Total posts: 3,179
-->
@Mdh2000
It STILL CANNOT be both good and not good at the same time and in the same way. It is a contradiction and defies the very thing you use to make sense of anything - the laws of logic. You could not communicate without these laws. You could not make sense of anything without employing these laws, so what you claim above is nonsense. Even as "a simple concept" it cannot be contradictory (exact opposite) and still make sense.You're assuming good is a single thing with a clearly defined set of traits.
No, I'm not. Pick a topic. Is abortion as a woman's choice good? There, that is a hot topic.
Should a woman have the right to choose? Is that a good thing?
Now, most of these statements are highly subjective (or at least have criteria that are subjective towards a particular preference). You could point to ''something conforming to the moral order of the universe, but then I ask can you demonstrate such moral order in the universe?If there is no objective morality or 'good' then there are many, many
Exactly, and good becomes meaningless if it has no fixed, objective address.
By putting in a moral claim (good) you are implying something that must be true, but how can it if it loses its identity? Therefore, such statements are self-refuting.No. You may infer that, but it isn't what I am implying at all. It is a subjective statement. That something is of a favourable character tendency. It is a subjective statement. I have decided what I consider to be correct behaviour, it is a statement of what I consider moral. I don't deny having a strong sense of morality, I always keep my promises, because my morality demands it of me, I help people where I can and try not to hurt them where I can't. These ideas and many more have formed over many years and drive many of my actions, yet I cannot with any honesty say I am objectively more or less moral than anyone else who follows their concept of what is moral. (My morality may drive me to stop them, but I can never judge them as immoral).
It is COMMON SENSE.
We give a fixed term to the thing you and I call a dog. You understand when I use that term that it does not mean a cat or tree. It refers to that thing and nothing else. When it comes to goodness on any given specific subject the term is interchanged with other meanings, depending on where you live. It can mean the exact opposite. Some countries believe abortion as a woman's choice is wrong/ evil and others believe it is right/good.
So who is actually right? Which is the true position, since logically they are not both good? You CAN'T answer that because you have no objective best.
When you say "a favorable character tendency" - which persons or groups favor? If it is subjective then it is not wrong for someone who believes the opposite. Can you live in a world like that? Watch what happens if the Democrat's take back the power to govern and pass their agenda with their relative ideas. Your country is done if that happens. The downward spiral into despair and meaninglessness will continue at an accelerated rate. Watch what happens to the wealth of your country.
You can't say you're objective because you don't have what is necessary for objectivity with your worldview. It does not allow it. Yet, people with a relativistic worldview keep borrowing from an objective worldview everytime someone crosses the line. Then their subjectivity goes out the window.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I know that in the original John quote it seems to be anyone who opposes or denies Christ, I already said I knew that.It's later made out to be a male offspring of the Devil who is very arrogant it will succeed, very cunning in how it deceives people and how it beats Jesus and god to begin with but loses due to the return of Jesus.Jesus returning defeated the entire purpose of (from his enemies' perspectives) his Crucifixion. It completely let him win in a way they never could beat.
There are four different beasts described in Revelation. Only one applies to the devil if I remember correctly.
His return - are you referring to the Second Coming? That happened in AD 70. What is your point? He wins, yes! He conquers death and in AD 70 Satan is judged.
Created:
-->
@Mdh2000
If you try to push beauty along the same lines as torturing children as both subjective then for someone who likes to torture little children there is nothing wrong in their eyes and each to his own. Are you willing to live with such a belief or do you think that some things are definitely wrong?This is an argument from consequence. It's also moot, since what I want has no bearing on what is true. Further it does nothing to show any way in which morality is objective. I don't push morality and beauty down the same path, I follow the path they both go down. Can you demonstrate that morality is objective? You can certainly show that people have a sense of morality, but can you show it is consistent and reliable? Spartans used to consider it moral to throw babies off cliffs if deemed unfit (and immoral for parents to hide unfit babes), slavery was deemed moral for most of human history. Can you objectively demonstrate that they were wrong (you can give reasons you think they were wrong, but can you demonstrate it objectively)?
When you compare beauty and torturing innocent children you are comparing apples to oranges. One is a personal preference, the other is a qualitative value judgment. You thinking your wife is the most beautiful person in the world is subjective to you. Others may not think so. There is nothing wrong with your belief as long as you don't give another person an inferiority complex. Torturing an innocent human child for fun is plain wrong, all the time, any time, and anyone who cannot distinguish this is deranged.
Spartans throwing babies off a cliff is always wrong, whether you or they think so, only if there is an absolute, objective, final reference point. Otherwise, do whatever you want or whatever you can get away with doing. Regardless of what you may think of slavery, it is either right or it is wrong. It can't be both. Once you are a slave you may feel differently. Just because something is deemed moral does not make it so. It only is if that is its identity. A thing is what it is, and it cannot be what it is not or else it has no identity. Only relativists can think this kind of thought, but they can't live by such thoughts. Their worldview is inconsistent. When something is inconsistent there is a good reason to believe it is wrong.
If you have no evidence of best actually existing then how do you gauge what is good? What do you have to gauge it against? If you say subjective preference then what makes your subjective preference better than mine? If nothing, then why is it wrong to torture little children for every person?I don't that's my point. I have no reason to believe best exists as anything more than a concept, something we as humans dream up. We can imagine things that don't actually exist, in terms of somethinng as best we all imagine something slightly different, give it different traits, draw from our personal preferences. This makes sense of best and fits with what we see in the world. Can you show any way in which you can demonstrate anything is best? Your entire argument rests on your ability to demonstrate such a thing.
You don't, so how can you object to someone who does? That is my point. If best does not exist then what do you have to compare good or better too? Do you just make up something you like? Again, you confuse preference with qualitative moral values.
You can't get an OUGHT from an IS. A behavior is what is. It describes it does not prescribe.
Created:
-->
@Mdh2000
Again an argument that has no bearing on what is true. Though your conclusion is false. I very well can say I will not accept X. I can do everything in my power to prevent X. I can even have reasons I state for that position, but I cannot claim the moral high ground. power to prevent X.
To have the truth you have to have OBJECTIVITY. Saying you will not accept X does not make it evil. What makes it evil only if it has the identity of evil. You can't call a thing what it is not for you deny the logical law of identity. The problem is that you can't identify evil with a relativist worldview (until it happens to you).
That is the difference between the two of us. I know what is necessary. You do not and yet you are trying to convince me otherwise. You have NO moral high ground with such a view (which you just admitted), but I continually see you outraged when you think I am claiming to have such ground and I touch a nerve as I did earlier as shown by your outrage. It only goes to show the inconsistency of your position.
Created:
-->
@Mdh2000
Best implies no better. How can that not be objective?Beauty is a subjective preference. It is not wrong for me to think someone is more beautiful than someone elseBecause what you think is best isn't what others think is best. To my knowledge there isn't one demonstrably objective example of best. You can state something is better than something else, you can even state why you think that, but you will always be stating criteria you (or someone else) as being better. I notice you still haven't demonstrated an example that best actually exists.
Then logically one of us, maybe both, must be wrong. One thing is certain, logically we both can't be right because we state opposites. What that first statement confirms is that UNLESS there is an objective, ultimate, absolute best we can refer to then we can't know best, or better, of good.
Then I ask, is your example underlined above any better than any other?
To your last statement above I say, I have always stated what is necessary to make sense of qualitative values. You can't make sense of values to date. You have given no reason to believe you can.
Killing and torturing children for fun is morally reprehensible. It says it is wrong, not just a subjective choice.Now the trouble is how do we show this to be objectively true? I personally find it reprehensible, I believe anyone who would do such a thing should be removed from society for the safety of society, but that in no way suggests that morality is objective. I have created the criteria by which I determine what is moral and what isn't (largely due to the same social pressures and teachings others of my time have gone through). The objectivity of morality is thrown into question when you look at the world over a long enough timeframe what we view as moral has clearly changed over cultures and times.
Truth is objective.
Listen to what you are saying. You personally find it reprehensible...but what about those who don't? If there is no objective best, no fixed and final reference point, then what makes your personal PREFERENCE any better than their personal PREFERENCE? Nothing. YET, you can't live by personal preferences consistently because once you become a moral RELATIVIST you can no more criticize their position than they can yours as better or worse. Your worldview cannot say it is wrong. All it can do is say, "I don't like it." And when a future Hitler calls you forth and leads you to the gas chambers all you can do is say "I don't like this," not that it is wrong. But I'm sure your inner being is SCREAMING this is definitely wrong - no doubts. Once it happens to you then you are no longer a moral relativist.
When you use "social pressures" to determine right and wrong, good and evil, what happens if you live in a society that sees slavery as morally good, or killing Jews because they are not quite as superior or HUMAN as your "race" of people? ARE YOU SAYING THAT MAKES SLAVERY OR KILLING JEWS GOOD? It all depends on where you live?
Anything can be deemed good, as long as those in control have the power to enforce their desires. That, however, does not make anything good, it just makes it permissible. To have a good you have to have a fixed best that you can compare goodness too. If you don't have that all you have is power and preference. My worldview has what is necessary and can make sense of goodness, yours cannot. THAT IS MY POINT. So, you can live inconsistently, always borrowing from my Christian worldview when it is convenient, but you can never reconcile from your own worldview its inconsistencies.
Anything can be deemed good, as long as those in control have the power to enforce their desires. That, however, does not make anything good, it just makes it permissible. To have a good you have to have a fixed best that you can compare goodness too. If you don't have that all you have is power and preference. My worldview has what is necessary and can make sense of goodness, yours cannot. THAT IS MY POINT. So, you can live inconsistently, always borrowing from my Christian worldview when it is convenient, but you can never reconcile from your own worldview its inconsistencies.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
When you say, "Jesus will return after the downfall but this was written before, not after, the chronological order that later had the ghost return"what are you referring to?Daniel 8:25 ESVBy his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mindhe shall become great. Without warninghe shall destroy many. And he shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—but by no human hand.^ 'his' being antichrist based on most interpretations and the one to break him being Jesus returning.Revelation 17:10 ESVThey are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while.^ 'he' being antichrist.
A little while as it's only until Jesus is resurrected to defeat him.
There are many anti-Christ's. An anti-Christ is one who substitutes for Christ but there is only one Christ, or more fittingly, it can mean one that is opposed to Christ.
The anti-Christ spoken of in Revelation 17:10 is Nero. In that verse, he is the one who is. Josephus mentions the line of kings or Caesars.
- Julius Caesar. (Reigned 46-44 BC).
- Augustus. (Reigned 27BC-14AD).
- Tiberius. (Reigned 14AD-37AD).
- Gaius (Caligua). (Reigned 37-41 AD).
- Claudius (these five had fallen when John wrote - verse 10). (Reigned 41AD-54AD).
- Nero (the "one is" was Nero - verse 10). (Reigned 54AD-68AD).
- Galba ("the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while" - verse 10. Galba only reigned for 6 months from June 68AD to January 69AD).
5. All of this also confirms that John wrote during the reign of Nero. The old idea that John wrote as late as 90-95 AD is now discredited almost everywhere - it just does not stand up to careful research. That scenario came from Bible liberals and evangelicals should not have been so quick to get 'on-board' with it. The irony is that it was another liberal, John Robinson, who overturned it. John the Apostle wrote in the 60s AD just a few years before the temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70AD. It is now also clear from this that John wrote before Galba became emperor in 68AD.
Revelation 17:9 identifies Rome, as the seven mountains. The seven kings represent the seven kings of the Roman Empire and the present time in which the author of Revelation finds himself is the time of the sixth king - Nero.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Refer to my input as garbage input one more time and I will get mods involved regarding insulting and offence.I do not need to negotiate with someone who simply thinks they have proven me wrong by saying 'is not true' over and over again.
I'm questioning the validity of what you believe. You put it up here for all to join in the discussion. Where have I used the phrase "it is not true" over and over again? I've heard the God is a racist, xenophobe, homophobe, sadist, sexist, all before, and that is not what the Bible reveals about God.
Examples:Since God tells us what He is like, someone who claims an experience that is counter to God's revelation is not someone to be believed.Er? How do you know that a human-written book is what God itself said and how do you then know that God doesn't like to test our wisdom and courage by making only the smartest and bravest defy what they're brainwashed into believing and ensure only the worthy end up in the kingdom/queendom of God?
I stand by that as a claim the Bible infers:
[ Testing the Spirits ] Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from
God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
How is that done biblically? It is done by testing to see if what a person says lines up with what God's word says:
How is that done biblically? It is done by testing to see if what a person says lines up with what God's word says:
They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but
they went
out,Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
They do it by denying the Father or the Son.
so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
Sometimes it is obvious the person is delusional by their claims and their rationale.Obvious how? Who is the one judging the claims and rationale and how do we know they and even us are not the insane ones?
By what they say. It is not reasonable. As I said, many who profess Jesus Christ as Lord speak of a different Jesus than the One revealed in Scripture:
For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not
received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.
[ Perversion of the Gospel ] I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
I'm having a hard time understanding what you are saying here.Your problem, not mine.
If your ideas are too lofty you have lost your audience of address. Since you were addressing me, and I'm a simple, unsophisticated man, you need to communicate so I am able to understand. A Christian evangelist (Dr. Barnhart, I think), once said something to the effect, "If you want to feed the cattle you need to take the hay down from the loft where they can feed on it." The art of conversation is explaining yourself when your audience of address does not understand your meaning.
There is a big gulf between being the offspring of the devil and being the offspring of God.In your opinion. If we are all God's children, this is actually inherently impossible for there to be a Gulf between and if God is the Devil it is not just Gulf-less, it is directly correlated.
According to the Bible, which you have cited from, we are not all children of God. Some are the children of the devil. Jesus taught we must be born anew/again/regenerated to either enter or see the kingdom.
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,
and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.
John 8:44
You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
You think that Christians who have experienced God are less or more delusional than Satanists or Muslims who've done the same?
It depends whether the experience lines up with Scripture. Since God tells us what He is like, someone who claims an experience that is counter to God's revelation is not someone to be believed if they are making the claim they are Christians.
The experience is deducted to be a hallucination if most of society would rather the person be wrong than right, there's nothing more to what differentiates those in the asylum from those free to say they know what's real or not.
Sometimes it is obvious the person is delusional by their claims and their rationale.
Aside from that, it makes a lot of sense. You see when they talk first of Antichrist, John refers to it as a group of people who deny and/or oppose Christ and who is that embraced that's group as having the right to crucify him? It was Jesus himself. The later it's hinted that Antichrist is the direct offspring of the Devil much like Jesus is to God and it's said Jesus will return after the downfall but this was written before, not after, the chronological order that later had the ghost return.
I'm having a hard time understanding what you are saying here.
There is a big gulf between being the offspring of the devil and bring the offspring of God.
When you say, "Jesus will return after the downfall but this was written before, not after, the chronological order that later had the ghost return"
what are you referring to?
God is severely sadistic. Who made hell and the devil? Who is that says love me, tell me I'm the sexiest, smartest, most good, infallible being or I torture you eternally?
This is garbage input.
He created a being who had a volition. With that volition, the devil CHOSE to do what was wrong. Hell is a separation of the creature from the Creator because the creature wants to rule the Creator without having the wisdom to do so.
Read the Bible with the outlook that there is no good guy and it will fascinate you.
That is reading into the Bible instead of receiving the AUTHOR'S message. It is the heart of postmodernism by changing the narrative. You are putting a bias into the message. You can read whatever you like into the Bible and make it mean what you want it to (eisegesis). The point is, can you understand and interpret the AUTHOR'S meaning (exegesis)?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I do not care if that really happened or not. Christ is the anti Christ in the first place. The Bible is a cryptic, self-contradictory tale of how the Devil can out-persuade, outsmart and threaten the supreme reign of an omnipotent, omniscient god.God IS the devil, god is sadistic and seductive and the son of the devil (anti-christ) is meant to bring the downfall to the very guy who engineered his own persecution and execution.
So you are not interested in the historical Jesus.
Your thinking is most confusing. How can Jesus be the Christ and the anti-Christ?
So, your views are not biblical, in the least. You have some mystical experience that you want me to believe is a revelation of God to you. There are many who are in the nut house with the same kind of delusions.
How can God be the devil?
The biblical God is not sadistic or seductive. He plainly expresses what is wrong. That is a reason why people rebel against His commands (i.e., The Ten Commandments). He judges those who do wrong.
Since you made all these assertions back them up if you can with more than hearsay, then I will address a few of them. Please do not copy and paste links but if you use links provide the gist of what you want me to glean from them.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Deists are welcome to admit they are Gnostic in their belief of God here but please do not use this thread to talk about God being non-involved or uncaring, this is about who truly knows God is there I am curious to talk to such individuals as I have had life-altering experiences and it's not emotions, it's actual logic to it too.
What is your definition of Gnostic?
Do you deny the real living person of Jesus Christ and His physical bodily resurrection from the dead?
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
My evidence is based on the veracity of the biblical God.The Bible isn't evidence. It's a book written by men, not God.
It is written by men who claim inspiration from God. And the biblical manuscripts are historical artifacts. That means they are evidence that in the case of prophecy can be reasonably verified. The most pronounced unifying factor of these 66 manuscripts is the Lord Jesus Christ. I see a typology of Him on many pages of the OT that is missed by those who do not know their Bibles. They all point towards Him. The OT looks forward to Him. The NT looks at Him and back to Him.
If you think they exist then explain how something that is immaterial, intangible, can exist in a purely physical universe.As thoughts in our minds, just like your God, a thought in your mind, nothing more.
I agree they are conceptual, but they don't depend on any one person for their existence.
So are you saying that the laws of logic are contingent on your mind believing them? If you didn't believe them they would not exist?
If they transcend you then they do not depend on you for their existence. They are not just in your mind and "nothing more."
Would the laws still exist if no human mind existed? Let's test that thought.
2+2=4 is a logical concept (and a mathematical concept of addition) that is verified by physical objects. If there was no human being would two objects plus another two objects be four objects? Could they be anything other than four objects? Furthermore, if an object is itself, could it be anything else if humans did not exist. Would what we call a "dog" still be what it was if we did not exist, or would it be some other form, like what we associate as a stone? In other words, could what a thing
is also exist
as something other than what it is, just because we do not exist?
Who made the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, motion, relativity. Who enforces them?Is that a joke? You do realize that physics laws are not the same a judicial laws?
You missed my point. Just as the law systems you listed used to enforce man-made laws (The Judicial system....Police. Courts. Judges) require personal lawgivers and enforces I asked you who made the natural laws and enforces them?
How can you say that your views are BETTER than mine if everything is relative?I never said they were better but I think that's what you're saying about your morality.
Just my point. You can't identify a better when everything is relative UNTIL something bad happens to you or your family, then you are no longer a relativist. You then cross-over to my worldview that has objective moral values in which some things are definitely plain evil or wrong. You then recognize that some things are BETTER than others.
If the biblical revelation is God communicating with usIs God so weak he can't speak up for himself and simply communicate with us?
Why can't He choose the way He communicates with us? Is it up to you how He communicates? Who are you to regulate what God does and does not do?
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,
I show what happens when there is no universal best - anything goes.Sorry, but your God is far from "universal best" and we have found that societies that are rich with religion have higher crime rates, So much for your universal best moral system. It doesn't work.
Says you, the one who is acting as the universal judge by your pronouncements.
Is that an absolute statement or just another relative subjective one?
The final authority!Yes of course, I am the final authority when it comes to my well being. Got a problem with that?
You think so! Some things are beyond our authority in determining our well-being.
Spoken from someone who doesn't know GodI've read the Bible, if you've read it too, then we have exactly the same knowledge of God.
I've not only read it, but I have also studied and tested it in many ways to ensure I have a correct understanding with particular topics.
I have spent many years wrestling with some doctrinal concepts, such as Calvinism v. Arminianism, Young/Old Earth, Preterist or Futurist, etc.
So, if the evidence is most reasonable to believe, I also find the evidence of my predicament and God's solution, plus life after death most reasonable to believe.That is ridiculous, you believe one thing because you like believing in another thing no matter how outrageous it is. Hilarious.
I understand why you feel that way.
[ Folly and Wickedness of Men. ] [ For the choir director. A Psalm of David. ] The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
You keep skirting the evidence and saying there is none.When you provide evidence for an afterlife, then I'll say you have evidence.
My evidence is based on the veracity of the biblical God. As I have noted many times prophecy is a check-point in checking the information as to its reasonableness. I trust what He says on the subject of both the collapse of the OT economy, which happened in AD 70 and also on the revelation of His Son in prophecy.
Can you see the laws of logic?Logic would state that if something is claimed to exist yet it can't be detected in any way, then no one can know it's there and are simply making an assertion.
How do you detect the laws of logic? They are immaterial. Do they exist or not? What say you?
If you think they exist then explain how something that is immaterial, intangible, can exist in a purely physical universe.
Laws rely on lawgivers to enforce the laws.The Judicial system, ever hear of it? Police. Courts. Judges. Any of that ring a bell?
They are all based on existent people making them.
Who made the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, motion, relativity. Who enforces them?
So, torturing an innocent child for fun and getting away with it is just???Is that something that happens in your neighborhood all the time? A problem that just doesn't go away? Have you called the police?
No, it is an extreme example to bring home a point. If morality is relative and subjective then what makes your views any more moral than those of people who hold opposite views? How can you say that your views are BETTER than mine if everything is relative?
God does not take sin lightly.You wouldn't know that because God has never said that.
That is an assumption on your part because you reject the biblical revelation. If the biblical revelation is God communicating with us then I can know.
Otherwise, I'm in the same boat you are - ignorant. I claim I know and you claim, based on ignorance of God, that I don't.
No, I do not promote cannibalism or slavery.Yet, you do promote animal and human sacrifice as life lessons. Is that how you teach things?
I do not promote them. I show the consequences of them without absolute, unchanging moral good. I show what happens when there is no universal best - anything goes.
Show me where I promote them? You attribute to me things I do not believe, nor have I said I support this kind of evil. I don't. This is the second or third time you have done this.
You are banking on your limited knowledge being true.You are banking on ancient myths and superstitions being true. You lose.
The Bible is relevant today. It is not a myth. You are using atheistic website talking points.
Then do your own thing.As always.
The final authority!
This is not true. You have not responded to the evidence I presented as a starter.That was already dealt with, you just can't accept it.
It wasn't dealt with. It was brushed aside.
I know Him enough to believe and trust Him.That is an obvious lie. You know words in a book of myths and superstitions, like anyone else who has read the Bible. That is the full extent of your knowledge of an alleged God. All are words from other men.
Spoken from someone who doesn't know God. I swear, you guys are afraid of getting into an in-depth discussion on prophecy, and I know the reason why. You have a very poor understanding of it. You don't know how it all ties together into a masterful mosaic. How well have you looked at the evidence from history? You see, unlike you, I have read perhaps 30-50 books on the subject matter. I have over twenty in my private collection and I have read many on the Preterist archive online library. I have gone to the Bible to check out the reasonableness of the claims. I've studied Josephus and others on the subject.
Who has provided any evidence from biblical times that states these prophecies were written after the fact?
You guys make this constant charge - no evidence. You make this common charge - written after the fact.
The facts support and are more reasonable from my point of view than yours. If not prove it is not so. I have offered factual statements in Post 182 and 191. Disprove these as non-factual.
So, if the evidence is most reasonable to believe, I also find the evidence of my predicament and God's solution, plus life after death most reasonable to believe.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Bye-bye!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You are not serious, I hope?So your god used a computer and the internet to communicate? WOW. BTW you're not talking.
God uses the written form to reveal and communicate Himself to us, via the Bible. He was heard audiably when He communicated to some.
Snakes do not have a larynx either. Eve credits the snake as speaking to her.
Created:
Posted in:
This discussion is going nowhere.That's because you refuse to recognise reality and maintain your belief in fairy tales even when you know they are untrue.
I don't see what you believe as real regarding origins and I get tired of a nowhere discussion.
Created:
That's your opinion but the truth is that I won't accept any of your fairy tales and you have nothing but fairy tales so you are defeated before you start.
Many besides me have identified the same problems in correspondence with you on the DDO religious forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
How do you understand my written words? I did not use my larynx in communicating my thoughts.How does something talk without one?
Created:
-->
@disgusted
It's better than good it has you completely flummoxed and no wonder, you run around making unsupportable claims and your claims are always so easy to unstitch. Then as now you have to change your claim without ever admitting that your original claim was false, as I have proven.Apparently the attribute most beneficial to a godist is an ability to lie at all given moments.
Bulproof, there is no reasoning with you. Most know that from the Debate.org threads.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
We are discussing the reasonableness and logic of two worldviewsNo we aren't we are discussing verifiable facts versus fairy tales written by ignorant, primitive, superstitious bronze/iron age savages. I support the former you claim to believe the latter. Who recorded the events in the GoE, no one because it's just a story concocted to put a religious spin on the origin of man. Evolution and the story itself shows it for the fairy tale it is.You laid down some opinions of stories written in an ancient book of fiction, that is not facts.
Believe whatever you will. This discussion is going nowhere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
How would a Spirit have a larynx?What does god's larynx look like? As a spirit how does that work?
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
I can reason otherwise.You can assert otherwise because you have no evidence.
That is a cop-out. You keep skirting the evidence and saying there is none.
You base it on what you can see, but there are many things that you can't see that are real too.If they can't be seen, then no one, including you, can know they are there. Another assertion.
Can you see the laws of logic? Try communicating without using them.
I am not dumb enough to believe I have the power to change your mind when.You don't provide anything compelling to change one's mind, assertions without evidence don't work.
Post 182 and 191. Disprove the evidence as unreasonable.
If wrongs/sins are irrelevant, then there is no justice. How consistently can you live believing that?There are these things we have called "Laws", have you heard of them? They have nothing to do with sins.
Laws rely on lawgivers to enforce the laws.
So, torturing an innocent child for fun and getting away with it is just???
Is there nothing wrong with that as long as you don't get caught?
It is a life lesson.Life lessons do not involve barbaric, ignorant rituals of sacrificing animals or people. Do you also promote cannibalism and slavery, too?
God does not take sin lightly.
No, I do not promote cannibalism or slavery.
Do you understand ANE culture? How much do you know of it?
Then you will answer for your own downfalls eternally with others who feel the same way.No, I won't. You have no evidence of such a thing, it's merely another one of your irrational beliefs that's meant to scare small children.
You are banking on your limited knowledge being true.
You can choose, but you will have no excuse that you did not hear the message.Sorry, but I've heard no message. When your God decides to speak, then I'll listen.
Then do your own thing.
I'm not looking at a myth.Of course you are, you're looking at magical things that have never been shown to exist in any way, that contradict what we already know.
Prove it.
Are you real? I thought I was conversing with a make-believe person, and I'm winning!Unfortunately, your level of argument has just dropped to childish.You really must be getting desperate.
I don't feel desperate.
You SUPPOSE God is not for real based on YOUR ignoranceSo far, I have been basing my responses on your ignorance and assertions, you've not provided a shred of evidence for anything you say.
This is not true. You have not responded to the evidence I presented as a starter.
Says the one who doesn't know God.You don't know God either and you be lying if you said you did. All you have entirely at your disposal is the Bible, which was written by men. Essentially, you have a book of fables that rules your worldview and nothing more.
I know Him enough to believe and trust Him. Garbage to the rest of your statement:
For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.
Created:
-->
@Mdh2000
If however you mean I don't accept the positive claim that god exists, then you're correct. While considering the claim of gods existence, accepting god exists as true would only inevitably lead to bias. I am willing to pose hypotheticals based on the definate existence or non-existence of god, yet I will accept neither without reason. In short I don't assume, I have reason for my starting position of 'I don't know' and I'm still there where I will remain until such a time as god can be demonstrated to exist.P.s. I will address your post 182 and 191 in my next set of posts.
No denying that, but we are all biased. I'm glad that you are looking for reasons! Doubt is a part of life. I'm asking you to find out which is more REASONABLE and LOGICAL by examining the evidence as best as I can present it. There are lots who are much more sophisticated and polished, yet in regards to prophecy, I have been examining the evidence for the Christian worldview for a long time. I've professed faith in Jesus Christ for almost 40 years now. Debating unbelievers for most of that time has helped me to look hard for the explanations that confirm God for others. That said, even if the evidence is most compelling, those who are rebelling will always find another excuse not to believe. That has been my witness. On these forums I find but a handful of people who are really willing to test what they believe. The rest are locked solidly in their position and do not budge, do not hear the message or evidence. They do the opposite. They deny it. The more you present the more they dig into their position. That is why you, me, or anyone else coming to faith depends on God and His word.
Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
But that does not mean that God does not encourage our reasoning with Him through His Word.
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
[ “Let Us Reason” ] “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.
He does not shun our testing truth claims from others.
Now
these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
If the Bible were God's word then you would expect to see what we can verify from history not conflicting with His word. Prophecy looks at history that had not yet happened at the time the predictions were written.
Created:
-->
@Mdh2000
How can best not be objective? If it is the best then there is no better. It must be objective.This doesn't follow at all. If best is purely conceptual then of course it would be subjective, we each have our own subjective concept of best. If you want to show that best is objective (or exists as more than a concept) then demonstrate something that is objectively best and show why it is objectively best. As far as I know we've absolutely no way to show that best exists as anything other than a concept.
Sure it follows if best is derived from One who is the best, One who is objective in the sense that He knows all things, thus knows what is actually right and wrong.
What is necessary for objectivity in regards to morality? You would have to understand every position and you would have to know what is right and wrong, then your nature would have to be good to judge rightly. For a subjective being to know the difference, such a being (you) would have to have a revelation from an objective Being to guide your thinking (i.e., The Ten Commandments covers our relationship with both God and humanity).
He is that objective best, and since we are imperfect, we are with sin/wrong and limited in our nature, we cannot get to that best ideal on our own merits, but we can understand the One who has because we are created in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:26).
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Our minds are made in the image and likeness of the Greatest Mind, our Maker, just not to the same extent.
You have to start somewhere and with something. Those core beliefs are presuppositional by nature. It is whether or not they are justifiable or inconsistent that is the question. When you begin with the presupposition/position that God's existence is unknown and then use an atheistic belief system to channel your inquiry you are not being neutral. You are acting on the presuppositions of that atheistic belief system.My starting point doesn't presuppose. That would mean making an assumption. The only thing my position takes as true is that I don't know how the universe began (I have since concluded it is likely I never will) and that I don't know if a god exists. As for my taking on an 'atheistic' world view. That depends on your definition of atheism if you mean holding the negative belief that god doesn't exist, then you're wrong. To believe god cannot possibly exist would be an assumption and the bases for presupposition.
(Forgive me for being abrasive, I'm just trying to push my point home)
So you start nowhere? (i.e., starting point) You have no starting point?
I argue it does presuppose since you were not there, neither was any other human. Even if you don't know you still look at or start with the universe from God as Creator (or the greatest personal being), or you begin with a material origin alone and origins via a chance instead of by intent. You ASSUME that everything that exists came about by your presupposed method, even if you have no surety (ignorant).
That is precisely the point, if you don't know but exclude God then you are taking a position. You are presupposing that the material worldview is the more evident worldview.
Even if you don't know whether God exists by looking at the world through " a naturalist's eyes" you see things through "atheistic eyes" - eyes that deny God. Jesus made this point:
[ The Unpardonable Sin ] He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.
If this is true then there is no neutrality. I do not believe we are unbiased and neutral in the way we look at origins or life. We either cling to the one worldview or the other. In the Christian worldview, an atheist is the one who denies Jesus. He/she does not take the biblical God at His Word, for the Bible claims to be His revelation.
If this is true then there is no neutrality. I do not believe we are unbiased and neutral in the way we look at origins or life. We either cling to the one worldview or the other. In the Christian worldview, an atheist is the one who denies Jesus. He/she does not take the biblical God at His Word, for the Bible claims to be His revelation.
Created:
-->
@Mdh2000
How do subjective, relative beings know best without a fixed, unchanging reference point?Who said we do know best? Or that there is even a best to know? If best is simply a concept then we can make sense of it as a concept. Notice in this entire exchange you haven't once been able to demonstrate ovjective best.
There must be an ultimate best to know good, just like without good we would not know evil. Evil is measured against good, just like good is measured against the best.
Objective best is God. He has commanded humanity to not kill (murder, or take innocent human life), not steal, not lie, not commit adultery, not covet something that is not ours, honor our parents, love Him, and do not defame Him.
You are saying you don't know best because your worldview does not have what is necessary for best.
You make sense of the concept because you understand that good and better are degrees that depend on the ultimate, best.
[6] What you are doing is confusing a preference with a moral. It is not wrong to like ice-cream and like eating it; it's your choice that affects only you. If that is your preference, so be it, but it is wrong to like your neighbor to the point of eating him/her. It is wrong to force your neighbor, who doesn't like ice-cream to eat it just because you like it and think it is yummy. So, you confuse what is with what SHOULD be.We're not talking morality. We're talking best, there is a difference.
Best is a QUALITATIVE VALUE. I'm using it in the sense of morality, except where I state otherwise, like my example of quantitative or empirical things.
[7] I can show you what is necessary for there to be an objective best, logically. Other than that, it is your choice on whether this leads you to that ultimate, objective best or not. Without such an ultimate, absolute, unchanging, eternal reference point you are left with anything masquerading in the place of God.You can? How? So far you have simply shown that we can accurately measure and that we can point out criteria and state things that meet them are better. You also like to argue that we can only know what's best if there is an objective vest, which would be begging the question since it assumes there is an objective best in it's premise.
Yes, I do so by showing you the absurdity of arguing for qualitative values without having a reference that is best. I keep asking you to make sense of morality without a final ultimate, reference point. You have side-stepped doing so. I have also given you the qualities of what is necessary for "best" - unchanging, omniscient, eternal, benevolent Being. Neither you nor I am that being.
Ideas have consequences and without any final, fixed grounding everything is subject to change. Best becomes meaningless for the very reason that "good" can mean anything. If morality is subjective then anything is possible:This is an argument from consequence and an appeal to emotion. Nothing in your statement or the video link show morality is objective. I don't believe based on what I want to be true. I don't assume my desires have an impact on fact or truth.
Without an unchanging reference point is everything subject to change? Yes, or no? Can you answer that or do you agree that such a reference point is necessary? Until you are honest with these questions you are just deceiving yourself.
So what is this necessary reference point in relation to your worldview? It doesn't have one, does it? It does not have what is necessary, does it?
That is a shame that your desired/moral ideas have no impact on fact or truth. So how do you know they are right then? Under such a definition you can't. That is one hell of a way to go through life. Again, you can't make sense of truth/right because your worldview does not have what is NECESSARY to do so.
Created:
-->
@Mdh2000
So, the laws of logic defy subjective morals.The first point is an assumption. Even if it were true, why does it show anything more than that we're self serving hypocrites (we want what benefits us and care nothing for what benefits )? The second point also fails to land, we can all have our own concept of justice, yet we never seem to be able to agree what is just. They used to consider it just to burn people at the stake, personally I can think of no crime that warrants that. They used to think slavery was just. This fits with justice existing as a concept, yet in no way does it show that we know of an objective justice (the same can be used for 'fair' 'good' or 'best' we all seem to have our own version that we hold dear and yet to my knowledge none that is shown to be an objective fact).
No, not an assumption but a necessary truth. Laws of logic defy subjective morals. A thing is what it is whether you believe it to be that thing or not. It cannot cease to be that thing, just because you don't think it is.
Quite often it does show we are hypocrites.
I'm not denying you can and do have your own concept of justice. What I'm denying is that your concept of justice is necessarily true. Just because you and I cannot agree does not rule out a fixed reference point. I keep arguing that such a reference point is necessary for justice to be real. Otherwise, it is what we arbitrarily make up. Social justice may be like that of Hitler's where exterminating Jews is just, or like that of the South many years ago, in which slavery is just, or that of Apartheid in which segregating people on the color of their skin is just, or that of burning the widow of an Indian man is just, or eating your neighbor in Papua, New Guinea is just. It all depends on your FEELINGS (your preferences) and the social convention you live under. How can you criticize a society as unjust (like the ones above) if you live in that society? You would be considered the unjust one. Are these things actually wrong, then? Only if there is a final reference point that states they are. Do you have such a reference point? If not, then how do you make sense of justice? Anything (even the exact opposites) can both be passed off as JUST.
Within the physical world, we can measure 'best.' The Olympics measures the speed of the fastest athletes and establishes the fastest times as best to date. The International Bureau of Weights and Measures has a STANDARD that all other weights and measures are pitied against for accuracy.Neither of those measures best. They measure fastest time and weight and length respectively. In the first case you're not showing that this 'best' is objective (only that people have decided faster is better) and in the second that we like to keep accurate standards on hand for comparison (unless you're asserting accurate and 'best' are the same. In which case I ask why would accuracy require an intelligent creator, why not just a consistent universe?
It does in many cases. We have an international standard for weights and measures. In others, it measures the best to date. There is no better to this point in time since recorded stats. The object in the Olympics is to measure who is the fastest, so it does decide the best in this category to date. In the case of some quantitative measures, the standard can change with someone beating the time. In others, such as the definition of a pound (lb or a mile), the standard is fixed. If we have a discrepancy, we go to France and compare the results to the standard. With a mathematical quantity, we know that two objects plus another two objects is four objects.
Why not a consistent universe? When you ask for a REASON "why," there is no reason in a dumb, non-thinking, unintelligent universe. Then there is the question of how something that is devoid of these qualities and is chanceful and random can sustain anything, let alone indefinitely or for millions and billions of years, without intent. It just does not make sense, like I have been arguing all along.
Now, even though you can't make sense of it and there is no sense to be made from it (and yet you continue to find ways to do so because you borrow from a worldview that can - one that has the reason behind it, with a universe devoid of God does not) you can live inconsistently within your worldview. That is your choice.
Created:
-->
@Mdh2000
Good cannot both be good and not good at the same time and in the same way/manner. It defies logic. So, either you or me or both of us are wrong, but we both can't be right when we state opposites. Thus, you need an objective best to make sense of good or better. There must be a fixed reference point or best continually shifts.Unless 'good' is simply a concept. We both have concepts of good, they are different, neither however is objectively accurate. This makes sense of good and isn't a logical issue at all.
It STILL CANNOT be both good and not good at the same time and in the same way. It is a contradiction and defies the very thing you use to make sense of anything - the laws of logic. You could not communicate without these laws. You could not make sense of anything without employing these laws, so what you claim above is nonsense. Even as "a simple concept" it cannot be contradictory (exact opposite) and still make sense.
By putting in a moral claim (good) you are implying something that must be true, but how can it if it loses its identity? Therefore, such statements are self-refuting.
Here are 7 things a moral relativist, like you, cannot say and still be reasonable or CONSISTENT:
Rule #1: Relativists Can’t Accuse Others of Wrong-Doing
Rule #2: Relativists Can’t Complain About the Problem of Evil
Rule #3: Relativists Can’t Place Blame or Accept Praise
Rule #4: Relativists Can’t Claim Anything Is Unfair or Unjust
Rule #5: Relativists Can’t Improve Their Morality
Rule#6: Relativists Can’t Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions
Rule #7: Relativists Can’t Promote the Obligation of Tolerance
(see above link for an expansion of these rules)
This video implies the laws of logic are prescriptive rather than descriptive. There is no evidence of this. Again an unintelligent universe consisting of forces that act in a consistent manner would seem to be enough to produce logic. Why must it have been decreed that a cannot be not-a and then it became so, rather than it is true that a cannot be not-a and so we declared it?
How would such a universe produce logic? The laws of logic are either immaterial, unchanging, eternal, and sentient or they are changing, material, finite. Which do you propose? How do you get an ought from an is or what is prescriptive (moral laws) from what is descriptive (the universe)?
[4] With whose reality? Is reality only what you SEE?No, my eyesight isn't that good. Yet why assume anything we can't observe?
Why do you assume logic, which is immaterial? It cannot be seen, touched, tasted, heard, or smelt, yet without it human communication is impossible. You have to assume it is true to make sense of anything, therefore it is a necessary truth.
[5] So, if your idea of best is different from my idea of best what IS the actual best? Is it yours by default, just because you LIKE it like you like ice-cream? "I like ice-cream" is an expression of preference. You confuse preference with values. Preference is a subjective standard/like or dislike. Good or bad is a question of qualitative values.You're assuming an 'actual best' why must there be an actual best at all? We can quantify, we can measure and judge and from that we can declare 'this is best' yet what we can actually show is 'this is furtherest' 'this is the heaviest', or 'this is the shortest time' we can then declare that 'better' than shorter, lighter or a longer time. Yet all we have done is give criteria to 'best' can you show that criteria is objectively better or best?
How do you get good and better without a best as the final reference point? How can you know it? Because you FEEL it? What happens if I FEEL the opposite? Then which good is the actual good? A=A. The law of identity comes into effect. A thing is what it is. A thing cannot logically be both what it is and what it is not. A dog is not a cat. A dog is a dog. A tree is a tree. A tree is not a metal car.
Please answer those questions for me instead of skirting the issue.
Yes, we have a standard that we can do this with, in regards to quantitative things.
What is the standard you use to measure qualitative values? You make claims all the time regarding what is "good" or "better." By putting a moral claim onto something you are stating that something is superior to something else. If that is not an absolute claim why SHOULD I trust your claim?
In giving criterion, I can show the impossibility of the contrary. Is that good enough?
Please show me how good can be both good and bad at the same time and in the same manner. Show me how "It is good to torture innocent children for fun" and "It is evil torture innocent children for fun" (or for any reason) are both true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Are the laws of logic physical and do they exist?They exist as concepts in the mind, just like your God.
Does that make them physical? If so, let me touch one and see how much it weighs and feels like.
Thus, you must account for how something that is not physical can exist in a purely physical universe.
And you nor anyone else can demonstrate that you are just a physical being, nor that death is the end of you.
Wrong, both of those can be demonstrated. Physical things can be demonstrated, death can be demonstrated. No oe can demonstrate that death isn't the end.
I can give good reasons that Christianity is relevant for today.Feel free.
Simple, it gives the grounding for reason and morality. It makes sense of them. I have invited you and other to do just that. I'm waiting...
The reasons I use I have laid out in Post 182 and 191 on the subject of prophecy.
[1] God speaks via His word, which has been written down for our benefit.Sorry, the Bible was written by men, there is no evidence for the word of God. Anyone can lie and say God spoke or inspired them.
There are all kinds of evidence. I'm waiting for you and others to engage in it. You are all like broken records with your mantra, "There is no evidence." What a load of bunk.
I wasted a number of posts on the prophecy thread laying down the evidence and only ONE person made any effort to dispute it. How is that for reasonable??? Instead, all I get is assertion after assertion.
[2] God is not a physical Being. He used human beings to communicate about Himself to other human beings. He gave witness to Himself during their migration from Egypt to the Promised Land, through various prophets and teachers, then through His Son, who became a human being and also bears witness.First you say God is not a physical Being then go on to say how he communicates and becomes a physical being. Contradict much?
No, you read into my words something I never said. I believe that in the Person of Jesus are two natures, His human nature (physical) and His godly nature (Spiritual). When the Son became a human being He laid aside(did not use) His godly attributes because He became incarnate to live the life of a human that no other human being had been able to live - a COMPLETELY righteous life before God.
There are serious consequences for those who die without repenting, for they continually have made God out to be a liar during their life's.God can't be a liar if he never said anything, the liars are the men who follow God.
Then you have nothing to worry about, do you? Why are you even concerned about a discussion on God in a meaningless universe? Who cares? In such a universe, devoid of God, why should I care? As an atheist, I would just live and do whatever I can get away with because there is no ultimate justice. Ultimately, I would not have to defend myself against the injustice I have done because there is no justice.
BUT, if you are wrong, then you have everything to worry about, don't you?
Created:
-->
@disgusted
How is He not unchanging? (this should be good!)Just for a laugh I'll pretend that this god of yours was a god who created existence, the universe.Before he created these things he was a god who had not created these things but afterwards he was a god who CHANGED to being a god who had created these things. Yes I know this very simple concept based on the stupidity you believe is beyond your capacity to understand. Good luck.It is good isn't it, so simple even a godist can understand it. You're welcome.
You are conflating two different categories, that which was created with an ontological Being whose ATTRIBUTES do not change. So, I am not being stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
[1] The process that produced the dinosaurs and every other creature to have ever existed on this planet is the exact same process that produced me. [2] Do all of us have this non physical form that you pacify yourself with and if not why not we are all just lifeforms that evolved on this planet. Very scary (for you) isn't it?[1] Sure, that process is God.Let's stick with verifiable facts shall we? No gods have ever been proven to exist or been proven to have done anything. All the creatures on Earth are the result of evolution, that's a proven fact.You fail.
Can you verify that your facts are true to the origins of the universe or life, or are they just one interpretation among many that via as the facts?
We are discussing the reasonableness and logic of two worldviews, one atheistic or agnostic, the other theistic. Which is the more reasonable to believe? How do we derive meaning from the universe? We trace that reason back to the RATIONAL CAUSE. You don't have a rational cause for the universe. If the evolutionary worldview were true we would just be the product of the laws of physics. The question then becomes how do the derive laws from blind indifferent chance happenstance??? You jump to a massive conclusion that we can yet you can't explain it. It goes to the point I have been making all along. You need a necessary Being to make sense of anything ultimately. When I start unpacking what your beliefs rest upon there is no sense that can be made from these starting points. Not so with God.
[2] God tells us (via Genesis 1:27) that we, as humans have been made in His image and likeness. Since God is Spirit that image is not physical in nature. He tells us that we, as humans, are made differently from the animals. Psalms ask what is a man that God is mindful of him? God communicates to humans using logic and reason.An ignorant, primitive, superstitious bronze/iron age savage created the fictional story you reference, see above there are no gods to tell you anything. As I said let's stick to verifiable facts as I have.You fail.
Here we go again, the same old tired worn talking points mantra - "ignorant, primitive, superstitious bronze/iron age" goat herders.
I laid down some verifiable facts. Besides SkepticalOne, I am still waiting for someone to engage in them and dispute them. All I hear is Silence, which is oxymoronic, like the SOUND of silence. There is no sound in silence.
Created:
-->
@Mdh2000
[2] How can it be best if not objective? Best implies no better.This doesn't mean there must exist an objective best. Beauty is defined as a combination of qualities such as shape, colour, or form that pleases aesthetic senses, especially sight. Yet beauty is purely subjective. I have no evidence of 'best' actually existing, I have no reason to think that it does beyond human opinion. You certainly haven't presented evidence of it.
Best implies no better. How can that not be objective?
Beauty is a subjective preference. It is not wrong for me to think someone is more beautiful than someone else.
Killing and torturing children for fun is morally reprehensible. It says it is wrong, not just a subjective choice.
If you try to push beauty along the same lines as torturing children as both subjective then for someone who likes to torture little children there is nothing wrong in their eyes and each to his own. Are you willing to live with such a belief or do you think that some things are definitely wrong?
If you have no evidence of best actually existing then how do you gauge what is good? What do you have to gauge it against? If you say subjective preference then what makes your subjective preference better than mine? If nothing, then why is it wrong to torture little children for every person?
With subjective preferences as the norm for morality, you can't say something is any more desirable than anything else - each to his/her own.
[3] How do I show an objective best? By the impossibility of the contrary. If there is no objective best then which relative opinion is any BETTER than any other and why? Can you answer that? How would you know injustice unless you first knew what was just? So there has to be a standard above you.So your argument is that we need an 'objective best' or else there is no objective justice? Fair enough, I'll pull that string, how do you know there is any justice beyond the systems we humans construct. I certainly haven't seen any sign of it elsewhere.
You did not answer the question. Can you answer that question? It's easy to push it back to me, but how well does your worldview answer it?
My worldview has what is NECESSARY to make sense of morality.
How do I know if there is no objective best? I don't. It becomes a game of power to enact your desires and preferences over those who think differently, but Hitler's Germany is no BETTER than your America, or Kim Jong-un's North Korea.
With any value, it has to be real, it has to be true to make sense of it. A = A. Good = Good. P = P is a logical law of identity. A thing is itself and not something else.Yet some things are subjective, their meaning varies with each of us. Beauty is such a concept, ultimately the question becomes, can you demonstrate that good, best, or just exist as more than concepts formed by humans? I certainly haven't seen any sign of them being anything else.
I don't dispute subjective preference. What I dispute is that it can't make sense of morality. All it can do is force others to think in the same way. What makes that good or bad? What makes Hitler's Germany wrong? What makes Atharteid wrong? What makes slavery wrong? What makes abortion wrong? What makes same-sex marriage wrong? What makes anything wrong? Because you don't like it? Well, what about those that do?
If you do not believe in moral absolutes then you are a moral relativist.
Are you a moral relativist? Do you deny moral absolutes?
Created:
-->
@Mdh2000
Thanks for your posts! I will try to get to them in the next few days.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
[1] The process that produced the dinosaurs and every other creature to have ever existed on this planet is the exact same process that produced me. [2] Do all of us have this non physical form that you pacify yourself with and if not why not we are all just lifeforms that evolved on this planet. Very scary (for you) isn't it?
[1] Sure, that process is God.
[2] God tells us (via Genesis 1:27) that we, as humans have been made in His image and likeness. Since God is Spirit that image is not physical in nature. He tells us that we, as humans, are made differently from the animals. Psalms ask what is a man that God is mindful of him? God communicates to humans using logic and reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
You think that all you are is physicalNothing has ever been shown to exist beyond the physical.
Are the laws of logic physical and do they exist?
Your soul and spirit live on after your mortal body dies.You nor anyone can demonstrate that, that belief is just an ancient superstition.
And you nor anyone else can demonstrate that you are just a physical being, nor that death is the end of you.
I can give good reasons that Christianity is relevant for today.
. If you chose not to believe it then it is your business between you and God.And you have to be continually reminded that [1] God isn't here talking about this, you are, they are your words, [2] God did not speak or write them. that is all you. So, have a backbone and take responsibility for your words. I know that's very difficult for a Christian to do.
[1] God speaks via His word, which has been written down for our benefit.
[2] God is not a physical Being. He used human beings to communicate about Himself to other human beings. He gave witness to Himself during their migration from Egypt to the Promised Land, through various prophets and teachers, then through His Son, who became a human being and also bears witness.
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.
Regarding the witness of Jesus Christ:
John 5:36-37, 39
[ Witness of Works ] But the testimony which I have is greater than the testimony of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish—the very works that I do—testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me.
[ Witness of the Father ] And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.
[ Witness of the Scripture ] You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;
Jesus answered and said to them, “Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am
going; but you do not know where I come from or where I am going.And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.
This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son. 10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. 11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
There are serious consequences for those who die without repenting, for they continually have made God out to be a liar during their life's.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
So you have a make believe fixed, unchanging reference point. Even the omniscient reference point you believe in is not unchanging according to the book that invented it.
No, not make-believe.
How is He not unchanging? (this should be good!)
Created:
-->
@disgusted
How do subjective, relative beings know best without a fixed, unchanging reference point?What is your fixed, unchanging reference point?
Why do you ask? You already know.
Someone who knows all things would be objective in His nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
In this physical existence, yes, you need a brain. Remove the brain and you are dead physically.Then, the soul does not keep us alive? It has nothing to do with life?
You think that all you are is physical. Your soul and spirit live on after your mortal body dies. Believe it or not. There is a difference between physical death and spiritual death, as I explained to Stephen on one of the threads he created. If you chose not to believe it then it is your business between you and God.
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
Per you worldview bias.Wrong, it's what is observed every single day when people die. Unless, you can show otherwise, then your worldview is another fabrication.
I can reason otherwise. You base it on what you can see, but there are many things that you can't see that are real too.
Believe what you will. I am not dumb enough to believe I have the power to change your mind when. The saying goes: "Change a man against his will, he remains the same unchanged still."
What you are saying is that you have never wronged anyone. Yeah, sure.No, I'm saying sins are irrelevant, they have no authority in reality, I no more acknowledge sins than I do Leprechauns riding Unicorns. Why should I?
If wrongs/sins are irrelevant, then there is no justice. How consistently can you live believing that?
In the OC, a wrongful action was atoned for by an animal sacrifice to cover the penalty of sin. In the NC a human being - Jesus Christ is our penalty offering under this covenant.Animal and human sacrifice, what an incredibly barbaric and disgusting religion.
It is a life lesson. Wrongful action has consequences that are costly. It cost the Jews something very valuable (just like it cost God the Father someone very valuable) for the injustice. It made them realize what wrong/sin is like.
It is either Jesus' sacrifice which meets all the righteous requirements of God, or you stand before Him on your own merit.Of course, I stand on my own merit, I'm not a coward who can't take responsibility for his own actions. Yet, another barbaric ritual.
Then you will answer for your own downfalls eternally with others who feel the same way.
Hitler used Mein Kampf to manipulate his people.Christians use the Bible to manipulate people such that it causes good people to do bad things, such as create fabrications.
You can choose, but you will have no excuse that you did not hear the message.
If you want to know what someone believes look at what/who influences them.Okay, Scriptures influences you, that tells me a whole lot.
And for good reason too!
You look to the NATURAL world for all your answers.You look at ancient myths and superstitions for your answers. At least Nature can be shown to be real, unlike your God.
I'm not looking at a myth. You claim such but you don't even know God so how would you know? You place your own limited knowledge as your highest authority. If you are right then you have nothing to fear when you are dead.
I don't see you, yet I am communicating with you mindfully. Is that a falsehood? I could explain something to you without ever seeing youIs that a joke? We're both real people. Duh.
Are you real? I thought I was conversing with a make-believe person, and I'm winning!
You SUPPOSE God is not for real based on YOUR ignorance, then you try to include me in that ignorance.
Ah yes, the ignorant trump card again, the one you guys play to smear others.Stop offering ignorance, then.
Says the one who doesn't know God.
Created:
-->
@Mdh2000
I can give you reasonable and logical evidence that God exists, but what kind of evidence would ever suffice for someone who does not believe in God? You will keep going to your default worldview presuppositions that any evidence I give can be dismissed via science. Science must have an explanation.No. This is a strawman, it totally misrepresents me. My position has nothing to do with dismissing your claims of evidence on the grounds of science, but in confirming that they can be proven to support your case.
I have a list of factual claims in Posts 182 and 191. Show me they are not true.
You have made claims that you cannot know which belief is superior or best. Why would I ever want to believe what you believed on those grounds? (the blind leading the blind) You have made claims that you of ignorant of one belief being better than another. It does not make me want to sign up for what you believe. And science is always on the verge of supplying the answers, yet never does.There is one of the primary differences in our world view. My position isn't built on what I want, it's not a belief I possess because it makes me happy, comfortable or provides answers I like. My belief is held because as far as I am aware it is the only position I can take given the facts and not presupposing (and thus biasing) god or not-god. This again kind of verges off into the realms of science, which is odd, since I've not mentioned science.
Then argue against my factual claims and let's hear your argument for its logic and reason.
It seems your position currently hinges on the ability to show that 'best' or 'superior' are objective. If you can then we have something very interesting, if not, then your position is just you throwing out a belief that supports your subjective best (it may still be that even if you can show that there is an objective best, but you'd be a step closer to making this whole 'making sense of best' argument meaningful.
How can best no be objective? If it is the best then there is no better. It must be objective.
No, it is not a false dichotomy. Every single person has a worldview that is built on core presuppositional starting points, such as God exists or there is no adequate reason for God's existence (acceptance or denial of God). Depending on where you start is where you look for evidence. If naturalistic means are your starting point then you look for naturalistic explanations. Science is your god, what you bow down to and submit too.You seem to misunderstand the word presuppositional. I never began with the presupposition that there is no adequate reason for gods existence. I began with the position that it's unknown if there is adequate reason for gods existence. I haven't much left that position, my only real shift is that I don't have adequate reason for the existence of any god or creator entity. This isn't a presupposition, this is a conclusion made after much discussion and thought. I haven't been shown a single thing that would determine if a god does or must exist.
You have to start somewhere and with something. Those core beliefs are presuppositional by nature. It is whether or not they are justifiable or inconsistent that is the question. When you begin with the presupposition/position that God's existence is unknown and then use an atheistic belief system to channel your inquiry you are not being neutral. You are acting on the presuppositions of that atheistic belief system.
Two people are about to open a door, they've never seen the door before or been on the other side of it. When asked what's on the other side of the door one of them answers 'I don't know', the other answers 'A sofa and two chairs' which one of them holds a presupposition?
This is not the biblical argument. The biblical argument is that Someone has been through the door and KNOWS what is on the other side. Then that Person tells us what is on the other side.
Created:
-->
@Mdh2000
I can show there must be an objective, true belief to make sense of belief. You are in a quandary as to which belief is true. You say you can't say one is superior to another because your worldview is based on subjective opinions. My worldview has what is necessary to make sense of the superior belief.No, you can point out a belief you claim to be superior, but so far you haven't shown how we can confirm an objective 'best' or 'superior' You have stated certain traits necessary for a 'true belief' can you show any of those are objectively best in a belief? Just as importantly, can you show that your belief possesses all of them? Your belief asserts an intellect created the universe, can you show that this is accurate (my current belief asserts I don't know, considering I lack the means to verify anything about the possibility of there being anything or what traits it may possess if there is anything beyond this universe, that belief seems fairly accurate to me).
I can point out a belief that is NECESSARY to make sense of morality and "good" or "best." Again, as Ravi Zacharias said, "A worldview is not built on one line of argument." You can poke holes in one argument but when you take them all together and COMPARE them to your own worldview, maybe you will see the inconsistencies in your worldview. Ravi said in the same link (below) that any worldview (of a thinking human) is built on four question: origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. There are three tests for truth: logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and experiential relevance.
Can your worldview meet these three tests? I say no.
It is not experientially relevant, because you were not there for origins, nor was anyone else. My worldview claims there was One who was. There are some things that only someone morally deficient could believe it is okay to do, like torturing innocent babies for fun. So if morals are subjective, like you suggest, then for someone who LIKES to torture innocent babies, that is okay. What is more, your system is not morally livable. As soon as an injustice is applied to you or your family it is no longer just subjectively wrong, it is objectively wrong.
Is your worldview logically consistent with its claims? No, because it borrows from my view when it objects to a wrong. It states that some things are wrong. How can that be in a morally delinquent universe that is indifferent to meaning and morals? How can two opposing moral values regarding the same thing both be true?
With empirical adequacy, is what you see the same as what your belief says is true? You can't prove that it is. All you see corresponds with my Christian worldview. I see life coming from the living, morality coming from a personal moral Agent, love coming from the loving, logic and reason coming from a reasonable and logical Being. As an atheist or agnostic, you see life coming from inorganic matter, without reason or being.
Created:
-->
@Mdh2000
[1] To begin, I would like to apologise for the delay in this reply, work has been exceptionally demanding of my time.Another point I have been making all along -> you can't make sense of best. Without a necessary being, there is no sufficient reason for your view being any better than mine, speaking of qualitative values. The word "superior" or "best" becomes meaningless.A true belief would provide answers and would be accurate. If you were on the 'right side' of that belief it would be comforting. It would give reassurance of what the future holds for you.[2] I can very well make sense of best. I simply don't assume an objective best. [3] Can you in any way show that an objective best must exist? [4] As for your comments on a 'true belief' I have to disagree, a true belief would be a belief that was in accordance with reality, no other trait would be necessary for it to be true. It needn't answer questions, it needn't make one comfortable. [5] There are many things I consider better than others, yet the criteria by which I decide which is best isn't objective, it's subjective. I can without a doubt say that ice cream is better than anchovies, but only in a subjective frame. I dislike anchovies and very much like ice cream. [6] There is an example of a subjective best (and why it is best subjectively). [7] Can you show an objective best and why it is best objectively?
[1] No problemo with the delay.
[2] How can it be best if not objective? Best implies no better.
[3] How do I show an objective best? By the impossibility of the contrary. If there is no objective best then which relative opinion is any BETTER than any other and why? Can you answer that? How would you know injustice unless you first knew what was just? So there has to be a standard above you.
With any value, it has to be real, it has to be true to make sense of it. A = A. Good = Good. P = P is a logical law of identity. A thing is itself and not something else.
Good cannot both be good and not good at the same time and in the same way/manner. It defies logic. So, either you or me or both of us are wrong, but we both can't be right when we state opposites. Thus, you need an objective best to make sense of good or better. There must be a fixed reference point or best continually shifts.
[4] With whose reality? Is reality only what you SEE?
[5] So, if your idea of best is different from my idea of best what IS the actual best? Is it yours by default, just because you LIKE it like you like ice-cream? "I like ice-cream" is an expression of preference. You confuse preference with values. Preference is a subjective standard/like or dislike. Good or bad is a question of qualitative values.
So, the laws of logic defy subjective morals.
Within the physical world, we can measure 'best.' The Olympics measures the speed of the fastest athletes and establishes the fastest times as best to date. The International Bureau of Weights and Measures has a STANDARD that all other weights and measures are pitied against for accuracy.
How do subjective, relative beings know best without a fixed, unchanging reference point?
[6] What you are doing is confusing a preference with a moral. It is not wrong to like ice-cream and like eating it; it's your choice that affects only you. If that is your preference, so be it, but it is wrong to like your neighbor to the point of eating him/her. It is wrong to force your neighbor, who doesn't like ice-cream to eat it just because you like it and think it is yummy. So, you confuse what is with what SHOULD be.
[7] I can show you what is necessary for there to be an objective best, logically. Other than that, it is your choice on whether this leads you to that ultimate, objective best or not. Without such an ultimate, absolute, unchanging, eternal reference point you are left with anything masquerading in the place of God.
Ideas have consequences and without any final, fixed grounding everything is subject to change. Best becomes meaningless for the very reason that "good" can mean anything. If morality is subjective then anything is possible:
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
That is what you have to look forward to in the USA if the Democrats gain power in the mid-terms, IMO. I think it will lead to the death of your Republic.The White House has an insane lunatic as a leader, which is the person the religious right elected because they are all insane lunatics who will help bring the world to destruction. This is what we are looking forward to now.
Yah, right. Funny how I sense a Democrat by what they believe a good majority of the time, which only goes to show that you can tell a lot about someone by what they believe and who influences them. This is not the thread for it, but you are controlled by a propaganda media that is fed by Democrat values.
And I'm not even an American.
You did what those who are closed to God do so well, you obstruct and misrepresent.Says the guy who does nothing but offer falsehoods and deceit.
Oh yeah, right! The smear is on again. Anyone who doesn't think like you is false and deceitful.
You never engaged in the argument, the topic of this thread. I have asked you repeatedly to test my OP. I have given you factual details that you have not disputed. (Check out Post 182 and 191) This must mean one of two things; you believe they are factual and can't dispute the claims or you are trolling with a specific agenda to smear Christian values and beliefs.
the prophecies were written after the event in questionYes, they were, but you still haven't figured that out yet. The reason for that is becoming obvious, your belief system is built on lies, falsehoodsand deceit, which is all you seem to be peddling.
Prove it.
Engage or find someone else to slander with your claims they are liars, deceitful, ignorant and stupid.
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
I'm talking about what happens after you DIE.Nothing happens.
Per you worldview bias.
The difference between Hitler and you is the level of your sinI have no sins.
Sin:
1a: an offense against
religious
or moral law
b
: an action that is or is felt to be highly
reprehensibleit's
a sin to waste food
c
: an often serious
shortcoming
:
2a: transgression of the law of God
b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God
What you are saying is that you have never wronged anyone. Yeah, sure.
If Jesus paid the price for our sinAccording to the story, Jesus was captured by the Romans and crucified, which has nothing to do with paying for sins. He was a criminal of the state and was convicted.
This just shows your ignorance of biblical teaching.
Jesus came to an OT people (John 1:11-12). He came to initiate a new covenant. The New Covenant is always contrasted with the Old Covenant in the NT. The New Covenant is a type of the Old Covenant. In the OC, a wrongful action was atoned for by an animal sacrifice to cover the penalty of sin. In the NC a human being - Jesus Christ is our penalty offering under this covenant.
even the worst of people can be saved by a true trust and faith in Jesus and His meritHence, no accountability and no justice in your worldview.
Again, that statement shows your ignorance of biblical teaching. Jesus was our substitute, just like an animal sacrifice was a substitute in the OT. It was either the animal sacrifice or the person was held accountable for their own actions. The NC is the same. It is either Jesus' sacrifice which meets all the righteous requirements of God, or you stand before Him on your own merit. God's justice is met in Jesus.
From what I see is that the most ruthless people have seared their minds towards God.No, you don't see that at all, you can't read peoples minds. Hitler wrote in his book, Mein Kampf, that everything he did to the Jews was for Jesus.
Yes, I do. Who are you to tell me what I think? Are you the mind police?
Hitler used Mein Kampf to manipulate his people. The Jesus he believed in was not the NT Jesus. He also has many references to social Darwinism, which he used. He was also influenced by the writings of Neitzche. If you want to know what someone believes look at what/who influences them. It is a key lesson in life. Hitler did what he did to gain power and initiate his Arian race.
I see every reason to believe, even though I have never seen Him.There's a word for that, it's called "Delusion". You have never provided a single valid reason to believe in God. None whatsoever. Most of what you say is either not true or a fabrication, hence you're entire belief system is built on falsehoods.
Ah yes, the Dawkins Christian delusion syndrome repetition!
You lie. I have presented many factual statements that no one challenged me on as to their factuality. Prophecy is one line of evidence that gives credence to the truthfulness of Scripture. Who can predict the future with such accuracy? I know of no human being, unless inspired and told by God.
These are not vague prophecies. Thus, the unbeliever has to discredit them by asserting they were written after the fact.
Instead of conjuring up God you conjure up NatureYou keep proving my point, that is another falsehood. I don't conjure up Nature, it is right in front of all of us every day of our lives, you see and are forced to deal with it like everyone else, unlike any God. So, you reject reality in favor of fantasy. That's delusion.
Sure you do. You look to the NATURAL world for all your answers.
Delusion is thinking that conscious mindful being and origins of the universe can come from blind chance happenstance.
God has given us everything we need to reconcile to HimYou can't reconcile with something you claim to have never seen. Another falsehood.
Why not. I don't see you, yet I am communicating with you mindfully. Is that a falsehood?
He shows them what hell life can be when humans try to live outside of an understanding of God.More falsehoods. Something you've never seen cannot show you something.
I'm talking of Someone, not something. You are pedaling BS. I could explain something to you without ever seeing you. It is your false conjecture, not mine.
Some of the worst social injustice and outright slaughter has come during the 20th-century - the bloodiest to date, in which a good chunk of humanity rejected God for human socialism and left-wing ideology.You're either extremely ignorant or are just outright lying now.You keep showing me your entire belief system is a bed of lies.
Ah yes, the ignorant trump card again, the one you guys play to smear others.
You will not engage in the discussion this thread is about. That is how bad your reasoning and lack of argument is. Look in the mirror before making accusations.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Are you Bulproof masquerading as disgusted?That's a long list of people committed to the infanticide and genocide morality as demanded by your god, you and your god must be ecstatically proud of them
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I seriously doubt you were ever an atheist...News flash. No-one is born christian.Houston, we may have a problem.....
Contradictions galore.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You ask:The question becomes what are you questioning as not factual evidence?I reply the bible and you mewl about assertions and insinuations and claim I refuse to have a discussion.Your bible is not factual evidence, you know this and are therefore bereft of any intelligent rebuff.
Then we are wasting each others time.
Why would you engage with someone who is bereft of any intelligence? What does that say about you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
A brain is the physical housing of the mind. The mind contains the inner qualities of a person, of what makes them who they are. A brain has a physical shape, a mind does not. You can physically touch a brain, you cannot a mind. Mental properties, such as concepts (i.e., the concept of twoness) are not physical in nature. The concept of goodness is not physical in its nature. You can't grab hold of goodness or twoness or logic for that matter. The laws of identity are not physical in nature, yet you could not make sense of anything without engaging/using them. Grab hold of a good idea or smell twoness for me. You can't because they are not physical in nature. There is a difference between physical/quantitative things and abstract/qualitative values, just like there is a difference between a brain and a mind.So if you don't have a brain that means you don't have a mind?In order to have a mind you need to have a brain, right?Do people in a coma have a mind?
In this physical existence, yes, you need a brain. Remove the brain and you are dead physically.
Do you think all you are is a physical being?
Do you think all you are is a physical being?
As for your question on comas, I'm not a medical expert. I don't know much about comas. Maybe you could inform me of your take?
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
I'm saying you have no hope for a futureThat isn't even remotely true, my future is fine, thank you very much.
I'm talking about what happens after you DIE.
There is no justice in such a worldview.You're talking about your world view where someone like Hitler could have just accepted Jesus with his dying words and *poof* all is forgiven. I agree there is no justice in your worldview.
The difference between Hitler and you is the level of your sin, and any sin is separation from God. If Jesus paid the price for our sin then even the worst of people can be saved by a true trust and faith in Jesus and His merit. From what I see is that the most ruthless people have seared their minds towards God. Thus, their moral compass is so relative that anything becomes possible in their rejection of Him.
Because you do not believe in God you do not believe in the supernaturalI have no reason to believe in that which has never been shown to exist. And most likely, we could probably find a great deal of concepts people have conjured about the supernatural that you don't believe. That would be a wash then.
That is the difference between us. I see every reason to believe, even though I have never seen Him.
Instead of conjuring up God you conjure up Nature, with a capital N.
God could display His power and providence to these peopleSo, why can't God do that now? You said yourself there is no justice. God appears to be failing again.
God has given us everything we need to reconcile to Him. Through His providence, He gives humanity some leeway to choose how they will live their lives. He shows them what hell life can be when humans try to live outside of an understanding of God. Some of the worst social injustice and outright slaughter has come during the 20th-century - the bloodiest to date, in which a good chunk of humanity rejected God for human socialism and left-wing ideology.
– Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
– Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine’s famine)
– Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians WWII)
– Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908) 8,000,000
– Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)
– Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-20) 1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20)
– Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
– Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1,600,000 (purges and concentration camps)
– Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000
– Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) 1,000,000
– Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) 900,000
– Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994) 800,000
– Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) 600,000
– Tito (Yugoslavia, 1945-1987) 570,000
– Sukarno (Communists 1965-66) 500,000
– Fumimaro Konoe (Japan, 1937-39) 500,000? (Chinese civilians)
– Jonas Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002) 400,000
– Mullah Omar – Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001) 400,000
– Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979) 300,000
– Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1970-71) 300,000 (Bangladesh)
– Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Libya, 1934-45; Yugoslavia, WWII) 300,000
– Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97) ?
= Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996) 220,000
If you look to leftist socialists states you will find a stranglehold on power and a ruthless regime that controls its people. That is what you have to look forward to in the USA if the Democrats gain power in the mid-terms, IMO. I think it will lead to the death of your Republic. When humanity forgets God, anything goes; anything can be passed off as good, with sinister results.
Because you choose to ignore the evidence you think there is none.I never ignore evidence, but you need to actually produce evidence, which you have failed to do thus far.
Sure you have. You failed to engage. You did what those who are closed to God do so well, you obstruct and misrepresent, IMO.
My opinion is how pathetically unbelievers avoid the discussion of prophecyThat's because prophecy has never been shown to be valid.
Sure it has. I pointed out legitimate historical facts that NOT ONE OF YOU challenged, except SkepticalOne. He never challenged the facts themselves but made the claim that the prophecies were written after the event in question. I'm still waiting for early historical evidence to back up his claims. Instead, it comes from 17th-20th-century liberal higher critics enlarge.
Instead, a discussion on prophecy becomes a display of their private beef and anger issues about God. They call Him and those who believe in Him liars, and irrational, yet they never address this issue.Not true, the reason is simple, prophecy is baloney. You just haven't figured that out yet.
Dispute the facts of post 182 and 191 then. You just ignored them. I'm still waiting for the challenge to be accepted. You guys are all hot air.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I used to be one.Lol. I seriously doubt you were ever an atheist especially when considering that fact you don't even know what an atheist is or how they think. Your posts here are a testament to that fact.
Of course, you do!
Why would I expect any other thought, having known me all my life?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Hey PGA2.0, you were born a Christian! Your posts here are a testament to that.Should we alert the Pope?
By all means necessary, ethang5! (^8
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
You made assertions and insinuations, nothing more.Now you know how atheists feel.
I used to be one. Their worldview funnels their beliefs.
Created: