responded to it.
I'll shorten for clarity. I am not the one who claims to 'make sense' of any of the following questions. YOU are. I invited you to make sense of just one of them, and your answer literally made zero sense. I said "make sense of the universe" and you said "god loves us."
You paraphrase and misrepresent. I said more than that.
The Christian worldview provides the reason for our existence. Blind indifferent chance happenstance does not. It is tautological - "We are here because we are here!"
This is a non-sequitur and makes no sense of the question. Similarly, I think that it's the same answer for your litany of other 'big questions.' Your making sense of it is basically because Jesus, which does not in any way make sense of anything, it just adds a layer of mystery which you've repeatedly been unable to demonstrate is required. The other thread's at 28 pages and all you have done is say 'The bible says it so it's true!"
And you say, "Blind chance happenstance cloaked in scientism says it is true!" There is no reason behind it - it just happens, a fluke of "nature."
No, it reminds me of how we got to where we are. It reminds me that you would not have done any better than Adam did having been given that choice. It reminds me why there is so much inhumanity in this world - that humanity decided to do what they saw fit, not what God commanded was good....and therefore it's just that some mother's suffering the loss of her child, neither of whom had nothing to do with any of that.
And your reason for suffering and death? Eventually reduced to pure chance when we get to the nuts and bolts on what holds your worldview together.
I see the heartache of those who lose children and I see God's promises that those who trust in Him will never be put to shame, that God has promised a better life for those who believe than for those that do not trust HimWow, tough luck for those muslims and jews, then.
Without Christ, as Savior, we are judged on our own merit. How does your merit stack up? You intentionally choose not to believe in God or worship Him as He is. That is the case of those who deny Christ as per the Christian faith. It is exclusive, just like your faith in materialism/naturalism/humanism is exclusive. It denies the Christian worldview and per the Bible, you get what you wanted - separation from God for eternity.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
It is unreasonable to think that blind chance happenstance can produce let alone sustain life. An atheist worldview continues to push the narrative that it can.I don't think that those scientists working on abiogenesis (there aren't all that many)think of it in terms of the noble task of disproving divine creation!Anyone familiar with the complexity of even the simplest living thing should agree it does seem very unreasonable and unlikely that blind chance could produce life. But if you don't - for whatever reason - like to just say 'a miracle occurred' the only option is to go into the lab and see how it could have happened. it's not anti-religion that motivates researchers; it's their curiosity and love of having a really difficult problem to solve.
It is how they go about solving it that is the interesting thing. A worldview that discounts the biblical God is reductionistic and fails to explain the whole. Nancy Pearcey expands on reductionism.
"Reductionism is like trying to see the world through a single lens. G.K. Chesterton called reductionism a mental prison...Whatever does not fit in that prison is denied and suppressed." Finding Truth, p. 137.
They don't think they are disproving god - they are just being there crurious.
Even so, their worldview can't make sense when pushed and as you say below, it requires faith - blind faith, for there is nothing but blind forces of physics that brings us into a mindless process without purpose. Such a worldview continually begs the question of origins and existence and neglects us engaging our common sense.
I don't mind it being said that belief in abiogenesis requires faith - it does. It requires bloody-mindedness that there is a naturalistic,mechanistic explanation of life to not give up on such a hard problem! But I've not met, read or heard of a biologist who was motivated anti-religious fervour, with possible exception of Richard Dawkins but he gave up being a badly-paid biologist and became a rich professional atheist! His early books are so much better than The God Delusion... but I digress!
If you support one worldview you deny another in many ways. If you look at existence through the lens of a blind indifferent chance as responsible or the reason for us you have a particular bias. If you look for explanations in entirely naturalistic means you have taken a particular worldview. Science had much of its western beginnings in Christian's looking for meaning that their Creator had put here. They were trying to think God's thoughts after Him. It was hijacked by Darwinism which built upon humanism during the Enlightenment to a large degree so that today the only explanation sought is a naturalistic one by many scientists. Science can only carry the discussion so far, then it can't make sense of things like the "why."
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
You misunderstand the scope and weightiness of the prophecy. It was the complete collapse of a system of worship and relationship practiced for over one thousand years. It was the culmination of all OT unfulfilled prophecy being fulfilled, including the first and second coming of the Messiah, the judgment, and resurrection into a new and everlasting kingdom for believers. You misunderstand the myriad of references by all these prophets and teachers sent by God all being fulfilled in the lifetime of that generation that received Jesus.So zombie Hebrews rose from the graves and walked the streets at some point? Again, the vast, vast, vast majority of Christians, your own faith, do not believe any of this, why not, if it's so obvious?
Because, as I said earlier, most Christians today have brought into Dispensationalism.
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.
Or the example I described, which you can see here: https://www.mlb.com/cut4/sports-illustrated-s-prediction-of-the-astros-winning-the-2017-world-series-provAgain to review: never happened before, unlike Roman gentrification, which had happened thousands of times. Was specific in every way, naming not only a team (by name, not by description of a uniform or in vague terms like "a group of southern stars shall band together," it just says the Astros) but the EXACT MONTH in which the prediction would occur (it does not say 174 groups of seven or 36 groups of 30 plus a little margin, the World Series happens in the last two weeks of October every year). The prediction cover even accidentally picked the player who would win the WS MVP (george Springer is the player on the cover in 2014, and is the WS MVP in 2017). Is this not an impressive prophesy? It's so accurate that the only possible explanation is the involvement of Xenu. Right?Let me guess, it doesn't meet some condition you require but have heretofore been unable to specify? And now you'll explain why it's not as good as your prophesy, after the fact, even though it is exactly as I described.
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 5-1?
The Messiah has over 300 hundred specific prophecies concerning Him, even recording His birthplace and manner of death before crucifixion was common practice. There were also specific prophecies concerning Israel, like warnings of curses, like the once again destruction of the city and temple and the abomination of desolation, wars, a covenant with the people, the end of sacrifice and offering, etc.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I honestly don't know what questions I've left open.
Post #2:
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?
Post # 21-22 laid out why what is translated as weeks is more precisely seen as sevens. You skipped engaging in the argument of why your view of Daniel 9:24 is reasonable since both Jews and Gentiles believe the Hebrew word is a "heptad" which is a period of seven.
I also laid out why AD 70 is reasonable to believe to Keith in Post 23. It does not just concern Daniel 9:24-27. Many OT passages address this time frame.
Post 23: "Show me how it forces its interpretation rather than bringing it to light. You acknowledge Jerusalem was destroyed and this was prophesied before AD70 since you acknowledge Daniel was written around 150 BCE.
1. Show me, from the OT where a coming judgment is not prophesied.
2. Show me where countless OT prophets and teachers (their writings) do not warn these Old Covenant warnings of impending judgment and a coming Messiah that does not fit after AD 70.
3. Show me how the Mosaic Law can be met after AD 70.
4. Show me how the resurrection and judgment do not fit the AD 70 deadline, per Scripture.
5. Show me how the Messiah does not apply to the Mosaic Covenant people.
Show me how any of this is forced from Scripture."
All I've said is you can't use your claim (the bible) as evidence of itself, and you can't say something is in the bible if it isn't (footnotes) because then you're not talking about biblical prophesy.
This is like saying you can't use mathematics to prove mathematics. IOW's, don't mention the biblical prophecy in proving the biblical prophecy.
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Destruction-Of-JerusalemAs it is, your prophecy, "Rome will destroy Jerusalem in 490 AD," does not in any way appear in the bible.
The concept of this judgment is presented in Daniel 9 and it is a concept that is presented in Deuteronomy 28 in the curses of disobedience. It is presented in many other OT passages.
In Daniel 9 God promised another judgment after the decree was issued that would bring in the six conditions stated in verse 24. Again, the NT demonstrated that Jesus fits the bill of these six fulfillments.
The passage deals with a far shorter amount of time, and it draws on interpretation of an account of someone's dream which had a statue that had clay feet. The more I think about, the key factor in prophesy would seem to be that it's something you clearly can take advance action on. If you can only figure out it was a prophesy after whatever prophesied happened, and even then only with some real twisting and turning, then it isn't much good at all. I'll give you an example you'll appreciate: Rory McIlroy's dad prophesied in 2004 that he'd win the 2014 British Open. He bet something like 400 pounds on it, and ended up winning 171K when McIlroy DID win the 2014 British. That's pretty impressive prophesying, right? Still not the example I have in mind, but it's actionable and provable and specific. All things your prophesy isn't. In any case, restate your question that you feel I've left open and I'll gladly answer.
McIlroy's prophecy is nowhere as detailed plus Rory probably knew of it and had a desire to make his father's dream come true.
If you think my theology is wrong then challenge my understanding of it. Let us see who has the more reasonable and logical position. That is all I'm asking. Instead, with most atheists, it becomes a game of avoiding the subject.This is akin to asking if you think my understanding of the cinematic universe of Star Wars is wrong, then challenge my understanding of it. It's a ridiculous question because you don't think that Star Wars is real, so it doesn't really matter if I understand it differently than you do.
It is not ridiculous at all. The Prophecies exist. They are written down and can be referenced. History is the witness that can be employed in looking at the prophecies.
The more important question is why do the majority of CHristians think you're wrong?
Because of Dispensationalism which is not reasonable in any way yet the doctrine took hold of the church.
You're all in the same club supposedly. But more importantly, you've done this a couple of times: you shift the goalposts. I'm asking what's DEMONSTRABLE. You're saying your position is REASONABLE, LOGICAL, but neither of those are demonstrable.
Yes, they are demonstratable. I have claimed this all along that the Preterist position is the most reasonable and logical position of interpreting the Bible. All other positions unravel. I have offered to show you its reasonableness but we could not get passed the seventy "weeks." You are deadset in making it weeks, yet the Hebrew word is "sevens." God was multiplying the judgment seven times until the judgment was complete once the decree was issued.
Is a black hole logical? Is the gravitational force exerted on light and the resulting time dilation LOGICAL? No, but they are indeed both demonstrable. The problem I have is that you say that no matter what, you're not going to think you might be wrong. Even if this prophesy is DEFINITIVELY proven false, it doesn't shake your faith enough to say "Wait a minute, maybe the god in this book isn't correct."
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I would argue on the impossibility of the contrary. I don't understand how a universe without a necessary Being is possible.You keep stepping in this.Then explain how it is possible and how it makes sense. I want to see the logic of your position once you jettison God as to how it is possible or makes sense.I'm putting this here for clarity sake. For the sake of THIS TOPIC, I'm granting that indeed a necessary being is not only possible, but it is what created the universe. The challenge is to connect 'necessary being' to the character bolded without either asserting it or pointing to a holy text, because that's a claim, not evidence, and every faith with holy texts will make the same claim with the same level of certainty. NEcessary being, agree. Particular being, please demonstrate.
The underlined is most unreasonable if you want evidence that points to a specific God. It is like saying show me mathematical evidence yet don't use math.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
The understanding of the prophecy came after I believed in Jesus, not before. What I am saying is that there were good reasons for believing in Jesus before I understood the prophetic message. The prophetic message is just one aspect and course of defence of the faith and the one I prefer to use because I have not found a reasonable answer to it with the evidence available to us.If this prophecy was proven false to your satisfaction, would you then stop believing in Jesus?
It would mean I do not have a correct understanding of the issue. That would not disqualify me from believing in Jesus. So, prove I am wrong once you hear my presentation, yet you won't give me the chance to share it because you keep shutting me down. I'm not going to waste building the case if you won't answer my questions along the way. As soon as you did this the topic was derailed.
I think the answer is no. It sounds like from the above, the answer would be no. If I'm right, then why do you continue to talk about this prophecy as if anyone else should care about it, or stake their faith on it? It just seems strange. It doesn't mean much to you, if your faith doesn't hinge on it. Why should anyone else care?
My faith hinges on a correct interpretation of Scripture for if I have the wrong Jesus I have the wrong faith. If I have the wrong escatology much of my theology is in question for I do not worship God in spirit and in truth.
If you think my theology is wrong then challenge my understanding of it. Let us see who has the more reasonable and logical position. That is all I'm asking. Instead, with most atheists, it becomes a game of avoiding the subject.
Tell me what would make my prophecy impressive enough to perhaps allow that your god isn't the only god. I will, again, describe this prophecy and you can tell me which part of my description is LESS impressive than yours"Show me another "god" who can predict over and over again the end of things from the beginning and give good reason to doing so repeatedly.Show me your god doing it and we can compare, but you're missing the point: if I could show you unquestionable evidence of a prediction and a result, predicted years prior, to the month, with no reason or inkling to make it likely, would you think that would be evidence of whatever god I'd ascribe it to?
First, answer my post #2 questions before we continue. And any evidence can be questioned. The question is whether it is reasonable and logically coherent.
Yes, it would give some credence to your claimed god if the evidence was reasonable. It would mean that in this aspect - prophecy - there was some believability to your claim.
My event without precedent means IT NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. Your biblical prophesy hinges on something happening that had happened hundreds if not thousands of times before, and was totally unremarkable: Romans gentrifying an unrurly populace by destroying cultural touchstones. They did it for a thousand years.
You misunderstand the scope and weightiness of the prophecy. It was the complete collapse of a system of worship and relationship practiced for over one thousand years. It was the culmination of all OT unfulfilled prophecy being fulfilled, including the first and second coming of the Messiah, the judgment, and resurrection into a new and everlasting kingdom for believers. You misunderstand the myriad of references by all these prophets and teachers sent by God all being fulfilled in the lifetime of that generation that received Jesus.
Mine? Never happened, and hasn't happened since. Would you say it was harder to predict something that NEVER happened before, or something that had happened thousands of times before in very similar situations?
What prophetic event are you speaking of? Lay down your case. Let's test it.
Daniel 9:24 predicts something into a year depending on where you start and how you work your extra-biblical multiplication in. Mine? Was predicted with unquestionable accuracy. It says "IN X YEAR THIS WILL HAPPEN." Which is more impressive prophesy, using clear language and an exact event and year, or vague poetry with some scholar figuring it out eventually, after the fact?
Daniel 9:24-27 is not vague. It is very specific. Produce your prophecy, its fulfillment and we will compare it to the biblical revelation.
My prophesy has photographic evidence. Yours does not. Which one is more impressive?So you believe then if I can provide you this prophesy and the prophet says Xenu told him, you'd say "You're right, I'll give Xenu credit?"
Again, I do not have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
I truly believe any innocent life, such as an infant, will be with God in heaven for the reason that Jesus said,Thus making abortion the greatest gift god could give.
No human being has the right to take innocent life so doing so puts that human in jeopardy of judgment.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I do not see how any other worldview can make sense of those questions.If you mean atheism can seem nihilistic then I agree with you. I imagine it's something every atheist has to found their own way of dealing with.Most atheists deal with it by adopting a broadly humanist stance, even if they don't explicitly identify as a humanist(*). But even humanism isn't a logical consequence of atheism.
How is that?
I don't think atheism implies any particular stance, other than denying god any role. Atheism doesn't imply hedonism or humanism, selfishness or altruism. It just denies gods exist.
I believe secular humanism and materialism fit into an atheistic worldview.
I could not open the site.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
So let me ask you: the muslims who were murdered last week, the three year old victim, the youngest one...he's burning in hell right now, right? Don't wriggle about now, you just said he's accountable to god for sinful action, and he was in the act of not worshipping jesus, of denying jesus and the bible. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time and got shot and is dead. He's burning in hell, if you had to guess, right? Not "I don't get to judge," that's cowardice and seems a soft denial of Jesus to me.
I truly believe any innocent life, such as an infant, will be with God in heaven for the reason that Jesus said,
“Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
Jesus died for such as these children.
The problem with Isalm as I see it is that they do not have a sufficient atonement for sinful actions even though it recognizes the OT Scripture in which animal sacrifice is used to atone for sin. Is an animal sacrifice sufficient? It always pointed to a better sacrifice and was only a covering until that sacrifice was made, then that covenant was taken out of the way and replaced with a better one.
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.
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.
It is most reasonable to believe that verse and that letter of address was written before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.
No more special than your pleading.Any life that has a beginning derives from something elseDo you know what special pleading is?
Yes - " Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.
I have offered to show you the justification and evidence yet you continue to avoid going there.
You have continued to assert and believe what you believe without justification in any way. This is a two-way street. You are examining my worldview, but I am also examining yours. When I continue to ask you to make sense of your statements you ignore my requests. Where is the give and take?
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.
He was at one point not alive, and then, according to you, suddenly alive. Did he come from another person who was alive? No? Then did he come from god? Yes? Then god's alive? Yes? Then what live thing begat god? Nothing, god is alive and always was alive and was always here. THIS IS SPECIAL PLEADING. Life always comes from life EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE TIME. Please demonstrate what you think I'm doing that is special pleading.
There is evidence that points to the underlined conclusion. And yes, Adam came from other Persons (the triune God).
Where have you ever witnessed life coming from something not living? Yet you believe it. You build a whole worldview on a basic premise (or premises) that is not provable, just presumed. That is special pleading.
In all life that had a beginning we see/witness coming from other life. It is unreasonable to state this?
It is unreasonable to think that blind chance happenstance can produce let alone sustain life. An atheist worldview continues to push the narrative that it can.
No? Then Adam didn't come from something alive, and life, therefore, did not come from life. If no living thing created god and he's alive, then it's special pleading. If Adam came from god and god's not alive...your premise (life only comes from life) is flawed at the outset.
Is it reasonable to believe that God - an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, unchanging Being; the greatest possible Being - is the source of life? Explain life without such a Being, and don't use special pleading. Can you do that or do we all being with base presuppositions that we build everything else upon? If so, then what is the more reasonable explanation?
How do I special plead this situation, if I answer "Where did the first life come from" with the honest response "I don't know"?
You plead God is not the reasonable answer without alternative justifiable reasons. You dismiss the reasoning without hearing it.
That's not special pleading, it's not answering with an appeal to fallacy. It's very simply I don't know. And stop complaining you're not allowed to use your claim as evidence. The two are different things! How many ways must that be demonstrated? If you have EVIDENCE, produce it.
Appeal to fallacy? You stymied my presentation before it even began. You showed me that you did not want to hear the argument by shutting it down. Why should I waste my time? Will you discuss it? No, you will find reasons to avoid it. You have never answered my OP questions to this day.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Not my answer but the biblical answer. How it answers the question is that it makes sense of it.This is non sensical. To trace the conversation, you say "I can make sense of the big questions." I said "Ok, go ahead, what's the reason the universe exists?" You said "God loves us and wants us to love him." That's not an answer to the question, it is a literal non-sequitor.
What are the big questions to your mind?
How did we (humanity) get here? What makes sense of why we are here? Does blind indifferent chance happenstance make sense? I say, no.
Why does the universe exist? It is because God chose to create it, or is there no reason why it exists? Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why do we find purpose and meaning? Do we just fleetingly make it up and if so what does it really matter? Why does our morality change? Where is our ultimate standard in making sense of what is right or good?
Please attempt to make sense of these things. Show me why your reasoning is sound and logical and better than my Christian reasoning.
The meaning of children having leukemia is that Adam's choice had consequences. He was barred from Eden and from eating from the tree of life. The meaning of innocent children dying is that they live in heaven with God rather than suffer on earth. The meaning of death is that we only have so much time either to find God or exist without Him. When Adam sinned we inherited a sinful nature that is passed on from generation to generation. We need a transformation that can only come through faith in Jesus Christ.Wow. So in your mind, when you see that mother crying, you think, "Wow, sucks Adam did that and your kid is about to die for it, but that's justice for you."
No, it reminds me of how we got to where we are. It reminds me that you would not have done any better than Adam did having been given that choice. It reminds me why there is so much inhumanity in this world - that humanity decided to do what they saw fit, not what God commanded was good.
It just seems weird that you think the objective source of morality finds it moral to punish a mother and her baby for something you think the literal first person on earth did, especially when you factor in that god would have absolutely KNOWN HE WOULD EAT THE FRUIT. That's morality? That's justice? I guess you're a subscriber to divine command? For real, I hope you never know anyone who loses a child.
Our mortality brings us to the realization that the life we live on earth is temporary. The curse reminds me that sin brought death and God has given a solution since Adam was barred from eating from the Tree of Life.
I see the heartache of those who lose children and I see God's promises that those who trust in Him will never be put to shame, that God has promised a better life for those who believe
thanfor those that do not trust Him. I see a better life than what we experience without Him. I see the reason for life - to love and enjoy God forever. I understand that God NEVER takes an innocent life without restoring it. I also understand that Jesus said the kingdom of heaven belongs to little children and that Jesus Christ died to save His people.
She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
An Amazon tribe is still accountable to God for wrongful action.Interesting. THey're accountable, even if he gave them no reason to think he's there.
There are all kinds of reasons and they understand them. There are beliefs in gods. These tribes worship idols. They understand that wrongful action deserves punishment. They are judged for their sin just like we are. I don't believe their punishment is as severe as those who hear the gospel message, understand it (one way to God that satisfies His justice and righteousness), and reject it. That is just a personal belief based on some Scripture for it is not my place to judge but God's. I have to give an account, just like you will. That is why I trust in the Savior as my Mediator. That is why I trust His sacrifice on my behalf. That is why I trust in His life lived on my behalf.
Romans 8:1 (NASB)
Deliverance from Bondage
8 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
8 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Others have suggested that God judges us on the knowledge we have revealed to us as to the severity.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
First Peter 3:15 is why you are bound to make the effort, right?
I have tried to answer your questions.
1 Peter 3:15 (NASB)
15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;
True, but it also depends on the motive of those who ask. Some people show they have ill intent in their questions or are not open to hearing the message. I'm not saying that statement speaks of you but every post reveals things about whether a person is interested in hearing the reasoning of the Christian faith or whether they have another motive. While it is God's right to judge your motives it is mine to discern from His word and when to walk away because someone is not open. I have learned over 35 years that if a person is not open to hearing there is no amount of reasoning that is open to them. I can usually tell that by the objections I receive and whether or not someone will engage with me in dialogue.
The Hindenberg was an example to illustrate which part of the prophesy is the problem: not that history happened, that you're ascribing supernatural elements to it. THe prophesy I can show you is not about the Hindenberg.
Then I fail to see why you gave that example.
It's about another event in history that someone had zero reason to predict at the time, it was years ahead of the event. the prophet was ridiculed, ignored even. Then it came true. It wasn't even like yours, which according to you and some footnotes claims a year. This at WORST claims a specific month and year, at best brings it down to a WEEK of that month of that year. I have historical evidence for the prophecy. You're having trouble following.
I have no idea what you are talking about. What does this other event in history have to do with the one you cited regarding the Hindenburg?
I have explained with good reason how the OT helped them understand the heptad, the Jewish word for seven. You have brushed this aside.
Do you believe in Jesus due to the prophecy you say is true from the bible? Is that the REASON you believe in Jesus, or do you believe in Jesus and then say "also, this prophecy is true, so that helps." Which is first? The question is in the OP and you don't address it in spite of quoting it.
The understanding of the prophecy came after I believed in Jesus, not before. What I am saying is that there were good reasons for believing in Jesus before I understood the prophetic message. The prophetic message is just one aspect and course of defence of the faith and the one I prefer to use because I have not found a reasonable answer to it with the evidence available to us.
What I continue to hear/understand from you and others is that you see no extra-biblical evidence for the faith. I see everything in creations as pouring forth the knowledge of God.
Tell me what would make my prophecy impressive enough to perhaps allow that your god isn't the only god. I will, again, describe this prophecy and you can tell me which part of my description is LESS impressive than yours"
Show me another "god" who can predict over and over again the end of things from the beginning and give good reason to doing so repeatedly.
- Predicted an event without precedent
The Bible predicts many, not one. The destruction of the city, temple and whole worship system was a major theme of OT Scripture but so was the coming of the Messiah to these covenant people.
- Predicted it to the month and year
Daniel 9:24 does not speak of which month, just within 70 years of sevens that were decreed.
- Evidence both written and photographed of both prophecy and event
I'm not sure what you mean. How do you photograph ancient history? The means were not available then.
- Even could not have been mathematically predicted
If I ascribe this prophecy to supernatural sources, or the prophet does, would you say that means the supernatural source is real?
It would give good reasons for belief, would it not? A person predicting hundreds, if not thousands, of events before they happened is not something we see happening.
But the other line of reasoning that is always in the back of my mind is life's ultimate questions, of what makes sense in pondering these questions.
As I have said many times, I do not see how any other worldview can make sense of those questions.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I am pretty sure its clear he thinks they're forgeries.He can speak for himself. I am not interested in how "sure" YOU think HE is.
I agree with you, ludofl3x.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Science changing its position is WHY SCIENCE WORKS as well as it does. It's how we advance: by not accepting the answer that the sun goes around the earth.
The point is that what we think is "right" via science changes as we learn more. We never understand the whole picture, just segments of it. How will you know when what you believe is true to what is?
Let's say you were ill: would you want medical treatment described in the bible, or medical treatments described by modern science?
What does this have to do with origins? The difference is between medical science and origins is scientism. You can't repeat origins. You can only set up experiments that give credence to your paradigm and ignore the annoying issues that don't fit the paradigm.
The Bible described treatments for a period of history not as advanced as ours, yet principles still apply today. We understand that mould is a serious health issue, We understand that life is in the blood, whereas draining the blood (bloodletting) weakens and can kills the human.
You start having seizures, do you want a scientist who says "Let's look at your brain with all the advances of modern technology and neurological theory and information, find the problem and try to solve it," or do you want a doctor who says "Sorry, man, it's clearly demonic possession wrought upon you likely for something your grandfather did to offend the god who sits behind the sun, I'm afraid the only answer is to go out into the wilderness, beg for forgiveness until madness overtakes you"?
Medical science is science that can be repeated and confirmed. The science of origins is not. The assumption is that the present is the key to the past for we interpret the past from the present.
One's biblically sound. The other is science. Choose carefully!
Again, you confuse the relevant audience of address as to conditions applying to us today. The principle of burning the house down if mould was found was sound for that period of time because they did not have the chemicals or advanced understanding we do to treat mould. God is not speaking directly to us but to a culture vastly different in its knowledge from ours. There example witnesses to us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
The answer is God has revealed what is good and we have disobeyed Him. God has given us light (His word is a light to our feet, it illuminates truth) yet we choose to walk in darkness, to do our own thing (relativism).This is your answer to the big question "why are we here"? How does this approach an answer to that question, exactly? You profess to have answers, this isn't one.
It gives a good reason for our existence. Not only this, the Bible is a confirmation of His revelation on many levels.
A scenario without God/gods is blind, indifference random chance happenstance for there is no intent, no reason why we would get consistency or sustainability. Tear into that scenario and let's see how you make sense of it. We will have a comparison and contrast.
I would argue on the impossibility of the contrary. I don't understand how a universe without a necessary Being is possible.You keep stepping in this.
Then explain how it is possible and how it makes sense. I want to see the logic of your position once you jettison God as to how it is possible or makes sense.
The topic at hand grants the universe exists via an agency creating it, for purposes of discussion. We're on page 26 and you've not made one inch of progress toward the question: why is that agent the god in your book. You continually skip that step and then start talking about stuff that makes no sense and that no one contends in this topic.
You are the one who keeps inhibiting me from providing a reasoned and logical explanation via prophecy since you will not look at it. How many responses have you said, "Show God and don't use the Bible" or how many times have you tried to infer the Bible is not supported by other evidence?
I can't get to that stage until you are willing to have a reasoned dialogue in which we both answer the other person's questions.
Why would a universe begin to exist, then sustain itself via random chance happenstance?The laws of nature =/= chance happenstance, and by all observations, they are what sustains the existence of the universe and describe how it behaves.
If there is no intention behind nature there is no reason why uniformity of nature would continue, yet it does. Explain why this continues. Somehow these laws exist. Explain how they do form without intent and are sustained with no intent.
It is not logically consistent that a universe that has no intent to it, no design, no purpose would continue to exist and sustain itself for billions of years via chance.Again, the laws of nature appear to be sufficient to sustain the universe, because they are demonstrated.
Because they are demonstrated does not show how they came to exist via chance happenstance which they would have to derive from without intentional Being.
You question isn't really sustaining the universe, it's what CREATED the universe.
And yet without God, an intentional Being, why would chance form and sustain these laws?
The existence of a thinking agent up there with its hands on the dials IS NOT demonstrated, though it is GRANTED for discussion here. Why is that character your god? Don't say "It is," or "The bible says it is," or "that's the one that makes the most sense." Explain, don't assert. Again, page 26 and you've not tried.
Such a Being makes sense. Random chance happenstance does not. You assume it can but you have not demonstrated it. You assume that such means are the way it is but you can't make sense of it. If you can please demonstrate. I'm willing to put God against "Chance" to contrast the two. Then we will see which makes sense.
And nothing seems more ludicrous to me than when a person claims there's a reason or a plan or a purpose and then makes no attempt to describe any of them in any way.
Nonsense. You keep demonstrating you are not interested. How do you want me to prove God without using the Bible in which this God is revealed? I can use the Bible in conjunction with history or choose another vehicle to demonstrate Him, yet for this thread I choose prophecy. You have yet to answer the questions I asked you in the original post (OP).
"What is the purpose of the unverse" is the question to which you feel you have a religious based answer, but when queried all you can say is "BEcause god wants us to love him or wants to love us", which does not in any way explain anything, particularly when he's apparently done such a shit job designing people that he is by default mad at them forever. He's sure good at covering his tracks though, that part he paid particular attention to: disappear, and then leave only evidence that makes it look like you were never there and aren't required.
No, I stated the purpose of God in creating us was a relationship and the means God has given us is the majesty and glory of what He has created. The Bible discloses He created humans in His image and likeness.
What exactly do you mean? The complexity and intricacy that is you cannot be copied by our minds. With Adam's choice (the Fall) God put measures in place to counter humans living forever (decay and death) by eating of the tree of life. Again, He did this for a purpose, to remind us of our frailty and perhaps seek Him out.
The biblical explanation is reasonable and logical. It explains wrong. If we are just biological machines why is what one does any better or right than what another does? It would be all determined by our genetics and environment. What makes those two factors right?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Please show me your prophecy and show me it is not made up by your mind. I asked you above to show me the Hindenburg one also and when you propose it was written.THe hindenberg one is an example. I have a real one, but you're already wriggling around. I can only assure you that none of the biblical prophecies are nearly as specific or as undoubtable as this one. None, not one, not even close. This was predicted multiple years prior to it happening, it had never happened before, there's no room for interpretation either of the prophesy or of the outcome. If I can show you such a prophesy, and I told you it was attributed to Xenu, god of Scientology (an active religion, with a large population, infrastructure, and a more recent vintage of revelation than 2000 years ago)? My prohphesy doesn't need a story of a dream and a statue of clay and all that other crap or footnotes. Mine's real. And if you presuppose Xenu, it's EXTRA real. Will you grant if I can demonstrate beyond any doubt that htis prophesy was made specifically and accurately, that Xenu's prophets are as powerful as Gods? Would you consider believing in him as a result of this prophesy?
So there is no written prophetic utterance regarding the Hindenburg. You are just making one up. You can't supply anything historically that backs up your claim. What is real about that?
I'll show you, but I don't think prophesy is why you believe in God and therefore, I don't think it's honest of you to use its idea as a reason to believe in god for others. The more excuses and conditions you add to Xenu, you don't add those to Yahweh. Let's say you got one right based on third party footnotes and recalculations. If mine's more accurate and more verifiable, mine would be better, right? I know you're curious. Just not curious enough ismy guess.
Biblical prophecy is just one confirmation. It was the vehicle I chose because I like its explanatory and logical soundness. I am still waiting for someone to engage instead of making all kinds of excuses why I can refer to the Bible as proof in conjunction with history.
I can show you a myriad of prophecies, not just one that gives veracity to God. You are proving you are not interested. Why should I waste the effort?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
The answer is God has revealed what is good and we have disobeyed Him. God has given us light (His word is a light to our feet, it illuminates truth) yet we choose to walk in darkness, to do our own thing (relativism).This is your answer to the big question "why are we here"? How does this approach an answer to that question, exactly? You profess to have answers, this isn't one.
Not my answer but the biblical answer. How it answers the question is that it makes sense of it.
Make sense of life coming from non-life.
Make sense of origins.
Make sense of truth.
Make sense of morality without a necessary Being revealing what is right. Make sense of why your contrary and relative view is any better than mine or anyone else without a fixed reference point and measure.
It means something only if God exists. If God does not exist we are just biological machines doing what our environments and genetics DETERMINE we do. It means people do wrong and choose wrongly only if God exists and has revealed Himself to us. Without God, there is no justice for such actions, for those who consider them wrong, no ultimate accountability. There is no punishment for wrongful actions other than we die which we will anyway. There is also no hope for a future for those who are innocent of wrong and who have been wrongfully accused and are dead (such as in the case of abortion where an innocent life is taken). Where is the justice in that?"IF GOD EXISTS." This now sounds like you sort of think he exists as part of some personal comfort level, or incredulity (how can it be another way??). It also doesn't answer the question. What is the meaning in children having leukemia? How is a dying infant justice if it's really repayment for something Adam did? Again, you're claiming to have these answers. This isn't an answer.
I use the "if" looking at the logic from your worldview stance, not mine. To my mind, there is no "if" about God's existence.
The meaning of children having leukemia is that Adam's choice had consequences. He was barred from Eden and from eating from the tree of life. The meaning of innocent children dying is that they live in heaven with God rather than suffer on earth. The meaning of death is that we only have so much time either to find God or exist without Him. When Adam sinned we inherited a sinful nature that is passed on from generation to generation. We need a transformation that can only come through faith in Jesus Christ.
Jesus died for the little children. He died to save them from sin just like He died to save those who would believe from sin. God judged sin and He judges sin by death but Jesus came that we might have life eternal through Him and His sacrifice on our behalf.
The reason we are here is that a personal God chose to make us so that we could know Him in a loving relationship. He created us so that we could enjoy Him in His majesty and glory, so humanity was created for this purpose.Except he made us so poorly he's constantly mad at us for doing what he knew we'd do, according to your religion, right? In any case, this is not materially differnet than "Made to sing songs about Jesus." This also doesn't make sense of anything. It simply asserts the answer, again. "We can know him in a loving relationship" answers the question for YOU. How does it answer the question for the Amazon tribe he created who'd never hear of him forever, that he'd have to burn in hell for the sin of not figuring out from no evidence at all that he is worth singing songs about, and having a personal relationship with? This makes LESS sense. Not more.
He is angry with sin, with wrongful action, with people who call what is good bad and what is bad good.
Again, God has given humanity many convincing proofs yet sin gets in the way of seeing them. You, in denying God prefer to look at life through the lens of your own eyes, your own understanding.
How do origins from random chance happenstance make sense of anything, yet we continually find meaning from these supposed beginnings? Are we just inventing meaning when there is none?
An Amazon tribe is still accountable to God for wrongful action. Where do you find a righteous man, a man without sin, apart from Jesus Christ? You don't. So God is just in punishing us for our wrong. Sin separates us from God yet God has revealed a way that satisfies His justice and well as His righteousness. This is found in Jesus Christ alone, not in what you or anyone else can do.
My belief that life comes from a necessary life is consistent with what I witness, the living from that which is already alive.Is your next move special pleading (all life is from prior life EXCEPT FOR GOD)? I'm not sure what else there is otherwise. How do you avoid the infinite regress? THe former answer makes your character an irrationality, and no longer subject to logic and reasoning as a result. Would you grant Xenu the same leeway?
No more special than your pleading.
Any life that has a beginning derives from something else. Make sense of it from an atheist perspective since that seems to be the bent you are coming from but will not disclose.
I have offered to explain why prophecy is a reasonable and logical revelation from God. Your bias will not let this happen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Intelligence goes without speaking, but where do you find a specific reference to His intelligence in the Bible?- No, 'Intelligent' is not one of the attributes of Allah as decreed in the Quran, so we do not say God is intelligent. & I'm no expert in the Bible, but Christians do indeed claim God as an Intelligent Omnibenevolent being.
The mind of the intelligent seeks knowledge, But the mouth of fools feeds on folly.
I am not familiar with the biblical passage you reference that states God is intelligent but it is obvious to us by what we see and what His word says. The universe has purpose and meaning that we find in it. That is a sign of supreme intelligence. We are intricately and wonderfully made. That shows God's understanding, and understand that even the most intelligent among us humans have a hard time fathoming. The complexity of creation speaks volumes of His intelligence.
I don't understand. Is Allah not all good and are some of the things done by Allah evil?- All-Good is not an attribute of God either. In Islam, Good & Evil are relative concepts. God is not contingent on Good. We do not worship God because God is Good, for then in the absence of Good, God deserves no worship, which entails Good is what you worship, not God. God does not have to be Good or Bad, God is not subject to Morality.
You may not, but we as Christians do worship God because of His goodness and love for us. That is just another glaring difference between our two religious views. There is always goodness in the world, despite all the evil in it by those who live contrary to what God has declared to us as good - to love Him and place Him first and then to love our neighbour.
Evil is a lack of the light of God who you understand as Allah.
God is not subject to morality because He is always good.
Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.
Malachi 3:6“For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.
As you agree, God is merciful. It is good to be merciful. God is loving. It is good to be loving. God is forgiving. It is good to be forgiving.
How can we worship the same God when what we believe about Him differ? I accept that you call God Allah.- Beliefs of God =/= God.
Unless they correspond to worshiping God as He is and as He has revealed Himself. Why do you think you worship God as He truly is?
The teachings of Jesus state:John 4:22-24 (NASB)22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.24 God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”If we are not worshiping God as He truly is then are we not committing idolatry, a false concept of God? If so, then how can you say we are all worshiping the same God if one of us identifies Him as all good in all He does and the other does not?- Indeed. I guess one of us must be wrong, "To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ." (5:48)
True, one of us, at least, is wrong.
Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
Those underlined points are key/vital truths of Christianity. This brings me to another point - do you have to earn salvation in Islam and how would you know you have achieved a right standing with God/Allah? IOW's, is your acceptance with God/Allah based on what you do?- You don't earn salvation in Islam, just hope of salvation. We believe salvation rests solely on God's Mercy which we have no power over, while reward after salvation rests on our deeds.
How can you be sure you have salvation with Islam? It depends on what you do, or do you think God will have mercy on someone who sins or constantly sins?
We believe God is merciful in forgiving us Jesus because no human sacrifice can earn salvation but God (who is perfect and perfectly good) requires us to live without sin before Him for the reason that sin alienates us from His presence. Thus, as taught in the NT, Jesus lived a perfect life before God as a human being on our behalf. Not only this, He paid the penalty for our sin by dying for us. Thus, both God's justice and right relationship are met in Jesus and those who believe in Him. So, we don't have to offer sacrifices to obtain salvation if we are included in Jesus, which is by faith. Through that faith relationship with Jesus Christ, we find peace with God and God transforms our natures.
So, when another religion teaches what is contrary to Islam then which one is right/true?- Islam of course, for it is the last religion & the seal on all religions. When I say Islam approves all religions, I mean they were divinely revealed when revealed, which may not necessarily correspond with how they are practiced today.
Well, it is not the last religion. Bahaism claims it is the latest manifestation of God and it contradicts the way you look upon the Qur'an. So it is newer religious writing as authored by Bahá'u'lláh (1817–1892). New religious faiths are happening every day as people make their own gods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Before we go any further I would like to remind you that I asked if you can independently demonstrate the trinity.
Independent of what?
Islam being wrong aboit the trinity would not necessarily make Christianity right.
True. The evidence is in the Holy Scriptures themselves. Only one can be true (if one is true) since they both contradict each other. Compare what they say, and the internal evidence of both. Does the Trinity make sense? I believe it does and I can argue for it using Scripture since the claim is that shared Scripture (the OT) does not contain the concept of the Trinity.
Also and as I've said before even if we accept that there is some accurate prophecy in the bible that by itself does not tell us the source of said prophecy not does it prove that anything else in the bible is true.
It does. The Bible is specific on who prophecy comes from.
It gives good, logical reasons to trust it but God confirms Himself to the believer in all kinds of ways when we look at the universe and what God has made. They make sense when you bring God into the equation. Without Him, we are left in a sea of relativism where our limited knowledge is a hindrance for us.
That is why I ask for independent verification.
Independent? There is bias in every view. What makes your view better? Why should I believe you? Who are you to tell me the way things are?
What authority do you have that I should believe you? You are just like me, limited in your understanding. You do not see the big picture. You walk in darkness and you encourage others to stumble along with you. No thanks! Life is too short to spend it in wasteful speculation that can't make sense of why I'mm here. I choose the view that can make sense of it and by doing so I find meaning and purpose as well as true love and caring for who I am. I understand God's hand in my life every day, His mercy and compassion for me who believes in Him. Thank you, Lord!
The atheistic worldview has nothing to offer. It is barren and desolate. If that is your belief, stumble on!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
609 posts to day. Some religions name a creator god and some don't. Atheists, doing it the wrong way again.Are gods in your philosophical framework like a room full of toddlers, all making incoherent claims?
I'll jump in here. For me, only one God.
Atheists make claims based on a paradigm that cannot explain our most important questions of meaning. Science does not seek to explain meaning in the sense of qualitative values, just the way things are or what is, yet scientists are constantly seeking qualitative meaning. Science cannot answer the question of why we are here, just describe that we are here. It does not know why the universe exists, only that it exists. It cannot justify morality but it uses morality. Science does not know how consciousness comes from something devoid of consciousness. Scientists can only speculate and set up all kinds of theories.
Humanity, throughout history, has looked to Someone greater than themselves in understanding these questions for good reason. They can't be explained or made sense of otherwise.
"I'm the best", "no, I'm the best", "I'm the only god", "no you're not", "I was firs
?My scientific view is correct." "No, mine is correct. It is the one that explains things best!" No, you both are wrong. This is the best scientific explanation!" "Oh, wait, we have additional information that changes the whole paradigm - stupid us!"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Which theory of the universe do you hold to?The one supported by verifiable data.
And which one is that?
Why is your view the necessary view of how and why the universe exists?
Why is your view the necessary view of how and why the universe exists?Because it is consistent with logic and mathematics and the scientific method, validated by verifiable efficacy.
Yet we have finite knowledge. Particular views of science like the Ptolemaic view have been overturned by the Copernican view. Newton had limited knowledge and some of his principles have been refuted and others have been expanded upon. Einstein's views have been expanded. Now we have the science of quantum physics and other views that challenge the current paradigm. They all used mathematics and logic. With their limited understanding, these people thought their views were valid, the answer, yet some of those views have been overturned or modified and expanded upon.
How are theses explanations FUNCTIONALLY DISTINCT?What do you mean?When someone asks, "what existed or happened BEFORE the big-bang?"And you say "god"And I say "nobody knows"These answers are FUNCTIONALLY identical.Your answer does not logically necessitate ANY modification to our daily behavior.
I would argue on the impossibility of the contrary. I don't understand how a universe without a necessary Being is possible. Why would a universe begin to exist, then sustain itself via random chance happenstance? It is not logically consistent that a universe that has no intent to it, no design, no purpose would continue to exist and sustain itself for billions of years via chance. And why do we continue to find meaning in a meaningless universe, even design? Is meaning and design really there or are we just making it up?
Your answer does not reveal any useful or actionable data or insights.
It makes sense of how origins can come about, through intentional Being and by His sustaining it.
We see how humans are able to sustain things and utilize nature in cultivating it for food that left alone would return to randomness without their human input.
The data is there in prophecy and how it interacts with history. It is reasonable and logical to believe with the information available to us from history.
Saying, "god did it" is functionally identical to saying, "nobody knows". [LINK]
Again, God doing it makes sense of its being. I challenge you to explain why the universe is here. Make sense of the "why."
I understand that when you say, "god did it" you try to add "therefore we must obey the teachings written in some old book".But you have yet to bridge that incomprehensible gap with any sort of (even tacitly) coherent argument.
What is more reasonable, life coming from the living or life coming from something devoid of life, and where do you ever witness it doing so? You just assume it can because you have built a paradigm around such a scenario.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
An unknown/unknowable "first cause" has exactly the same utility and explanatory power as "god(s)".The Christian God is knowable. He reasons with humanity in both by 1) what He has made and 2) by His written word.The holy scriptures have no coherent explanation for the formation of our universe.
Sure they do, God spoke the universe into existence. He said, and it was - no more difficult to God than that.
The holy scriptures have no coherent version of the scientific method.
The intent is not scientific but spiritual and historical although principles of logic and science are found. God is not trying to impress us with scientific knowledge but relates in a spiritual and colloquial way to the relevant audience of address directly and us indirectly as the secondary audience.
The holy scriptures do not contain a coherent description of what we call the laws of physics (Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica).
From the Bible, we can deduce particular principles of science such as the earth is round (not flat as thought about in earlier centuries).
Job 26:10, Prov 8:27, Isaiah 40:22
Again, God is relating directly to a Mosaic Covenant people who are not advanced in science like we are thus He speaks in terms they will understand. He chose these people to make Himself known to the world with His interaction and providence to them.
If I say "unknown/unknowable-first-cause" (noumenon) and you say "god(s)", THEN WHAT?Which one of us knows "more" about our universe?What do you truly know about it and how did you come to this knowledge?I know what is within our epistemological limits. I have confidence in these conclusions because of the demonstrable efficacy of logic, mathematics, and the scientific method.As far as speculation about what may or may not be beyond our current epistemological limits, I do not hesitate to say, "nobody knows".
"Our epistemological limits" meaning no one has yet made sense of origins?
How do you know nobody knows? Again, I point to a necessary Being for us to know through His revelation otherwise, I would agree, although one theory seems to be accepted by mainstream science as more valid than any other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Imagine an artist, floating in a vast blackness of empty space. This artist wants to create a work of art. What do you think they will use to create this magnum opus?Since it is your scenario, and I have no idea of how it relates to the above, you tell me, then I will discuss whether I think it is reasonable or not.The artist (that is the only thing in existence) would necessarily be required to create any work of art out of itself. Perhaps it could use some strands of hair to form a brush and perhaps some blood and saliva for paint, and perhaps a patch of skin for a canvas.
Here again, you are equating what is in the created world/realm/order to God by the analogy. Both you and God would use their imaginations to create. The difference is that God does not use any preexisting physical material when He creates. You do unless it is a story from your mind and you use preexisting things from the material realm mostly to describe the things existing in the story unless you are imagining abstractions such as principles of logic or mathematics.
A hypothetical god can (EITHER) be interactive and therefore fundamentally similar to all things in existence (OR) non-interactive and therefore fundamentally dissimilar to all things in existence.Your hypothesis makes no sense.First, you are assuming He is hypothetical based on your logic above. Second, why can't the biblical God interact with what He creates?Of course this god is hypothetical, that does not invalidate the logic. The point isn't that "the biblical god can't interact". The point is that you have to pick one or the other.
Why? Why either/or instead of and/both?
(IFF) such a god is the sole creator of everything (THEN) everything is pieces parts of god and as such this type of god CAN interact with those pieces parts of itself. On the other hand, (IFF) such a god is supposedly "transcendent" or otherwise fundamentally separate from the material realm and the material realm is NOT part of god (THEN) such a god would never be able to interact with or observe the material realm and anything and everything in the material realm would never be able to interact with or observe such a god.
How can something be a piece or part of God if God is immaterial and the something is material? Why can't Someone who is immaterial and omnipotent as well as omniscient produce something material by using His mind? You just presuppose this is impossible because you can't do that, yet you are neither omnipotent nor omniscient. If you are spirit as well as body then you interact with the world in both aspects of your being. If you are solely a biological material machine how do you come up with concepts that are not material but abstract and do not owe their existence to any material thing?
If you make something it did not exist in the form you made it before you made it.The key question here is, "what did god make everything out of?"
He imagined it into existence. Just like you can create something out of what exists by reshaping and moulding it through your imagination so God can create something physical from His imagination.
He is similar in some ways (i.e., reason, logic, personal, conscious) yet His essential nature is different in other ways, just like your nature is different from that of a bird since you can fly - it is not in your nature. You have a physicality to your nature, He does not. You have a beginning to your nature, He does not. Thus, you are created, He is not. The universe has a beginning, He does not.Certainly such a god would not be LIMITED TO the material realm, but it also cannot logically be EXCLUDED FROM the material realm (without also necessarily excluding it from all possible observation and or interaction with the material realm).
The Son became part of the realm He created as well as sustaining it and interacting with it, so He does not exclude Himself from it. He excludes Himself from sin and wrongful action.
An interactive god is necessarily and fundamentally 100% of existence.And what makes you think the biblical God is not interactive in every aspect of His creation?I'm not saying that a god CANNOT be interactive. I'm saying that a god cannot be interactive AND transcendent (not 100% of everything).
I still don't understand why not?
You are not a part of the chair in your dining room but you can interact with it. You probably did not create the chair and even if you did the chair is not you, yet you interact with it. Your being transcends the chair in a sense (although not solely in the same sense or definition that I would apply to God - including #3 especially - below) in that God and you are both conscious but you have a corporeal/bodily existence, God doe not. The chair does not have consciousness, just physical existence.
Definition of transcendent
1a: exceeding usual limits : SURPASSING
b: extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience
2: being beyond comprehension
3: transcending the universe or material existence—
4: universally applicable or significant
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
What is the nature of the prophecy and how detailed are the accounts? How well do the accounts match what we know of the history and archaeology of the times in which they were written?It's a prediction of a future event, the accounts match history and archaelogy exactly. EXACTLY. There is literally zero way to misinterpret it. It says "In X years, Z will happen." In X years, Z happened. No one, on earth, denies that it happened. The prophet was ridiculed when he made the prediction. Will you even consider the idea that Xenu is real if he's the one that inspired it?
Show me the prophecy, the time it was written and its fulfillment. Show me other prophecies that are accurately fulfilled also.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok let's focus on just one difference. The trinity. How do you know that Christianity is correct regarding the trinity and Islam is incorrect regarding the trinity? Can you independently verify the trinity?
I can show a reasoned belief of the Trinity that is present in both Testaments.
I can give you good reasons to believe the Qur'an misrepresents the biblical teachings even though it claims those teachings are inspired by Allah/God.
It is an involved process. Both tasks take a lot of time.
Christianity has many verifiable proofs, of which I like prophecy to demonstrate the reasonableness and logic of its truthfulness. There is a unity and there is explanatory power that comes from the NT in understanding the OT and fulfillment of everything predicted. I argue that OT prophecy, in large, concerns a Mosaic Covenant that does not exist after AD 70 in the prescribed form of worship. There is a constant pointing ahead in the OT to the Messiah who is given attributes that God alone has in the NT (i.e., what is said of God in the OT is said of Jesus Christ in the NT). There is also a continuous warning in the OT that I believe I can show finds its fulfillment in the NT in both the Messiah and judgment. The OT Mosaic curses can be demonstrated to have taken place with the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
My worldview can consistently make sense of the big questions.Not demonstrated to this point. Again, if you think 'making sense' of 'why are we here' = "BEcause Jesus wants us to sing songs praising him!" I'm afraid you and I have big differences in our definitions of 'making sense.' I've invited you to demonstrate how you make sense of these big questions, you just complain that I don't bother. I'm not contending I do, I don't see a reason to address them in any way other than what's evident. I don't need to add magic to it, it brings nothing to the table.
Again, you misrepresent the reason why. The reason we are here is that a personal God chose to make us so that we could know Him in a loving relationship. He created us so that we could enjoy Him in His majesty and glory, so humanity was created for this purpose. We can know a Being of whom no greater can be known, yet most of us would rather do our own thing and deny this Creator His majesty and glory and usurp it with our own.
How do I make sense of the big questions?
My belief that life comes from a necessary life is consistent with what I witness, the living from that which is already alive.
My belief is that everything that had a beginning originates from that which is eternal and gives it existence. I do not believe in self-creation, which is a self-refuting or a logically inconsistent belief. I do not believe the universe is eternal or else how would we ever get to the present, another mind-blowing contradictory thought?
I believe we originate from our own kind, not from a common ancestor unless you call that ancestor the biblical God. That is what I witness. I see humans producing human beings. I don't see them producing other kinds of beings. I don't associate the magical ingredient of time as the reason I witness this consistency.
I believe that morality must originate from a morally necessary being or we are left in a sea of relativism where no belief is any better than any other, it is just imposed by force. I have what is necessary to make sense of morality, a best in which I can compare good and better with, a fixed measure, an ultimate reference point. Without God, you are left with changing and contradictory beliefs on what is right and what is good.
If you could prove Xenu with reason and logic, I would ask you to do so, so go ahead if you want to base your beliefs on XenuThat wasn't the question. If I could show you an indisputably true prophecy that was inspired by Xenu, would you then think Xenu might also be real? And this one doesn't count on a third hand interpretation of a story about a dream that never, ever mentions the greatest nation on earth at the time, Rome, by name. You consistently leave that part out while pointing to your wacky math. It has photographic evidence, video even, that it really happened, AND that it was really predicted. Nearly to the day.
I invite you to show me such a prophecy that I may consider it. I would invite you to show me one hundred such prophecies that I may consider them, as I would do with the biblical God.
Please show me your prophecy and show me it is not made up by your mind. I asked you above to show me the Hindenburg one also and when you propose it was written.
What do you mean by a third-hand interpretation? In understanding anything there is a correct interpretation and a faulty interpretation. We only understand the authors intent and meaning when we correctly interpret them.
Please prove Xenu is the source of the prophecy you speak of.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
The big questions try to answer the reasons why we are here.So what's the answer with God? Is it just "because God"? Because you bite off an awful lot here:
The answer is God has revealed what is good and we have disobeyed Him. God has given us light (His word is a light to our feet, it illuminates truth) yet we choose to walk in darkness, to do our own thing (relativism).
when bad things happen don't try to look for meaning or justice in themSo hypothetically, what's the 'meaning' when that guy in TX unloads a machine gun on people while they're in church? What was the 'justice' exactly? THe Muslims who were murdered last, Jesus doesn't care because they're Muslims? The mother who's crying as she watches her newborn struggle to take the last handful of breaths before it dies, the father who's crying while his three year old sits getting chemotherapy for stage 4 leaukemia...what's the'meaning' in all of that? What 'justice' is there for the three year old cancer victim, or the three year oldMuslim baby who was murdered? You see, if the answer is there is no meaning in it, which is what I think, then bad things happen, and they happen to everyone, and you just have to go on living your life best you can. Make the most of it. Your contention is that people should somehow be happy their kid has leukemia, it shows Jesus was thinking about them, I guess? Please, pick one of these and tell me what the meaning of it is. Is the answer "I don't know, only God does," then it's a trite pacifier, not a reason or any meaning at all. It's hubris on your part.
It means something only if God exists. If God does not exist we are just biological machines doing what our environments and genetics DETERMINE we do. It means people do wrong and choose wrongly only if God exists and has revealed Himself to us. Without God, there is no justice for such actions, for those who consider them wrong, no ultimate accountability. There is no punishment for wrongful actions other than we die which we will anyway. There is also no hope for a future for those who are innocent of wrong and who have been wrongfully accused and are dead (such as in the case of abortion where an innocent life is taken). Where is the justice in that?
How is history the claim? Was Jerusalem destroyed in AD 70?History isn't the claim. Your claim is it's history because someone in the bible said it would happen, only it happened not when they said it would happen, and therefore God was involved. It'd be like me saying "THor destroyed the Hindenberg." The part about the Hindenberg isn't the problem. It's the part about Thor.
My claim is that history happened WHEN they said it would happen, as revealed to them by God. You misrepresent me.
Where is the Hindenburg described in Norse mythology? Let's examine the prophecy. Please produce it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Same source as the previous post:
And Abraham charged his sons with this and Jacob likewise: 'My sons, God has chosen for you the religion; see that you die not save in surrender.' Why, were you witnesses, when death came to Jacob? When he said to his sons, 'What will you serve after me?' They said, 'We will serve thy God and the God of thy fathers Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, One God; to Him we surrender.' S. 2:132-133Since Ishmael wasn’t one of the progenitors of Jacob, who became known as Israel, the name by which his descendants were called, nor was he part of the covenant blessing:
"Then God said to Abraham, As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. ‘I will bless her, and indeed I will give you a son by her Then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.’ Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, "Will a child be born to a man one hundred years old? And will Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?’ And Abraham said to God, ‘Oh that Ishmael might live before You!’ But God said, ‘No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this season next year.’" Genesis 17:15-21The Quran is therefore blatantly wrong here.
But there are further problems with these Quranic statements. We said that the expression "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" refers to Israel’s ancestry. More specifically, the expression refers to biological relations shared by the three in that Abraham fathered Isaac who in turn fathered Jacob. The expression clearly refers to father, son and grandson. Taking the statements of the Quran seriously we are left to conclude that the author thought that Abraham fathered Ishmael who in turn begot Isaac who then fathered Jacob! Notice once again what the text says:
Were you present when death came to Jacob, when he said to his sons. ‘What will you worship after me?’ They answered, ‘We will worship thy God, the God of thy fathers, Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac, the One God; and to HIM we submit ourselves.’ S. 2:133 Sher AliThere is further support for this interpretation from the following texts:
Or do you say, ‘Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob, and the Tribes -- they were Jews, or they were Christians’? Say: ‘Have you then greater knowledge, or God? And who does greater evil than he who conceals a testimony received from God? And God is not heedless of the things you do.’ S. 2:140Note the pattern here. Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the twelve tribes are all listed consecutively. In fact, this is the only consistent pattern in all of these verses, since the Quran jumbles the timeline by mixing together different prophets from different periods. For instance, no one will doubt that the following text is structured sequentially in terms of lineage:
Say: 'We believe in God, and that which has been sent down on us, and sent down on Abraham and Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob, and the Tribes, and in that which was given to Moses and Jesus, and the Prophets, of their Lord; we make no division between any of them, and to Him we surrender.' S. 3:84
We have revealed to thee as We revealed to Noah, and the Prophets after him, and We revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, Jesus and Job, Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and We gave to David Psalms, S. 4:163
Remember also Our servants Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- men of might they and of vision. Assuredly We purified them with a quality most pure, the remembrance of the Abode, and in Our sight they are of the chosen, the excellent. S. 38:45-47No one would have a problem in understanding that the above text means that Abraham fathered Isaac who begot Jacob. We know from the Holy Bible that Isaac fathered Jacob and that the latter then had twelve sons that became the twelve tribes forming the nation of Israel.
The foregoing strongly implies that the author thought that, much like Isaac begot Jacob, Ishmael begot the former who in turn was begotten by Abraham! Putting it simply, these passages presuppose the following sequence:
Abraham fathered Ishmael who fathered Isaac who fathered Jacob who fathered the twelve tribes.
It is obvious that the Quran is confused.
***
There are some good articles on the differences for those who want to read more:
My cynicised view is that the mohammedan empire created Islam from scratch as a unifying creed based on the model of Judaism. It was given some tweaks to make it distinct from Judaism, most noticeably by including Jesus as a prophet.In my view Islam originated as a political tool, but it gained a life of its own when people started believing in it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Islam is much closer to Judaism than it is to Christianity.
While I would agree, it has also misrepresented the OT.
One such teaching where the Qur'an is mistaken is the teaching regarding the patriarchs found here:
To quote from the above:
"And behold, the LORD stood above it and said, ‘I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie, I will give it to you and to your descendants.’" Genesis 28:13Here, God identifies himself to Jacob as the God his fathers, Abraham and Isaac. Obviously, when Jacob is addressed, God only refers to his fathers and Jacob’s own name is not yet part of the reference.
"He blessed Joseph, and said, ‘The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, The God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day,’" Genesis 48:15In the above passage Jacob is addressing Yahweh as the God of his fathers and could not, therefore, call him the God of Jacob since he couldn’t call himself his own father! However, when addressing later generations, i.e. when God reveals himself to Moses and calls him to become his prophet/spokesman/the leader of Israel, he uses this identification:
"He said also, ‘I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God." Exodus 3:6The Quran also uses these same expressions:
"Go and gather the elders of Israel together and say to them, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, has appeared to me, saying, "I am indeed concerned about you and what has been done to you in Egypt."’" Exodus 3:16
"The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you delivered and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him." Acts 3:13
When Joseph said to his father, 'Father, I saw eleven stars, and the sun and the moon; I saw them bowing down before me.' He said, 'O my son, relate not thy vision to thy brothers, lest they devise against thee some guile. Surely Satan is to man a manifest enemy. So will thy Lord choose thee, and teach thee the interpretation of tales, and perfect His blessing upon thee and upon the House of Jacob, as He perfected it formerly on thy fathers Abraham and Isaac; surely thy Lord is All-knowing, All-wise.' S. 12:4-6As anyone can see, the expression "your father(s)" along with the naming of the Patriarchs is obviously referring to the progenitors of Israel, to the ancestral line from whence the nation came. Abraham begot Isaac who in turn begot Jacob, who had twelve sons that became the nation or children of Israel. Interestingly, the Israelites are called the "Bani Israel" in the Quran. However, where on earth does this name come from? In the Bible it is clear, God himself gave Jacob the name Israel (Genesis 32:24-30). So his descendants are the children of Israel. But does the Quran explain anywhere why the Israelites are called Israelites?
And I have followed the creed of my fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Not ours is it to associate aught with God. That is of God's bounty to us, and to men; but most men are not thankful. S. 12:38
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So, when another religion teaches what is contrary to Islam then which one is right/true?So, when another religion teaches what is contrary to christianity then which one is right/true?
The question becomes how reasonable are the teachings of another religion and how well are they verified?
I contend only for the Judea-Christian teachings as true. So name your religion and let's see how consistent it is to what is reasonable and logical to believe.
So, when another religion teaches something similar to christianity/islam then what makes it right/true?
Only if what is said is true. What exactly are you comparing? When this gentleman explained his Islamic belief, how well did it stack up to the Christian belief? His religious view has similarities, like the virgin birth which we agree upon, and his denial of the Trinity which we disagree with or the resurrection (a doctrine the Christian faith is built upon). His religious belief comes 600 years later. What is the evidence for that belief being true in its interpretation of Christianity? What do both testaments teach in terms of the Trinity, either overtly or by implication and deductions?
Created: