Total posts: 3,179
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
"Alright. Out of curiosity what is your attitude to competition in general?"
I like it and I am very competitive. I also like a fair competition. I like a competition to be judged as fairly as humanly possible. I don't like it when judges judge along partisan lines. I hate what is happening in USA politics largely by the Democrats. There is no justice there. Values they once shared have been turned upside down and propaganda is being used to influence the hearts and minds of the gullible, IMO. Policies they once fought for they now fight against just because of who is suggesting these policies. It is nothing but a dishonest power game and not for the good of the American people. That is my outside perspective since I am Canadian.
Competition should be judged as fairly as possible or else the victory is not morally won, but dishonestly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you want as fair a judgment as possible or do you want an ego boost and bragging rights? With our debate, Skepticalone and I chose our judges. We chose them based on the number of debates they had participated in and because we felt they would be fairer than most in an open votes system. We selected from what we had available and I think we chose the best judges available.Enjoy your rating staying the same.
I noticed on the DDO that debaters had a lot of friends they could call upon if the debate was an open vote. I noticed sometimes that they would post, "Please vote" in calling on their friendships (You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours). No voting system is perfect and if you are looking for a fairer judgment, in my opinion, you have a better chance with the judicial system in which the judges are chosen by the two combatants before the debate starts.
What I witness on debate forums is a largely atheistic or agnostic community inundating a small Christian one. That is just the nature of these forums (they are breeding grounds for a secular viewpoint enlarge), and I enjoy coming here because I will find a predominately secular worldview, but such forums have their faults also. On DDO I usually looked at the profile of those I engaged with. I did this because I can assess where a person is coming from once I understand their worldview commitment. Thus, the atmosphere is one of where the secular community appears vindicated by sheer numbers (majority) alone. I fear (but have not looked for evidence to the fact) the same would be true in open voting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Judge Debates are different and should be entitled to their own standards of voting. Not only is it unfair how it rigs the voting (which on DDO was an issue because it affected the same rating) but it's also unfair to enforce in something like an arranged off-kilter voting system such as this debate:^ Here, the judge is there to serve a totally different voting system to normal.This is fine because judge debates don't affect rating and I wish they also didn't affect winrate but so be it. :)
It depends on who is selected in judicial voting. When you choose open voting you can get anyone to judge your debate and those who judge it could be your mortal enemies or hold a very strong view against your position and throw the debate in favor of your opponent. I used the judicial vote and I pick the best debaters I can find because my reasoning is they will have experienced unfair decisions so they will want to be as fair as humanly possible. The other feature of this choice is that a debate is always judged. I watched many debates on DDO go unjudged (i.e., a draw) because with the open vote no one voted on them.
I will not use open voting if I have a choice. I choose the best debaters available to me as judges and I try to choose at least two of five that hold a different worldview from the majority. These forums are predominately atheistic or agnostic. In an open vote on controversial subjects birds of a feather flock together. With judicial voting, I can pick the fairest and most intellectual judges available.
Open voting sucks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
The point system is fine with me. What I don't like is when you use the "judicial vote" and a judge fails to accept or decline the invitation. It upsets and nullifies the whole debate before it is even started and you have to start over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Ethang wrote:The NT is saying do not make earthly wealth your hearts desire, not that wealth is badI think the NT does go further than saying 'do not make earthly wealth your hearts desire' and does imply 'wealth is bad'.Perhaps the most explicit passage is"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Matthew 19:23-26There are other verses that express similar ideas, and I don't know of anything that can be construed as otherwise.
The NT follows the OT in its teaching on idolatry. Money or wealth can be an idol that you place before God or sub for God that ignores the very first of The Ten Commandments, “You shall have no other gods before Me." - Exodus 20:3
A god or idol is anything that is put in the place of God.
Romans 1:22-25
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
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.
“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.
No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”
What the young rich man was doing was putting money before God. He did not want to let go of it to worship God. It held his heart, thus he went away sad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Well, I side with the Sadducces!
Well, that is pretty sad, you see.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I've spent some time looking for a good resource on the Hebrew concept of Sheol - this seems pretty good.I hope people read it because there can be no doubt that views on the nature of afterlife change radically between the old and new testaments.
I read it, Keith. The concept of life after death (resurrection) was still present in the OT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
PS115;17The dead cannot sing praises to the LORD, for they have gone into the silence of the grave.
18 But as for us, we will bless the Lord From this time forth and forever.
Praise the Lord!
How can you bless someone forever if you are dead?
PS 6.5For there is no mention of You in death; who can praise You from Sheol?PS 31:17O LORD, let me not be ashamed, for I have called on You. Let the wicked be put to shame; let them lie silent in Sheol.PS 88:10Do You work wonders for the dead? Do departed spirits rise up to praise You? Selahisaiah 38:17For Sheol cannot thank You; death cannot praise You. Those who go down to the Pit cannot hope for Your faithfulness.
Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, “May he be blessed of the Lord who has not withdrawn his kindness to the living and to the dead.” Again Naomi said to her, “The man is our relative, he is one of our closest relatives.”
How can you be kind to someone who no longer is?
Job 14:13-15
13 “Oh that You would hide me in Sheol,
That You would conceal me until Your wrath returns to You,
That You would set a limit for me and remember me!
14 “If a man dies, will he live again?
All the days of my struggle I will wait
Until my change comes.
15 “You will call, and I will answer You;
You will long for the work of Your hands.
Job 19:25-27 (NASB)
25 “As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives,
And at the last He will take His stand on the
earth.
26 “Even after my skin is destroyed,
Yet from my flesh I shall see God;
27 Whom I myself shall behold,
And whom my eyes will see and not another.
My heart faints within me!
1 Samuel 2:6 (NASB)
6 “The Lord kills and makes alive;
He brings down to Sheol and raises up.
He brings down to Sheol and raises up.
Psalm 16:9-10 (NASB)
9 Therefore my heart is glad and my glory rejoices;
My flesh also will dwell securely.
My flesh also will dwell securely.
10 For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol;
Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.
Created:
-->
@YeshuaBought
Please identify which points you want to discuss.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Whether souls survive death I doubt, but the writers of the OT didn't think so and the Sadducees rejected the resurrection of dead in the time of jesus (Acts 23:8 - "For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection").
What OT verses are you thinking of?
Isaiah 53:8-12
That He was cut off out of the land of the living
For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?
9 His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.
For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?
9 His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.
10 But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.
11 As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors.
Daniel 12:2-3, 13
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.
11 As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors.
Daniel 12:2-3, 13
2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever...13 But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
The numpty considers this a valid contribution, oh your god, how pathetic.No matter how reasonable it is you would still charge it as unreasonable. How reasonable is that?It's called running away deary.
More ad homs. I have no desire to subject myself to that? Please do not answer my posts. I'm not interested in these one-line quips that add no value to the subject matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Translation: responding to your posts is a waste of my time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
No matter how reasonable it is you would still charge it as unreasonable. How reasonable is that?Translation: I can't so I will run away.
As usual, you have no valid contribution. IMO, you just harrass others because you are so emotional and angry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
but you certainly appear to have grievances against this non-existent Being. Go figure?Go figure? I guess you don't find grievance with someone who orders infanticide, genocide, rape, murder and a plethora of other atrocities? Who is the morally skewed person now?
A non-existent being is not a someone. How is it not skewed to charge to a non-existent being a crime??? Who exactly are you charging?
A skeptic, generally speaking, will always find another reason to doubt.A skeptic is intelligent enough to question claims of truth, instead of believing in fairy tales.
The skeptic makes assertions about things he is ignorant of.
I can only present a reasonable defense and tear away at inconsistency, as you do with me.I'm still waiting for this "reasonable defense."
No matter how reasonable it is you would still charge it as unreasonable. How reasonable is that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
And also, as someone who talks to God, do you believe everyone's account of God talking to them?
No, I do not. There are many inconsistencies. Even in our dialog together I have to be sure I rightly understand what you are expressing to me to understand you. We have to do likewise with God.
Different religions have contradictory accounts of what God is like. Therefore they cannot all be true. Even if all the blind men all touch the elephant and describe it differently, it does not change what the elephant really is. One may say it is LIKE a tree trunk when they touch the leg, but they fail to get the overall picture by just touching one part of it.
If we do not worship God as He really is then we worship an idol, something we construct that misrepresents Him.
John 4:23-24 (NASB)
23 But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
24 God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
We are called to worship God as He really is, not how we make Him to be. All regions but one worship God as they construct Him to be instead of how He is. God calls us to put away our idols and false constructs and worship Him as He is. Jesus came to make the Father known for who He was, not who the Jews had constructed Him to be.
Since God is Spirit we must worship Him with our spirits since we are made in His image and likeness. But we must worship Him in truth, as He truly is. To do anything less is to commit idolatry. Even believers in Jesus are capable of this when they stray from His path and His leading.
When you read the Bible look for His meaning, not the meaning you want to read into the text. Then you will hear His voice. But, to do this you must first believe that He exists and that He rewards those who trust Him. How could you ever believe Him unless you believed He existed?
Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
If you do not believe the underlined then how would you ever believe in God who you can't see?
My faith is not a blind faith. I do not trust in Him for no reasons but because everything I see speaks to me of Him. I often ask an atheist to explain how morality is anything but relative and subjective and therefore meaningless unless God exists. I do not see them making good sense of it. They keep borrowing from the Christian framework in making sense of morals. There is no reason why a random chance universe would have meaning in it. Yet, in everything we do and in all we discover about it we continue to find this meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
So what does that mean in regard to your acceptance or rejection of modern divine miracles? Which there are sometimes reports of. Do you believe these are mere rumor?
With God, all things are possible that are within His nature, so miracles are still possible. God still answers prayer. But I do not believe the gifts are evident as in the first century. God's word and His grace are sufficient for our needs. So, I don't see the kinds of miracles God used to spread Christianity now prevalent in our day. I don't see believers going into hospitals and healing the sick or raising the dead. God still has a purpose for suffering, that good will come of it. When there is no hope there is still one - God. One thing I do see still that I believe is a miracle is God's gift of salvation and the transforming power to change a life. Without God's transforming power we are hostile to Him and do our own thing. Faith comes from hearing the message. Some have ears to hear and others do not want to hear.
1 Corinthians 2:10-16 (NASB)
10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.
10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.
I do not know what you are thinking unless you express your thoughts to me, but you know your own thoughts.
Unless God expresses His thoughts to you then you will not know God intimately, only about Him.
With faith in Jesus, repentance takes place and God, through His Spirit opens our hearts and minds to His eternal truths. Jesus, the Son, is the means He has chosen to do so for a number of reasons. Since God is holy and pure sin separates us from an intimate relationship with Him. But Jesus lived a sin free life on behalf of those who would believe, thus satisfying God's righteousness. He also took the death that we deserved upon Himself, satisfying God's justice. When we truly trust in Jesus and His accomplishments (there is nothing of ourselves to boast about) we start our journey to understanding God. We study His word to show ourselves approved and to understand Him more fully. It is a growth process towards spiritual maturity. As we study God opens up to us the deeper thoughts He expresses. We start to see the spiritual truths His word conveys.
When I read the Bible I see the spiritual truths of Jesus on almost every page. The OT points towards Him and the NT looks back to Him. There are types and shadows of Jesus that convey spiritual truths in the physical reality of the OT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions and tell me about your experiences.Honestly I kind of envy your spiritual journey and your ability to maintain doubtless faith. I've never been able to. Doubt is the single most pervading emotion in my existential experience -- not being sure what's real, what's right, or if there even is a "real" or "right" way. The things I'm truly sure of could probably be counted on one hand. So the trusting bond between God and believer is sort of shrouded in mystery to me because it's something I don't think I can really attain -- or at least, maintain once attained.
I thank you for your kind and gentle words.
Out of curiosity, why do you think the biblical age of miracles ended?
Thanks for the question!
It was used to spread the Christian faith so it served its purpose. That is the short of it.
The longer explanation:
1 Corinthians 13:10 (NASB)
10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.
10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.
When perfection came there was no longer need for miraculous works. The perfect speaks of the Second Coming of the Lord. All the time indicators in the NT speaks of a near, soon, quick coming return and judgment.
Now for a little more context:
8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.
Prophecy will be done away with. The Lord Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-18,
17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
First, you have to understand what heaven and earth meant to the 1st-century audience of address. The OT references also give a clue. Their whole existence of 1st-century Israel revolved around the OT economy and temple ritual worship and the Mosaic Law.
Second, Jesus said that not the smallest letter or stoke would pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Third, Jesus said that He came to fulfill both the Law and the prophets.
Fourth, the Law could not be fulfilled by these Old Covenant people after AD 70. Their whole worship system had disappeared (Matthew 24:1-2; Luke 21:20-24).
Their temple no longer stood.
Their priesthood was no longer functional.
Their sacrificial system that atoned for the sin of the nation could no longer be offered.
Their feast days could no longer be followed as prescribed by OT Law.
So, everything was fulfilled as Jesus foretold. The NT that was in transition during the 40 year period from AD 30 (the crucifixion and resurrection) until AD 70 (the destruction of the temple) was complete. Now, in AD 70 there was only one covenant in operation - the New Covenant.
Hebrews 8:13 (NASB)
13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
There are good reasons to believe Hebrews was written before AD 70, some time in the AD 60's. For one thing, the entire epistle still speaks of the temple and worship system as still in existence. It also speaks of soon coming judgment like every other NT writing.
Luke 21 also places all prophetic fulfillment at the time of the destruction of the city and temple.
Luke 21:20-24 (NASB)
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
Jesus said these are the days of vengeance so that ALL things which are written will be fulfilled. That places the fulfillment in the 1st-century. If you understand the history of Israel you understand the covenant they made with God on Mount Sinai (Exodus 24:3,7). They agreed to be His people and He their God. They also pleaded to follow His laws, but they never did. Thus, God gave them blessings and curses (Deuteronomy 28). The blessings were for obedience, the curses for disobedience. God was bringing His wrath and the curses on these Old Covenant people for their disobedience.
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
Jesus said these are the days of vengeance so that ALL things which are written will be fulfilled. That places the fulfillment in the 1st-century. If you understand the history of Israel you understand the covenant they made with God on Mount Sinai (Exodus 24:3,7). They agreed to be His people and He their God. They also pleaded to follow His laws, but they never did. Thus, God gave them blessings and curses (Deuteronomy 28). The blessings were for obedience, the curses for disobedience. God was bringing His wrath and the curses on these Old Covenant people for their disobedience.
God removed that covenant relationship in AD 70 and replaced it with a new and better one, one that was accessible to all peoples. Thus, prophecy and miracles were no longer needed.
If you are ever interested in seeing how the Bible all ties together into one supernatural book I would suggest the following links in exploring it:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Jesus Christ people are stupid.
So, you too are trying to use an emotional argument to appeal to the reader with your stereotyping, sweeping generalizations and hasty conclusions, and a whole lot more.
It is a common tactic.
Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.
Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping. Example: "Women are on average not as strong as men and less able to carry a gun. Therefore women can't pull their weight in a military unit." The problem is that the sweeping statement may be true (on average, women are indeed weaker than men), but it is not necessarily true for every member of the group in question (there are some women who are much stronger than the average).
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"),
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
What was that? (^8You finally figured it out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
OK, instead of 'good' and 'evil' consider 'smallness' and 'bigness'. Smallness is an attribute of mice, bigness is an attribute of elephants. If bigness was a thing then you could buy some 'bigness' on e-bay and add it to a mouseand turn it into an elephant. you can't rally do that because smallness and bigness are gramatically nouns, but there are no such thing as 'smallness'and no such thing as 'bigness'.
Bigness and smallness are words we use to communicate size. As such they have a specific meaning. They form a word picture to describe something. So does the word evil. It conveys or expresses a concept of moral wickedness, of acts that should not be done, something that is reprehensible, sickening, disgusting. Are you saying that there are no such things?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
What do you propose I doI don't propose you do anything, it's never all about you. Narcissism doesn't look good on godists but it's always visible.I keep asking why your god gives a fuck about your need for a penny and couldn't care less about the millions of starving children in Yemen.You just keep running away.
So, you make a big production out of me not doing anything and when I ask what you want me to do you say nothing. You just used the whole scenario to rile up emotions. Please, find someone else to discuss with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
He gave you the money you wanted and for the starving millions in Yemen he gives nothing, stop your desperate attempts at justifying your god's obvious hatred of the starving children of YEMEN. Explain this god's (who is perfect love) preferential treatment for a well of American and his absolute disdain for the people of YEMEN.
Argumentum ad
misericordiam(argument or appeal to pity).
The English translation pretty much says it all. Example: "Think of all the poor, starving Ethiopian children! How could we be so cruel as not to help them?" The problem with such an argument is that no amount of special pleading can make the impossible possible, the false true, the expensive costless, etc.
Who put those people in such a situation. It was the greed and selfishness of those in power in two nations who are fighting an ideologic battle.
"The famine is the direct result of the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen and blockade. Yemen was already the most impoverished nation in the Arabian Peninsula and the Middle East, and Al Hudaydah one of the poorest cities of Yemen, but the war and the naval blockade by the Saudi-led coalition and the United States Navy made the situation much worse. Fishing boats, the main livelihood of Al Hudaydah's residents, were destroyed by Saudi airstrikes, leaving them without any means to provide for their families. As a result, one child dies every ten minutes on average. A UN panel of experts found that Saudi Arabia is purposefully obstructing the delivery of humanitarian aid into Yemen.
Saudi Arabia was reported to be deliberately targeting means of food production and distribution in Yemen by bombing farms, fishing boats, ports, food storages, food factories, and other businesses in order to exacerbate famine."
What do you propose I do and what are you doing? I was not even aware of the situation until you brought it to my attention. God allows evil for a purpose, that good will come of it. He judges a nation for evil since nothing happens without His sovereign will. Any child killed will be restored to life in a perfect place. There is goodness in the world, but this is also a wicked place because humanity ignores and rebels against God and His goodness. Although God is in control He allows us volition to find out for ourselves, although many of us never do. We are not puppets, but we are accountable. We cause our own strife. When the sins of a people reached their limit in biblical times He brought judgment on them that His purpose would stand. That purpose was the most important in the history of the world. So, even though I don't completely understand the reason for some suffering, neither do you, God is in control and He is not evil. Say what you will against Him now but one day you will stand before Him either via His mercy and grace or on your own merit. If you can't figure out that evil is lack of His light and goodness then you can only hope you are right in your judgments. Best wishes to you.
I do not enjoy our dialogs. You seldom answer my questions, take them too maliciously, poke fun of the sacred, and against Someone that I hold in the highest regard. IMO, there is no tolerance here. You get too emotional. Having said that I appreciate that there is a still a freedom to express what you want to as long as you abide by the rules of this site.
I do not enjoy our dialogs. You seldom answer my questions, take them too maliciously, poke fun of the sacred, and against Someone that I hold in the highest regard. IMO, there is no tolerance here. You get too emotional. Having said that I appreciate that there is a still a freedom to express what you want to as long as you abide by the rules of this site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I invite you to tell me why you attribute to a non-existent being the evil in the world? Such thinking does not make sense.You are right it doesn't make sense - so why do you think that i think that way? You are not the only person with sense!
I did not realize this post was directed at me since I was not sent a notification.
There is no such thing as evil. There are things that are evil but that isn't the same thing. Evil is an adjective, not a noun.
Not following your logic here.
Consider a smallpox germ - why does it exist? There is no reason; but if DNA gets together in such away that it's replication causes disease then that disease arises. Evil did not cause the smallpox germ to exist, and goodness did not cause it to un-exist beause there is no go good or evil - things 'just are'. The universe doesn't care - the world will still orbit the sun even if everyone dies of smallpox.
In the biblical sense, evil is ascribed to an act or actions of a mindful being or beings. There must be intent there to do wrong. A natural disaster does not in itself maliciously or intentionally set out to harm someone. With natural disasters or cancers there are three choices for it that I see: 1) The harm just happens, or 2) God directs the action in judgment I.e., It is a curse of the Fall that was set in motion for the consequence of sin, and/or 3) for the purpose of a greater good.
1. uncountable noun
2. uncountable noun
3. countable noun
If you refer to an evil, you mean a very unpleasant or harmful situation or activity.
Higher taxes may be a necessary evil.
...a lecture on the evils of alcohol. [+ of]
4. adjective
5. adjective
6. adjective
I think this is an evil spirit at work.
According to local folklore it is an evil place.
7. adjective
You can describe a very unpleasant smell as evil.
Both men were smoking evil-smelling pipes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
He gave you the money you wanted and for the starving millions in Yemen he gives nothing, stop your desperate attempts at justifying your god's obvious hatred of the starving children of YEMEN. Explain this god's (who is perfect love) preferential treatment for a well of American and his absolute disdain for the people of YEMEN.
I acknowledge Him as God because He has been merciful to me. My faith came from my hearing His message, yet many do not hear it. That is His grace to me which I am most grateful for. I point you to the same God. Read His word. Ask to understand Him. Believe He exists and is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him, or don't. If you don't believe He exists you have nothing to curse Him about, yet you do.
Is humanity getting what it wants, since it does not want God? I say it is. I have explained in part why the world knows evil in my address to Keith.
God has spoken. God has given humanity everything it needs to know Him and enjoy a relationship with Him. Instead, they become wise in their own eyes and ignore Him, deny Him, admit to themselves He does not exist while all the time cursing this non-existent God. Go figure??? I have nothing more to say to you. Your anger does not provide for a reasonable conversation, IMO. So I choose to ignore your posts for the most part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
No one is pointing a finger at you, PG. Gus's point is that you wrote:"I could also tell you of how God has looked after us financially in times of need and many other circumstances." so it seems God cares more about you than he does about thousands of starving kids in Yemen.I don't know what financial assistence you got, but I am willing to bet it wasn't 10 dollar bills miraculously appearing in your wallet. You were helped by people, not God, and if the starving in Yemen are to be helped it has to be people who do it because there is no god.
My wife is sick. It was either go back to work or find a way to meet our obligations and stay home and look after her. I asked for God's help. I won't supply the details here since it is personal. God provided for us. I do not dismiss it to mere luck. Call it what you want. We get by.
God has given men over to their evil. Evil is a testimony that man needs God. Humanity cannot solve their problems without Him. Evil is a reminder of the Fall and of God's solution for evil. When God created the world He said it was good. What caused evil was a decision by Adam. We inherit a nature that has a proclivity towards evil. Relativism is an evil. Romans 1 answers the question of why there is evil in this world yet not in God's kingdom.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth...21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about 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 up to dishonorable passions...
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Do you notice a pattern here? Humanity does its own thing. They suppress the truth of God for wickedness. Who is causing the evil? It is men bent on power and disregard for others. God has given us everything we need to escape this world system of evil. He judges it in His time for we must all give an account before Him for what we do in this lifetime.
This is what atheism does, IMO. It exchanges the truth of God for a lie and replaces it with idols that humanity builds and worships. God says, okay, if you (generic for whoever does this) don't want to know Me then see how you fair. God lets our track record be a witness for us. I turn the problem on the atheist who denies God. Okay, if there is no God then how do you explain the evil in the world, how we as humans can let millions starve? How can we let wars go on and on and on and on and on and on? Why, because without God humanity has no objective, absolute, universal standard and God lets humanity see the consequences of living as though He does not exist. You, as an atheist, why are you not solving this problem and the myriad of other problems that greed and evil have created? Why are you exploiting the earth? Why do you exploit your fellow human? Why do you take billions of lives of the unborn while all the time pleading that all humans should be treated equally? Why are there so many of the problems in the world as listed in verses 29-31? Verse 32 and others give the answer - Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Because people refuse to change, people refuse to acknowledge God He gives them over to the consequences of their actions. Yet for those who find Him, He promises them that even though they live in an evil world they will be with Him in paradise on the flip side and experience Him now. So, evil witnesses to God.
And I invite you to tell me why evil exists since you deny God???
I invite you to tell me why you attribute to a non-existent being the evil in the world? Such thinking does not make sense.
I asked Disgusted to do likewise but I have learned for the most part to ignore him because he is so bent on a one-way discussion - his way, his agenda, that he seldom answers my questions. I'll say no more since I believe in freedom of speech and I'm trying hard to obey the rules of conduct this site has created.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
And what is your explanation for what you apparently see as a wrong? In a dog eat dog universe only those who are strong survive. The rest are the weakest link. Millions starve on this globe because we as humans are greedy, selfish, self-seeking, and do not obey God's commands. One person can only do so much before they run out of resources unless you are in a group like Gates and Soros. Do they need the mass personal fortunes they have?I, personally, do not have much extra, nor would I tell you what I do with what I have. It is not your business. It is between God and me.Meaningless drivel.
In a meaningless universe, via your worldview!
And for the millions starving in Yemen he does nothing, amazing ain't it?Is talking exclusively about your god being willing to give you a few pennies but unwilling to do anything for the millions starving in Yemen.
And what are you doing about it while you point the finger at me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
What hope do you have to offer someone like my wife for the future?Not the false hope you and your silly book offer. Offer her the truth, she's going to die and that is all there is, the fairy tales of the IPSS are lies. Why don't you help her on her way to heaven if that is the future you offer? Paradise as opposed to suffering. You don't really believe do you? Or are you too selfish?do you? Or are you too selfish?
Thanks for those reassuring words of hope. I'll ignore the rest.
Both of us trust Jesus as Lord and Savior. What you think on the matter is secondary to who we trust in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I could also tell you of how God has looked after us financially in times of need and many other circumstances.And for the millions starving in Yemen he does nothing, amazing ain't it?
And what is your explanation for what you apparently see as a wrong? In a dog eat dog universe only those who are strong survive. The rest are the weakest link. Millions starve on this globe because we as humans are greedy, selfish, self-seeking, and do not obey God's commands. One person can only do so much before they run out of resources unless you are in a group like Gates and Soros. Do they need the mass personal fortunes they have?
I, personally, do not have much extra, nor would I tell you what I do with what I have. It is not your business. It is between God and me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I, on the other hand, think it is implausible to think that chance happenstance is what we attribute all we see too, that something without intent/purpose would or could sustain what we see. I liken it to rolling a dice. Rolling six a couple of times in a row is plausible, but rolling six constantly is not. Why do things remain the same, or near enough that we can do science? When there is intent we can "fix" the dice to roll six constantly. Without intent, there is no reason why six would constantly roll.I don't think it's necessarily impossible for a cosmic higher power to be interested in human lives. I just find it implausible. To me, this is exactly what a universe without a personal God would look like. Indifferent, chaotic, and amoral. I've been told I'm a cynic.
Then, when you look at the universe and everything in it you find reason and meaning. Why would you expect to find reason and meaning in a chaotic, amoral universe? There is no reason you would, but you do. Are you just "making" the meaning up or is it actually there? If there is no God, what does it ultimately matter? No reason.
Have you heard of the Goldilocks Dilemma/Principle? She tried mommas bed and poppas bed but they were not satisfactory. Babies bed was just right. The universe appears just right for our existing in it.
When you look at the macros and macros you see a design. You see information in our DNA that is very complex, as you see the information we continually DISCOVER about our universe, like certain principles and we describe those principles by mathematical formulas. We use our MINDS to describe and explain something that should not be explained in a chaotic and chance universe.
When you look at life's ultimate questions, such as all worldviews attempt to answer, like why are we here, what are we, what does it matter, what happens when we die," without such a God as described in the Bible what does it matter? Why are you making it matter? Why are you on a thread discussing meaning? What hope do you have to offer someone like my wife for the future? What hope do you really have to offer anyone? You borrow from the Christian worldview when you offer hope in a meaningless universe.
Created:
Posted in:
Continue:
Other times, when I sin, God brings that sin to my mind by biblical verses that convict me of it. It seems that a sermon or something someone else says is on that theme and barrage me. So there is a constant confirmation. There are times when God has bought circumstances in my life to disciple me. Funny things like the broken wrist I received lately because of my lack of patience (I'm always in a hurry and seem to have no spare time even though I'm retired). I know the fruit of His Spirit is love, joy, peace. PATIENCE, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things, there is no law. (Galatians 5:22-23)
I could also tell you of how God has looked after us financially in times of need and many other circumstances.
Is there ever a doubting part of you that whispers that you're just talking to yourself? If so, how do you overcome it? Is there a quality to "God's voice" that is immediately and fundamentally distinct from your own inner voice, so that you can always tell when it's supposedly God and when it's just your own mind?
There is no doubt in my mind of God's existence. I have had doubts about understandings in His word, but they do not enter my mind as much any longer. I know He will correct my thinking when I am in error. Sometimes it takes a while. But when God brings the conviction you know it is true because things you were finding inconsistent are resolved.
Now I trust that whether my life is good or bad, whatever my circumstance, God is in control. I have hope for the future. So does my wife who is in difficult times because she has COPD and wears an oxygen line 24/7. That is a reason why I took an early retirement.
Peter
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
To theists:
Hi there. I read you are a new moderator and thought I would see why Bsh1 was so impressed.
Do you talk to God?
Prayer is a communication with God. I pray to Him every day.
What's this experience like? Is it one-way, where you're sending God prayers, or does God ever touch your mind in response? If there is a response, what is it like? Does God respond in words? Is it just a feeling or emotion, like a wordless sense of wellbeing or reassurance?
God communicates to us by His Word (and Jesus is described as the Word of life - 1 John 1:1), His Spirit, and His creation. Sometimes God confirms in the believer's heart and answers prayer by circumstance confirmation. It is not like it was when the Gospel was being established before the OT economy came to an end. At that time God used visual miracles to acknowledge His existence. There was physical evidence during the OT, such as a pillar of clouds by day and a pillar of fire by night that accompanied the Israelites on the Exodus to the Promised Land. The disciples/apostles were granted miracles to confirm His word and spread the Gospel. Now, God leaves us His word of/in truth. With Christians, His Spirit speaks to our spirit through His word. His word has what is necessary for us to know God. Along with this circumstances lead us to faith. I could give you my personal journey if you like.
My experience of God as far back as I can remember was my mother kneeling with me at my bedside and reciting a simple prayer, "Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, look upon this little child. Pity my simplicity and suffer me to come to thee." Then we would ask for a blessing for our family members. I did not question God at this young time in my life. I knelt in reverence before Him. Then I remember my Grandmother. She was old and she scared the life out of me, but she was also a professing Christian. I think I developed this fear from my mother about her. My mother lived a pagan life (both parents were alcoholics although my dad jokingly called himself a bush baptist since we live in Africa at the time. My Grandmother sent me a Bible that I still have to this day with the quoted words of Jesus inscribed in it, "Suffer little children to come unto Me." So I know she prayed for us.
Many years later, when my father died in 1979, I started to question existence, and if there was any ultimate meaning in life or just what we invented that meant nothing in the big picture. I went back to Africa where it seemed that I was constantly coming in contact with Christians. My uncle, who I stayed with until I outlasted my welcome used to take me up the mounts around the Cape of Good Hope where we cut down a tree that was destroying the local fauna because it spread so vociferously. During our climbs, he would utter verses from the Bible like, "As you sow, so shall you reap." So I moved on to the Transvaal where I got a job in a private game reserve. My roommate was a "born again Christian." Maybe about six months into our new jobs we took off for a weeks vacation and drove to Durban, Natal, where he took me to a tent revival. (Can you believe it?) I kept telling him it was not for me and eventually managed to get him to leave. There was also a family of Christians and an older Christian lady that worked in the reserve. The owner sent me into the nearest town, Hoedspruit, for supplies with three others one day. On the way home, we hit a truck (I don't really know whether I got drowsy or a truck fixing the road backed into us). The result was all four of us received injury. None of us wore seatbelts. I got pinned behind the wheel and broke my hip. The African was partially paralyzed in one arm. The bosses son suffered minor injuries but his friend broke his neck. I blacked out. On the drive to the hospital, they revived me. By the grace of God we all recovered. Now I look back on it I think those Christians who befriended me also prayed for us. So, that was my introduction to Christianity in my adult life. My one year visa expired and I returned to Canada. I decided to look into the matter further and attended a church where I heard God's message and believed in the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
I wasn't until about nine years later that I started investigating the Christian faith seriously. God keeps confirming in my mind His word as truth. I started work with a person who claimed to be a "Word of Faith" or "Name-it-and-claim-it" Pentecostal believer. He told me I could lose my salvation, not that God would take me out of His hands but that I could take myself out of His hands. We had about a year's worth of conversation, exchanging biblical verses and supporting our contrary beliefs. I also kept asking God in prayer all through this timeframe to show me His truth because I was convinced Bob, this professing Christian, was misled. One day, out of frustration I sat down and read the NT from cover to cover. I kept seeing verses jump out at me that showed who was doing the action and who was receiving it. It was God who was saving. It showed that faith in God is by Him from first to last. If God saves you, you cannot lose your salvation because He cannot fail. I can demonstrate this very satisfactorily by using Scripture and reasoning it out. God has confirmed His word like this on many occasions. It takes work. You have to study to understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Is it the case that the first Christians did not conceive of 'eternal life' in terms of the survival of ethereal souls in heaven? I get impression that the new order was imagined more like a re-establisment of a pre-fall Eden right here on Earth, where life was easy and there was no death or suffering,It was only when that failed to materialise that it was re-interpretted in terms of posthumous survival of souls.
More to the case is what Jesus taught. He taught a spiritual kingdom and that those living on earth had access to it. The OT presented the truths of God in the physical world. Jesus presents these same truths in a spiritual sense. Page after page of the OT is a mirror of a greater truth pointing to the Lord Jesus Christ. We have the first Adam who separates men from a relationship with God and the second Adam (Jesus) who again restores the relationship. The first Adam is barred from the presence of God and prevented from taking of the tree of life. The Second Adam is the tree of life, giving everlasting life to those who will believe. What the first Adam is incapable of doing the Second Adam does on the believer's behalf. The Promised Land of the OT is a physical Land. The Jerusalem (city of peace) and its temple is a physical reality. The second Promised Land is the heavenly country that we can taste of in this lifetime (see Hebrews 11 and 12). The first Moses leads them out of the land of bondage to the Promised Land but does not go in. The Second Moses leads them into the Promised Land, the heavenly country (Jesus preached His kingdom is not of this world or realm yet the believer experiences it in this world). Moses leads the first Exodus that took God's people on their journey to the Promised Land that lasted forty years. Jesus takes His people on the Second Exodus that also lasts forty years (see Hebrews 3-4). The first Moses is told to build a tabernacle and instruments for worship after a pattern. That pattern is Jesus Christ. He is our way back to the Most Holy Place. The Old Covenant has a priesthood with animal sacrifices that can never take away sin (see Hebrews 9). The New Covenant has a High Priest who always intercedes for His people and who has provided a better sacrifice for sin, one that does not have to be repeated. That is why God abolished the Mosaic Covenant in AD 70. He took it out the way (see Hebrews 8:13). I can go on and on showing the OT types and their fulfillment, but I think you get the idea and why 1 Corinthians 2 says this:
10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That is decidedly inconvenient for you, and also for god if what he wants is for me too believe in him. Or maybe the reason he isn't inspiring you is that when you think you are talking to god you are actually talking to yourself.
God inspires me all the time by thinking of His majesty and grace. I do not forget who is in control. It is not I.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). It does not necessarily follow that it can't be proven true, or that I don't know it is true.That is true, however, you specifically said that logical fallacies are unavoidable for your arguments. That means your arguments cannot be proven true. Did you misspeak? If so, rephrase.
I just pointed out the fallacy you committed by giving a scenario in which your statement would be false. I also argued for the authority of the biblical God as infallible provided He exists. I also questioned why your stated authority is what it claims to be?
I did not think I did specifically state, but I will grant that they are with all mortal persons, including you, including me. I would never admit to every argument I make as being false. I have not seen one yet that you pointed out in which I agree with as being false in our discussion. However, you have shut done the topic with your claims about history. There is no point in further discussion because of your bazaar view of history (if I understand what you have said correctly). My experience is that I can't convince someone who denies history has truth to it.
Sometimes I believe that people list logical fallacies to shut down a dialog.I list logical fallacies for one reason only: To do exactly what they're intended to do, which is: Show an argument to be invalid.If your argument commits a logical fallacy, then you have two options: Either fix the argument, or admit defeat.
Okay, then I will be listening for you to point them out and see if your case is as you claim it to be.
Because I may not, can't, or don't express it well enough does not necessarily make what I believe false.This is also true, however, if you can't articulate an argument well enough to prove it, then honestly you probably shouldn't be on a debate site.
That is a low blow. But what can you prove about origins, morals, God?
As soon as you make an assertion against my claim the burden of proof shifts to you to prove it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
How could I prove something true to those who do not want to believe, even if it was true? I can try and persuade you at best. You WILL NOT accept the Christian God if you do not believe He exists,I believe you exist. Is it because I want to believe you exist? No. Frankly I don't really care whether you exist or not. Can I not accept that you exist? What difference does it make whether I accept your existence or not? Your existence is a fact of reality. I have undeniable proof of your existence. To deny that you exist would be denial of reality(delusion).Your god, on the other hand, does not undeniably exist, and whether or not I want it to exist is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not it does. Your assertion here makes no sense at all. As if what I want to believe has any ability to affect what is. I'm not a magical wizard, nor a god. I'm a human who can't conjure entities with my beliefs.
Again (and I speak from the heart), you will never convince me otherwise concerning God since a worldview that begins with matter has no ultimate meaning. There is no good or bad in it, just preference. It can't explain itself with anything but speculation and subjective opinion. Yet you find meaning and create it in a meaningless universe, for what? Nothing - no reason ultimately. What do you have to offer, your meaningless truth? Why should I value that in a meaningless universe? No reason.
He does exist for millions. Could it be you lack understanding of this God or that you do not want to understand Him because you look upon yourself in His place?
but you certainly appear to have grievances against this non-existent Being. Go figure?Go figure? I guess you don't find grievance with someone who orders infanticide, genocide, rape, murder and a plethora of other atrocities? Who is the morally skewed person now?
With a non-existent being? Why would I? You keep claiming He does not exist yet you have grievances with Him.
I'm sure we will be at loggerheads with this topic in our upcoming debate then.
A skeptic, generally speaking, will always find another reason to doubt.A skeptic is intelligent enough to question claims of truth, instead of believing in fairy tales.
You have not proved it is a fairy tale. You have just asserted it. Assertions are easy. The proof is not so easy.
I can only present a reasonable defense and tear away at inconsistency, as you do with me.I'm still waiting for this "reasonable defense."
Easy to say.
You do not accept the reasonableness of history. End of discussion.
Without belief in history, all you can know is the present. So, stay in the present.
Yes, they exist for a reason. I'm willing to learn.And I'm willing to teach.
Good, then please explain them in the future, not just list them. I want to iron them out with you, not simply take your word for my committing them.
Listing every logical fallacy in Latin can certainly make a person look like a genius but are their charges true to the fallacy? I would invite you to explain them, not only for my benefit but for the benefit of any other dummy like me reading this thread. It also gives me a chance to interact and question the validity of the claim.This is very reasonable. I didn't explain because I took you for someone who understands them already. The last logical fallacy I accused you of I actually did explain to you, in a sense. I said your argument basically states that "He said it's true, so it must be true." That is the essence of argumentum ad verecundiam, or "appeal to authority." Just because someone says something is true, doesn't mean it is. Your argument rests on the word of a supposed god, therefore it is invalid. You must prove this god's claim.
An appeal to authority is sound and valid if the authority is true and an expert authority. I have given reasons why it is reasonable to believe in this authority. Prophecy is one of those reasons. The evidence of what is said corresponds to history. The only thing standing of the temple today is the Western Wall which is not part of the temple itself.
Making sense of origins, existence, meaning are other areas of evidence that is reasonable to believe. Since you don't seem to believe in history, or at least have given me that impression we will have to move onto another topic.
My thoughts are that no matter what I offer, overall, I believe you will deny it without discussion unless the topic sparks an interest. So I look forward to our debate on God's omnibenevolence.
From a worldview that is not sure about origins, how can you be sure there is not God? You have already admitted in your OP you can't, yet you deny Him as you pile on your grievances against Him. That spells inconsistency. Something it not right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Things come to mind as I write. I don't see the full picture. And I pray for guidance but God is not a cosmic butler at my every whim. His word is my guide, rightly discerned. God is able but I am not always.Sorely an omnipotent omniscient being could tell you what to say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
Look dude, you're trying to prove something is "true" here.
I'm trying to give reasonable evidence. And yes, I certainly believe God is true.
BUT...
How could I prove something true to those who do not want to believe, even if it was true? I can try and persuade you at best. You WILL NOT accept the Christian God if you do not believe He exists, but you certainly appear to have grievances against this non-existent Being. Go figure? A skeptic, generally speaking, will always find another reason to doubt. I can only present a reasonable defense and tear away at inconsistency, as you do with me.
Logical fallacies exist for a reason, and that reason is: To point out errors in logic and falsehoods in proof in order to ensure that something is actually proven true. If your argument commits a logical fallacy, then that argument has not proven something to be true. If you can't prove something to be true, then there is one very simple conclusion: You cannot know it's true.
Yes, they exist for a reason. I'm willing to learn.
Listing every logical fallacy in Latin can certainly make a person look like a genius but are their charges true to the fallacy? I would invite you to explain them, not only for my benefit but for the benefit of any other dummy like me reading this thread. It also gives me a chance to interact and question the validity of the claim.
If logical fallacies are unavoidable in arguing for what you believe, then what you believe can't be proven true, which means you believe something is true when you don't know it is, which is the definition of delusion. It's as simple as that.
Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). It does not necessarily follow that it can't be proven true, or that I don't know it is true. It could be that I'm not good at expressing it well enough to prove it true, not that it is necessarily a delusion.
Sometimes I believe that people list logical fallacies to shut down a dialog.
Sometimes I believe that people list logical fallacies to shut down a dialog.
Because I may not, can't, or don't express it well enough does not necessarily make what I believe false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
But you don't get it do you. It's all a test.
No, I don't get it.
What is the one thing Satan is known for above all else? Testing you with deceit and punishing wrongdoers by allowing them to exist and suffer as opposed to wiping them out and making it obvious at first. This is why Lucifer was allowed to deceive how he did and why Satan stepped in by influencing Judas when she/he did (Satan is actually called but it got changed as the story was passed down).
Satan deceives and tempts. God tests. God does not tempt us to evil actions as Satan does.
Satana is not a biblical concept. What is the evidence you offer for the story being passed down? Passed down from whom, when?
^ Fascinating, so the deceivers are the ones who will know more? Either this is a threat, which is typical of Islamic teachings, but I prefer to think this is a cleverly concealed congratulations to the disbelievers for being the ones who actually know more about the ultimate truth and identity of the Supreme leader of reality.
I do not accept the Qu'ran as an accurate account in many of its teachings. Mohammed was influenced by Zoroastrianism, Judaism, paganism, and aberrant as well as fundamental Christian teachings. Remember, he is 600 years removed from the founding of Christianity.
Allah and the biblical God cannot be the same deity for the reason that they contradict each other in the writings of the three religions.
Now what does this have to do with Lucifer? What does Lucifer have to do with Jesus?One thing fascinating to note is that Jesus, the Holy Ghost is definitely said to be the AntiChrist whereas the Jesus in the Flesh is said to be his enemy. This fascinating truth is highlighted most in this verse:2 John 1:7For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.What does the Holy Ghost do to Jesus in the flesh? It renders him as nothing but a Prequel, a temporary vessel of a superior being at best and a facade at worst. The Jesus-of-flesh dies and that itself is the catalyst for the rise of a different being, a Jesus of no flesh...
The Holy Spirit resides with Jesus but He is not the same PERSON as Jesus. The Son took on humanity; He became flesh and blood man so that a righteous Man would live the life required by God on behalf of those who would believe. Thus, He, Jesus, the Godman, relied on the Holy Spirit instead of using His godly attributes.
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovery of sight to the blind, To set free those who are oppressed,
1 John 2:22Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is* the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.More interesting is this which is the next part of that verse.1 John 2:23Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.^ so if you deny Jesus, you do not have the father. If there was no Jesus, there couldn't be an Allah this means. If you acknowledge the son, you immediately have the Father as well because if you admit Jesus was real and honest, then his holy ghost also must have been. Then again, you could flip this around and instead say that without Jesus in the flesh there's definitely no holy ghost but observe this:This is from OT, the truest /original of the three texts.
Again, you confuse Allah with the Judea-Christian God. You imply that " His Holy Ghost" is Jesus. They are two different Persons.
Morning/Dawn is interesting too, is Dawn a woman's name or a man's name? Is the morning a feminine or masculine period of the day in your opinion? You can argue it's neither but think deeper about why there's a moon in Islam's symbol and just a star in Judaism's counterpart symbol that's bigger and it has 6 points (number of the beast).
I'm not following your train of thought. You are stringing together a bunch of unrelated stuff. You go beyond the means of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures to prove your point by trying to unite Islam with the Bible. Your logic is spurious at best.
Some believe there is a crescent moon is Isalm because Mohammed was influenced by the pagan tribes of the half moon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
I use my subjective mind, my reason, and my five senses in conjunction with the biblical revelation (God's divine word and law) to interpret what I experience by the five senses filtering into my subjective abstract mind aided by the rational thought of Someone else.That's a real fancy way of saying "He said it's true, so it must be true." Argumentum ad verecundiam.
Appeal to authority is something we can't avoid doing and the appeals are often valid. Most of us try to justify our argument by appealing to an authority. Some make the authority themselves; others use their 'experts.' The problem is when we make an appeal to authority and the authority has no proficiency or ability in the matter, or we make an appeal to an authority and not give evidence to their authority on the subject matter. The Bible does give evidence of the authority contained within. It appeals to history and nature as evidence that is reasonable. Do those things confirm His truth? They give credence to the argument. It also makes the case that there is no higher court of appeal. If God is God then this is true.
It is my worldview I am describing to you above like you described your worldview to me in your OP. You have appealed to yourself as your authority on any subject matter yet when I describe to you that I look outside of my subjective self alone because I list God you accuse me of the fallacy of appealing to authority. We all appeal to what we consider our greatest authority or else why would we believe what we do? We believe what we do because we see it as authoritative.
Whenever you look at a person's worldview they have a side they pick and believe it to be so because of the evidence and authority of that position. You looking at the Bible in the way you do means you think your view is correct and authoritative over my view. Your bias and the way you look at the evidence leads you to that conclusion. You claim you are your own expert, your own authority. Is that an Argumentum ad verecundiam?
I also realize that you could heap the appeal to ignorance argument on me when discussing God since you cannot disprove Him and then I challenge you to disprove Him. Since you can't disprove Him I then could say my conclusion is true, which can be argued as possibly not true. Your inability to disprove Him doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion I make is true.
If the biblical God is true (and I believe it fully to be the case yet you do not) then what He said would be the highest authority that can be appealed to and it would not be wrong. It is only a fallacious appeal to authority if the authority is false or not credible. Unless you can establish He is not who He is (and you have admitted you can't know with certainty) how do you know my belief and authority is fallacious? If I appeal to a fallible expert I would have a probable conclusion, since he could still be mistaken. But if God is true and He is the expert, then I'm not using a fallible expert as infallible but an infallible one as infallible.
I could go on and on defeating your arguments at every turn, but this is getting boring. Let's move on.
So, you have read books or visited websites on fallacies. So have I. I still find it difficult in avoiding them.
Three books in my library I have read:
Fallacies and Pitfalls of Language, The Language Trap, by S. Morris Engel
With Good Reason, An Introduction to Informal Fallacies, by S. Morris Engel
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
The prophet was only telling what he heard God say.Supposedly. Again, that is not a proven fact.
It is what is said (fact) in the historical manuscripts, many manuscripts. Do YOU have reasonable evidence to the contrary?
I am appealing to the reasonableness of the evidence as to what it says. If you (generic and specific; applying to both) don't want to talk about reason and what makes sense then it limits the discussion to any fanciful thing.
Much of this history can be confirmed by external evidence and eyewitness accounts. Is that reasonable?
Simon Greenleaf looking at the eyewitness accounts of the NT thought so. He was influential in crafting the criteria for evidence and eyewitness testimony used in US law.
"Greenleaf's principal work of legal scholarship is a Treatise on the Law of Evidence (3 vols., 1842–1853), and which remained a standard textbook in American law throughout the Nineteenth century."
I know Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70.Correction, you know someone said it was.
If you doubt all history you are not reasonable. Did Ronald Ragan live or did someone put on a mask and make the character up? Napolean existed or are those photos of someone else - a fictitious character made up? Are all the references to him just fictitious? Is there a single thing we can know about him? You seem to be implying that the answer is no, at least with ancient history. This seems like postmodern thinking to my mind. Postmoderns form their own narrative.
Are you being reasonable?
I know that the OT book of Daniel was written before the 1st-century.Correction, you know someone said it was.
They have been dated by experts. Do you have evidence to the contrary, or is the statement reasonable to believe?
Are your beliefs regarding history reasonable to believe?
I know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that house the book of Isaiah is around 97% accurate in comparison to the earliest OT Jewish texts found, other than the Christian Bible.You just inadvertently admitted that you don't actually know they're accurate.
What are the discrepancies? Are they mainly grammatical and spelling errors, or copying errors of some kind by the scribes? Are there any doctrinal changes?
I know Isaiah and the other biblical (OT) manuscripts predate the 1st-century too.Correction, you know someone said they do.
Is it reasonable to believe? Can anything be believed? Who are you going to trust?
According to some scholars, the Great Isaiah Scroll dates back to 200 B.C. (Take it for what it is worth, an appeal to authority)
"Scholarly consensus dates the Qumran Caves Scrolls from the last three centuries BCE and from the first century CE."
For some of the rest, where external history is not available, I have good reason to believe. It logically and reasonably makes sense.A fool once said "Speculation is a logical reason to believe."
One reason to believe it is the unity of Scripture. As I said, 66 different books, 44 different authors, all having central themes in common. Something is either reasonable or it is not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
So are you saying you are more than the physical? Your reply suggests more.Any sentient being is both physical and mental. However, physical makeup provides for mental makeup
So, explain to me how mental or abstract comes from matter?
A priori - from that which is before.Incorrect.a pri·o·ri/ˌā prīˈôrī/adjective
A priori, Latin for "from the former", is traditionally contrasted with a posteriori. The term usually describes lines of reasoning or arguments that proceed from the general to the particular, or from causes to effects...a priori knowledge is knowledge that comes from the power of reasoning based on self-evident truths.
I'm asking how such reasoning comes from a solely materialistic universe?
Where does consciousness come from? You take it for granted that it can come from a material universe. My worldview makes sense. From a necessary Mind comes other minds. From a conscious Being come other conscious beings. Intelligent Being gives rise to order and reason and other intelligent beings. From the living comes other living beings. From the meaningful comes meaning.
Before you existed, before living things existed, supposedly from a naturalist of a humanistic framework, devoid of God, all there would be is matter. How does matter produce something that is non-material, abstract in nature, non-physical, such as the laws of logic, or abstract thinking, living, conscious beings?I'm not a scientist, thus I do not claim to know. However, ignorance doesn't justify making assumptions based on speculation, which is exactly what theists do.
Some things are common sense and self-evident. Reason it out. If there is no God what is left? You have no personal Mind involved. What is left? Reason it out. If there is no intention and agency behind the universe, then what is left? If there is a cause to the universe (i.e., it had a beginning) then something caused it because I fail to see how something can come from nothing. Can you show something can? Explain to me how something that doesn't exist creates itself? If the universe is eternal explain how we ever get to the present.
My Christian worldview is reasonable and it can make sense of the universe. It gives an answer to the why questions that is satisfactory. I'm waiting to see if yours can and apparently it can't. You admit you don't have the answers and can't make sense of it.
You called yourself an agnostic.
You called yourself an agnostic.
Agnosticism, (from Greek agnōstos, “unknowable”), strictly speaking, the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience.
Yet here you speak of a priori knowledge.
If he was directed by God he knew it.If the Christian god exists, yes.How can a prophet 100's of years removed set it into motion, and by a foreign power?There is a plethora of possibilities, some of which I've already pointed out. As to how the prophet actually did it, who knows? Maybe it was a god. Maybe it was any number of possible things. The point is speculation proves nothing, and that's all you are doing. Speculating. Your entire argument is: "I can't explain it any other way, so it must have happened this way."Absence of evidence is not evidence for. That is pure speculation.
You can make up as many what-ifs as you want but are they reasonable? Is the Christian faith a reasonable faith? Yes, it is. Is your faith a reasonable faith? Probably not if you believe the material universe is the answer to what we see. Are you speculating beyond what is reasonable? Very likely. Are you being unreasonable about historic evidence? I believe you are. I think your bias comes shining through. IMO, you have a beef, a grudge against the Christian God who you deny??? To me, it becomes evident in your focus on God's omnibenevolence. I just read part of your omnibenevolent debate argument and I see a misunderstanding. That is my opinion. We will see what others think when we debate this issue.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
..conflating two different passagesNo I have made it clear that it was on ANOTHER occasion concerning the destruction of the temple, THE ACTUAL TEMPLE. go back and read it, clown?And the disciples ON THIS OCCASION didn't bat an eyelid at the prediction of their holiest of places being destroyed, NO!, they simply asked" when will it happen".
Jesus is speaking of two different temples with the two passages. In this one, He is speaking of His death (i.e., destruction) and resurrection. That is given in the passage.
In Mark 13, Matthew 24, or Luke 21 Jesus is speaking of the judgment He will bring on the Jews for crucifying the Lord of Glory and for their breaking of the covenant God made with them. The disciples on this occasion understand He is referring to the actual physical temple. In Matthew 23:38 the common understanding of "house" is the temple. In Matthew 24:1-2 Jesus is discussing its stones and buildings.
Yes, you have changed it. The passage does say Jesus said these words. He Was speaking of the temple of His body.No I haven't had to change anything. You silly clown .Here AGAIN is the verse you posted;John 2:18-2218 The Jews then said to Him,“What sign do You Show us as your authority for doing these things?” 19 Jesus Answered them, “Destroy this temple ,and in three days I will raise it up.”20 The Jews Then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21 But He Was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.
Verse 21 tells the reader what He was relating to by these words, "He was SPEAKING of the temple of His body." That is what He was referring to.
I have said ALL ALONG that Jesus HIMSELF doesn't say that HE was talking about the temple of his body. I have said that it is THE GOSPEL WRITER who TELLS US What Jesus meant by verse 19 above. He - THE GOSPEL WRITER - actually says at 21"But He Was speaking of the temple of His body". <<<<<<<<<<<<< these are not Jesus' words are they you absolute fool. The writer makes that perfectly clear.I haven't CHANGED ANYTHING. I haven't had to.
Jesus says it by implication THEN, taught it, and actually says it when He had risen by the words, "He said this" referring back to what was said in the previous verse(s).
The gospel writer tells us He (Jesus) was SPEAKING of the temple of His body, then the writer tells us He said this. What does this refer to?
After His resurrection, Jesus does explain all things to His disciples:
Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.
for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
I.e., dead. Jonah was a type or picture of death and resurrection.
“You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man is to be handed over for crucifixion.”
I.e., death.
And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
Constantly, throughout the Gospels, we read of Jesus telling His disciples He is going to be put to death and raised again three days later. It is not some foreign idea being read into the Scripture but what the Scriptures teach.
Constantly, throughout the Gospels, we read of Jesus telling His disciples He is going to be put to death and raised again three days later. It is not some foreign idea being read into the Scripture but what the Scriptures teach.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Moot (not mute) means it's just raised for the sake of debate and is blatantly not applicable in the real world.
Too true!
Assuming God isn't real, then yes all debate about religion is moot. If you mean 'fallacious' logically, you're wrong, there is a link between the three stories that people for centuries now have failed to see.
You conflate these persons with the Trinity and try and draw parallels that are not there, except in Jesus. Even with Him, you use poetic license.
What you do is read into these people relationships that are not there, other than Jesus being the second Person of the Trinity. Your concepts are not biblical, except somewhat in Jesus.
Jesus with his own ghost and aftermath (second of the trinity)
You got Jesus, the second Person of the Trinity right, other than that you misrepresent the Bible.
You got Jesus, the second Person of the Trinity right, other than that you misrepresent the Bible.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I am not putting words into Jesus' mouth, neither are the disciples.Ok clown.I asked >>Did Jesus even predict that he would be dead for three days?This is what you wrote " yes he did" and posted this nonsense some kind of proof that Jesus said he would be Dead for three days.:
What is the passage concerned with? It is concerned with His death, the death of His body. The temple Jesus is speaking of is His body. If your body is dead for three days then you are physically dead. So, yes, Jesus spoke of His death.
Not only this, I provided other Scripture that He taught He was going to die. He even made a covenant based on His shed blood and bodily sacrifice. I.e., death.
And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
YOUR Post 55 above.John 2:18-2218 The Jews then said to Him,“What sign do You Show us as your authority for doing these things?” 19 Jesus Answered them, “Destroy this temple,and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews Then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21 But He Was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.It Actually proves me to be correct. That JESUS didn't even mention his death here in this verse or his resurrection.For the BILLIONTH TIMEThe gospeller tell us what HE believes JESUS meant by it it is the Gospeler who interprets what he believes >Jesus meant, NOT ME
The disciples tell us, the reader, that the temple He was speaking of was His body. Therefore, destroy this temple (this body) and in three days He would raise it from death again. He Was speaking of the temple of His body
When He raised from the dead they remembered He had told them this.
It wasn't just one 'gospeller.' After He was dead and then resurrected to eternal life we, the reader, are told, His disciples remembered that He said this;
That attribute to Him this teaching. The key is they remember what HE SAID.
Is it reasonable to believe he [John] wrote the gospel? Yes, it is.Why.There is absolutely no proof and never has been, that this is the case. You are trying now to explain away your previous statement that this gospel was written by a disciple John.It is believed by some biblical scholars that there is no way that the Fourth Gospel was written by John / Zebedee or by any of the disciples of Jesus. The author of this book is not a single individual, but is at least three different writers/editors, who did their layered work over a period of 25 to 30 years.
Send your evidence, and the earliest evidence you have, and not just a link. Show me what you want to glean from any link you provide.
Also, provide who these 'scholars' are so I can check on their bias.
Even if the writing was done later (and it is not reasonable to believe it was after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70) the account tells the reader that the disciples remembered what He (Jesus) said when He was raised from the dead. That is not 25-30 years after the fact. Not only this, the Scriptures attribute the inspiration to the Holy Spirit. It was men inspired and directed by God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Mother/Satana/Jewish-GodMomma's Boy / Caring Son / Moses==========2==========Extremely Unruly, Cunning Son/Daughter/Jesus/Yeshua==========3==========Abusive Father / AllahObedient, brainwashed son/sibling of Allah who is also close to his estranged brother/sister, Jesus/Yeshua... Muhammad==========Thusly we see this:Mother with Moses (first of the trinity)Jesus with his own ghost and aftermath (second of the trinity)Allah with Muhammad (third of the trinity)Then we ask, how did the father produce the children if he came after Moses and Jesus? Allah is merely a matured, more calculating, bitter Lucifer...Who is Lucifer? Satan or Jesus? Think... Satan is not Lucifer. :)Allah IS the holy ghost as it ages.It makes no sense.Specify why, please.
Because there is no correlation. You are creating an artificial one. The parallels are mute.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
I'm rather tired of the "does god exist" argument, and "is foreknowledge possible" argument. I can't technically prove you wrong, since I can't prove that gods don't exist, nor can I prove that foreknowledge is impossible, and likewise you can't prove me wrong since you can't prove gods do exist, and you can't prove foreknowledge is possible. Speculation on either point is all that is possible, and I have no interest in proving either position impossible since I am sane enough to admit that I cannot know. I only claim just that: We cannot know.
Probably because you have two debates to your credit and one deals with "Does God Exist?" and the other has similarities in discussing attributes of this God.
I'm more interested in your claim that your god is benevolent. That's one I can utterly destroy your argument with. Let's debate that, shall we?
I will send you a private email to hash out the details.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
Yes, I do original presuppose the Bible is true and is God's word. When I first started reading it that is how I held it to be - God speaking and revealing Himself to me. Yet from that belief, I have been able to make sense of origins, existence, morals, truth, and tie it into everything else.I could do the same thing with any fictional book. Lord of the Rings, for example. All I would need to do is convince myself that its words are factually true. In other words: Become delusional. I've always found it hilarious that Christians are just as quick to call someone who thinks leprechauns are stealing their lucky charms a raving madman as atheists are, but when it comes to their equally unproven god, they're perfectly fine with that particular form of madness.
I do not believe you could. First, the author does not claim the accounts are true. He admits to it being a part of his imagination. Next, the locations match nothing that we know of or have ever known of. So, you would have just cause to believe a person accepting The Lord of the Rings as true is delusional.
Leprechauns are mythical creatures. The Bible makes no such claim to mythology. It flatly denies it. It states that the writers were eyewitnesses to the events and Person they describe. They attest to the FACT that a Person rose from the dead, an extraordinary claim that many of them go to their agonizing deaths believing. So you can't draw a good parallel between the evidence from one of the above to the Bible.
Why do you think it is me who is delusional and not you?Because I'm not the one claiming to know things I don't know.
It is your belief I do not know them. Personal experience, like an answered prayer, is something I can't verify other than describing what happened and how I believe it was answered, but as for the historicity of Jesus or biblical events, there are all kinds of facts verifying it. Prayers are a personal experience. They are subjective to me. So is my conversion. I can give details of what I experience in coming to faith, the number of people over a short period of time that made me question my disbelief, along with circumstance that made me question my existence, my dad's death, my car accident, the person I shared lodging with on my job, the acquaintances I kept meeting, the difference in their lives with their compassion and love for others.
Here we go. This kind of thinking has been funneled into you by the culture you live in.This kind of thinking has been funneled into me by the reading of your bible. I could bury you with proof taken from your own bible. Want me to?
I'm not going to answer every one of your objections, it would take too long, and many others have given a good reason for what some perceive as contradictions, but name a couple if you want. If I can I will explain them. I've heard a lot of them.
If you don't want to know Him you never will, as simple as that.I truly hope you're right. Knowing such a despicable monster would be very, very unpleasant.
Then you have your wish (and you misunderstand and misrepresent Him). Knowledge of yourself is a knowledge of God also since the Bible tells us we are made in His image and likeness. The difference is we are marred by sin and rebellion and our minds, knowledge, and abilities are limited and finite. We are philosophical creatures. We can reflect, reason and manipulate our environments like no other creature on earth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
So do you believe all you are are a bio-chemical-electro reaction - a biological bag of atoms, so to speak?Physically, yes.
So are you saying you are more than the physical? Your reply suggests more.
The question is how you get a priori from a completely material universe. Is it a necessary truth?That question really made no sense. Do you understand what knowledge a priori is?
A priori - from that which is before.
Before you existed, before living things existed, supposedly from a naturalist of a humanistic framework, devoid of God, all there would be is matter. How does matter produce something that is non-material, abstract in nature, non-physical, such as the laws of logic, or abstract thinking, living, conscious beings? The laws of logic exist independent of your mind, or mine. They don't require you to think them but without them, you could not make sense of anything.
That is not true. It confirms many things.It was put in the Bible somehow. The question is what is reasonable and logical to believe based on the evidence available? The OT was written before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. The OT predicts this fall. It predicts the collapse of the Jewish OT economy, the promised Messiah coming before this fall to a specific people that do not exist in covenant after the fall, judgment, a new covenant and a host of other things.That doesn't mean that this "prophet" knew it was going to happen, nor that this prophet didn't personally set it into motion. Therefore, prophecy coming true alone does not verify that the supposed prophet can see the future. Do you understand how knowledge verification works?
If he was directed by God he knew it.
How can a prophet 100's of years removed set it into motion, and by a foreign power?
The prophet was only telling what he heard God say.
for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Are you speaking of epistemology - how we know what we know? I understand that knowledge is a justifiably true belief and that the person has an adequate reason based on evidence. I know Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70. I know that the OT book of Daniel was written before the 1st-century. I know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that house the book of Isaiah is around 97% accurate in comparison to the earliest OT Jewish texts found, other than the Christian Bible. I know Isaiah and the other biblical (OT) manuscripts predate the 1st-century too. For some of the rest, where external history is not available, I have good reason to believe. It logically and reasonably makes sense.
I use my subjective mind, my reason, and my five senses in conjunction with the biblical revelation (God's divine word and law) to interpret what I experience by the five senses filtering into my subjective abstract mind aided by the rational thought of Someone else. My thoughts are not independent of His but rely on His. External historical information is a source used in regards to the Bible which also correlates to the five senses and reason to arrive at knowledge. I look at the world and the universe in all its complexity, nature and the natural laws, the anthropic principle, the micro with the macro, meaning or purpose, and I reason it is not by chance happenstance for what can 'chance' do? Chance is not a thing. It is a word we give to describe the universe without a Mind behind it, the mathematical likelihood of something occurring. There is no intent behind it, no agency to it, no meaning to it. Without a mindful being responsible for the universe there is no sense to be made from it or why it remains constant. There is no reason why the future should resemble the past, why we have uniformity of nature by which we discover laws that govern nature and science. Chance gives no reason that we should be able to do science. Yet your worldview keeps coming up with all kinds of reason. Because of this, I say it is inconsistent. It also can't make ultimate sense of anything. It does not have the means. You have expressed you don't know in regards to origins. Besides being honest, I say your worldview does not have the means to know. It has to borrow from one that does if it wants to know. That is why it is inconsistent. That is why it can't ultimately make sense of itself.
You had better explain what you mean by your question.
There are only a number of foundational beliefs you can hold, such as 1) We are created by God/gods, 2) We come about by chance happenstance, 3) it is all an illusionOnly a fool forms a belief of something they cannot know.
How many of your beliefs are held on things you do not know? You have to presuppose some things are self-evident in to believe anything at all (like the laws of logic).
Before you tie a bungee cord around your ankle you have to believe that it is going to stop you from hitting the rocks below or you would be crazy to jump. You have not measured the cord, or tested it for stress fractures. You hope the person providing the service has taken due diligence before you sign the waver. You reason that because you have seen others use the same cord it must be adequate, but what happens if you are the first client of the day? Then you have to rely on past experience, that no one has died to date at this site or by negligence by these people offering the service.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I am not putting words into Jesus' mouth, neither are the disciples.Ok clown.I asked >>Did Jesus even predict that he would be dead for three days?This is what you wrote " yes he did" and posted this nonsense some kind of proof that Jesus said he would be Dead for three days.:YOUR Post 55 above.John 2:18-2218 The Jews then said to Him,“What sign do You Show us as your authority for doing these things?” 19 Jesus Answered them, “Destroy this temple,and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews Then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21 But He Was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.It Actually proves me to be correct. That JESUS didn't even mention his death here in this verse or his resurrection.For the BILLIONTH TIMEThe gospeller tell us what HE believes JESUS meant by it it is the Gospeler who interprets what he believes >Jesus meant, NOT MEIs it reasonable to believe he [John] wrote the gospel? Yes, it is.Why.There is absolutely no proof and never has been, that this is the case. You are trying now to explain away your previous statement that this gospel was written by a disciple John.It is believed by some biblical scholars that there is no way that the Fourth Gospel was written by John / Zebedee or by any of the disciples of Jesus. The author of this book is not a single individual, but is at least three different writers/editors, who did their layered work over a period of 25 to 30 years...conflating two different passagesNoI have made it clear that it was on ANOTHER occasion concerning the destruction of the temple, THE ACTUAL TEMPLE. go back and read it, clown?And the disciples ON THIS OCCASION didn't bat an eyelid at the prediction of their holiest of places being destroyed, NO!, they simply asked" when will it happen".Yes, you have changed it. The passage does say Jesus said these words.He Was speaking of the temple of His body.No I haven't had to change anything. You silly clown . Here AGAIN is the verse you posted;John 2:18-2218 The Jews then said to Him,“What sign do You Show us as your authority for doing these things?” 19 Jesus Answered them, “Destroy this temple,and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews Then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21 But He Was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.I have said ALL ALONG that Jesus HIMSELF doesn't say that HE was talking about the temple of his body. I have said that it is THE GOSPEL WRITER who TELLS US What Jesus meant by verse 19 above. He - THE GOSPEL WRITER - actually says at 21"But He Was speaking of the temple of His body". <<<<<<<<<<<<< these are not Jesus' words are they you absolute fool. The writer makes that perfectly clear.I haven't CHANGED ANYTHING. I haven't had to.
You are getting too emotional. I will answer tomorrow after some sleep.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
It depends how carefully their message was preserved. With different copies and lots of them from different centuries and lots of them, you can verify and check to see how accurate the record has been preserved.Is that reasonable and logical to believe?Yes and no. Yes it is reasonable and logical to believe that the writings are all consistent with each other(if they are). No it is not reasonable and logical to believe that because something was written by a thousand different people, it must be true. That commits the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum.
I'm not claiming it is ad
populum. I'm claiming there is evidence to believe the claims within these 66 different books and 44 different authors because of what is contained in these writings, their references to historical people, places, events, and the prophetic nature which come to pass.
You take Him on His word or you don't (Hebrews 11:6). But when you do He opens up so much more to you in confirming His truth.According to Christians, yes. Yet another claim that has yet to be proven.
How can you KNOW Someone that you do not believe exists? You first have to believe they exist before you will ever know (have a close, intimate relationship) them.
That is your assumption, not mine.I never make assumptions.
Never? That is very rare, indeed.
The Big Bang or whatever you believe is magical too, isn't it - pretty incredulous to believe. Where does it all start in your opinion?I don't claim that I know things that I have no knowledge of. I have no ability to know "where it all starts."
So you can't make sense of it then if you have no knowledge of it. It is not a subject you can speak on?
God confirms His existence in numerous ways - answers to prayerPost hoc ergo propter hoc
I'm telling you what I have experienced. I have had prayers answered. Take it however you want to.
His providence and how He protects the ChristianUnverified
To me, it is through experience, let alone His word.
how He confirms His wordHe doesn't. In fact, his own bible contradicts itself hundreds of times.
There are logical explanations for these alleged contradictions. There is a whole catalog of them answered.
how we come to understand and love HimDelusion confirms nothing but that one is delusional.
More of the Dawkins BS. What he doesn't know he also calls a delusion.
How do you know your wife or your girlfriend? You spend time with them. With God, the first step is believing He exists and then trusting Him. If He exists then there is no greater authority. If you don't believe He exists how will you ever know Him?I can't say I ever have trouble believing the tangible being that is my girlfriend exists. If this god wants me to know him, he's free to walk up to me and say hi.OtherwiseI have no interest in knowing him.
That last statement is very revealing.
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,
But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
He is under no obligation to you but is gracious in giving His word. What you do with it is between Him and you. I'm sure you understand the message of salvation if you have read the Bible a number of times. The difference between the two of us is I believe the message, you do not.
Created: