Total posts: 3,179
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you live in texas, you welcome strangers from Oregon 1500 miles away and turn guns on strangers from Chihuahua 10 miles away.Those in Oregon come legally. Do you think you could cross over to Mexico illegally?Not necessarily.Visa overstays from Canada 93,035.Visa overstays from Europe 123,729.Visa overstays from Asia 56,674.Combined total of 273,438. Start panicking now!!!!!!!!Visa overstays from Mexico 42,114.Visa overstays from South America 93,073.Visa overstays from Central America 17,069.Combined total of 152,256.
So, they break the law just like millions in your country have broken the law by being illegal immigrants instead of legal immigrants.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You admitted you have to presuppose this knowledge in order to confirm it.No, that is my starting point.That is literally what a presuposition is.
True, but I make a distinction as to my starting point from an atheist, agnostic or pagan. Core presuppositions are what worldviews are based upon - i.e., either God/gods or chance happenstance. Worldviews are based on a web of core presuppositions. My starting point is God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
On what auspicious date did you choose to be heterosexual?It is the way I am wired/designed.It's always good to gave some common ground. You agree then that a person's sexuality is not a choice?
I believe that we deviate from the norm when we ignore God's word and example. That is the Scriptural teaching. I believe the sinful choices of the father affects the son, up to the third and fourth generation, through example (or lack of) or through gender confusion. If the person does not receive proper reinforcement from the father, or one parent, from a young age I believe they may seek it out in another male role model, or in the case of a girl, a female role model that she lacked. The number of single-family homes would be an explanation of such behaviour occurs (lacking one or the other role model), plus the constant promotion of a gay lifestyle 24/7 in our cultures. Some people just want to experiment.
Thus, I believe, a person chooses to find what they are missing. I believe they choose to make themselves more feminine (or in the case of the female more masculine) to attract members of the same sex and try to find what they lacked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I just sent two days setting up a new thread and lost all the data by not saving my outline most frustrating. Now I will have to set it up again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
It is when people are murdered or killed or abused by illegal immigrants that would not have been affected if they had not come across your border.So you would threaten your god's plan? Everything that happens is god's plan, what gives you the right to thwart it?
Doing evil is not God's plan. You choose that all by yourself.
.They built walls to protect themselves from those who would do them harm.They built walls as defense against enemies, don't lie.
I'm done with your slurs against my character. You always bring in ad homs. That is why it is useless having a civil discussion with you.
What does that have to do with illegal immigration? They came into the States legally. What about the line of people wanting to come to your country legally that is denied because illegal immigrants take priority?Citation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You seem to equate wrong to God. How is it God's fault if the individual chooses?On what auspicious date did you choose to be heterosexual?
It is the way I am wired/designed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The number of resources used would be greatly reduced with a wall, as the border agents have stated.Citation please.An unpatrolled, unmonitored wall is easily breached by either simple power tools and or chemicals and or common explosives.
First, the manpower needed for patroling unfenced areas of the wall will be reduced. The manpower can be used elsewhere. Caravans coming through unfenced areas will not happen and anyone scaling the wall will give the border patrol more time to react.
The U.S. Border Patrol agents' union backed Donald Trump's candidacy. Steve Inskeep talks with union leader Brandon Judd about the president's executive action on a border wall and sanctuary cities.
INSKEEP: In a few seconds, how different do you think the country could be in three or four years if these proposals are carried out?
JUDD: Well, I think the country is going to be a lot safer.
INSKEEP: A lot safer.
JUDD: I really do, yes, absolutely. I mean, I was there with what they call the angel families, families that had children that were killed by persons that were in the United States illegally. If these laws are carried out properly - and he's not talking about new laws. By the way, he's not saying that he's going to give us new laws. He's talking about enforcing the laws that are currently on the books.
I recently visited the United States-Mexico border in Nogales, Arizona, where I met with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents and was briefed on the challenges of an unsecured border.
The problem we are dealing with is not just illegal immigration; there are illicit drugs flowing through our borders, human trafficking, and dangerous cartels exploiting vulnerable women and children. The biggest takeaway: We need the wall and the wall will work.
I asked the border patrol agents I met on my visit if they thought the wall would help. These are the people who see the mess that is our southern border every single day. They told me yes, the wall will help in their efforts to combat illegal immigration and other activity along the border.
That’s because walls work. It is a protective infrastructure that deters unlawful border crossings and other illegal activity where our natural barriers — such as rivers, mountains, and other impassable terrain — do not exist.
INSKEEP: A lot safer.
JUDD: I really do, yes, absolutely. I mean, I was there with what they call the angel families, families that had children that were killed by persons that were in the United States illegally. If these laws are carried out properly - and he's not talking about new laws. By the way, he's not saying that he's going to give us new laws. He's talking about enforcing the laws that are currently on the books.
The problem we are dealing with is not just illegal immigration; there are illicit drugs flowing through our borders, human trafficking, and dangerous cartels exploiting vulnerable women and children. The biggest takeaway: We need the wall and the wall will work.
I asked the border patrol agents I met on my visit if they thought the wall would help. These are the people who see the mess that is our southern border every single day. They told me yes, the wall will help in their efforts to combat illegal immigration and other activity along the border.
That’s because walls work. It is a protective infrastructure that deters unlawful border crossings and other illegal activity where our natural barriers — such as rivers, mountains, and other impassable terrain — do not exist.
U.S. Border Patrol Chief Ron Vitiello, who was ceremonially sworn in on Tuesday, said that a border wall done "right" will be important and effective.
Brandon Judd: As a veteran Border Patrol agent, I know firsthand that a secure border with the big beautiful wall the president is building is the only humane and permanent solution to the crisis at the border.
Longtime border patrol agent Terence Shigg, a former union local leader, supports building a barrier...
BRANDON JUDD: Walls actually work. I promise you that if you interview Border Patrol agents, they will tell you that walls work.
MARTIN: So, Terence Shigg, from your understanding of things and from your representation of the folks you work with, is that the position of most of the agents you know? Is that your position?
SHIGG: Yes, that is my position. And the wording changes from walls to barriers to fencing. And I think barriers work, and that's been proven, especially here in San Diego. You can come here, and you can see the places that are more secure due to the fact that we have barriers here. So I agree with that statement, and I think most Border Patrol agents know that that is a fact - that they do help and that they do work.
SHIGG: Yes, that is my position. And the wording changes from walls to barriers to fencing. And I think barriers work, and that's been proven, especially here in San Diego. You can come here, and you can see the places that are more secure due to the fact that we have barriers here. So I agree with that statement, and I think most Border Patrol agents know that that is a fact - that they do help and that they do work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The bringing in of billions of dollars of drugs into your country every year is a problem that needs to be addressed.Demonizing immigrants and building a wall will do nothing to stop drug smugglers.
I'm not demonizing immigrants. I'm demonizing ILLEGAL immigrants.
Sure building a wall will help with the drug problem. It will slow them down and give the border agents time to respond. It will help reduce the ILLEGAL immigration problem since many are smuggled over the border in areas without fences.
"Well over 95% of the drugs are moving on the water via container ships, non-commercial vessels, pleasure boats, sail boats, fishing boats. They also have fast boats which try to outrun our law enforcement assets.""We've seen growing use of self-propelled semi-submersibles (SPSSs) - low-profile vessels made out of marine-grade plywood [and] fibreglass with commercial engines. The smugglers spend up to a $1m (£665,000) to build one of these SPSSs for what is often just a one-way voyage. [LINK]
Not according to two reports that I find reliable:
DEA: Most Illegal Drugs Enter via Mexico, Cartels Greatest Criminal Threat to U.S. [Link]
"Donald Trump tied the heroin epidemic gripping suburban white communities to the issue central to the campaign: border security and illegal immigration.
The rate of heroin-related overdoses has nearly quadrupled between 2002 and 2013, with more than 8,200 deaths that year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Appearing on CNBC, Trump argued that this too is tied to weak borders.
"Our youth is being poisoned. You go to places like New Hampshire, where it’s the No. 1 thing, heroin, and it comes from the southern border.
"Donald Trump tied the heroin epidemic gripping suburban white communities to the issue central to the campaign: border security and illegal immigration.
The rate of heroin-related overdoses has nearly quadrupled between 2002 and 2013, with more than 8,200 deaths that year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Appearing on CNBC, Trump argued that this too is tied to weak borders.
"Our youth is being poisoned. You go to places like New Hampshire, where it’s the No. 1 thing, heroin, and it comes from the southern border.
Mexican heroin accounted for 45 percent of the total weight of heroin the DEA seized and analyzed in 2012 (South American heroin accounted for 51 percent). By 2014, the proportion of Mexican heroin had grown to 79 percent (South American heroin made up about 17 percent), DEA spokesman Russell Baer told PolitiFact.
"The majority of the drugs in the U.S. market are trafficked across the Southwest Border from Mexico into the US. Southwest Border seizures conducted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, while not the complete picture, provide insight into trafficking trends," he said.
Traffickers typically smuggle the drugs in through secret compartments in vehicles across the border (illegally and legally), transport them to stash houses in hub cities like Dallas, Los Angeles and Phoenix, and then distribute to the Midwest and East Coast.
Here’s a map from the Justice Department that shows how heroin moves through the United States:
Nearly all of the heroin fueling a U.S. resurgence enters the country over the 1,933-mile Mexico border, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.
Customs officers in Nogales have seized more heroin in the first six months of fiscal 2014 than during each of the past three full fiscal years, Agosttini said.
Most is hidden in vehicles crossing through ports of entry like the bustling Nogales gate. Smaller amounts are carried in on foot by men dubbed "mules," hiking established desert smuggling routes. Some is ferried in by plane or boat.
Traffickers typically smuggle the drugs in through secret compartments in vehicles across the border (illegally and legally), transport them to stash houses in hub cities like Dallas, Los Angeles and Phoenix, and then distribute to the Midwest and East Coast.
Here’s a map from the Justice Department that shows how heroin moves through the United States:
Customs officers in Nogales have seized more heroin in the first six months of fiscal 2014 than during each of the past three full fiscal years, Agosttini said.
Most is hidden in vehicles crossing through ports of entry like the bustling Nogales gate. Smaller amounts are carried in on foot by men dubbed "mules," hiking established desert smuggling routes. Some is ferried in by plane or boat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
No, you are not. You have no control over your existence. Life does not depend on you.Which one of us believes in an all powerful being with a plan for every individual in the universe that plays along with a stated purpose in the plan? BEcause that one has no control over their existence. And MY life depends on me, just like yours.
My life with God does not depend on what I do. I recognize I do not measure up. Only One does and I trust in Him and His promise to those who will believe. But I also recognize I have a volition. I choose. Thus, His plan for us is based on whom we trust in, ourselves or Jesus Christ.
Again, nothing you can prove. Where is your hope for the future after death?He can't prove we decompose? Can you prove that there's a soul? An afterlife? His are observations of physical science. Yours are fairy tales from a book.
I would appeal to the risen Christ as reasonable and logical to believe as one evidence of the afterlife. I would question if all we are is biological machines then what makes us intrinsically valuable and how do we get consciousness from something that lacks it? I would also point to the complexity of our being and a DNA structure that suggests intelligent design and engineering. What provides the best explanation?
If there is no necessary mind behind us then we are a product of methodological naturalism that has no goal in mind - most perplexing. If we are made in the image and likeness of God then we have a spirit and soul.
There is no 'after death' for living things that anyone can demonstrate, and if there is, you'd have a lot of work to do to still demonstrate that such an afterlife is yours and not, let's say, the Islamic version somehow.
The Islamic version is not reasonable. It comes 600 years after Christianity and it recognizes what we call the OT yet it changes it to suit its purposes without providing evidence that I am aware of to justify its claims. Then, found in Islam is a smorgasbord of other religious beliefs - Judaism, Zoroastrianism, aberrant Christianity, and pagan beliefs of the ANE. These are contrary to one another except the Judea-Christian system of thought, Christianity being the result of what was prophesied in the OT.
I agree and that is why God is necessary to know. Without Him, I'm in your boat.Yes, exactly. So you bring him in with no justification demonstrated, even when granted that A creator exists. I have bad news for you, though, I think you're going to find out you're in our boat all the same :).
I am willing to offer the evidence (and I do every day in my posts when I delve at the reasonableness of two opposing systems of belief) that I am not in the same boat by discussing the reasonableness of the Christian worldview as opposed to your worldview. I challenge you to make sense of your worldview. Please list what you believe and we will do this. I have set up threads on three different forums of the evidence specifically revealed by prophecy and the thread always gets derailed. It seems that no one I have spoken to on the topic (besides Annanicole) has the foggiest idea of what they are talking about. They can't demonstrate reasonably or logically that they understand prophecy. They do not understand how deeply embedded the prophetic theme is in both testaments. It carries through to most every biblical writing.
Why should I bother? You have shown you can't make sense or have the epistemic knowhow to answer life's most imortant questions. Your worldview doesn't have what is necessary.Taking your ball and going home is not only unbecoming, it's also in violation of 1 Peter 3:15: but gin your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,"
To those who are willing I offer the reasons for my faith. For those who are not, I dispute that their worldview can make sense of itself. Jesus taught not to give what is holy to those who will not accept it. They will just trample over what is sacred.
“Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
To those who have an agenda, I use ridicule and irony in showing the inconsistency of their worldviews. I take their worldview and I examine what is necessary for it to be true. I take the advice offered in Proverbs. Do you understand the difference between these two sayings:
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him.
Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.
In lieu of challenging his rather straightforward axioms, please simply show how you got from a thinking agent to god of the bible.
The unity of the Bible, its testimony, and the reasonableness of this God in making sense of anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Your reason is essentially "as a toy," which is not much more appealing than 'no PURPOSE required' or 'imbue your own PURPOSE.' (emphasis to keep the distinction between purpose and 'reason' which you tend to conflate).
It is not my purpose I am discussing. I am discussing whether or not the universe has a purpose to it, whether it shows purpose behind it.
How can you have a purpose without reason?
Second of all, if you're created for his pleasure and glory, why's he always so mad at all of his creations? Again, you might say free will, but then you're taking away any 'plan'.
How do you take away free will (not that I believe our wills are free) by having a plan?
He is angry at the sin and injustice we practice on a daily basis.
You can only reach back as far as the Big Bang. You don't know how life can come from the non-living, yet you live as though it can.I presume based on this, you must have incontrovertible proof of stuff that happened before the big bang, or how how life came from non life. It can't be from the bible, because that asserts that it happened, it doesn't explain how it happened. It simply says 'by magic.' There is no functional difference between "god did it by his holy word" and "by saying googityboogityboo."
Common sense tells me that something can't create itself. It would have to exist before it could create, so self-creation is self-refuting. It is an absurd idea. So, if something started to exist my common sense tells me there must be a cause or agency for it.
If the universe had a beginning then it is logical to assume it had a cause because the alternative is self-creation.
As for how life can come from the non-living is beyond me. Explain it if you can. All I ever see is life coming from
the living
And again, I hate to keep harping on this for you, but the topic removes the big bang cosmology inasmuch as it GRANTS A CREATING AGENT.
How does that remove God from using that vehicle (not that this is the necessary vehicle He used, but there is good evidence for the theory)?
The topic agrees that there's something before the big bang, something that created the universe. Your answer to "why would that be Jesus" is still pending.
Since you see something before the Big Bang what do you believe this to be?
I trust the Bible as true because it is reasonable to believe. Prophecy is one confirmation I use to demonstrate this because history verifies prophecy to a reasonable degree. I keep trying to find out why other worldviews are reasonable to believe. Sure, a person can still believe something that is unreasonable; that is their choice.
Why are your mind and senses reliable when it comes to origins? Who made you God? You have already stated you don't know. It is the blind leading the blind with your worldview.Mind and senses are all we have that are demonstrable, repeatable and reliable. "When it comes to origins" is an immaterial add on to that sentence, we can derive what little we can from our studies, and appealing to magic doesn't advance the ball.
We understand the process through our mindfulness, yes. The question is why do we find what we find if the universe is a product of blind, random chance happenstance? Why is there uniformity of nature in such a universe?
How do you not appeal to magic? "Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, something exploded out of nothing...Abracadabra!"
What does the universe materialize from, or does it just pop into existence from nothing? Please answer this.
You're still at "a creator," not "god of the bible," as it pertains to the topic.
Are you even there? If not, then we need to examine where you are at and how you got there. I am at the biblical God because the Bible is a testimony I trust. I find evidence from it that is consistent (when understood) and corresponds to the world, reality, reason, and logic.
You say "you've already stated you don't know!" as if you DO know. You don't.
Where did I state that?
You think you do, but you can't show any steps that go from "Quetzocoatl is wrong" and from there to "Jesus is right." You admitted you have to presuppose this knowledge in order to confirm it.
No, that is my starting point. You have to start somewhere. It is not my ending point. Once I presuppose as my starting point this God I find evidence of His truths in what is made.
That's not how conclusions work in any other scenario: "I think X, so that's correct" is all you've done. No one thinks "therefore I'm god," that's just rhetoric.
No, this is how it goes --> "I think X (Christian God as revealed in the Bible). A, B, C...W, Z gives good reasons for X. Therefore X is reasonable to believe."
It is not rhetoric. It is finding in everything I see God as the source as reasonable and logical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
My worldview says I am a creation of God, made in His image and likeness, thus I can make sense of my existence. I have a reason for being here!Right, it SAYS that. You don't arrive at that conclusion, you conclude it without demonstrating it's true in any way.
You do not want me to show you the evidence. How many times now have you said to prove God and not use the Bible, which claims to be His very word, hundreds if not thousands of times.
That's the point of the topic. You like the idea so you presuppose it's correct, you don't follow logic to it.
I can show it is reasonable and logical. Is it reasonable and logical that from reasoning and logical being comes other reasoning and logical beings?
And you presuppose yours by your starting point - so what? But once I presuppose God I find evidence from creation (what He made). I find what He discloses corresponds to reality, to what I see and understand. I find if I want to understand why I am here, why I exist, He is necessary. Other than that I am caught in an infinite regress of ideas and who is right and what is true? I question why what you believe is true. I question how you arrive at the truth from a relative, subjective viewpoint. I question what is necessary for you to know what is needed. I am willing to compare and contrast our two different worldviews. I challenge you to come out from behind your mask. Are you an atheist? If so we will start the comparison from these two starting points.
I've asked you to, and you can't prove that your god is the right god and someone else's religion is wrong. It was before you got all distracted with your politics stuff. What exactly IS your specific reason for being here, the one god has told you? Is it this one:
The question is what would be reasonable to someone who rejects God? You want me to play by your rules. Why would I want to do that?
My worldview explains that I am here because God chose to create humanity for His pleasure and glory. There is a reason. With random chance happenstance, there is none.It doesn't EXPLAIN that. It asserts that.
There is an explanation involved besides it being a logical assessment. Without reasoning Being there is no reason for the universe. It just is. There is no reason why the universe is sustained. It just is. There is no reason for the uniformity of nature. It just is. Now you can live inconsistently with what is.
I have presented a thread with a discussion of the evidence many times before. I have also questioned why what you and others believe is true.
And "his pleasure and glory" creates a number of problems. First of all, it doesn't sound as noble as I think you hope your existence would demand.
Are you in awe of the magnitude and magnificence of the universe compared to your tiny self? That would be evidence of His glory, of what He is capable of creating with such ease that there is no difficulty in creating it. And why did He create it?
He created it for us, that we could be capable of a relationship with Him, of enjoying Him as He enjoys what He has made. The problem is that sin mars His creation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
In your worldview how do you explain evil and injustice?People do bad things, that's just how some people are. How you explain it: God planned it and is okay with it happening,
No, He is never okay with it yet He allows evil for a purpose and a time. God has given humanity over to their sin, to find out that they don't have the solutions, they can't live consistently good lives without God.
Many people understand that they will be judged for sin, for their wrongful actions. Why even Hinduism believes in karma, what goes around comes around. The problem with every world religion but one is that they are works related or merited. They rely on what the person does to achieve their salvation. That is why Christianity is different. Christianity relies on the work of another for how we can be holy and good before a perfectly righteous God once we have sinned. That is the question.
he's going to make sure those folks burn in some hell someplace well after, for example, they murder your wife. Doesn't that make you feel much better?
They choose their destiny. What is hell? I believe it is a separation from the love and goodness of God for eternity. You get what you want. You refuse to acknowledge God or acknowledge His mercy so He gives you over to your own desires, per Romans 1:18 onwards.
Will you accept what is reasonable?Will it be regular reasonable, or Christian reasonable? You keep asking this then never presenting anything. I'm still waiting on any answer to the core question: how do you prove any other deity false without referring to yours by default?
Crafty distinction - "regular" as opposed to "Christian" reasoning suggesting that Christian reasoning is different (and inferior) to regular reasoning.
First, prove He does not exist. You know you can't do that, so you employ doubt as to His existence.I don't claim something that I can't prove exists, exists. You do. Your job is to prove it's there to me. That's how burden of proof works, but you know that and continue to ignore it. I employ the same doubt about your god that you do about every other god, it should be easy to understand. "Making a universe out of his word" = magic.
My job is to prove it is reasonable as opposed to other worldviews.
If you reveal your worldview I will try to contrast the differences between the two. I notice your profile gives no clue. It is easier that way. You don't have to explain yourself but can have free roam to criticize others.
I believe that at one time you once professed Christ for you have some familiarity with the Bible.
You can start any topic you like and I'll participate as warranted, I've said that several times. One more time for you now: without referring to your own religion, can you prove, or make a reasonable case, that any other god of your choosing definitely does not exist and never has? The alternative is can you prove that a creator of the universe has to be the god you worship without referring to the claim itself (the bible) but this has already proven too difficult.
Why would I use your subjective authorities to prove God? I see the Bible as the authority, so why would I bow to a lesser authority?
(For your benefit I use the word if)
If the Bible is what it claims to be 1) there is no greater authority of appeal, 2) what exists will reasonably reflect what this God says.
Thus, the OT was written before the NT. It reveals it is mainly a relationship with God and Israel in which a covenant is established with these people and God. These people continually fail to live up to their side of the covenant. God sends prophets and teachers to warn them of the curses of disobedience they agreed to. They fail to heed His warning that is written down in the OT. Thus, the NT is largely about the judgment God promised them, and it centers on the destruction of their worship system that happened in AD 70. This is a very reasonably proven fact. Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed in AD 70, as warned would happen with their disobedience. Thus, His word conforms to history or what we would expect to find.
So, that is just one evidence I use.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I can give reasoned evidence for its truth claims and I have a worldview that can make sense of origins. The atheist worldview can't. It is too inconsistent in making sense of its core beliefs, on what everything else rests.What core beliefs does atheism claim besides "the claim of anything supernatural has not met the burden of proof"?
Why the very fact that if it does not look at things through the lens of a Creator must mean it looks at proofs through naturalistic means alone. That is what we find. If someone denies God they must try to understand the universe through a mechanistic method as the most reasonable explanation for existence. That is what we find, yet how reasonable is their worldview?
You've yet to provide any reasoned evidence why the creator would be your god without referring to your own claim, and not any other god. We're at page 17. You've done this move several times, well I COULD show you something but you wouldn't believe it on its face. I COULD demonstrate this that or the other, but what good is it. I can demonstrate to you, for a fact, that the earth revolves around the sun, and that is true whether you believe it or not. Your claim seems to be because you believe it's true, it is, and that's that.
My prime motive has not been to present biblical evidence since you have told me you will not accept it (i.e., don't use the Bible as proof, thus, why should I waste my time?) but to contrast the two positions - God vs materialism in making sense of anything.
My claim all along is that you can't make sense of life's ultimate questions without first presupposing God. Atheistic belief does not make sense. First, it puts fallible humans as the measure of all things, but which contrary fallible humans is the question?
here is a purpose for life, to know and enjoy God, the reason He created us - a personal relationship in which we can enjoy His goodness and mercy. Sin, or our willingness to do our own thing, has gotten in the way. That is my Christian reasoning.Can you use REGULAR reasoning to demonstrate why anyone should believe your Christian reasoning?
What is "regular reasoning" and how does it differ from other kinds of reasoning? As a Christian, I look to God for the answers? I find the reasons in His revelation to some extent and by trying to think His thoughts after Him.
Why are Hindus wrong (without using the bible)?
To answer every religion would be endless and I'm not going down that rabbit hole. It has been such a long time since I looked into Hinduism but the simple answer is that their worldview is not consistent with reality. Like all worldviews except the biblical one, it is reductionistic or contradictory and what one Christian author (Nancy Pearcey) claims is self-referentially absurd or self-refuting to what we experience and to common sense. They can't live consistently with that worldview. (I know as soon as I say that they are contrary the atheist lists hundreds of apparent contradictions but so often they do not understand either the paradoxical language [i.e., lose your life to gain it] or reasonable explanation to the point of contention. I have found often that the verse is either taken out of context or there is a reasonable explanation that has been overlooked).
There are far, far more people on earth today, and even more from the past, who'd never heard of Jesus, don't care about him, from lands he never mentions. Strange way to create stuff to believe in you for your glory, isn't it?
And they have the same problem that every unbeliever has, they don't want to know God. They desire something different. They want to call what is and what is not, and God interferes with their supposed freedom of choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Changing your story won't help you, you claim that homosexuality is a choice
so on what auspicious date did you choose to be heterosexual? The choice is between those two so you had to have made a conscious choice to be heterosexual and that must have been an auspicious occasion surely you remember the date. The date when you rejected your homosexual tendencies?But as an aside this is hilarious:thus through heredityHomosexuals are the offspring of homosexuals. bahahahahahahaha. Do you have any idea how deep you have engulfed yourself in stupidly stupid land?
What I'm saying is that if the father is not a good example (a godly man) it can lead the son to a depraved mind too, to the third and fourth generations. This concept is expressed in Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,...
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened...
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
So, the word tells us that when people do not see fit to worship God He lets them go their own way. Their minds become depraved when they lose focus on what is good to the point that some dishonour a natural relationship in exchange for an unnatural one. They do things that are not proper in a biblical sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
1. What am I, [ontology]2. Why am I here, [philosophical]3. , [metaphysics]4. How do I know, [epistemology]5. What difference does it make [axiology]6. What happens to me when I die [destiny].1 - What am I,Over billions of years organisms evolved brains because they help organisms with them to find the neccessities of life. Brains work by generating an internal model of the world - ie we are not conscious of the world per se, but of an 'internal model'. The most important element of that model is the organism itself, for obvious reasons! 'I', therefore, is how the biological machine that is my physical form is represented within the brains larger model of its environment.
Thanks for your answer!
So, you start with a common ancestor, the prototype, that all others evolve from, correct?
Make sense of how consciousness come from inorganic matter and give me examples of this happening from inorganic matter or are you just presuming it happens?
3 -Where do I come fromI come from a long line of biological machines, with each link in the line being almost but not quite the same as its neighbour.
What about irreducible complexity? How do these first organic engines come about then function without engineering on a complex scale?
2 -Why am I hereI am here because the laws of physics are such that matter can self-organise in apparent (only apparent!) violation of the laws of thermodynamics. 3.5 billion years ago matter fell into an arrangement such that replication was energetically favoured.
It just happened. There was no agency or intent behind it happening. Darwins favoured species is just a way to describe chance happenstance, is it not?
So, there is no sense to be made from your original starting point.
Mine is different. I see and understand what I would expect to see and understand; that is from rational, reasoning Being comes other rational reasoning beings.
4 - how do i know?How do I know 1-3 or how do i know in general? I don't know the details of 1-3. Perhaps I don't know... i only believe. How I 'know' anything is that I see how new information fits in with my existing beliefs.
Exactly my point. You BELIEVE. That belief is not based on a reasonable, rational starting point. It can't make sense of why we are here. You don't know the details of how immaterial matter becomes conscious being or how the Big Bang originates and from what. Is it the start of the material universe - of time, space, matter, or does something transcend it and causes it? IOW's, is the universe self-creating (a logically absurd contradiction).
5 - What difference does it makeDon't get the question - it's a bit vague...
I'm asking how you arrive at axiology or meaning from a meaningless universe?
6 - What happens to me when I diethe biological machine that is my physical manifesttuon will break down and decompose. My brain will stop working, and as 'I' am something that is generatded by the brain's operation 'I' will cease to be, as the electricity generated by a dynamo ceases when it stops spinning. but unlike a dynamo the brain cannot start [a]gain - think of it as a smashed dynamo!
So, you believe that what makes you unique is your brain? I'll try and work on a refutation of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Why are your mind and senses reliable when it comes to origins? Who made you God? You have already stated you don't know. It is the blind leading the blind with your worldview.Mind and senses are all we have that are demonstrable, repeatable and reliable. "When it comes to origins" is an immaterial add on to that sentence, we can derive what little we can from our studies, and appealing to magic doesn't advance the ball. You're still at "a creator," not "god of the bible," as it pertains to the topic.
Is it reasonable that if I shake a dice one million times I get the same number every time without that dice being fixed? Why should I find uniformity or consistency and sustainability in nature? Why should we have the laws of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics? We discover these uniformities. Why if things are just random? Why should they continue to "act" in a precise manner that we can predict things because of these constants? Do you have a reason why this is so?
You say "you've already stated you don't know!" as if you DO know. You don't. You think you do, but you can't show any steps that go from "Quetzocoatl is wrong" and from there to "Jesus is right."
Sure I can. What is the reasoning behind "Quetzocoatl?"
Give me your most reasonable proofs of this serpent gods existence.
Give me your most reasonable proofs of this serpent gods existence.
Now, what is the reasoning behind Jesus?
There are accounts from writers that claim to be eyewitnesses. They claim He rose from the dead after death and willing die for this belief. The OT constantly predicted a Messiah and Jesus fits these predictions. What is the most reasonable explanation for these countless coincidences? Why is there such unity between testaments?
You admitted you have to presuppose this knowledge in order to confirm it. That's not how conclusions work in any other scenario: "I think X, so that's correct" is all you've done. No one thinks "therefore I'm god," that's just rhetoric.
I admit that a presupposition is each of our starting points. Can your starting point make sense of the universe? What is it? Let's see how consistent it is. Name where you start regarding origins. Do you start with a god? Which one? Do you start with chance happenstance and without intent or agency?
No, you are not. You have no control over your existence. Life does not depend on you.Which one of us believes in an all powerful being with a plan for every individual in the universe that plays along with a stated purpose in the plan? BEcause that one has no control over their existence. And MY life depends on me, just like yours.
You either start with such a being or you start with chance happenstance. Where is your starting point and how do you make sense of the universe, or do you? If the universe does not follow the intent and purpose of such a being then what sustains its uniformity and why do things happen in a way in which we can predict outcomes?
My life does not depend on me but on Someone else. Prove otherwise.
Again, nothing you can prove. Where is your hope for the future after death?He can't prove we decompose? Can you prove that there's a soul? An afterlife? His are observations of physical science. Yours are fairy tales from a book. There is no 'after death' for living things that anyone can demonstrate, and if there is, you'd have a lot of work to do to still demonstrate that such an afterlife is yours and not, let's say, the Islamic version somehow.
Yes, proving is complicated and involved. I am in the same boat you are in that you can't demonstrate there is no life after death. All you can do is say you see no evidence for it.
I agree and that is why God is necessary to know. Without Him, I'm in your boat.Yes, exactly. So you bring him in with no justification demonstrated, even when granted that A creator exists. I have bad news for you, though, I think you're going to find out you're in our boat all the same :).
We will see. Will you participate in a thread on prophecy if I create one?
I was going to show the reasoning behind the seventy sevens or seventy weeks of Daniel as a starter. From there I can tie it into a host of prophetic messages. I can show that the prophecy is most reasonable in not only understanding the Bible but also confirmed reasonably by history.
IOW's, I can show my faith as a reasonable faith. Can you do the same with yours? I'm still waiting for you to identify what you believe in as to your starting presuppositions - God/gods or chance happenstance. Go ahead, name your poison.
Why should I bother? You have shown you can't make sense or have the epistemic knowhow to answer life's most imortant questions. Your worldview doesn't have what is necessary.Taking your ball and going home is not only unbecoming, it's also in violation of 1 Peter 3:15: but gin your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,"In lieu of challenging his rather straightforward axioms, please simply show how you got from a thinking agent to god of the bible.
By not making sense of a worldview that does not first presuppose the biblical God and by trusting that the biblical God is adequate in explaining why I am here whereas others are not I find consistency. I challenge you to do that with your worldview.
QUESTION: How do you arrive at morality? Do you look at morality as based on a necessary Being or do you believe morality is a mechanism that is a result of evolution and chance happenstance?
Can you even answer these few questions for me? If not then your motive is what Jesus would call giving pearls to a pig. IOW's can I get any honesty from your worldview perspective or do you just want to test mine without any responsibility to justify and test your own position too?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
My worldview says I am a creation of God, made in His image and likeness, thus I can make sense of my existence. I have a reason for being here!Right, it SAYS that. You don't arrive at that conclusion, you conclude it without demonstrating it's true in any way.
I can give reasoned evidence for its truth claims and I have a worldview that can make sense of origins. The atheist worldview can't. It is too inconsistent in making sense of its core beliefs, on what everything else rests.
That's the point of the topic. You like the idea so you presuppose it's correct, you don't follow logic to it. I've asked you to, and you can't prove that your god is the right god and someone else's religion is wrong. It was before you got all distracted with your politics stuff. What exactly IS your specific reason for being here, the one god has told you? Is it this one:My worldview explains that I am here because God chose to create humanity for His pleasure and glory. There is a reason. With random chance happenstance, there is none.It doesn't EXPLAIN that. It asserts that.
It is an explanation that makes sense, it gives a logical reason, it makes it clear.
And "his pleasure and glory" creates a number of problems. First of all, it doesn't sound as noble as I think you hope your existence would demand. Your reason is essentially "as a toy," which is not much more appealing than 'no PURPOSE required' or 'imbue your own PURPOSE.' (emphasis to keep the distinction between purpose and 'reason' which you tend to conflate). Second of all, if you're created for his pleasure and glory, why's he always so mad at all of his creations? Again, you might say free will, but then you're taking away any 'plan'.
Nonsense. There is a purpose for life, to know and enjoy God, the reason He created us - a personal relationship in which we can enjoy His goodness and mercy. Sin, or our willingness to do our own thing, has gotten in the way. That is my Christian reasoning.
He is angry with the evil that we choose since it hurts us. In your worldview how do you explain evil and injustice??? Please answer.
You can only reach back as far as the Big Bang. You don't know how life can come from the non-living, yet you live as though it can.I presume based on this, you must have incontrovertible proof of stuff that happened before the big bang, or how how life came from non life. It can't be from the bible, because that asserts that it happened, it doesn't explain how it happened.
It boils down to your highest authority and whether it can make sense of life and origins. You either presume God or you presume some other avenue and explanation. What is your starting point? You start somewhere. You build upon a starting point.
For me, the proof is incontrovertible because it is necessary for making sense. I can't prove it incontrovertibly to you except to question how you make sense of origins and life. Then there is always the question of what you will accept? Will you be biased towards your current system of thought since you have so much invested and so much riding on it? You bet you'll be biased! Will you accept what is reasonable? Will you even allow the discussion without dismissing it?
It simply says 'by magic.'
What definition are you using of magic? If you mean be sleight of hand, no, it does not. If you mean by the use of charms or spells, no it does not. If you mean by incantations, no it does not. If you mean power or influence by a supernatural Being then I'll accept your definition, but what you call magic the biblical God has made known. If you use the last definition I somewhat agree, otherwise, it is BS. How does a personal Being translate to magic? First, prove He does not exist. You know you can't do that, so you employ doubt as to His existence.
There is no functional difference between "god did it by his holy word" and "by saying googityboogityboo." And again, I hate to keep harping on this for you, but the topic removes the big bang cosmology inasmuch as it GRANTS A CREATING AGENT. The topic agrees that there's something before the big bang, something that created the universe. Your answer to "why would that be Jesus" is still pending.
Big Bang cosmology does not exclude God as the reason. How does the Big Bang cosmology go? Where do they get this singularity from?
If there is nothing before the Big Bang then nothing created something. How preposterous is that? It is illogical, for one. It is magical for another (since you raise the contention with God as magic).
Show me how the Big Bang happens. Is there a cause for it?
I want your input otherwise this is all one sided in that you question me yet I can't question you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
1. What am I, [ontology]2. Why am I here, [philosophical]3. Where do I come from, [metaphysics]4. How do I know, [epistemology]5. What difference does it make [axiology]6. What happens to me when I die [destiny].I reckon I know the answers to most of those! The hard question is 'What do I do?'.I'm interested in what that may be.1. What am I - Cogito Ergo Sum (I am) "what" is beyond epistemological limits
It is beyond your epistemic limits.
My worldview says I am a creation of God, made in His image and likeness, thus I can make sense of my existence. I have a reason for being here!
2. Why am I here - Teleological fallacy - "why" (if there even is such a thing) is beyond epistemological limits
Again, beyond your epistemic limits.
My worldview explains that I am here because God chose to create humanity for His pleasure and glory. There is a reason. With random chance happenstance, there is none.
3. Where do I come from - Cosmological fallacy - The big bang, where that came from is beyond epistemological limits
Beyond your epistemic limits. Your worldview can only go so far then ignorance. You can't make sense of origins. You can only reach back as far as the Big Bang. You don't know how life can come from the non-living, yet you live as though it can. Thus, your epistemic knowledge is inconsistent. It is unexplainable but used by those who are inconsistent by what they believe.
4. How do I know - Through your mind and your senses
Why are your mind and senses reliable when it comes to origins? Who made you God? You have already stated you don't know. It is the blind leading the blind with your worldview.
5. What difference does it make - You are the most important being in existence
No, you are not. You have no control over your existence. Life does not depend on you.
6. What happens to me when I die - You decompose - Your presumed "essence" or "soul" is beyond epistemological limits
Again, nothing you can prove. Where is your hope for the future after death?
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
I agree and that is why God is necessary to know. Without Him, I'm in your boat.
And why should I trust your limited epistemic views? Who are you that what you say should be trusted?
Please challenge my axioms and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.
Why should I bother? You have shown you can't make sense or have the epistemic knowhow to answer life's most imortant questions. Your worldview doesn't have what is necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You seem to equate wrong to God. How is it God's fault if the individual chooses?On what auspicious date did you choose to be heterosexual?
My personal theory is that quite often homosexuality is gender confusion or compensation for not having a positive role model in a parent, thus the person tends to try to attract what they missed. The Bible attributes some sins of the children to the father for three to four generations, thus through heredity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
It seems to me that pga is criticising fascism.
Thanks for your input. Not only fascism but where socialism tends to lead. And the radical left in the Democrat Party is heading towards idiotic ideas.
Mussolini wrote: "Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State" and"Fascism [is] the precise negation of that doctrine which formed the basis of the so-called Scientific or Marxian Socialism"I think it is arguable that historically nominally 'socialist' regimes have degenerated into facism - as George Orwell brilliantly parodied in Animal Farm. That it is prone to mutating into facism may be the fatal flaw of socialism, but socialists are not facists. Indeed true socialists are soon suppressed as when power passes into the hands of dictators who pay lip-service to the letter of socialism while having disdain for its spirit.But this is not the right forum for this debate!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The opposition is suppressed. Those who oppose big government are demonized.This is true under any conceivable system of law regardless of ideology.
At least they have their say. Under socialism, the practice has been to squash any opposition and deny freedom of speech. This is seen time and time again in these socialist countries. They use the media and educational systems masterfully, the same thing happening in your country now with the Democrats and you don't even recognize it. There is so much negative groupthink very few can think for themselves. I think Mark Levin's guest last night on Life, Liberty and Levin highlighted this very well. You guys are hoodwinked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The bringing in of billions of dollars of drugs into your country every year is a problem that needs to be addressed.Demonizing immigrants and building a wall will do nothing to stop drug smugglers.
I do not demonize immigrants. I argue that ILLEGAL immigration is wrong. Can you go into any country you like whenever you want? Can you smuggle in illegal drugs?
The number of resources used would be greatly reduced with a wall, as the border agents have stated. They should know. They deal with these problems every day. They, enlarge, support Trump and his border policy.
"Well over 95% of the drugs are moving on the water via container ships, non-commercial vessels, pleasure boats, sail boats, fishing boats. They also have fast boats which try to outrun our law enforcement assets."
They also come in through miles and miles of an unfenced and unguarded border. Not only this, traffickers and illegal immigrants use these fenceless areas to get into your country.
Then the question becomes how much are you paying for illegal immigration and how much would a wall plus other means save your country?
If you want to be a lighthouse for illegality then you pay for it. Don't expect those who see it as wrong (which it is) to flip the bill for you.
"Californians bear an enormous fiscal burden as a result of an illegal alien population estimated at almost 3 million residents. The annual expenditure of state and local tax dollars on services for that population is $25.3 billion. That total amounts to a yearly burden of about $2,370 for a household headed by a U.S. citizen.
Nearly half of those expenditures ($12.3 billion) result from the costs of K-12 education for the children of illegal aliens — both those illegally in the country and those born in the United States. Another major outlay ($2.1 billion) results from the need to provide supplemental English language instruction to Limited English Proficient students, many of whom are children of illegal aliens. Together, these educational costs are 57.1 percent of total expenditures.""We've seen growing use of self-propelled semi-submersibles (SPSSs) - low-profile vessels made out of marine-grade plywood [and] fibreglass with commercial engines. The smugglers spend up to a $1m (£665,000) to build one of these SPSSs for what is often just a one-way voyage. [LINK]
Illegal immigration has proven to be harmful to your country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You mean like the Socialist Scandinavian countries.
Many would argue that those societies have declined since socialism, as I already pointed out. I would agree.
How does looking after the poor coincide with ILLEGAL immigration? These people are breaking the laws of the land. Many are smuggling in illegal drugs and people. Terrorists can negotiate a crossing into your country unhindered. The cost to your country is billions of dollars every year.Embrace your indoctrinated ignorance and oppress the poor in opposition to what your Jesus taught.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
With socialism, the government forces me to do this.With socialism, the government forces me to do what Jesus ordered me to do. Bastards.
God knows that there is evil in this world and He allows us to defend against evil. We are to be a light against it, to shine our lights on it and expose it.
We, as Christians are to live by the law of the land, but we are to pray for justice and peace. The bringing in of billions of dollars of drugs into your country every year is a problem that needs to be addressed. The amount of money it cost that could be used for more productive means is denied by such ruthless lawlessness that used your southern border. We, as Christians, are not opposed to people coming into our countries for a better life, but we want it done lawfully, not ILLEGALLY.
Socialism is evil. It does not give equal rights, it gives big government the right (by a few) to determine what everyone else will do. The opposition is suppressed. Those who oppose big government are demonized. It wastes its money. It creates government programs that are useless. It suppresses incentives to get ahead. It kills wealth. It robs for the middle class and kills it. Everywhere it is allowed to fester it destroys. And those who do not recognize its evil fall into its traps and its propaganda.
We, as Christians are to live by the law of the land, but we are to pray for justice and peace. The bringing in of billions of dollars of drugs into your country every year is a problem that needs to be addressed. The amount of money it cost that could be used for more productive means is denied by such ruthless lawlessness that used your southern border. We, as Christians, are not opposed to people coming into our countries for a better life, but we want it done lawfully, not ILLEGALLY.
Socialism is evil. It does not give equal rights, it gives big government the right (by a few) to determine what everyone else will do. The opposition is suppressed. Those who oppose big government are demonized. It wastes its money. It creates government programs that are useless. It suppresses incentives to get ahead. It kills wealth. It robs for the middle class and kills it. Everywhere it is allowed to fester it destroys. And those who do not recognize its evil fall into its traps and its propaganda.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I'm unsure if he is or not.
Definitely a conservative with a lot of compassion that is demonized and misreresented:
A good listen. Common sense government!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Using the Ptolemaic dating system? What makes you think it is accurate?I didn't intend to imply there is any limit or constraint on what or how you present things. I'd just like to see the case laid out clearly so we all know the score.
I'm setting up a new thread for the purpose of presenting the evidence. It will probably take me a week or so to complete this. I will lay down to reasonable approaches to understanding the seventy sevens, one literal and the other based on an approximate timeline.
Do you think that you do not want to believe despite the evidence because you do not want to be accountable to God but want to do your own thing? Do you think that your own mind holds the keys to life and you will discover them unaided by God?Can we deal with that at later date?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Those in Oregon come legally. Do you think you could cross over to Mexico illegally?Did the Spanish Conquistadors enter South America legally?
They entered as conquistadors (conquerors) who take what is others and make it their own. They then establish their own laws and displace the previous laws of the land to suit their purposes.
Regarding just entering a city as you pleased, walled gates could also serve as a checkpoint against just anyone entering a city.
One of the earliest known references to paperwork that served in a role similar to that of a passport is found in the Hebrew Bible. Nehemiah 2:7–9, dating from approximately 450 BC, states that Nehemiah, an official serving King Artaxerxes I of Persia, asked permission to travel to Judea; the king granted leave and gave him a letter "to the governors beyond the river" requesting safe passage for him as he traveled through their lands.
Passports were an important part of the Chinese bureaucracy as early as the Western Han, if not in the Qin Dynasty. They required such details as age, height, and bodily features.[4] These passports (zhuan) determined a person's ability to move throughout imperial counties and through points of control. Even children needed passports, but those of one year or less who were in their mother's care might not have needed them.[4]
In the medieval Islamic Caliphate, a form of passport was the bara'a, a receipt for taxes paid. Only people who paid their zakah (for Muslims) or jizya (for dhimmis) taxes were permitted to travel to different regions of the Caliphate; thus, the bara'a receipt was a "traveler's basic passport."[5]
Etymological sources show that the term "passport" is from a medieval document that was required in order to pass through the gate (or "porte") of a city wall or to pass through a territory.[6][7] In medieval Europe, such documents were issued to foreign travelers by local authorities (as opposed to local citizens, as is the modern practice) and generally contained a list of towns and cities the document holder was permitted to enter or pass through. On the whole, documents were not required for travel to sea ports, which were considered open trading points, but documents were required to travel inland from sea ports.[8]
King Henry V of England is credited with having invented what some consider the first passport in the modern sense, as a means of helping his subjects prove who they were in foreign lands. The earliest reference to these documents is found in a 1414 Act of Parliament.[9][10] In 1540, granting travel documents in England became a role of the Privy Council of England, and it was around this time that the term "passport" was used. In 1794, issuing British passports became the job of the Office of the Secretary of State.[9] The 1548 Imperial Diet of Augsburg required the public to hold imperial documents for travel, at the risk of permanent exile.[11]
Passports were an important part of the Chinese bureaucracy as early as the Western Han, if not in the Qin Dynasty. They required such details as age, height, and bodily features.[4] These passports (zhuan) determined a person's ability to move throughout imperial counties and through points of control. Even children needed passports, but those of one year or less who were in their mother's care might not have needed them.[4]
In the medieval Islamic Caliphate, a form of passport was the bara'a, a receipt for taxes paid. Only people who paid their zakah (for Muslims) or jizya (for dhimmis) taxes were permitted to travel to different regions of the Caliphate; thus, the bara'a receipt was a "traveler's basic passport."[5]
Etymological sources show that the term "passport" is from a medieval document that was required in order to pass through the gate (or "porte") of a city wall or to pass through a territory.[6][7] In medieval Europe, such documents were issued to foreign travelers by local authorities (as opposed to local citizens, as is the modern practice) and generally contained a list of towns and cities the document holder was permitted to enter or pass through. On the whole, documents were not required for travel to sea ports, which were considered open trading points, but documents were required to travel inland from sea ports.[8]
King Henry V of England is credited with having invented what some consider the first passport in the modern sense, as a means of helping his subjects prove who they were in foreign lands. The earliest reference to these documents is found in a 1414 Act of Parliament.[9][10] In 1540, granting travel documents in England became a role of the Privy Council of England, and it was around this time that the term "passport" was used. In 1794, issuing British passports became the job of the Office of the Secretary of State.[9] The 1548 Imperial Diet of Augsburg required the public to hold imperial documents for travel, at the risk of permanent exile.[11]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
If you live in texas, you welcome strangers from Oregon 1500 miles away and turn guns on strangers from Chihuahua 10 miles away.
Those in Oregon come legally. Do you think you could cross over to Mexico illegally?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
My responsibility is to know what is right and wrong.For yourself. Which would appear to be "the ten commandments", which doesn't mention immigrants or minorities or male homosexuals or terrorists.
Some things stem from those moral laws, like love for others, love for God; others are mentioned in both testaments as wrong before God.
If I meet a homosexual person I still recognize they are made in the image and likeness of God [although marred by the Fall]"Marred by the Fall" like literally everyone on planet earth.
True.
and deserve dignity and respect from me just like God has shown to me, but I do not see the sexual act between gay people as right per the biblical teaching.Do you have an opinion on each and every sexual act?
I haven't thought about everyone, to my knowledge.
Do you believe that married (hetero) couples who engage in certain types of (not strictly reproductive) sexual acts should also be banned from the church?
No, what they do in private is between them and God.
Repentant terrorists - I am all for second chances, just like I have been given one. That does not mean that a society should leave wrongful acts unpunished.Nobody is suggesting they should go "scott-free". The question is whether or not there is any path-to-redemption (have their day in court). The frightening thing is that it appears that we are now "stripping people of their birth-right citizenship" without due process, and with no path-to-redemption. I was always told that we were born with inalienable rights. If you can legally strip a person of all legal recourse and legal rights without even charging them with a crime, then I believe we have a very serious problem on our hands.
Yes, I believe in a path to redemption.
Who has been stripped of their birth-right citizenship?
Inalienable - the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Then what about the unborn? Do you grant them the same rights?
The problem is that we don't have the right to go anywhere we like without first receiving an invitation because when we do that we infringe upon the rights of others.
Do you have any "non-traditional" or "non-mainstream" beliefs? Well, just wait until someone who self-identifies as an "atheist" (for example) or someone from your group or "methodist" or "buddhist" or "gun owner" or "SUV owner" commits a heinous crime somewhere that makes it into the 6 o'clock news everywhere and then, BAM, "atheists" (or your group) will be capriciously stripped of their citizenship at will and nobody will even bat-an-eyelash.
My fight is not a physical fight but a spiritual one. I do not believe in taking a life or inflicting harm on others unless in self-defence.
Where would the justice be in that?Indeed.But it is not my job to dispense justice but to show the love of Christ to every person in treating them with love and respect, but also to act justly.That sounds reasonable.Now, I shamefully fall short of these qualities often. That is why I am so thankful for what Jesus has done for me - unmerited grace, something I do not deserve yet God mercifully gave!I know a lot of christians are very kind-hearted and friendly people. I just can't figure out why so many of them aren't.
Because they don't live the life they know they should. (inconsistent)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And everyone forgets that during WW2 the Unites States was begging Mexicans to cross the border to work in factories, and then, just a few years after the war, mass deportations began.Legally?My point is that "legally" is 100% arbitrary. It's not a "moral issue" like "murder" for example.
It is when people are murdered or killed or abused by illegal immigrants that would not have been affected if they had not come across your border.
There is nothing in either Leviticus or the Ten Commandments that says, "don't move to another country if your situation becomes desperate".
They built walls to protect themselves from those who would do them harm.
And don't you think that something like helping the Unites States win WW2 should perhaps be acknowledged and rewarded??????
What does that have to do with illegal immigration? They came into the States legally. What about the line of people wanting to come to your country legally that is denied because illegal immigrants take priority?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your quoted undocumented immigrant felonies number is 300,000 out of an estimated 11,000,000 total undocumented immigrants.What percentage of 11,000,000 is 300,000?2.73% [LINK] - So, realistically, you're freaking out because of 2.73%? What about the other 97.27% that are non-murder-rapist-drug-dealers?About 8.6% of the adult population (of the United States) has a felony conviction. [LINK]By this measure it is 3.15018315018315% more fair to say that ALL UNITED STATES CITIZENS ARE VIOLENT CRIMINALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So what do you suggest? Shall we let the violent criminals off like you propose we let the illegal immigrants off? How about we abolish all laws and have anarchy?
What about those who have been affected by these criminals? Their lives have been changed. Do you want to forget about their rights to justice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Socialism, coming to a theatre near you!One of the most beautiful sights in nature! The point being it is produced by each bird obeying the same simple, fixed rule. The complexity that can arise from the simple is too rarely appreciated.
Kind of like the daily commute on the freeways of LA (exit right!).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The questions give me a framework... I'm giving it serious consideration. It's not a 5 minute job though!
Same with my reply to your seventy sevens question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The only possible conclusion is that god made male homosexuals on purpose, probably as a hedge against overpopulation.
No, it is not the only conclusion. Homosexuality would be a deviation from the norm. If everyone did it humanity would die out. It would not be the natural outcome for it does not promote propagation. Consider the promotion of homosexuality may cause promotion of the lifestyle? Every TV show has a token gay person. Those who do not accept the lifestyle as normal are ostracized. The idea gains acceptability.
With all the marriage breakups in our societies how many people look for a replacement of the relationship they never had because of the absences of the one parent? How many never experience the one parent and look for this experience or replacement in their mate? How many make themselves attractive to the same sex to experience such a relationship? I think the idea has merit.
This relationship also produces offspring and God command humanity to go out and multiply.This is a red-herring. If you really believe this, then you should kick everyone out of the church who is infertile or refuses to have children. Catholics and many other christian denominations either expressly prohibit contraception or prohibit sex education. Would you propose we kick out everyone from the church who uses contraception? This policy would at least be logically consistent with your proposed argument.
No, contraception prevents unwanted pregnancy. I don't think it is wrong. Practicing abstinence for a period of time is not wrong, IMO. But once pregnant I do not believe a person has a moral right to terminate that life unless their own life is threatened.
A homosexual relationship does not allow such a natural family unit. I believe the best relationship for a family is one that supplies both a male and female influence and example.Certainly, in an ideal world, children should be raised with both of their birth parents. But this does not mean that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt orphans. It also doesn't mean that single-parent families should be kicked out of the church.
All I am saying is that the ideal situation is the male and female influence.
Having said all that, I still recognize that it is not mine to judge whether a person is to be saved or not.Ok, so why would you even comment on it?
Because the subject came up and I'm expressing my belief and reasons why I see it as wrong. Am I to be censored for expressing my opinion? I believe some things are wrong as I recognize some things I do are wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Jerusalem and many cities in ancient Israel had walls for a purpose, to protect those within the walls from evil for the times, just like ours, had lots of evil.Ancient cities had walls to protect them from ARMIES not immigrants.
While I grant that was the main purpose, security, I would argue that a large migration of people could have been seen as a threat. Walls are built to protect citizens. Do you leave your doors unlocked and open at night? Do you invite or let whoever wants to come into your house in?
Minority rights - the minority should have the same rights as the majority, not special rights just because they are in the minority unless they have a disability and need additional care, IMO.Here's the problem. Minorities were systematically discriminated against in the past. Banks red-lined neighborhoods. Schools were criminally underfunded. The effects of this incontrovertible discrimination continue to affect the exact same neighborhoods and schools. Do you think this is a mere coincidence? Do you think something should be done to give these people at least some token of hope? The proposals I've heard recently never mention "race". They are basic, common sense proposals like, (IFF) all Americans have a right to an equal education (THEN) all schools should be similarly funded and equipped. If one school has a computer lab and a debate team and a band and multiple sports teams and another school can't even afford textbooks and clean running water, that would seem to qualify as a serious problem, if not an all out national emergency.
It is true, minorities have been discriminated against and I agree that so often this is wrong. I believe that under God we are all equal yet we don't all live the same lifestyle. If you have no incentive why should I feed you? With socialism, the government forces me to do this. It forces me to work for you. And in some circumstances, why should a law be made for you as a minority that someone in the majority is not privileged to (i.e., special privilege)?
Take socialism. The problem is who pays for health-care for all or education for all and how much will it cost? The Green New Deal will cost between 75 and 95 trillion to make everything inclusive. It will kill incentive and initiate socialism. Socialism has been proven over and over again not to work.
Homosexual rights - the Bible teaches some things are wrongHere's the problem. The "bible" teaches a lot of things. In the Levitical law, where the prohibition against male homosexuality is mentioned, it also says you can't eat cheeseburgers or get a divorce. So if you won't allow homosexuals in your church, then BY THE EXACT SAME MEASURE you should also not allow anyone who eats cheeseburgers or divorcees. In-fact you should kick out anyone who doesn't eat kosher and observe the Sabbath as well. You can't cherry pick. There's nothing in the "bible" that suggests that male homosexuality is any worse than any of the other thousands of enumerated violations.
We don't live under the Mosaic Law but homosexuality is identified in both testaments as wrong.
because God created humanity with a union of a male with a female in mind as a reflection of a greater truth.If god made everything, and knows everything, is male homosexuality some sort of "mistake" that god couldn't have "fixed" for some reason?
You seem to equate wrong to God. How is it God's fault if the individual chooses? God reveals what is right and wrong. Humans choose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
***
Immigrants with past criminal convictions accounted for 74% of all arrests made by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in fiscal 2017, according to data from the agency. The remainder were classified as “non-criminal” arrestees, including 16% with pending criminal charges and 11% with no known criminal convictions or charges.
***
- ICE conducted a total of 368,644 removals.
- ICE conducted 133,551 removals of individuals apprehended in the interior of the U.S.
--- 82 percent of all interior removals had been previously convicted of a crime.- ICE conducted 235,093 removals of individuals apprehended along our borders while attempting to unlawfully enter the U.S.
- 59 percent of all ICE removals, a total of 216,810, had been previously convicted of a crime.
--- ICE apprehended and removed 110,115 criminals removed from the interior of the U.S.
--- ICE removed 106,695 criminals apprehended at the border while attempting to unlawfully enter the U.S.- 98 percent of all ICE FY 2013 removals, a total of 360,313, met one or more of ICE's stated civil immigration enforcement priorities.
- Of the 151,834 removals of individuals without a criminal conviction, 84 percent, or 128,398, were apprehended at the border while attempting to unlawfully enter the U.S. and 95 percent fell within one of ICE's stated immigration enforcement priorities.
FAIR’s report says $113 billion represents the total cost at the federal, state and local levels for undocumented immigrants. The vast majority -- $84 billion -- is paid by state and local governments.
- ICE conducted 133,551 removals of individuals apprehended in the interior of the U.S.
--- 82 percent of all interior removals had been previously convicted of a crime.- ICE conducted 235,093 removals of individuals apprehended along our borders while attempting to unlawfully enter the U.S.
- 59 percent of all ICE removals, a total of 216,810, had been previously convicted of a crime.
--- ICE apprehended and removed 110,115 criminals removed from the interior of the U.S.
--- ICE removed 106,695 criminals apprehended at the border while attempting to unlawfully enter the U.S.- 98 percent of all ICE FY 2013 removals, a total of 360,313, met one or more of ICE's stated civil immigration enforcement priorities.
- Of the 151,834 removals of individuals without a criminal conviction, 84 percent, or 128,398, were apprehended at the border while attempting to unlawfully enter the U.S. and 95 percent fell within one of ICE's stated immigration enforcement priorities.
And everyone forgets that during WW2 the Unites States was begging Mexicans to cross the border to work in factories, and then, just a few years after the war, mass deportations began.
Legally?
Criminals bring problems and immorality to a country.Conflating immigrants with criminals is provably false. Even the conservative CATO institute concluded that undocumented immigrants are slightly less likely than native born citizens to engage in criminal behavior. This type of rhetoric is pure fear-mongering.
I said, criminals. Illegal immigration is a crime in itself but the number of immigrates who are criminals compound the problem. Illegal immigration costs your country billions of dollars every year.
***
A continually growing population of illegal aliens, along with the federal government’s ineffective efforts to secure our borders, present significant national security and public safety threats to the United States. They also have a severely negative impact on the nation’s taxpayers at the local, state, and national levels. Illegal immigration costs Americans billions of dollars each year. Illegal aliens are net consumers of taxpayer-funded services and the limited taxes paid by some segments of the illegal alien population are, in no way, significant enough to offset the growing financial burdens imposed on U.S. taxpayers by massive numbers of uninvited guests. This study examines the fiscal impact of illegal aliens as reflected in both federal and state budgets.
***
"Illegal immigration costs our country more than $113 billion a year. And this is what we get," Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, said. "For the
money
we are going to spend on illegal immigration over the next 10 years, we could provide 1 million at-risk students with a school voucher, which so many people are wanting."
FAIR’s report says $113 billion represents the total cost at the federal, state and local levels for undocumented immigrants. The vast majority -- $84 billion -- is paid by state and local governments.
The $113 billion is not a net cost. Taking into consideration federal, state and local tax payments made by the undocumented population, the net cost would be about $99 billion, according to the FAIR report.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The way I see it:Immigration rights - I do not oppose immigration but it should be legal immigration.Here's the problem. Legal avenues are broken. Waiting lists are 20+ years. Citizenship tests are unrealistic (most citizens can't pass).
Just because the system is broken doesn't make illegal immigration right. If a person does something wrong they are breaking the law - hence ILLEGAL immigration. You are on the wrong side of the issue if you support something that is illegal.
The problem is that your government does not want to fix the problem. They are making a political game out of it, hence enough fentanyl was seized last month to kill over half your population.
***
“What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, we have a lot of these people, probably two million, it could be even three million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate. But we’re getting them out of our country, they’re here illegally.”
The most recent publicly available information provided by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on the criminal alien population (the government’s official terminology) dates back to a 2012 report to Congress. Based on it, we estimated in a 2015 report that 820,000 of the approximately 11 million people living in the country illegally had criminal convictions. Of these, we estimated 300,000 had a felony conviction and 390,000 were serious misdemeanants (meaning they had been convicted of a misdemeanor in which they were sentenced to actual custody of 90 days or more).
***
The 23 percent criminal traffic offenders figure is only part of the overall picture. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, another 23 percent, more than 43,000 illegal aliens, were convicted of drug offenses. The violent crime category of assault, robbery, sexual assault, and family offenses comes to 12 percent. The non-violent crime grouping of larceny, fraud, and burglary totaled seven percent, and on the list goes — equaling 100 percent of illegal aliens who have been through the criminal justice system and inflicted thousands to millions in cost per alien on the system, for issues having nothing to do with their illegal entry into the country...
In an interview with this author, Pinal County, Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu stated, “Pinal County has followed the trend of the majority of counties across the United States, so we have seen most of our major crime statistics drop during the past few years. The one area we have not seen drop — which has seen dramatic increases in fact — is crimes tied to illegal immigration. Our high-speed vehicle pursuits have rapidly increased each year from 142 in 2007 to 340 such incidents in 2010. Marijuana seizures have spiked from a low in 2008 of about 19,600 pounds to over 45,500 pounds in 2010. My deputies are telling me more and more that they are apprehending guns and high tech communication equipment from cartel operatives.”
An FBI crime study also shows heavy illegal alien involvement in criminal activity revealed these statistics:
An FBI crime study also shows heavy illegal alien involvement in criminal activity revealed these statistics:
- 75 percent of those on the most wanted criminals list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.
- One quarter of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals, as are more than 40 percent of all inmates in Arizona and 48 percent in New Mexico jails.
- Over 53 percent of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens.
- 63 percent of cited drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that number, 97 percent are illegal aliens. 66 percent of cited drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66 percent, 98 percent are illegal aliens.[15]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
You'll have to buy my book, if ever I write one!When I can put something together i'll let you know. But that you won't accept my answers is a given, isn't it?book, if ever I write one!When I can put something together i'll let you know. But that you won't accept my answers is a given, isn't it?
Likely, but I don't know until I hear your opinion. There are two competing worldviews that are usually in conflict operating here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Are we mechanical systems that are determined?The murmuration of starlings is deterministic.
Good point! They're all leftist socialists!
So this is the natural leanings of humans as subjects of nature!
Socialism, coming to a theatre near you!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Hostile in the sense that I don't like deception of falsehood.It is not the person who holds the belief I object to but the falsity of the belief itself.Don't you think the "atheist" might think exactly the same thing about christianity?
I'm sure he does, but I believe it goes further based on biblical teaching. He actually hates and resents God. This is evident way too often on these forums with the vitriol present. There are open animosity and hostility to God and Christians. It is evident in our cultures.
It seems a bit unfair to say the "atheist" "hates god" when they really just hate falsehood and deception.
I believe they often take it further. I could use examples from people on this thread to demonstrate this or from the cultures we live in.
Also, don't conflicting doctrines disprove each other? I mean, if the catholics are right, then the methodists and lutherans must be dead wrong, right?
Sure, but what is our standard, our highest authority? Is it the Catholic or the Protestant or is it the Bible - God's word? If it is God's word then there must be a correct way of interpreting it for that is what we are told by Scripture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
But does it eliminate free will? Are we mechanical systems that are determined?Clearly we are biological and not mechanical. Do you believe that biological systems are subject to cause and effect?
If all we are is a biological machine that is at the mercy of random cause and effect influences then we are deterministic and there is no freedom of the will. So, unless we are created we are just biological machines that are determined.
Sure, which means that our wills are not free like Adams was. Yet we still have a volition. We still choose.What makes you think Adam had freewill?
Because Adam was a tabula rasa, a blank slate, he had the ability to sin or to not sin. God gave Him a command in which he was free to eat of any tree in the Garden but one. He was told what would happen once the fruit was eaten yet he could still choose. No one else influenced him to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge until the devil suggested otherwise.
We, as fallen humanity do not have the ability to not sin as he did. That is the difference. He was free to choose either path, we are not. We inherited a corrupt nature. We still make choices and still have the ability to choose but our choices are influenced by our nature and our desires. Thus, the biblical solution is a new nature that God gives us. R.C. Sproul sums it up:
Apart from Christ, we are dead in sin (Eph. 2:1) and wholly disposed to hate God. We only want darkness, and so we freely choose to reject Him. We freely choose to love and to serve Jesus only if the Spirit changes our hearts (John 3:1–8).
Otherwise we remain lost.So, our freedom to choose is governed by our nature and our desires. Our freedom to choose no longer has the ability to not sin. Thus, we are in bondage to sin until Jesus transactionally sets us free from that nature and penalty. The life He lived on earth He lived to God on behalf of those who would believe, so we are counted free in Him (He has no sin) and when we leave this earthly body I believe we will fully realize that freedom in Jesus Christ.
What makes you think that we have "volition"?
You have the ability to do something or not to do it and you admit as much with the underlined below.
Of course we "choose" things, but the point is that our "choices" are (EITHER) caused (OR) uncaused (this is tautological).
If they are caused and we have no choice then we are determined. We can't but do what is determined for us. Do you believe this is the case? If so, say goodbye to morality.
Do you have the ability to never correspond with me again? I think you do. It depends on whether you desire to do so or not so it depends on your choice. If I offended you then you could choose whether to respond or not. Many times I have chosen not to respond to a post.
(IFF) our choices are caused (THEN) they are not free (because they are inevitable).
In a sense, every decision you make is influenced by other factors since ideas do not form in a vacuum. In this sense, our wills are not free. Yet you choose between options. In this sense, you have the freedom to make a choice. The atheist himself chooses not to love God or to deny His existence. God does not place that thought in his/her mind. They do that themselves, even though their thoughts are influenced by other thoughts. With determinism, you have no choice at all. You do what you do because you can't do otherwise.
All the things that I see have a causal effect. Humans follow their human nature which is corrupted by the Fall, but they still choose. They can still choose one or the other option? Sometimes things go against what you desire. You do not want to die, but you love someone enough to protect them by doing so. It depends on your desires and influences. Do you choose to put your own interests first or theirs?
When an atheist hears the Christian message of grace they are not free but bound by their sinful nature. Thus, what they hear goes against that nature. It is unpleasant to them. That is why, generally speaking, humans resist the message. But faith comes from hearing the message and still not all believe its good news. Thus it takes an act of God, an act of His grace to hear the message because we tend to block it out and drown hearing His voice. We dig in and resist it. It requires unpleasant circumstances to jar us from our blindness, apathy and indifference to Him. It takes an examination of our worldview and questioning what makes sense and how we can justify what we believe. When we do that the Christian position comes shining through. Then the question becomes whether we are willing to put our complete trust in Him or whether we like our sin and misery too much to let go of it. But now we see the wrong and it is uncomfortable to us.
(IFF) our choices are uncaused (THEN) they are not willed (because they are random).
How can a choice be uncaused? You need input to make a decision. Are you saying nothing influences our thoughts but pure matter - Determinism (something just happens because your biological and chemical reactions randomly trigger it to happen)?
If there is no such thing as a choice but everything happens randomly then morality is an illusion. Are you willing to live with this dichotomy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
1. What am I, [ontology]2. Why am I here, [philosophical]3. Where do I come from, [metaphysics]4. How do I know, [epistemology]5. What difference does it make [axiology]6. What happens to me when I die [destiny].I reckon I know the answers to most of those! The hard question is 'What do I do?'.
I'm interested in what that may be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Simple, the seventy sevens were what was given Israel because God knew they would be unfaithful and so the penalty was to be multiplied from seventy years to seventy times seven, then judgment and everlasting righteousness. Their sins were compoundedNow once again show me where all of this extraneous nonsense is found in your quoted prophesy Dan 9 24:27.
Daniel 9:24 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Seventy Weeks and the Messiah
Seventy Weeks and the Messiah
24 “Seventy [1]weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to [2]finish the transgression, to [3]make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and [4]prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.
Footnotes:
- Daniel 9:24 Or units of seven, and so throughout the ch
- Daniel 9:24 Or restrain
- Daniel 9:24 Another reading seal up sins
- Daniel 9:24 Lit prophet
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
The kind most worldview attempt to make sense of like,What are life's ultimate questions?
1. What am I, [ontology]
2. Why am I here, [philosophical]
3. Where do I come from, [metaphysics]
4. How do I know, [epistemology]
5. What difference does it make [axiology]
6. What happens to me when I die [destiny].
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I do not presume that sola scriptura from other religions are true.This is a thought experiment. Try to imagine approaching another ancient text as if it were 100% true.
Why?
I am quite capable of putting myself in the place of those who have another worldview thought system and examining its core assumptions. That is why I claim only Christianity makes ultimate sense of life's ultimate questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Materialism is determined (how can it be anything but?) yet I am not a materialist. I don't believe in materialism.Substance dualism does not invalidate causality.
But does it eliminate free will? Are we mechanical systems that are determined?
Even ghosts, spirits, souls, angels, and gods are either taking actions based on previous events (information/knowledge/experience) or are acting without cause (randomly/based on zero information/knowledge/experience).
Sure, which means that our wills are not free like Adams was. Yet we still have a volition. We still choose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, I am hostile to them since they are false idols that damage people who displace God with them.How can you be hostile to things you believe are imaginary? Where's your forgiveness and love for everybody?
Hostile in the sense that I don't like deception of falsehood.
It is not the person who holds the belief I object to but the falsity of the belief itself.
I would reference the Ten Commandments. Is it wrong to murder, to steal, to lie, to covet, to worship things that are not God and displace Him with these things?No, I do not follow the Levitical laws. They were set up for the purpose of leading people to Christ. It shows us that we cannot meet God's righteous standard nor meet His just and righteous requirements by our own effort.If you think you can be justified by following the law then what happens when you don't meet God's perfect and just standard?I thought you said something about grace. Doesn't grace fix everything?
Not necessarily. It depends on what the grace is based upon. God offers His grace to us in His Son because the Son has paid the penalty for sin and also appeased God's justice for wrongdoing. So the perfectly righteous life Jesus lived as a human being meets the righteous standard of God and the sacrifice of Himself for those who will believe appeases the penalty God has set and we deserve for our sin. So the grace of God in Jesus Christ fixes our enmity and estrangement from God. In faith of what He [Jesus] has done, we are reborn [regenerated/born again] to the love and relationship with God.
What practical and actionable advice does this give you?It teaches me to forgive others as I have been forgiven, to try not to hold a grudge, to offer mercy and grace to others as I have been shown grace and mercy, to be kind as I have received kindness, to put others first as Jesus put me before His own comfort and life, to invest in other as God has invested in me, and so on.Why do you think that christians are often the most vocal opponents of immigrant rights and minority rights and homosexual rights and slow to forgive repentant terrorists?
Because we as Christians often do not practice what we preach or obey God and are too quick to judge others instead of giving them grace as we have been shown grace.
The way I see it:
Immigration rights - I do not oppose immigration but it should be legal immigration. Criminals bring problems and immorality to a country.
Jerusalem and many cities in ancient Israel had walls for a purpose, to protect those within the walls from evil for the times, just like ours, had lots of evil.
Minority rights - the minority should have the same rights as the majority, not special rights just because they are in the minority unless they have a disability and need additional care, IMO.
Homosexual rights - the Bible teaches some things are wrong because God created humanity with a union of a male with a female in mind as a reflection of a greater truth. This relationship also produces offspring and God command humanity to go out and multiply. A homosexual relationship does not allow such a natural family unit. I believe the best relationship for a family is one that supplies both a male and female influence and example.
Having said all that, I still recognize that it is not mine to judge whether a person is to be saved or not. My responsibility is to know what is right and wrong. If I meet a homosexual person I still recognize they are made in the image and likeness of God [although marred by the Fall] and deserve dignity and respect from me just like God has shown to me, but I do not see the sexual act between gay people as right per the biblical teaching.
Repentant terrorists - I am all for second chances, just like I have been given one. That does not mean that a society should leave wrongful acts unpunished. Where would the justice be in that? But it is not my job to dispense justice but to show the love of Christ to every person in treating them with love and respect, but also to act justly. Now, I shamefully fall short of these qualities often. That is why I am so thankful for what Jesus has done for me - unmerited grace, something I do not deserve yet God mercifully gave!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Is your last post referring to this?
I haven't seen this one here, and this place could use a couple of new topics. Unfortunately it seems like there are less theists here than atheists, so I'm not sure about the traffic this place will get. Here we go:Let's say we take for granted that the universe is here as it is not because of any natural reaction or coincidence, but instead that it was created by a thinking agent. There is no real rational reason for granting this, at least none I've ever seen argued convincingly here or elsewhere, but let's skip that part, I'm saying, as an olive branch to the believer. It doesn't matter, then, if you subscribe to a big bang cosmology BUT it was started by a thinking agent, or if you think the world was created 10000 years ago. What I'm curious about is how does one justify going from "creator" to any god with a capital G. How, essentially, can you convince someone else that your version of the creator is correct, and by extension your religion is the right one, and theirs is INcorrect, and therefore the wrong one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Using the Ptolemaic dating system? What makes you think it is accurate?I didn't intend to imply there is any limit or constraint on what or how you present things. I'd just like to see the case laid out clearly so we all know the score.
Okay, I'll set up the evidence for both views I find reasonable when I get time. I'm just about to go ou the door.
Do you think that you do not want to believe despite the evidence because you do not want to be accountable to God but want to do your own thing? Do you think that your own mind holds the keys to life and you will discover them unaided by God?Can we deal with that at later date?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Truth, certainty, knowledge of God as He truly is (provided I correctly interpret His revelation), hope for the future, victory over death, a relationship and intimate understanding of His character and attributes, Someone to confide in, a Protector, One who loves me and forgives me all my human faults, a new nature that is no longer hostile to God, an understanding of the human condition, His teaching on what is right and wrong, and so much more.So, confidence and hope and knowledge and a friend.No atheist is "hostile to god". Are you "hostile to Ahura Mazda or Marduk"?
Sure they are hostile. They do not give God the worship and respect He deserves as our Creator and Sustainer. They deny Him and construct idols to replace Him.
Yes, I am hostile to them since they are false idols that damage people who displace God with them.
Please explain what is right and wrong? Do you just follow the Levitical law?
I would reference the Ten Commandments. Is it wrong to murder, to steal, to lie, to covet, to worship things that are not God and displace Him with these things?
No, I do not follow the Levitical laws. They were set up for the purpose of leading people to Christ. It shows us that we cannot meet God's righteous standard nor meet His just and righteous requirements by our own effort.
Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
If you think you can be justified by following the law then what happens when you don't meet God's perfect and just standard?
What practical and actionable advice does this give you?
It teaches me to forgive others as I have been forgiven, to try not to hold a grudge, to offer mercy and grace to others as I have been shown grace and mercy, to be kind as I have received kindness, to put others first as Jesus put me before His own comfort and life, to invest in other as God has invested in me, and so on.
Created: