Total posts: 3,179
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
7} what ever phase change transitions and classifications I left out consideration, but until the phase 6 is completed we only have the potential the actual.
No, you are wrong. We have the actual from the moment of fertilization/conception, the birth, and throughout its life. At the penetration of the sperm into the egg, we have the "actual," and a change takes place resulting in a new human being.
--------------------------------------------
Read my lips/text, not your false projections of what Ive actually stated. Can any Trumpanzee do that? No? I didnt think so.
Your statement shows extreme bias and is a logical fallacy.
...From the moment of fertilization, we have the potential for a new independant individual human to be born-out from a woman".
At fertilization, there is only actual, not potential. There is a real new individual human being forming from that point (fertilization) onward. Whether it is born is being decided by the woman so the way you have phrased the sentence, while technically correct in the sense that what the woman decides, from the moment of fertilization it is a new and unique individual human being.
Please show the source you are quoting here or are you making this stuff up?
Perhaps you should define your terms more thoroughly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
3} the fertilzed egg is inside the woman, not the man,
So what? The egg, once fertilized, is now a zygote. The egg nor the sperm, in and of themselves, is a new human being, a unique and separate individual. Once fertilization takes place, a unique individual begins to grow.
One sperm cell is able to make through and combine with the egg, and the egg cell is officially fertilized at this point. This is when the male sperm and the female egg come together to form a single cell containing chromosomes from both Mom and Dad. This fertilized egg is called a zygote. It’s a just tiny cell – just 0.1mm across! – but the zygote has all the genetic information needed to build a human.
Ibid
4} the fertilzed egg is NOT and independant/individual, it is an organism ergo attached to the womans uterus/womb and receives all nutrients from the mother via its attachment to the woman,
The fertilized egg is called a zygote, different from the unfertilized egg. The zygote is a combination of genetic information from both the male and the female, a separate human being, thus a unique and individual new human being.
5} the fertilized egg is inside the woman but falls freely through fallopian tubes for brief period of time --24hrs?--- before becoming attached to uterus/womb,
Technically speaking the egg, at fertilization is different and now known as a zygote.
When the egg and sperm combine to form a fertilized egg, it doesn’t immediately implant into the uterus. First, the zygote has to undergo many rounds of cell division until it reaches the state where it’s able to implant. The cell splits over and over in a process called cleavage. This differs from other kinds of cell division in that it increases the number of cells, but not the total mass: the cells split, but the fertilized egg remains the same size. This cleavage forms a mass of cells called a morula.
Calling the new entity a fertilized egg gives the impression that it is still the same thing it was before fertilization which is not true, and that is the point I am making. Once the sperm enters the egg, a change takes place in which a new human being begins to grow.
***
The fertilized egg is now called a zygote. The depolarization caused by sperm penetration results in one last round of division in the egg's nucleus, forming a pronucleus containing only one set of genetic information. The pronucleus from the egg merges with the nucleus from the sperm. Once the two pronuclei merge, cell division begins immediately.
The dividing zygote gets pushed along the Fallopian tube. Approximately four days after fertilization, the zygote has about 100 cells and is called a blastocyst. When the blastocyst reaches the uterine lining, it floats for about two days and finally implants itself in the uterine wall around six days after fertilization. This signals the beginning of pregnancy. The implanted blastocyst continues developing in the uterus for nine months. As the baby grows, the uterus stretches until it's about the size of a basketball.*
6} the fetus/baby is not a viable, independant/individual baby-only until it has taken its first IN-spriration and its umbilical chord is detached from the mother,
Although the unborn is not completely independent (it relies on the woman for its food and is sustained in the ENVIRONMENT of the womb), it is a separate entity which has everything within it that determines what it is (a new unique individual human being) and will grow into (it does not change who it is (via its genetic makeup and DNA that determines its uniqueness).
Neither is the newborn completely independent. It still relies on others to feed it and provide it an environment where its needs are met.
You draw this artificial distinction that takes place at birth. That is fallacious thinking.
Viability:
Capability of living; the state of being viable; usually connotes a fetus that has reached 500 g in weight and 20 gestational weeks' development (18 weeks after fertilization).
Definition of viable
1a : capable of living
viable offspring
b of a fetus : having attained such form and development of organs as to be normally capable of surviving outside the uterus
a 26-week old viable fetus
c : capable of growing or developing
2a : capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately
b : capable of existence and development as an independent unit
c(1) : having a reasonable chance of succeeding
(2) : financially sustainable
Viability, simply put, and medically speaking, is the stage at which the unborn/fetus can survive outside the womb, which translates to around 18-20 weeks after fertilization.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
At conception, a unique new ACTUAL individual is created, not a potential individual human being."ACTUAL individual" is False. You need to do another dictionary search for what independant and individual ---their synonyms dude--- mean exactly.
Your comments show a lack of understanding of the subject. The egg is not the same thing as part of the mother once fertilization happens. Fertilization is a PROCESS that takes between 24 to 36 hours that finishes with conception, conception as now medically thought of, that is. Some argue that fertilization or conception are synonymous terms and life begins as soon as the sperm penetrates the egg. Others say that conception is when the process of fertilization is complete, and the new being attaches to the uterus.
Conception: 1. The union of the sperm and the ovum. Synonymous with fertilization.
A sperm and egg uniting may not even be correct terminology for "uniting" may suggest that they remain as two different parts in a union. Regarding this uniting:
"'But this is not accurate, for they are not like machine parts cobbled together to form something larger thought remaining identifiable parts.' Rather, 'the nuclei of the sperm and ovum dynamically interact,' and 'in doing so, they cease to be. 'One might say they die together.'"
Defending Life, A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, by Francis Beckwith, p66.
According to the same author, there are disputes by embryologist exactly when in the process a new human being occurs during fertilization (but it is during fertilization).
***
Read my lips/text for the umpteenth time;1} The non-ferterlized egg is organaism of the woman as it is both produced by and and inside the woman, not inside a man,
Being inside the woman does not equate to being part of the woman. It is different from the woman. At conception, it has its biological blueprint, its own set of DNA.
If the woman swallowed a diamond ring, it would not now be part of her but a foreign object in her body until it was expelled or surgically removed.
2} the fertilized egg is an organism of the woman as it is produced by the woman and the mans gift of spermaoza to her,
Once the egg is fertilized, it changes to a zygote and attaches to the uterus. The egg as it was before ceased to be/dies with the sperm, and a new unique individual human being begins to grow, with different blood, cells, and DNA.
“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo development) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
***
Zygote is a term for a newly conceived life after the sperm and the egg cell meet but before the embryo begins to divide.
From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
***
“Thus a new cell is formed from the union of a male and a female gamete. [sperm and egg cells] The cell, referred to as the zygote, contains a new combination of genetic material, resulting in an individual different from either parent and from anyone else in the world.”
Sally B Olds, et al., Obstetric Nursing (Menlo Park, California: Addison – Wesley publishing, 1980) P 136
***
You can't avoid it being a new and unique individual human being.
Fertilization: Sperm Penetrates Egg
It takes about 24 hours for a sperm cell to fertilize an egg. When the sperm penetrates the egg, the surface of the egg changes so that no other sperm can enter. At the moment of fertilization, the baby's genetic makeup is complete, including whether it's a boy or girl.
The fertilized egg is now called a zygote. The depolarization caused by sperm penetration results in one last round of division in the egg's nucleus, forming a pronucleus containing only one set of genetic information. The pronucleus from the egg merges with the nucleus from the sperm. Once the two pronuclei merge, cell division begins immediately.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Well said!
Now be prepared for the wrath and insanity of the left. (^8
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
v is for vagina!!! I think, he's a bot, troll at best, you'll soon see what I mean lol
What does name calling have to do with the argument? IMO, your argument is so weak that all you can do is attack me rather than the argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
It is not a potential human being.Read my lips/text, not your false projections of what Ive actually stated. Can any Trumpanzee do that? No? I didnt think so.
I can't see your lips and how do you read lips. What words do lips have? As for your text, it is unclear and inexpressive to what you mean.
...From the moment of fertilization, we have the potential for a new independant individual human to be born-out from a woman"..
From the moment of fertilization, we don't have a potential anything, but we have the start of a new individual human being.
Definition of potential
(Entry 1 of 2)
(Entry 1 of 2)
1: existing in possibility: capable of development into actuality
2: expressing possibility specifically: of, relating to, or constituting a verb phrase expressing possibility,
2: expressing possibility specifically: of, relating to, or constituting a verb phrase expressing possibility,
Definition of potential (Entry 2 of 2)
1a: something that can develop or become actual
2a: any of various functions from which the intensity or the velocity at any point in a field may be readily calculated
b: the work required to move a unit positive charge from a reference point (as at infinity) to a point in question
At conception, a unique new ACTUAL individual is created, not a potential individual human being.
“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”
The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.”
Steven Ertelt”Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” LifeNews.com 11/18/13“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo development) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”
Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30 There is no potential from conception onwards but actual.
You Trumpanzees are so feeble minded, an immoral, we morals have to keep leading you by your nose *v* ---out of pregnant womens bodys--- back to truth of what is stated, not your repeated false Trumpanzee projections. This is another reason Trumpanzees need to be Locked Away!
Feeble minded? Why don't you attack the arguments, not the person making them? You keep making logical fallacies.
What does "an immoral" mean? What does "we morals" mean?
What does *v* --> "out of pregnant womens bodys" mean? Are you saying that *v* equals "out of pregnant women's bodies?"
What does *v* --> "out of pregnant womens bodys" mean? Are you saying that *v* equals "out of pregnant women's bodies?"
Please share when you can exhibit moral integrity by addressing my comments as stated and not using your false projections. Otherwise take a hike to nearest prison cell. Bye PGA-2Lock Immoral Trumpanzees Away Today!Lock Immoral Trumpanzees Away Today!
More intolerant leftist language. Prove my views are immoral regarding abortion and quite slinging ad homs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I've tried before without success in challenging him to a debate. As you can see in his profile, he does not debate.Yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Do you mean a formal debate?How about you guys debate this topic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
[1] I don't say they are humans you do, so collect all these humans and look after them.Your desire to force women to have less rights than you as a man demand is pure misogyny, [2] You want women to be second class people just so that someone as inferior as you can feel inadequately superior.
[1] Your argument is so pathetic in its implications. Of course, they are humans. What else could they be? (silence)
You are the one dehumanizing and devaluing them, not me, and you are the one protecting a woman's "right" in deciding to kill them - how compassionate and kind! Science recognizes the unborn as a human from conception. Anyone using reason understands them as human beings. So, it is you who are making the unborn second class and elevating a woman's "right" to kill for what would be considered a criminal act in most cases. If the unborn had not been so devalued and the public so brainwashed into groupthink it would be obvious what is happening. I do not believe you want to see. Thus, the same old talking points.
[2] I don't know what the underlined above has to do with the argument. Again, you are reading in that I feel superior by bashing women and labeling them "second class" when I am doing no such thing. You are attacking the man (me) once again instead of the argument. I am pointing out the wrong that people who support pro-choice do in killing the most helpless and innocent class of human being, the unborn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
They aren't dead bodies they are living humans who have been removed from another human's body, collect them all, they need you to bring on their human development, they are humans after all. Can you not care for a human?
What kind of platform do I have? I'm not rich. What would happen if I got a passport and traveled to one of these abortion mills, claiming I want to save these babies. I would be locked up. The whole culture needs to change, IMO, but liberals will not listen to the logical arguments. They have a myopic vision that does not see anything by what they want to see.
Since you admit they are human where is your compassion in all of this, or does it just apply to me, the labeled "villain" in your eyes who stands against such barbaric practices as abortion? Where is your voice in all of this? All I hear from you is your demonization of everything good and right. You seldom answer questions I ask but turn the tables to peddle this killing by women and doctors identifying THEM as the victims, not the innocent unborn or newborn who have done nothing wrong. Your views make no sense, IMO. None.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
read what I said again lol are we to believe if the baby boy is part of her body then her body has magically grown a penis, male chromosomes etc, I'm just pointing out how absurd the argument that a baby boy with a penis and male chromosomes are also considered her body. While the baby may be attached to her body that's not the same thing as calling it her body imo
Sorry, I saw your language as very ambiguous. Here is what you said:
"if the mother is carrying a boy child does that mean she how has a penis and male chromosomes? I mean if it's her body and all....."
That is all you left me to work with.
When you say, "I mean if it is her body and all..." I took it to mean you were including the child as part of her body.
Glad you clarified it! Thanks.
That is all you left me to work with.
When you say, "I mean if it is her body and all..." I took it to mean you were including the child as part of her body.
Glad you clarified it! Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Why can't you understand the simple principles of intrinsic value for all human beings?Why cant you concede the not so simple circumstances of a;1} non-breathing fetuse/baby organsim of a pregnant woman,
Oh, I understand it. I understand it is morally wrong. You do not.
The question is what the unborn is. Do you understand that? If it is a human being, no matter how undeveloped, it is a valuable being, as long as you give human beings intrinsic value. If you don't do that you are no better than Hitler or Stalin, or Mao, or Kim Jong-un. If one class or one group of human beings is less valuable than another class because you are making it so, then that group is devalued, dehumanized and so often destroyed. That is what you are giving your consent to when you support abortion. You are saying it is not as valuable and it is not to be treated with the same respect as every other human being. And you can get away with this kind of discrimination and devaluation UNTIL those values are placed on you and your group, then how do you feel? Do you still feel it is right (step this way please for a free complimentary community shower)?
2} and a viable breathing independant individual that has been born out of a woman.?
So, you are basing your distinction on its environment (the womb as opposed to the outside world) and its level of development, its size and its dependency on another, not on what it is, a human being. Those are the distinctions between the born and the unborn.
If I live in a different environment than you as a human being, say the Arctic as opposed to the tropics, does that give you the right to kill me?
If a girl is not as developed reproductively as a woman, does that give you the right to kill her?
If the unborn depends on the mother for its food and nourishment, but so does the newborn (just as helpless) does that mean you can kill the newborn too?
If I am bigger than you, just like the newborn is bigger than the unborn, does that give me the right to kill you?
That is how stupid these pro-life arguments are.
From the moment of fertilization, we have the potential for a new independant individual human to be born-out from a woman.
It is not a potential human being. It is a human being. It can't be any other kind of being if it has human donors. Once the sperm penetrates the egg a new life begins. This is a scientifically verified fact that can be backed up. There is no potential about it. It is a human being.
Until the time of birth, the fetus is organism of womans body, NOT a born-out independant individual human.
No, it is NOT part of the woman's body. It is in the environment of the woman's body, but it is a separate entity, not part of her body. If it was part of her body and had a male organ then the woman would have a penis. Does a woman have a penis? The newborn is just as dependent on the woman looking after it for its survival. If she neglects to feed it then it will die. It is just as much a dependent human being as the newborn. Its environment has changed. One minute before birth as opposed to one minute after is an environmental difference. Again, your logic is not sound.
Why do you insist on immorally stick your nose *v* into a pregnant womans body? A woman you do not know or have any relationship with? You are an immoral and sadistic human being.
What does that mean (*v*)? Why do you give the woman a right that you do not have? Are not human rights equal? I do not have the right to use my body to kill another human being, yet you give her this right if it is her whim. How sick is this???
It is not me who condones killing innocent human beings. What crime has the unborn committed? If pro-lifers treat it with such dispassion I hate to think who else they are capable of doing the same with since they devalue and dehumanize human life on the whim of the woman. Sick, sick, sick.
Sad :--(
Yes, very sad for the unborn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
if the mother is carrying a boy child does that mean she how has a penis and male chromosomes? I mean if it's her body and all.....
So you mean it is not her body, because she doesn't have a penis. Yet you state she has a right to do with her body what she wants. Yes, her body, not the body of the unborn in her body. That is the distinction.
She does not have a moral right to kill it because it is not her body that she is killing. Just because the government or those in power say it is right does not make it morally right. It just makes it permissible. Lots of things are done by governments that are not morally right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Why do their rights only start at birth? What is the unborn?Is it a human being?If it is not a human being then what kind of being is it?If it is a human being then it is being discriminated against. So, it is a human being? THAT is the question.If one kind of human being, say the unborn, is deemed less valuable than another, then can we discriminate against other classes of human beings, say white males?I don't think you are this stupid. Yes the unborn are less valuable then the living as the living are more valuable than the dead. Rights are the foundation of the United States and freedom.
I did not realize that you were addressing my post. Please, would you use the reply button in the future so that I get a message?
How am I being stupid? If the unborn a living being? Yes or no? Are you suggesting the unborn is not living?
How about the rights of the unborn. Are not all humans created equal in the eyes of the Creator? At least that is what your Declaration of Independence states. Why are you not giving the unborn the same freedom you give the born?
Are you saying the fetus is not living? What are you saying?A fetus is unborn and living in the sense grandma on life support is. We are allowed to turn off grandma, a living person, aka the pregnant lady can't shut off her own life support which is her body?
So, it is okay with you to kill a human being as long as it is not as valuable as another human being? Who determines its worth? This is exactly what Hitler did with the Jews. And then on top of that, you suggest that as long as the human being is within her body it is okay to kill it. You allow her to wash her hands of the responsibility of her actions.
Answer me this then, what is the difference between an unborn and a newborn, other than their environment, level of development, size, and level of dependency?
I think it is fairly easy to establish that the unborn is a human being medically and scientifically. Why should a woman be able to kill another human being unless her life is threatened by it (i.e., tubal pregnancy)?Again we can shut off grandma, a women should be able to reclaim her own body.
Even when there is another person involved that resides in her body? The unborn has everything needed to grow into a fully productive human being but you want to deny it that right. So, you are suggesting Granma is in a coma and brain dead I take it and has no hope of recovery, or do you want to euthanize all old people? How does that relate to the unborn who has its whole life ahead of it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
When you examine every society that segregates and dehumanizes other human beings it starts by making them lesser than the rest of societyPrecisely what you misogynists are demanding be done to women. No humans being killed again, just so you don't present that fantasy again. How many of these humans have you collected from abortion clinics and brought them up.
This is not true. You totally misrepresent me with this nonsense. Men and women have equal rights to do with their bodies as they so please as long as they do not endanger other innocent human beings. I do not justify giving the woman the right to determine who lives and who dies because she doesn't feel like raising the human life within her. In most cases, she chose to have sex. Now she does not want to take responsibility for her actions.
1. From conception, a new entity starts living.
2. Since the male and female are human so is the offspring.
3. Should all humans have intrinsic worth? If not, then why should you have worth?
4. Can you live with dehumanizing one class or group of humans? If you can you may be the next class or group they dehumanize and destroy.
5. Throughout history groups or classes of people have been dehumanized and devalued to the point of justifying their death.
The last underlined sentence of yours is another attempt to villainize me and put the onus of responsibility on me to look after what other people discard because of their lack of responsibility. What do you propose I do? Scrounge the garbage cans for dead bodies then take them home?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
One is a working hypothesis based on independently verifiable data and constantly seeking refinement in order to maximize efficacy.It is based on an interpretation of the past from the present, using what is available to us in the present supposing that the present is the key to the past.One makes modern mathematics and engineering possible. That's what I call "efficacy".
I would argue precisely because we are made in the image and likeness of God, thus we get it right when we think His thoughts after Him.
Without being there at the origin of the universe there could be many pieces of the puzzle we are not understanding. We have to assume the present is the key to the past, or to put it another way, that what we see in the present helps us understand how things were in the past. And we build on a particular paradigm.
And the other is a dogmatic story, immune to criticism, written down by people who couldn't figure out electricity.Yours is just as dogmatic.Einstein refined Newton's Principia.Neils Bohr refined Einstein.This is the very antithesis of dogmatic.
And Newton corrected those before him.
Newton was a theist, a Christian.
Funny, Bohr believes that some things just pop into existence.
But as you point out, we don't know if what is thought in the present will be true in the future when something else changes the paradigm.
It uses the man and his limited mental capacity as the measure.With amazing, real world, tangible results.
Until you realize that nothing is nailed down regarding origins. Our thoughts today are only as good as the paradigm.
The Bible has been exposed to more criticism than perhaps any other writings in history.But it is immune to criticism if "true believers" "know in their hearts" how true it is.
It has been examined perhaps more than any other ancient writings. Prove to me that it is untrue, that God has not spoken, that Jesus did not exist and that His claims of who He is are not true. You are on as shaky a ground as origins are without a Creator.
Prophecy is logical and reasonable to believe.Science makes more practical "prophecies" than religion.
The Bible is not a scientific book. It concerns God's relationship with humanity and with a specific group of people. It is Him revealing Himself, the problems of humanity, and the solution.
Does the ancient holy scripture accurately predict anything verifiable, specifically within my lifetime?
It does not predict things concerning our generation. It concerns itself with a time in history where God sent His Son to a specific people for judgment and salvation. The message of salvation still applies to us today, however.
So, to answer your question, it answers prophecy concerning those people and that timeframe.
An atheist starts from a position without God and builds a worldview around that position. When something does not fit it is left on the backburner.Save your "atheist" argument for your "atheist" friends.A non-commital deist is simply not sure of what he believes.I know exactly what I believe. It seems strange to me that someone would imagine they have any authority at all to speak about my beliefs.
I questioned whether or not you were such a deist.
As for whether or not I have the authority to comment on your beliefs, I believe the Bible gives me insight on how to evaluate what you believe, once I find out the specifics since all beliefs but one tend build inconsistencies into their system of thought that undermine the belief.
Good luck shadowboxing with your imaginary "atheist materialist" straw-man.C.S. Lewis IS A CHRISTIAN. He never argues in favor of atheism @ 8:45--> or at any other point in the video.C.S. Lewis was not always a Christian. He describes reluctantly coming to the realization of its truths.C.S. Lewis IS A CHRISTIAN 100% of the time he is arguing IN FAVOR OF CHRISTIANITY in the specific video I linked to.
He was not always a Christian. He stated in his books as much. I think it was Mere Christianity where he described this shift.
My apologies. I went back and listened without distractions to the whole video. You are right in your assessment. Although he was speaking of materialism/atheism etc., it was not his belief at that point in time.
I am not an "atheist materialist". I AM A DEIST. Please try again. - Not A MaterialistThen you need to examine what kind of deist you are. What kind of deist, BTW? Are you a Buddhist, an Eastern Oriental deist, a New Age deist, a monotheistic deist, or don't you know?Are you familiar with the Ethica, Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata?
Nope.
When you speak of Ethica, are you speaking of the philosophy of George Edward Moore? If so I will acquaint myself more with it.
When you speak of Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata, are you speaking of Baruch Spinoza and his system of philosophy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The question is whether it is your worldview or mine that is superstitious. Are you involved in the fairy tale or are we. (Once upon a time, billions and billions of years again the universe exploded into existence...)One is a working hypothesis based on independently verifiable data and constantly seeking refinement in order to maximize efficacy.
It is based on an interpretation of the past from the present, using what is available to us in the present supposing that the present is the key to the past.
And the other is a dogmatic story, immune to criticism, written down by people who couldn't figure out electricity.
Yours is just as dogmatic. It uses the man and his limited mental capacity as the measure. The Bible has been exposed to more criticism than perhaps any other writings in history. Prophecy is logical and reasonable to believe.
An atheist starts from a position without God and builds a worldview around that position. When something does not fit it is left on the backburner.
A non-commital deist is simply not sure of what he believes.
I love it when an aristocratic British voice is used to appeal the minds of the unsuspecting with a worldview that makes no sense - stupidity, IMO.I agree 100%.Such a worldview springs/originates from a mindless, unreasoning universe. Why would you think we would be able to find reason and knowledge in such a universe? There would be no rhyme nor reason for its existence, no intent or logic behind it. Somehow you have to manufacture how we humans arrive at such knowledge and reason from inanimate, uncaring, mindless matter as if we could. And when the evidence does not line up with the preclusion it is put aside as, "science does not have the answer yet, but we are getting close." The gods of materialism are science and the human mind as the ultimate. There are many theories as to how we arrived at the present, but which idea is the true belief? Humanism, secularism, materialism, scientism can't disprove God, just deny Him with all kinds of sophistry. It makes up morality that is constantly evolving so that we can never know which view is absolutely right and best. Best can never be arrived at. It is driven by those who control the majority or by a select aristocracy or oligarchy or dictatorship that decides what the rules will be, as pointed out in your video @ 4:21-5:06. Does the materialist view fit the "real universe"? The video smuggles in qualitative values without a set or final reference point. Thus values become nothing more than relative shift views that are used to influence the masses to the desired purpose that does not matter in the greater scheme of things because there is no greater scheme. So, it marginalizes and devalues the Christian view with purposeful demonizing and belittling language, such as @ 8:45--> where it suggests it is the Christian who is in the state of dishonest error, and that this dishonesty will spread through all his thoughts and actions, with certain shiftiness and a vague worry in the backgrounding resulting in a blunting of his whole mental edge with a loss of intellectual virginity. What a load of malarky and propaganda with the claim that intellectual honesty has sunk to an all-time low (based on what?) for those who believe in God while the atheist takes the moral high ground - moral and high according to their manufactured ideas of good which is changing and shifting.Good luck shadowboxing with your imaginary "atheist materialist" straw-man.C.S. Lewis IS A CHRISTIAN. He never argues in favor of atheism @ 8:45--> or at any other point in the video.
C.S. Lewis was not always a Christian. He describes reluctantly coming to the realization of its truths.
I am not an "atheist materialist". I AM A DEIST. Please try again. - Not A Materialist
Then you need to examine what kind of deist you are. What kind of deist, BTW? Are you a Buddhist, an Eastern Oriental deist, a New Age deist, a monotheistic deist, or don't you know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I do not see him as someone to be reasoned with.Or convinced to believe is superstition with deceptive rhetoric, like this masterful argument by - C.S. Lewis.
The question is whether it is your worldview or mine that is superstitious. Are you involved in the fairy tale or are we. (Once upon a time, billions and billions of years again the universe exploded into existence...)
I love it when an aristocratic British voice is used to appeal the minds of the unsuspecting with a worldview that makes no sense - stupidity, IMO. Such a worldview springs/originates from a mindless, unreasoning universe. Why would you think we would be able to find reason and knowledge in such a universe? There would be no rhyme nor reason for its existence, no intent or logic behind it. Somehow you have to manufacture how we humans arrive at such knowledge and reason from inanimate, uncaring, mindless matter as if we could. And when the evidence does not line up with the preclusion it is put aside as, "science does not have the answer yet, but we are getting close." The gods of materialism are science and the human mind as the ultimate. There are many theories as to how we arrived at the present, but which idea is the true belief? Humanism, secularism, materialism, scientism can't disprove God, just deny Him with all kinds of sophistry. It makes up morality that is constantly evolving so that we can never know which view is absolutely right and best. Best can never be arrived at. It is driven by those who control the majority or by a select aristocracy or oligarchy or dictatorship that decides what the rules will be, as pointed out in your video @ 4:21-5:06. Does the materialist view fit the "real universe"? The video smuggles in qualitative values without a set or final reference point. Thus values become nothing more than relative shift views that are used to influence the masses to the desired purpose that does not matter in the greater scheme of things because there is no greater scheme.
So, it marginalizes and devalues the Christian view with purposeful demonizing and belittling language, such as @ 8:45--> where it suggests it is the Christian who is in the state of dishonest error, and that this dishonesty will spread through all his thoughts and actions, with certain shiftiness and a vague worry in the backgrounding resulting in a blunting of his whole mental edge with a loss of intellectual virginity. What a load of malarky and propaganda with the claim that intellectual honesty has sunk to an all-time low (based on what?) for those who believe in God while the atheist takes the moral high ground - moral and high according to their manufactured ideas of good which is changing and shifting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Sure it is the question. Do you have autonomy over your own body to use it to kill another innocent human being? No, you don't. Yet you think the woman should have this "right." How hypocritical that kind of thinking is.You continue to lie about murdering humans, the only human involved in this discussion is the woman the human that you claim doesn't have the same bodily autonomy that you demand for yourself. You are a misogynist bigot, you demand rights that you want to deny other humans, 50% of the population in fact. Stop telling lies or is it that you are completely and utterly ignorant?
Science says otherwise. It says the unborn is a living human being, not some other kind of being like a cat or fish or dog but a distinct entity in its own right that is developing each day into what it is.
Again, your underlined language shows your radical intolerance and smear campaign, IMO. I mention it to direct others to your tactics and show how you devalue an opinion that does not agree with yours, and you do this all on a claim. Never do you provide any evidence of your position. On the other hand, I have documented mine many times. I have even debated the position and challenge you to a debate on the very topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
No, it is not part of her body. It is a separate entity. It is not her. It is different from her. She does not have a penis but the entity inside her, if male does. How does that equate to her???In that case removing that growth would not affect it in the slightest, you and your fellow god warrior misogynists should be collecting all these humans from abortion clinics and bringing them up as your own. The fetus is only a part of the woman's body, not some fantasy creature of your imagination.
You are not removing a growth but a human being. Again you use language that dehumanizes another human being. Then you start malicious name calling and labeling of people of faith to demonize them also. How tolerant and merciful!
When you examine every society that segregates and dehumanizes other human beings it starts by making them lesser than the rest of society so that they can justify their inhumane treatment. And it exposes a hatred of things that do not jive with their warped ideals. There is no tolerance there, no respect for those who disagree, but an intolerant labeling and propaganda campaign.
That campaign in the USA is used by the Democrat left. They have gained control of the media, institutions of higher learning, the arts and entertainment industry, corporate America, and even those who have fled from persecution through illegal immigration, IMO, the same Party that was responsible for the KKK. They use a smear campaign every day to influence those who have bought into their lies, IMO. Even when their lies are exposed they do not retract the false narrative. And again, IMO, they won't be happy until the country is a third world socialist State. Their values are all screwed up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
This unborn that you rant about is a part of the woman's body and she has autonomous control of her body and you have no position at all. You will need to apply to a panel of women should you want to have a cancer removed if you claim a right to determine what a woman can do with her body. Why can't you god warriors understand very simple principles but worship fairy tales?
Such a ridiculous argument. If it is part of her body does she have male organs (a penis) then?
No one should have autonomous control over their body when it results in the death of an innocent human being.
I don't have to appeal to a panel of leftist women who have a particular bias and a dull sense of right and wrong.
Why can't you understand the simple principles of intrinsic value for all human beings? Would you want to be treated as you treat the unborn, where you take one class of human beings and alienate them as not human, something to be disposed of and thrown away? And you do it with the most helpless of all human beings, those who can't yet defend themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Disgusted is a nihilist, so he isn't going to accept any evidence as valid. If he himself ever uses evidence, it is because it is convenient for him to do so, not because he believes it.
I do not see him as someone to be reasoned with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Post 226 is exactly what I'm referencing, the general opinion is...............allusions to.................he says that poly was trained by john.Claims golfer not evidence.
Your claim is ludicrous. It is not my opinion. Early church fathers stated such, so the evidence is not from my personal claim but from someone close to the time of Jesus. Produce evidence that states otherwise from early history and let's see how it compares. You are making a CLAIM.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I disagree. Overturning Roe v Wade would be treating all humans as they should be treatedAs long as there is an equivalent legislation making your bodily autonomy illegal, go for it. Treating all humans equally. Don't grow a cancer or you will have to apply to a government authority to have it removed. Is it that wingnuts can't think that makes them wingnuts or does being a wingnut prevent them from thinking.
My bodily autonomy does not allow me to use it to kill another innocent human being, only to defend myself if my life is threatened maliciously.
The unborn is not "cancer" and discriminatory and devaluing, dehumanizing language like that is the kind you see from those who exploit the innocent like most dictators do to stay in power. Such ideas as bodily autonomy at the expense of the innocent are vicious and degrading, IMO, and sick. I have yet to see a valid argument for abortion unless the woman's life is in danger and the unborn will not survive if she dies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Is it a human being?If it is not a human being then what kind of being is it?It's a part of a woman's body. You have no say in how she treats her own body.
No, it is not part of her body. It is a separate entity. It is not her. It is different from her. She does not have a penis but the entity inside her, if male does. How does that equate to her???
If it is a human being then it is being discriminated against. So, it is a human being? THAT is the question.That is not the question at all. The question is does a woman have autonomy over her own body? The answer is yes. Anything else is misogyny.
Sure it is the question. Do you have autonomy over your own body to use it to kill another innocent human being? No, you don't. Yet you think the woman should have this "right." How hypocritical that kind of thinking is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
....You want me to put myself in a fetus' position? Not knowing anything that is going on.... Funny, you should have said shoes instead of position, I would have said they can't even wear shoes because they are inside the mother being sustained by the mother biologically. It doesn't have a choice of life, it doesn't have a choice of death either. Maybe it never wanted to be born.....
No, not precisely. I'm asking why you are different from the unborn. If you are human and it is human then why should we be able to kill it but not you?
Whether or not it wanted to be born is not the question but whether it is human or not. Is human life intrinsically valuable or not? If not then you can't argue that your life is any more valuable than its. If it is intrinsically valuable then the unborn should have as much right to life that you do.
You might as well call masturbation murdering. Is sperm not alive? Where does the murder actually begin?
It is not a human being. A potential something is nothing at all. The unborn is a unique human being. Sperm in itself does not have the ability to be a human being. Neither does the human egg. Fertilization has to take place. Sperm is not a complete human entity like the unborn.
Conservatives are not usually protesters, except when it comes to the pro-life aspect, which I do not agree with because they are invading others privacy. They do like to speak at venues and share their thoughts in mostly aspects that affect their own lives as individuals.
I think that is a hasty generalization. It may apply to some conservatives but when you lump all into that category I object.
Believe me, overturning R v W would be a bad decision on a number of fronts. I just say let people decide for themselves. You don't agree, that is fine, enjoy life of calling everyone who has one a murderer. You probably know quite a few already, you just don't know it... and if you did, would you condemn them? Hate them for the rest of your life because they made a decision that did not involve you at all?
I disagree. Overturning Roe v Wade would be treating all humans as they should be treated and not allowing some to be murdered.
It is not a question of hate but of mercy and justice. What does it matter what I do to a lump of rock or a vegetable in my garden? It matters greatly what I do, or it should, to another human being. Yet the unborn has been dehumanized and devalued.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
Every single one of those abortions, there was a reason for. Would you rather some unfit person have the baby, refuse to give it up for adoption, do their best to take care of it, just to find out that they couldn't and the kid is ruined for the rest of his/her life?
Unfit, in what way? What percentage kill the unborn for financial reasons or because they don't want a baby. Now put yourself in this position. Would you like it if someone decided to kill you because of financial reasons or they just did not want you?
That has been my experience with the renters I have had in the past. That is also the experience with a friend of mine who had 4 kids, couldn't support them, Dad had to sell drugs on top of his pretty good salary, then got caught up in them and went to jail... Mom is now in now in jail because she went crazy and Grandad who just retired is caring for them, but is complaining that he can't enjoy his retirement.... The kids are suffering, they lost mom and dad.... They are not happy kids, and will probably end up just like their parents.
So, if you don't like a human being your solution is to kill them, at least in the case of the unborn. But again, put yourself in this position. Would you like it if someone decided to kill you because you were a financial drain?
If the father could not afford to support two or three kids he should have taken precautions to prevent another one from coming into the world, like birth control protection. Even if that failed what right does that give him or anyone else to kill the unwanted human being - because the government says
you can do this?
But the main reason, is I don't believe someone should have to change their whole lives because they were making love. Is having sex deserving of a life sentence? Parents have to drop out of school to support the new family, when they could have waited until they actually graduated, got a job, had the means to take care of the kid, then brought the kid up correctly.
Okay, you are using an appeal to pity. I can do that too.
So, you justify killing someone (the unborn) because it is inconvenient? But as soon as you are put in the position of someone wanting to kill you then would you still feel it justified?
If we all dealt with the problems that only we were having, society would be grand.... instead you are standing up for something that no one is forcing you to do. No one is yelling at you, no one is saying you are evil for what you believe, but you are calling good people murderers, and it is pretty darn mean. If you don't want to have an abortion, then don't... your belief is still with you. Let god do the judging and stop the marching, its not going to do a lick of good.
Actually, I was citing what is happening in your country in your institutions of higher learning where free speech is squashed if the person is conservative. It also happens on news shows where you get three or four liberals shouting down one conservative. I no longer watch the Communist News Network (CNN) because of their EXTREME bias.
"If you don't want to have an abortion then don't..." but what about those who do? If no one stands for the rights of the unborn there is a danger that other rights may be diminished also. If not all human beings are intrinsically valuable then what is wrong with Hitler killing Jews, or Stalin starving millions of his countrymen or putting them in the gulag, or Mao's cultural purge?
Roe v Wade will not be overturned.... ever! It just makes too much sense. Just deal with it.
It makes no sense at all. Why can one human being (granting you give the unborn the status of human being and if you don't we need another discussion to precede this one) be dehumanized, discriminated against, and destroyed yet not another? Make sense of it for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I support him.
OMG a Trumpanzee
who supports another Trumpanzee{ Pence } and both support,
At least they have common sense policies such as a border barrier. These Dem's in office are dumb as stumps.
Your country has the problems it does because of poor management before Trump. Trump inherited a 20 trillion dollar debt load. IMO, it may never recover if Dem's win out in this ideological battle (kiss it goodbye) going on now. Freedom of speech if you are conservative is already being denied on many college and university campuses. The news outlets are all liberal leftist. The spew forth propaganda every hour of every day. Anyone supporting Trump is shouted down not because the ideas of the left are better but because of hatred - yes, hatred. These leftists don't have many common sense ideas, IMO. Their idea of foreign policies is assinine. Their pro-choice position is assinine. Their policies on illegal immigrants are assinine. Their health-care for all will bankrupt your country because it will take from the rich causing much less job creation, plus the cost is astronomical for healthcare for all. You will be paying for it too. There is not one shining example of a socialist State, IMO. Big government does not work well in the sense that it controls your life in so many ways that are not good. If you want to see what big government does then look at China, look at Russia, look at North Korea, look at Cuba, look at Venezuela, look at Zimbabwe, look at Zambia, look at Iran.
1} grabbing women by the _____y without their consent,2} sticking their friggin nose *v* into a pregnants womans body business with her consent{ virtual? rape? },
Morally speaking, abortion should be against the law except when the woman's life is threatened. Anything can be legislated by those in power but that does not necessarily make it right, just legal.
You do not have the right to kill another human being, except in self-defense or during a time of war. Why should women, on their whim?
3} religous zealous extremists that suppport Biblical Apocalyspe as the final solution.Lets see, all of three of these appear to me, to based ob some 14th century, or earlier, immoral mind-set towards women.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
It is not selfless, I would call it more selfish to impose your thoughts on to other people.... think of them as murderers and hate them for it when you have no idea about the circumstances that made them make the decision.... I can tell by the way you say it "commit abortion."
If something is wrong should we not stand up for justice? What about the murder of over 1.5 billion unborn since Roe v Wade?
I don't believe in speeding... but I am not going to go lay in the street to try to stop people from speeding, or march against speeders unless it is right outside my house where my kids play..... That is when it affects me.Here is a better analogy.If I believe the speed limit is too fast in front of my house, I may go argue that they lower it, but I'm not going to someone else's neighborhood to argue that point. It does not affect me or my family.
So, you turn a blind eye to abortion because it does not affect your family?
Your analogy is not very good, you are talking about something that is legal and comparing it to something that is illegal, but I tried my best to respond.
Not everything that is legal is good or right.
On another note, how do you make the response blue like you did so I can respond to a particular question or retort for better organization?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Then what separates murdering someone and eating their body any different from doing the same to corn? One is cannibalism, another is part of someone's dinner.I said a right to be born Once born they have rights you seem to keep comparing apples to turnips.
Why do their rights only start at birth? What is the unborn?
Is it a human being?
If it is not a human being then what kind of being is it?
If it is a human being then it is being discriminated against. So, it is a human being? THAT is the question.
If one kind of human being, say the unborn, is deemed less valuable than another, then can we discriminate against other classes of human beings, say white males?
Currently they don't because of Roe v Wade. Neither did black people when they were slaves. Black people and fetuses both deserve protected rights under the law.They don't for the same reason the dead don't. Again you compare the living to the non living.
Are you saying the fetus is not living? What are you saying?
I hate God because of something he said about hell and I still want abortion to be banned. Your argument here is stereotypical.If you hate god you believe he exists. Then you are worse then a Christian they at least have an excuse to hate others having rights.Also, you act as if abortion will be bane in every state. California will keep it legal. Connecticut will keep it legal. New York will keep it legal. It would only be the right wing states that would ban it. It would become a states issue instead of pro choice states forcing their views on pro life states.I work in a poor state. Banning it here would force some women to give birth who don't want to. Fuck the state when it's wrong.
I think it is fairly easy to establish that the unborn is a human being medically and scientifically. Why should a woman be able to kill another human being unless her life is threatened by it (i.e., tubal pregnancy)?
If you are going to kill one class of human beings (the unborn) because they are inconvenient, then why not another class (say people over sixty in poor health or because they live with their children who do not want the burden of looking after them)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
.
You have supplied claims to such knowledge, not evidence. Evidence is a word you and your kind are at a loss to understand. When someone claims that someone else claimed something that is not evidence.
I have done both, many times. If someone wants to make a claim, rather than take the time to lay down the evidence (which takes time) sometimes I just reply by disagreeing (a claim). If I get challenged more then sometimes I will take the time and lay down the evidence for my position to counter their own claim.
I would charge that you are more guilty of this behavior of claiming without evidence, but it is a common occurrence on this forum that you are trying to single me out on. I think many others would agree with me that your posts are full of claims (so look in the mirror).
Also, many times when I lay down evidence (an example of laying down evidence is Post 226) the evidence is left undisputed, so either the person agrees with it or they can't be bothered to reply. I'm not sure if that was the case with #226 however. I did not check. I just used it as an example of a post that included evidence to support my argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
1. Should DART moderation be able to punish users for sever misconduct which occurs on the site's discord?
Yes. There are rules to be abided by.
2. Should there be a public ban log?
No. Freedom of speech is important, but abiding by the rules should be encouraged so that debate is respectful. I think disciplinary action such as a temporary ban is acceptable when the language is overtly hateful or malicious, but the public listing of such bans is not.
3. Should COC-violating conduct be deleted?
No, the Posts should be left as a witness. Violent threats are a different matter. They should be addressed but the post should stand. It is a record if the person follows through with the threat. I think a serious and obvious threat of injury should be the only case which results in a ban but the post should remain intact. Calling someone stupid, although not desirable, is a matter of freedom of speech. If you think someone has stated something that is stupid or you think their worldview is stupid, I think you should be free to say so. I do not like censorship.
An obvious and clear thread of violence should result in a ban of six, or nine months, or even a year. However, I think the person should be able to explain themselves if they want to. When speaking of morality sometimes people have used an example of someone killing someone else to emphasize a point. In no way do I endorse violence but I understand when it is used in an argument to make a point.
I'm not sure when a clear and obvious threat to someone or many people should be reported to higher authorities, but that is also something that should be considered. Notifying the proper authority in such a case is a civic duty if the threat is direct and unmistakable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Joseph Smith did not claim to be God. His followers never claimed to see him alive after his death. His teaching contradicts the Bible.Joseph Smith claimed to have special knowledge given to him by an angel, just like Saul/Paul.
Lots of people claim special knowledge. What Paul said was confirmed by the Apostles, those closest to Jesus. The Bible gave measures on how to determine if a prophet was from God and Joseph Smith does not meet the measure.
Deuteronomy 18:20-22 (NASB)
20 But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ 21 You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’ 22 When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
20 But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ 21 You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’ 22 When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
What Joseph Smith said was contrary to what the Bible says. Therefore, logically, either Joseph Smith or the Bible or both, would be wrong because they say contrary things.
If I claimed to have seen an angel, would you believe me?
What is an angel? In the cases of received revelation from God, they are a messenger. Since you are putting the onus upon me and what I think, no, I would not believe you. The biblical written revelation is closed. My opinion is that we have everything we need for our salvation.
If I claimed to be god, would that be easier or harder for you to believe?
Again, if you put the onus on me, no, not in the least. Logically there is only one God. I believe the biblical God is God - period.
If I claimed to know the one, true interpretation of the ancient holy scriptures, (illuminated by an angelic messenger) would you believe me?
No, unless what you said was logically consistent with the biblical revelation, and once you put in the caveat emptor "illuminated by an angelic messenger" I would be doubly cautious of anything you said.
.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
So, just as you have the first Adam, you have the Second Adam. Just as you have the virgin or young woman in the OT giving birth to a son, so you have the virgin in the NT giving birth to a Son. Just as you have the typology of a sacrifice for sin in the OT so you have a sacrifice in the NT. Just as you have a covenant made with the people on Mount Sinai, so you have a covenant made with the people on Mount Calvary (or Mount Zion). Just as you have Moses taking the people from the land of bondage and sin to the Land of Promise in the OT, so you have Jesus, the Second Moses, taking the people to the greater Promised Land, the heavenly country, in the NT. And the comparisons and contrasts go on and on.
However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
So we are born a natural person, but through faith in Jesus Christ, we are reborn a spiritual person.
it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I would say that the only clear instance of 'borrowing' is the virgin birth. it's not in Mark or John and Paul doesn't refer to it. Nor is virgin birth a featur of Judaic traditions. It looks very much that Jesus was given a miraculous birth by Matthew and Luke as part of their nativity tales because of an imported tradition that remarkable people had remarkable births.A few gods die and come back to life, but that us usually in connection to the annual cycle of seasons - I don't see that as a very good parallel. I'm certainly not saying the miracle stories in the Gospels are true, but I don't think they are cribs from other religions.
Do you understand the "Federal Head" view regarding humanity? What it means is that Adam represented us in the Garden.
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—
There is an imputation there. Adam represented us. Humanity became polluted by Adam. We inherit that nature from Adam. It is a part of human nature. Thus, Jesus teaches that we must be "born again," regenerated by God and given a new nature, one that hears God, one that loves God, one that is open to God's leading.
There is an imputation there. Adam represented us. Humanity became polluted by Adam. We inherit that nature from Adam. It is a part of human nature. Thus, Jesus teaches that we must be "born again," regenerated by God and given a new nature, one that hears God, one that loves God, one that is open to God's leading.
Made Alive in Christ
2 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
Those who are not born from above are dead in their sinful nature to God. They have enmity towards God and resist Him with their very being and will not come to God via the means He has given.
That is why it was necessary that Jesus not be like us, born into sin, inheriting the sinful nature via His father. That is why the seed of man was not passed through the father but through the Holy Spirit. There are a type and antitype throughout the whole Bible. In the OT we find the type, the picture or shadow of what was to come. In the NT we find the antitype or what the OT always pointed to, Jesus Christ. Just as God created Adam so He creates Jesus' human nature, a Man without sin, just like Adam was without sin before He died.
Romans 5:15-1715 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
Isaiah 9:6
6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
The child is born but the Son is given.
What is applied to the natural in the OT is applied to Jesus Christ in the NT. The physical comes first, then the spiritual. Just as a virgin or young woman will be with child in the OT, so there is an antitype in the NT, the woman who has not had relations with a man (i.e., a virgin) will be with Child, and what is applied to the natural child in the OT is applied to the spiritual Child in the NT. There are spiritual truths in the types that are fulfilled in the antitype.
Isaiah 7:14 (NASB)
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:14 (NASB)
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
See post 5 for massive reveal
And here:
And here:
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
What these sites and forums are geared to do is repeat the same old unfounded secular groupthink claims over and over again until everyone believes them. Many claims contain truths or similarities that are not that similar when investigated but they convince the masses.
I'm not convinced December 25 is His birthdate yet it is the time of year we worship Jesus' coming and God for sending His Son.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
@disgusted
Do you see the prophecy as weeks or sevens (a heptad)?Why do the Jews understand the prophecy as 490 years?Why do those who have researched this verse believe it is 490 years?From the information that I have given is it reasonable to believe it is 490 years?I'm sure it refers to 490 years, starting 'From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem'. Many events have been proposed as the start point - my current slight prefernce is for 538BC when Cyrus allowed the exiled Jews to return. Very possibly the refernces to events was clearer to 2nd century Jews than it is to us!
Try explaining it to Disgusted then. He is bewildered how the seventy weeks refer to 490 years. I have laid it down in every way I can think of and he has blinders on.
but I don't base my views on prophecy on the fit or other wise of the text to history but on my disbelief in the supernatural.
There you have a bias that will not let you understand further then, per Hebrews 11:6. You are committed to the disbelief in the supernatural. You look to the natural to explain/understand everything. Thus, the Bible must be the construction of men exclusively. Therefore, we must look for natural explanations alone.
If Daniel is a forgery then we can infer forgers existed in 2nd century Judea. If it is a genuine prophesy then we have to accept the reality gods, angels, 'seeing the future' and that everything we now about the physical world is wrong.
Yes, if genuine then it is reasonable to believe it is a revelation from God because it states as much. Since most people will not give this possibility equal value the writing must be written in the 2nd-century.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The Letters
The letters to the churches would have been copied and circulated shortly after they were received and read. What is more, the originals would have been preserved for as long as possible and the church would have known who wrote the letters. Paul addressed his letters to specific churches, such as Rome, Corinth, Thessalonica, Galatia, as well as to specific people like Timothy and Tius.
1 Corinthians 1:1-3
1 Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2 To the church of God which is at Corinth,...Galatians 1:1-3
1 Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead), 2 and all the brethren who are with me,
To the churches of Galatia:...***
The early church fathers would have known who these letters were from and which churches they were sent to. When they wrote listing who wrote what gospel they would have either had first-hand knowledge, per people like Polycarp, who was a said to be taught by the Apostle John.
Ignatius, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Papias, mention Polycarp and his acquaintance with the Apostle John.
Polycarp was acquainted with the Synoptic Gospels and The Acts...
He is well versed in the Pauline Epistles, and his references include Hebrews and the Pastorals. His special favorite, however, is I Peter; and of the other catholic epistles he knows James and I and II John. Revelation is not cited by him, but its chiliastic point of view was not congenial to him. He makes much use of I Clement, and there are allusions to the Ignatian letters of the sort one would expect from fairly recent acquaintance with them...
Irenaeus repeatedly states that Polycarp had received his tradition of faith from John, the disciple of the Lord, and other apostles,...There is certainly no reason to distrust the information that Polycarp had enjoyed personal converse, as did also his contemporary Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, with companions of Jesus, including a disciple named John;
There is reasonable evidence that Clement of Rome was a contempoary of Paul since Clement is mentioned by Paul.
The general opinion is, that he is the same as the person of that name referred to by St. Paul (Phil. iv. 3). The writings themselves contain no statement as to their author. The first, and by far the longer of them, simply purports to have been written in the name of the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth. But in the catalogue of contents prefixed to the ms. they are both plainly attributed to one Clement; and the judgment of most scholars is, that, in regard to the first Epistle at least, this statement is correct, and that it is to be regarded as an authentic production of the friend and fellow-worker of St. Paul.
Indeed, true companion, I ask you also to help these women who have shared my struggle in the cause of the gospel, together with Clement also and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.
So, the evidence is that these people knew who wrote what. They had access to the early source material.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok, so he saw a ghost and made sure his stories didn't conflict with the other unverifiable stories.He met a Person who he recognized and worshiped as God. He testifies to have seen Him and spent time with Him.So, just like Joseph Smith?
Joseph Smith did not claim to be God. His followers never claimed to see him alive after his death. His teaching contradicts the Bible.
So they knew exactly as much as we do.Logically speaking, they would have access to much more information than we have today.Like what, for example?
Like libraries such as Caesarea, letters, and writings that are no longer available.
***
Caesarea played an important role in early Christian history. Here the baptism of the Roman officer Cornelius took place; (Acts 10:1-5, 25-28) from here Paul set sail for his journeys in the eastern Mediterranean; and here he was taken prisoner and sent to Rome for trial. (Acts 23:23-24)...
The Church Father Origen founded a Christian academy in the city, which included a library of 30,000 manuscripts. At the beginning of the 4th century, the theologian Eusebius, who served as Bishop of Caesarea, composed here his monumental Historia Ecclesiastica on the beginnings of Christianity and the Onomasticon, a comprehensive geographical-historical study of the Holy Land.
Origen of Alexandria lived around 184 – 253 A.D., where he founded a Christian school there which included 30,000 manuscripts. Origin was originally from Alexandria so if anything was left of the writings of the Library of Alexandria he could have seen some of those texts, for according to Eusebius, Origin's father left him a small library of books.
Origen sold the small library of Greek literary works which he had inherited from his father for a sum which netted him a daily income of four obols.
***
The Royal Library of Antioch
The Royal Library of Antioch was destroyed in 363 AD by the Christian Emperor Jovian, who "at the urging of his wife, burned the temple with all the books in it with his concubines laughing and setting the fire",...
***
Pergamum was home to a library said to house approximately 200,000 volumes [in its prime]
***
Contained around 20,000 scrolls, still mentioned into the 5th-century.
Completed in 120 A.D., and contained around 12,000 scrolls.
Came into existence during the 4th-century and was said to contain, at its peak, 120,000 scrolls and codices.
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Do you see the prophecy as weeks or sevens (a heptad)?
Why do the Jews understand the prophecy as 490 years?
Why do those who have researched this verse believe it is 490 years?
From the information that I have given is it reasonable to believe it is 490 years?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Do you consider yourself immune from confirmationn bias and cognitive dissonance?
No. I know I have a bias just like everyone. The question is whether what I or you believe is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
It says weeks, you adding years proves the prophesy a failure.The end of your alleged prophesy.
Put it this way, it seems to be beyond your comprehension due to confirmation bias (myside bias) and cognitive dissonance.
In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. This discomfort is triggered by a situation in which a person’s belief clashes with new evidence perceived by that person. When confronted with facts that contradict personal beliefs, ideals, and values, people will find a way to resolve the contradiction in order to reduce their discomfort.[1][2]
In A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957), Leon Festinger proposed that human beings strive for internal psychological consistency in order to mentally function in the real world. A person who experiences internal inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and so is motivated to reduce the cognitive dissonance, by making changes to justify the stressful behavior, either by adding new parts to the cognition causing the psychological dissonance, or by actively avoiding social situations and contradictory information likely to increase the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance.
In A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957), Leon Festinger proposed that human beings strive for internal psychological consistency in order to mentally function in the real world. A person who experiences internal inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and so is motivated to reduce the cognitive dissonance, by making changes to justify the stressful behavior, either by adding new parts to the cognition causing the psychological dissonance, or by actively avoiding social situations and contradictory information likely to increase the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Very reasonable and logical. I defy you to make sense of the universe without God, and I challenge you to find better testimony of an ancient historical person. There are 19 extra-biblical listings of Jesus and much information can be gleaned from these that collaborates the biblical accounts. Then you have the early church fathers who verify He is an actual person as well as 27 different NT accounts, plus many pseudo-accounts. Then you have the whole of the OT that predicts a Messiah, One anointed by God.If we accept Markan primacy everything written about Jesus can be traced back to that single source. We don't have 19 independent lines of documentary evidence - we have one solitary contemporary source and 19 people copying it and copying copies of it for the next few hundred years.
If you accept it, that is one possible take. What do you mean by primacy - the first, or the only source that all others are derived from?
We have 19 EXTRA-BIBLICAL accounts or mentions of Jesus available to us today. That is in addition to the biblical accounts and the accounts of the early church fathers.
I think it almost goes without saying that I am not impressed by claims of prophecy! We have a combination of Gospel writers deliberately making stuff up to give the impression of prophecy and 2000 years of partisan Chtistian quote mining.
How well do you know prophecy?
How well do you see the connection?
When you say, "We have a combination of Gospel writers deliberately making stuff up to give the impression of prophecy" what is your proof of this. Show me from early sources that this is reasonable to believe. What evidence do you have from early sources that what you claim is the case?
And, how do you explain the OT that predict this Messiah and in regards to an Old Covenant people who no longer exist in covenant as stipulated in the Torah after AD 70?
How about offering some of your explanations for these things?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Did Paul know the Jesus?Yes, he testified many times that He had met the risen Lord. The other apostles accepted him as one of them. His accounts verify and collaborate the NT gospels as well as OT prophecies.Ok, so he saw a ghost and made sure his stories didn't conflict with the other unverifiable stories.
He met a Person who he recognized and worshiped as God. He testifies to have seen Him and spent time with Him.
Did the Council of Niceaea know the Jesus?Some would know Him by faith and through the testimony of the written accounts of others, just like we know Him today.So they knew exactly as much as we do.
Logically speaking, they would have access to much more information than we have today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Is it reasonable and logical to believe that those who received writings from those closest to Jesus would have known which writings were true and which were bogus? Paul was writing to the churches in the 50s and 60s before he was put to death. Thus, it is reasonable to believe the writings would have started to circulate soon after they were written.Did Paul know the Jesus?
Yes, he testified many times that He had met the risen Lord. The other apostles accepted him as one of them. His accounts verify and collaborate the NT gospels as well as OT prophecies.
Did the Council of Niceaea know the Jesus?
Some would know Him by faith and through the testimony of the written accounts of others, just like we know Him today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Is it reasonable to believe Jesus was a historical Person based on the evidence available = Yes!Is it reasonable to believe God is our Creator = Yes!Is it reasonable to believe the Bible is the Word of God = Yes!Is it reasonable to believe in Jesus = Yes!Doesn't it depend on what is meant by 'reasonable'? It could mean 'just about possible' or it could mean 'very probable'.
1. (of a person) having sound judgment; fair and sensible: synonyms: sensible, rational, open to reason, full of common sense, logical,
2. as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate: synonyms: within reason, practicable, sensible, appropriate, suitable
Reasonable
2a: having the faculty of reason
b: possessing sound judgment
The evidence for Jesus is that stories were written about Him and some people seem to have believed them. The evidence against is the lack of any physical objects, the lack of any independent written sources, the supernatural and fabulous nature of the stories and the fact that even more of the people alive in Judea at the time disbelieved the stories.
"Stories?" These people claim to be eyewitnesses.
Actually, the evidence against that squashed the movement would have been to produce the dead body. That would have ended the claims of resurrection and killed the movement. We have no good historical evidence that happened. To the contrary, we have accounts that many of these eyewitnesses and others were put to death because they would not recant their testimonies of His resurrection or their reverence of and worship of Him.
So how 'reasonable' is it to believe jesus was a historical person? Particularly if 'historical jesus' refers to an actual divinity rather than a human around which legends crystalised, such as happened with King Arthur or Robin Hood. Is an emphatic 'yes' really an adequate response?
Very reasonable and logical. I defy you to make sense of the universe without God, and I challenge you to find better testimony of an ancient historical person. There are 19 extra-biblical listings of Jesus and much information can be gleaned from these that collaborates the biblical accounts. Then you have the early church fathers who verify He is an actual person as well as 27 different NT accounts, plus many pseudo-accounts. Then you have the whole of the OT that predicts a Messiah, One anointed by God.
Then, why we are here (our existence) is explained in one of a few ways (I would argue only two are in any way reasonable to think of); we are here by chance happenstance or we were created. Those are the two main rivals. If we are here by chance happenstance, then there is no reason for this universe, yet we keep finding reasons. I would argue that chance happenstance can't make sense of anything when you pull apart what it is built upon.
If we are created, and God has revealed Himself, which religious account is most reasonable. I claim it is the biblical account.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Is it reasonable to believe Jesus was a historical Person based on the evidence available = Yes!Sure, people exist and have different names and say stuff.
The biblical Person has specific qualities ascribed to His name.
Is it reasonable to believe God is our Creator = Yes!Sure, there might have been some sort of Deistic being that ignited the big bang, either intentionally or unintentionally.Is it reasonable to believe the Bible is the Word of God = Yes!Not really. What you call "the bible" is a scrap yard of arbitrarily assembled writings, collected and codified by The Council of Niceaea in 325 CE.
Is it reasonable and logical to believe that those who received writings from those closest to Jesus would have known which writings were true and which were bogus? Paul was writing to the churches in the 50s and 60s before he was put to death. Thus, it is reasonable to believe the writings would have started to circulate soon after they were written.
Acts 28:20-22 (NIV)
20 For this reason I have asked to see you and talk with you. It is because of the hope of Israel that I am bound with this chain.”
21 They replied, “We have not received any letters from Judea concerning you, and none of our people who have come from there has reported or said anything bad about you. 22 But we want to hear what your views are, for we know that people everywhere are talking against this sect.”
21 They replied, “We have not received any letters from Judea concerning you, and none of our people who have come from there has reported or said anything bad about you. 22 But we want to hear what your views are, for we know that people everywhere are talking against this sect.”
When I arrive, whomever you may approve, I will send them with letters to carry your gift to Jerusalem;
2 Corinthians 10:9
2 Corinthians 10:9
for I do not wish to seem as if I would terrify you by my letters.
as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
The early church fathers also mention the names of some of these author's of the gospels. They would have a better idea than we do today.
Is it reasonable to believe in Jesus = Yes!You're going to need to be slightly more specific.
That would be what is described regarding Him in the Bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
26 And after the threescore and two weeksGet your bible quotes right, lying is a sin.
Great answer to my questions as usual - zippo.
Now answer the questions or I will quit answering yours.
Finish what? Answer that question first.
Who was Daniel addressing?
***
What does AFTER mean to you?
62 + 7 = 69. In the seventieth week of years, the end came like a flood.
27 In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”
Created: