Total posts: 3,179
-->
@SkepticalOne
Nowhere in the NT are we ever told of the already destruction. - ME
The Olivet Discourse describes the destruction of the temple, yes? - Skep1
That is not what I put forth in my statement. What I said was nowhere in the NT are we told of the (that) ALREADY DESTRUCTION. The destruction has NOT taken place in any NT gospel or epistle, or Revelation.
If you dispute the NT was written after the fact, or prophecy inserted after the fact, then provide proof/evidence that this was done. - ME
I've not made a claim - you have. Can you show the Olivet discourse was recorded before the destruction of the temple? - Skep1
I'm offering you to put forth evidence if you think my claims are unreasonable (hence the word, "IF"). If you want to debate my claim then I am willing to put forth my reasoning, and I expect you to offer a counter-argument. If you are unwilling to do this why would I waste my time on someone who is hell-bent on proving me wrong no matter where the evidence leads?
I can give a good, logical, rationale why it is reasonable to believe it was recorded before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. I do not believe you can give good reasons why it was not, based on the evidence available to us today.
we have ancient manuscripts that record these prophecies - ME
What manuscripts? What prophecies? - Skep1
The OT and NT manuscripts.
As Christians, we have testimony from eyewitnesses and artifacts (i.e., Josephus; the destruction of the city) that state these things will happen/happened. What evidence do you have that state otherwise, from an early date? - ME
The destruction of the temple is not in dispute. The fact that it happened does not lend credence to an early or late date for the gospels in which the Olivet Discourse is found. - Skep1
Good, you don't dispute the destruction in AD 70. That is one hurdle out the way.
Yes, it does lend credence to an early date. What do you think the later dating is based upon? Answer me that, then I will continue.
What evidence do you have these OT documents were written after the fact (i.e., the destruction of city and temple and punishment on this OT people)? - ME
I don't assume the destruction of the temple in 70AD was a judgement from a god or that it was predicted in the OT as you do. Without those assumptions, the question is a non sequitur. - SKEP1
Naturally, you do not, since you are a skeptic. You reject the biblical authority and replace it with your own.
I will have to give you a number of OT passages that tell the reader otherwise. I start with Daniel 9:24-27. I would also refer you to the curses of Deuteronomy 28 that God promised for disobedience. In fact, Daniel 9:1-26 is all about the Mosaic law curses Babylon inflicted on Israel in 586 BC. After that judgment, God gives Israel (Daniel's people) a period of 490 from the issuing of the decree to rebuild the city and temple until He once again brings judgment on Israel for their transgressionsIsrael and brings in everlasting peace. There are six specific things in verse 24 that would take place before Jerusalems destruction.
So, I have established two OT verses that speak of the destruction of Jerusalem for disobedience. FACT. I establish that from the OT records we have available they confirm what I say. Show me otherwise, not by ASSERTION, but by proof/evidence.
Daniel 9:26 (NASB)
26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
First, the city and sanctuary have to be rebuilt, then the end comes like a flood AFTER the Messiah is killed. One other consideration for you; none of this means anything after AD 70. With the destruction of the city and sanctuary, no prophecy is RELEVANT to a Mosaic Covenant people, for the very reason that they no longer exist in a covenant relationship with God. They can no longer follow the Mosaic Law of atonement after AD 70. A Messiah is to come to an OT covenant people. That is not possible after AD 70.
Deuteronomy 28 Consequences of Disobedience
15 “But it shall come about, if you do not obey the Lord your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:
16 “Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country.
20 “The Lord will send upon you curses, confusion, and rebuke, in all you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have forsaken Me.
52 It shall besiege you in all your towns until your high and fortified walls in which you trusted come down throughout your land, and it shall besiege you in all your towns throughout your land which the Lord your God has given you.
So, in AD 70 God brought the Roman army against Israel as a consequence for killing His Son and rejecting Him. It was a divorce decree and God took a new bride for Himself. The covenant found its fulfillment in Jesus Christ and a new and better covenant was made with these people and anyone else who would believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I claim no such thing as myth, so please don't put words in my mouth. - ME
No one said you did. Get a grip. - disgusted
Your words:
"And you claim that this myth can speak without a larynx. That's not possible and so you must be lying." - Post #116
Not only this, you called me a liar.
Please do not deform my character either by calling me a liar because your worldview does not agree with mine. I have offered to give you ample evidence that you can dispute and we will see who has the more reasonable and logical case. So far, you have done what most unbelievers do, you have maligned my character and not been willing to engage in the discussion. It is all a deflection to avoid doing so. I've been playing this unbeliever game of avoidance and assertions for decades on these forums. - ME
It's godists like you who make assertions and then squirm around trying to change the subject. Does your mythical creature possess a larynx?- disgusted
I did not change the subject. I answered your questions. I explained to you that God does not have a corporal body, He is not physical, but spiritual. Words that are Anthropomorphic are words God uses to relate to us, that we may relate to God.
I'm not asserting, I am conveying a biblical teaching. You are the one asserting a mythical being. Prove God is mythical. You can't - you can only assert it. Now let's look at the evidence that supports the Bible and test its reasonableness. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/399?page=1&post_number=1
Where do you know of anyone who can predict with 100% accuracy things that will come to pass before they happen? That is the issue of prophecy and all I ask is that the unbeliever put his charges, with evidence, against my charges, as see who has the more reasonable and logical argument. - ME
Nobody can and nobody ever has, now get back on topic. - disgusted
Prove your assertion is reasonable by going to the thread link given above.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
What is this "force beyond scientific understanding" of which you speak and why must we label it as "supernatural". Supernatural refers to something above nature, and if there is a force science doesn't understand, it is still an unwarranted leap to say this alleged force is above nature and not natural. -SkepticalOne
Ah, yes, the "unwarranted leap!"
The Bible reveals this Being that is beyond nature/the natural. Is that unreasonable?
IMO, it is an unwarranted leap for those who only think within the box called "Nature." They don't want to think of anything that science cannot prove ("If I can't see it, I won't believe it."). Yet, from a naturalistic worldview, they can't warrant a sensible explanation for existence, for life from inanimate matter, plus energy over time. They can't demonstrate via science how from mindless matter comes conscious beings. They can't explain the purpose and MEANING they continually find in a supposedly meaningless universe. They don't have the grounds of morality. They can't explain why the necessary ingredients for science - the uniformity of nature (hence natural laws/constants) can operate by unintentional chance happenstance. They don't have the grounds for certainty.
But, I divert from the topic at hand.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I have included that scenario in the argument if he chooses to address it. See below:1) Establish that it is REASONABLE and LOGICAL to believe these prophecies were written AFTER the EVENT of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.MEYou are avoiding your burden. If you believe prophecy is fulfilled, then you necessarily need to establish the verses (where this alleged prophecy is found) were written before the events they are said to predict. - YOU
No, I already listed the prophetic verses - the Olivet Discourse as written in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Revelation. I believe that Revelation is John's version of the Discourse. (That is a topic for another time)
Luke 21:5 And while some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said, 6 “As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down.”
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
The Discourse speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem. Nowhere in the NT are we ever told of the already destruction. For a people steeped in OT ritual, this is highly significant. Their whole life revolved around temple worship and animal sacrifice via the priesthood. We continue to see the mention of this ritual system throughout the NT as still in existence. We continue to see/understand the priesthood in operation. We continue to see the warnings to escape from the come wrath, the day of the Lord, the end of the age.
We KNOW that in AD 70 the city and temple were destroyed by the Roman armies that had surrounded the city. We know that the OT people operated under the Mosaic Law and covenant. After AD 70 this covenant and its laws can no longer be met. We know that there is no more animal sacrifice, no more priesthood, no more temple, and that the curses of Deuteronomy 28 have been poured out on this people, as per the numerous warning in the OT and NT, which meets with the statement, "days of vengeance" and great distress upon the land and people so that everything yet unfulfilled would be fulfilled.
If you dispute the NT was written after the fact, or prophecy inserted after the fact, then provide proof/evidence that this was done. Otherwise how reasonable are your assertions?
As Christians, we have ancient manuscripts that record these prophecies. What is the earliest evidence you have that states they were inserted after the fact?
As Christians, we have testimony from eyewitnesses and artifacts (i.e., Josephus; the destruction of the city) that state these things will happen/happened. What evidence do you have that state otherwise, from an early date?
The OT looks forward to the time of the Messiah and God's judgment for unfaithfulness. What evidence do you have these OT documents were written after the fact (i.e., the destruction of city and temple and punishment on this OT people)?
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Self-serving logic. No christian I've ever met believes in magic. - ethang5
I agree, and getting sick of this silly strawman and worthless statement. It's basically a cheap shot at Theists. I would like to see Keith be a bit more realistic. That's the game I guess though....make the opposition appear stupid and absurd whatever it takes.
I find a few common tactics. One, assert Christianity a myth, or a magic show or assert Jesus is not a real historical person. Two, tell us our faith is blind or lacking evidence, thus unreasonable. Three, attack the Christian/belief as moronic and stupid. At all times avoid discussing the evidence or reasonableness of the faith.
I do not follow a blind faith, nor an unreasonable faith. The evidence is both reasonable and logical.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Dating a piece writing is impossible when one doesn't have the actual document. I could write a 'prediction' of WW1 on a piece of paper today, put the date June 1910 on it in a thousand years how could any one tell if I wrote it fresh or if I'd copied a now lost document from 1910?
I'm asking for him/you to prove the reasonableness and logic of the late date as opposed to an early date for Matthew Mark, Luke, and Revelation since they all contain the Olivet Discourse as seen through the different authors.
There is both internal and external evidence to look at.
There is both internal and external evidence to look at.
There are enough NT manuscripts from the original language (24,000 plus), many from an early age, to confirm whether the documents have gone through lots of redactions and variations, or not.
Regarding the OT, The Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed much of the wording of the earliest copies of Isaiah. Before their discovery, the earliest copies we had were around 1,000 years later. You can compare the change in wording, the variants, and the change in meaning here:
Is it reasonable to believe Isaiah had been copied with accuracy?
Unless you are prepared to accept things like magic and the supernatural, if a document mentions an event with 'uncanny' accuracy then it was written after the event, and that is all there is to it.
I don't accept the magic scenario, but why are you not willing to accept the supernatural? Is it a bias of yours?
Of course it is impossible to prove a document isn't a genuine prophecy - but that's a given. However, we don't live in a world of magic and supernature so that is all the 'proof' against prophesy needed.
The biblical prophecies regarding the Olivet Discourse are specific to a particular date and time. They speak of the coming destruction of the city and temple. That happened in AD 70.
I'm asking for the most reasonable and logical explanation based on the evidence available.
Is that reasonable?
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I think you're get ahead of yourself.1) Were these verses written before the destruction of the temple? If so, how do you know? What do scholars who consider these verses critically make of them and why?
I have included that scenario in the argument if he chooses to address it. See below:
1) Establish that it is REASONABLE and LOGICAL to believe these prophecies were written AFTER the EVENT of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
in the light of all of these other cases of biblical characters " doubting", do you not see the unfairness ofZacheras' punishment? Do you not see the bias? Do you not see the over reaction to what was a simple enquiry? Do you not see that compared to these other occasions of people doubting, how ridiculous the whole story is?
There is sometimes a difference between doubt and disobedience. Doubts can be caused by lack of faith or lack of knowledge or both.
On a personal note, by being disobedient to God's word I have learned many valuable lessons, confirming that what He says is true. So often the punishment is the lifestyle we lead for disobedience. It is not blessed and it causes many problems that those who are righteous do not face.
Funny thing too, a friend of mine was a "charismatic" Christian who believed in "name it and claim it" theology. The reason he said that we, as Christians were not the "richest" people in the world, or could not "heal the sick" and "raise the dead," was because of a lack of faith, or a small faith. Through Scripture, I later proved to myself that what he said did not line up with God's word. The gifts of healing, prophecy, and so on, were gifts for the establishment of the early church and ended in AD 70.
To my knowledge, he is still under this delusion since I haven't seen him in well over ten years. But I heard his lifestyle and the fanatical pursuit of healing and speaking in tongues was possibly the cause of his marriage break-up. I challenged him on a number of occasions to go to the local hospital and heal everyone in it as proof of what he was saying. The hypocrisy of the whole situation was he was telling me what I should be able to do yet he could not demonstrate that he had the ability to do so either, although he claimed he had. This taught me a valuable lesson about God's word. That is to establish the truth of the matter through His word, not by what people tell you. His word is capable when rightly discerned, of showing the correct interpretation.
Peter
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Show me where the text states that Thomas doubted Jesus was the Messiah. Where is it stated? - ME
Read what I wrote slowly and stop putting words into my mouth.Here is what I wrote>> - YOU
He had no faith that the lord his god Jesus had risen or it appears, in the resurrection. - YOU
In other words my friend, that is to say, to doubt someone has risen from the dead, would by default be to doubt someone had been resurrected. or had resurrected. - YOU
What I get from your posts is that you seem to imply that doubt of any kind is either a cardinal sin or should be punished. It can be a cardinal sin and I gave you an instance of it being so by those who reject or die doubting Jesus was/is who He claimed to be. Doubt for a believer is covered by the Savior's blood. He died in the place of the true believer. Thus, the penalty that should have been ours is met by Him. He paid the price for our sins. Not only that, He lived the life before God we could never live. So He met God's righteous standard on behalf of the believer. That is a biblical teaching.
Later Thomas' doubts were shown to be ill-founded. Jesus confirmed to Thomas what Thomas wanted to see. He believed and confessed that Jesus is Lord and that Jesus is God. His testimony is a witness to us today, that we may also believe. So, as in everything, God had a purpose for Thomas' doubt in the resurrection.
The other thing to note is that when we doubt we learn valuable lessons about the trustworthiness of God's word. It reveals a lack of faith when we doubt, but Jesus shields us from our small faith at times if we trust in Him. God is in the habit of proving men who doubt 1) have no good reason to doubt, and 2) are liars, for they impune God's word, His testimony, as a lie. Thus, God is able to show them, either in this life or on the flip side, the life to come, that what He says is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Created:
I start with the case of Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, and Revelation. These prophecies all concern the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 and judgment of the Mosaic Covenant people for their apostasy, per Deuteronomy 28 and the curses thereof.
You have a few goals (as I see it, but you can add more).
1) Establish that it is REASONABLE and LOGICAL to believe these prophecies were written AFTER the EVENT of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
OR
2) Show that the events do not apply to the 1st-century audience of address and the timeline.
AND
3) Show that the OT does not predict the same event, the destruction (once again) of the city and temple and the coming Messiah.
OR
4) That the OT documents were also written after the fact.
Let us see who has the more reasonable case.
I could also direct the scope in a different direction by analyzing each of our worldviews and the foundations they rest upon to which is more reasonable and logical, but I will save that for another thread, another discussion, and another day.
Peter
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
And you claim that this myth can speak without a larynx. That's not possible and so you must be lying. Explain how your invisible friend SPEAKS.
I claim no such thing as myth, so please don't put words in my mouth.
Please do not deform my character either by calling me a liar because your worldview does not agree with mine. I have offered to give you ample evidence that you can dispute and we will see who has the more reasonable and logical case. So far, you have done what most unbelievers do, you have maligned my character and not been willing to engage in the discussion. It is all a deflection to avoid doing so. I've been playing this unbeliever game of avoidance and assertions for decades on these forums.
If you were serious in proving me wrong I don't understand what you have to lose? Let the truth come out, one way or the other.
Over and over, like a broken record, I hear the unbelieve say, "There is no EVIDENCE for Christianity. It is all a MYTH." Yet, when I issue the challenge most run and hide for the reason that they have insufficient knowledge of the Bible and the evidence it offers, specifically through prophecy.
Where do you know of anyone who can predict with 100% accuracy things that will come to pass before they happen? That is the issue of prophecy and all I ask is that the unbeliever put his charges, with evidence, against my charges, as see who has the more reasonable and logical argument.
Are you willing to do that, or am I wasting my time in a dialog? This cat and mouse game is unproductive. Show your evidence or do not speak about things you know little about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
so what, - ME
in the light of all of these other cases of biblical characters " doubting", do you not see the unfairness ofZacheras' punishment? Do you not see the bias? Do you not see the over reaction to what was a simple enquiry? Do you not see that compared to these other occasions of people doubting, how ridiculous the whole story is? - YOU
No, I do not see any unfairness. Who are you to question God's "fairness?" How does a relative, subjective human being come up with fairness without an absolute, objective, unchanging reference point? Again, who are you to judge God as overreaching?
When you say doubting, often the punishment is related to a flat out denial of God, but not with true believers.
There was a reason for Zacharias' muteness. It was 1) a lesson to Zacharias, 2) it confirmed the message of the angel as being from God.
therefore it is reasonable to believe God was gracious to him, - ME
Yes, That is all you are left with isn't it. You cannot explain away this disgraceful behaviour by god towards his faithful servant Zacharias who was "righteous before his God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord" and was "blameless" in the eyes of his god..The story is a pack of lies and is beyond doubt, a cover story for something more sinister . Zacharias was told to keep his mouth shut " struck dumb" and his wife was ordered to hide herself away. - YOU
Explain it away? I'm not trying to explain away his behavior. I'm explaining the justification for his behavior and the judgment of God. God used this doubt to confirm His message as true.
You keep putting the "story" down as a pack of lies BECAUSE you are an unbeliever. It does not help your purpose in your rebellion towards God, to admit to its truthfulness. If you admitted that God's word is true you would be in a dilemma that you are not willing to face. That dilemma is hat you have sinned before God and are accountable. If you deny Him you think it lets you off the hook.
And if you knew your scripture better, you would understand that the Old Testament story of Abraham's first born by his Egyptian Servant would 'fit' the story of the Baptist more closely. - YOU
Please explain your reason for this statement. I'm not sure what you are getting at? I will be willing to put my knowledge of John the Baptist up against yours. The Bible will be our test. If you convince me then I will admit you have a good case in this particular statement.
If you want, we can carry this discussion on further on your John the Baptist thread claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
We are not told of any punishment for Thomas, - ME
That is correct, because there wasn't any - unless you believe he was "struck dumb" for " doubting" -.And neither was there any punishment towards, Abraham and Sarah, or Jesus who doubted his father and in the case of Abraham and Sarah they laughed, doubted and then she lied about it, and still no punishment. - YOU
Why would I believe he was struck dumb? There is evidence in the gospels to the contrary that shows that such a charge is founded.
The consequences of our own action are often a lesson to us when we go against God's provisional will. If He tells us something will harm us, if we do it, then you can bank on the fact that it will. If He gives us the best course of action and we take another there will be many lessons to be learned.
Hebrews 12:6 For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, And He scourges every son whom He receives.”
Hebrews 12:10 For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness.
Please provide the Scripture that says Jesus doubted the Father? There is no such Scripture. I would appreciate you giving the Scriptural references for easier access.
The fact is that God permits us to doubt (we are limited human beings), yet if we deny Him then He will deny us. Your denial of Him denies you intimate fellowship and relationship with Him. You are denied that by your unbelief in Him and His existence. There is a difference between denial and doubt. He encourages His people to reason with Him, in our day via the Scriptures. To Abraham, He appeared directly.
And so what if Abraham and Sarah laughed? It would be hilarious to know that in their old age they were going to have a baby. She was 90-years-old, in my memory serves me correctly.
Would you not be amused to learn that at 100-years-old you were expecting a child?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
And you claim that this myth can speak without a larynx. That's not possible and so you must be lying. Explain how your invisible friend SPEAKS.
***
You are taking it all literally. Since God is a spiritual being why would you try to give Him a physical body? Do your thoughts speak to you in the sense that they trigger the words you speak? When you reason in your mind, can you hear your larynx? God reasons, mind to mind. He also used the written word to reason with you. If you do not want to accept that, that is your business. If you want to be what the Bible calls a fool, that is your business.
Psalm 14:1 [ 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.
Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.
1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
The answer is, Yes!
I see your "wisdom" as foolishness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Nowhere is there a single piece of evidence that Thomas was present at the
crucifixion.. There is nothing at all to suggest this. The scriptures clearly tell us it was by and large a women only affair.If you insist this was the case, I Want to see a specific verse that states clearly the Thomas the doubter Didymus, was present at the crucifixion. They all had gone into hiding once Jesus was arrested from what I can gather.
No gospel give that appearance of women only. The underlined above is simply not true. The Scriptures do NOT tell us the crucifixion was, by and large, a woman only affair. It tells us that, "And all His acquaintances and the women who accompanied Him from Galilee were standing at a distance, seeing these things." - Luke 23:49
Mark 15:40 There were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of [v]James the Less and Joses, and Salome. 41 When He was in Galilee, they used to follow Him and minister to Him; and there were many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.
Matthew 27:55 Many women were there looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee while ministering to Him. 56 Among them was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
We are told, "
But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26
When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby," - John 19:25-26
So, in the vicinity (nearby) of the cross, we know of the women who followed Jesus, and many other women, and the one disciple. We know nothing of the rest of the crowd as to who was there, other than it was a crowd. We also know of "all His acquaintances" were there, whatever that means, which would include many men.
Acts 3:4 But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.
We know from this statement in Acts, that the "fact" they are witnessed to is the resurrection, possible both death and resurrection.
We also know that all Jesus' close band of disciples (excluding Judas and Thomas, had witnessed the risen Messiah). Thomas is the only one we are told of as not seeing the RISEN Lord.
And please stop saying I have said something that I haven't said and then asking me to prove something
only you say I have said. I don't believe I have mentioned Thomas and messiah in the same sentence. And I certainly haven't said Thomas doubted Jesus was the messiah either.
That is not the point. The point is that Thomas doubted that Jesus has risen until he saw for himself, but nowhere are we told he doubted that Jesus was the Messiah.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Yes, he doubted the Resurrection. Show me He doubted that Jesus was the Messiah. Thomas had seen Jesus crucified and put to death.
At least you can admit Thomas doubted, simply because there is no getting away with it. You also need to
recognise that Thomas wasn't punished as is my claim. and neither were a few others who had doubted.Nowhere is there a single piece of evidence that Thomas was present at the crucifixion.. There is nothing at all to suggest this. The scriptures clearly tell us it was by and large a women only affair.
Finally found out the problem. It was the browser I was using.
It would not allow the Toolbar function.
We are not told of any punishment for Thomas, so what, therefore it is reasonable to believe God was gracious to him, just like Jesus was gracious to Peter in restoring him. Remember Romans 8:1 - There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
If you insist this was the case, I Want to see a specific verse that states clearly the Thomas the doubter Didymus, was present at the crucifixion. They all had gone into hiding once Jesus was arrested from what I can gather.
Okay, careless wording. Happy? Thomas KNEW of the crucifixion, even if we don't know if he was there physically.
Matthew 26:1-2 When Jesus had finished all these words, He said to His disciples, “You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man is to be handed over for crucifixion.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
What organs does this spirit use to speak? What is the process that allows speech from the
non existent
He uses His mind. He is non-physical in His nature.
Again, your bias is showing. You refuse to allow Him existence in your mind. Thus, with your current mindset, you will never believe in Him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
YOU: "Does your god speak to you?
When I said God speaks to my conscience I meant that God speaks through His Spirit. Sometimes when a person writes to you, you can detect something about that person through what is written. The Spirit confirms with my spirit that what is said is true. So, if you like there are four witnesses; His Word, His Son (the living Word), His Spirit, and what has been made (the universe).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
YOU: "Does your god speak to you?
Ask him for a cure for cancer and get back to us with his answer."
***
Not directly, yet indirectly. God speaks through His word - the biblical revelation. His word is confirmed by history and is most reasonable to believe. His word affects my conscience. His word, when believed, changes my nature from one that is hostile to God to one that loves God.
There is a purpose for cancer. God, in the fall, gave humanity a time frame in which to believe or face the consequences. One of the penalties for sin was death, another was the corruption of the earth. Not everything is good since the fall, yet it can lead to good. Who will you trust when everything is bleak?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
YOU: "Men make all the claims that you claim some invented god claims.
Men make the claims, supply a claim your god made."
***
If it is the word of God then one test for authenticity would be if what was prophesied was shown to be true via history. I claim and am willing to show with reason and logic, which I believe you cannot, that this is the case.
Second, even though men wrote, they claimed inspiration from God in recording thousands of times that the Lord said (i.e., - the Lord spoke and said, Jesus said, the Word of the Lord came to him...). Now, you either take that as authoritative or you take some other authority over it. Hebrews 11:6, God tells the reader that they need to believe that He exists and that He is a rewarder of those who believe. If you do not believe that then how will you ever trust anything that the Bible says, no matter how good the evidence (yes, evidence)? If you don't believe in God you will find excuse after excuse to dismiss what is said. But by no means is believing in Him unreasonable or illogical. I defy you to prove it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
God spoke to human beings who in turn wrote down His words
YOU: "This is what humans have told you. Good luck. You need evidence."
I already gave you an outline of the evidence. Prophecy is one such case in point. Another is the consistency of the 66 books of the Bible in how they relate to one Person - the Lord Jesus Christ, and how they relate to sin and man's alienation from God, plus God's solution to the problem. These are just two thematic pieces of evidence that I could focus upon. I included others, such as making sense of anything when a personal Being is excluded from your beginning presuppositions of origins (i.e., - either chance happenstance or mindful being is responsible for the universe. If you can think of an additional reason why the universe is, other than it is an illusion of the mind, then please list it).
Now if you think the universe is an illusion and you are that mind thinking this, then I think you have other problems and are delusional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
He did not have faith that Jesus rose from the dead.
YOU: "To not have faith is to DOUBT. Please stop belaboring the issue. The world knows this particular verse as the story of DOUBTING Thomas, for Christ’s sake!"
***
***
Doubting what? The RESURRECTION. Not that Jesus was the Messiah.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
1 John 2:22
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.
Jude 1:4
For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
Matthew 10:33
But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
Show me that Thomas denied Jesus was the Christ rather than just doubting His resurrection. When you read of his doubt IN CONTEXT Thomas doubted the resurrection. Show me he denied Jesus.
2 Timothy 2:12
If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us;
John 21:2
Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of His disciples were together.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Show me somewhere where he denies having faith in Jesus.
YOU: "He had no faith that the lord his god Jesus had risen or it appears, in the resurrection. Yet hadn't this very same man who wanted to "die also" witness the raising of Lazarus by Jesus himself?. Your trying to hard to escape this glaring biblical fact.
25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I WILL NOT BELIEVE.. Not believing is to have doubt. No matter how you interpret -not believing."
***
***
Yes, he doubted the RESURRECTION. Show me He doubted that Jesus was the Messiah.
Thomas had seen Jesus crucified and put to death. How could he believe that a man who had been put to such an excruciating death would be alive and walking around after just three days? He wanted proof that He had risen from the dead by Jesus appearing to him.
Show me where the text states that Thomas doubted Jesus was the Messiah. Where is it stated?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Since I can't get my Toolbar working, and you continue to ignore my request to explain why, or demonstrate how to do it, I will use *** to separate your response to my reply.
He wanted to see the evidence himself to believe it.
YOU: "Perfect! “ to believe it”<<<< YOU SAY! And, To NOT believe is, at the very least is to DOUBT "
***
I may have doubts that I will live until I'm seventy, but I want to believe I will. I'm 62, in good health, but I may get hit by a bus tomorrow crossing the road. So there is reasonable evidence to believe I will reach seventy. Thomas did not see reasonable evidence to believe Jesus had risen. He needed confirmation by touching Him and seeing His wounds. Jesus provided that evidence, AND THE LESSON IS that those who have not seen Him yet believe in His resurrection are also blessed. The evidence for His resurrection is reasonable and logical.
John 20:29:
Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I'll come back with some detail perhaps in the future, but for now your answer is that humans told you. Not much of a recommendation is it?
***
God spoke to human beings who in turn wrote down His words, inspired by the Holy Spirit. That is the teaching of the Bible. If that is the case, then what is said would correspond with reality. Therefore, prophecy is a logical and reasonable proof confirming that what was said is true. For example, is it reasonable and logical evidence to believe the OT books were all written long before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70? YES. Is there reasonable and logical reason to believe that God told these Mosaic Covenant people that He would bring judgment on them if/because they would not repent? YES. Is there reasonable and logical evidence to believe God abrogated that Mosaic Covenant in AD 70? YES. Is there reasonable and logical evidence to believe that every NT book was written before AD 70? YES. Now, if you dispute this evidence let us see who have the most reasonable and logical argument for their case.
Would you like to debate it in a formal debate?
The same is true according to worldviews. Which worldview is more reasonable and logical? Is it more reasonable and logical to believe our origins are natural or supernatural, personal or impersonal, mindful or mindless, logical or illogical, purposeful or devoid of purpose, meaningful or unintentional, uniform or chaotic?
***
God spoke to human beings who in turn wrote down His words, inspired by the Holy Spirit. That is the teaching of the Bible. If that is the case, then what is said would correspond with reality. Therefore, prophecy is a logical and reasonable proof confirming that what was said is true. For example, is it reasonable and logical evidence to believe the OT books were all written long before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70? YES. Is there reasonable and logical reason to believe that God told these Mosaic Covenant people that He would bring judgment on them if/because they would not repent? YES. Is there reasonable and logical evidence to believe God abrogated that Mosaic Covenant in AD 70? YES. Is there reasonable and logical evidence to believe that every NT book was written before AD 70? YES. Now, if you dispute this evidence let us see who have the most reasonable and logical argument for their case.
Would you like to debate it in a formal debate?
The same is true according to worldviews. Which worldview is more reasonable and logical? Is it more reasonable and logical to believe our origins are natural or supernatural, personal or impersonal, mindful or mindless, logical or illogical, purposeful or devoid of purpose, meaningful or unintentional, uniform or chaotic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
DISGUSTED: "How do you allegedly know of the existence of your gods. Did your gods tell you or did a human tell you?"
First, there are ancient historical documents that claim a supernatural origin. The prophetic writings can be traced to a period of time in history. They predict many things in the future that come to pass.
Second, the unity of the Bible - 66 different books written over a period of over a thousand years on three different continents, by numerous authors, that all have as their theme of God's dealings with humanity through a nation in which He promised a Deliverer would come.
Third, the entire Bible has typology and shadows of a greater truth contained in the physical nation of Israel and God's dealing with them. These typologies all focus on the Lord Jesus Christ and are explained further in the NT.
Fourth, throughout the OT God promised a special relationship with Israel, if they agreed to the Mosaic Covenant (which they did - Exodus 24:3) in which the people were constantly disobedient to this covenant or relationship. God repeatedly sent prophets and teachers to them to warn them to turn back from their sin and their worship of foreign gods. They would not obey. God judged them with the destruction promised in Deuteronomy 28:15 onwards. He told them that if they continued in their path He would judge them again, and the Prophet Daniel told these OT people that God had decreed 490 years for them to finish their transgressions, to put an end to their sin by abrogating the OT and replacing it with a better covenant. The time frame shows the Messiah (anointed One being cut off/killed then the judgment and end of the OT. That happened in AD 70.
There are a multitude of other proofs I could offer, including the teaching of Jesus, the evidence of His resurrection from the dead, the witness of the disciples who spread the message over the world of that time (the world they knew) at the risk of death and persecution, then the arguments that only make sense if there is a God, like the moral argument, the ontological argument, the epistemological argument, the argument for personhood, etc., etc.
There are a multitude of other proofs I could offer, including the teaching of Jesus, the evidence of His resurrection from the dead, the witness of the disciples who spread the message over the world of that time (the world they knew) at the risk of death and persecution, then the arguments that only make sense if there is a God, like the moral argument, the ontological argument, the epistemological argument, the argument for personhood, etc., etc.
My faith is not a blind faith or an illogical faith, but a forensic faith/based on evidence.
How about yours?
Created:
Posted in:
TestPLEASE LEARN TO USE YOUR QUOTING ICON.
Created:
Posted in:
I tried to wrap quotes around that statement of yours. See, nothing happened. Explain to me what you do, Stephen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
But Thomas didn’t have faith until Thomas laid down his challenge for the risen Christ, did he. He More or less said ‘ I will believe ONLY when I see it’. Stop trying to weasel your way around this fact!
He didn't deny Him, he just questioned his peers as to Jesus' rising from the dead. He wanted to see the evidence himself to believe it. Show me somewhere where he denies having faith in Jesus. He did not have faith that Jesus rose from the dead. There is a difference/distinction.
He didn't deny Him, he just questioned his peers as to Jesus' rising from the dead. He wanted to see the evidence himself to believe it. Show me somewhere where he denies having faith in Jesus. He did not have faith that Jesus rose from the dead. There is a difference/distinction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
STEPHEN: PLEASE LEARN TO USE YOUR QUOTING ICON. IT IS VERY IRRITATING AND MAKES IT MUCH HARDER TO RESPOND
I have already asked you to explain to me how this works. I have tried using " and wrapping it around a text. It does not work. I can't use Bold, Italic, or Underline, nor any of the other functions on the toolbar.
Suggestions, please!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
DISGUSTED: "Your gods are the creation of shaman, you refuse to prove that your gods exist why should I bother to prove something that doesn't exist doesn't exist."
Please do not state things you have little support for. If you want to assert such tripe, please back up your assertions with credible information.
Disgusted: "Your Christian worldview was created for you by shamen thousands of years ago. My worldview is created by me, I have greater authority and knowledge than your primitive shamen."
Again, unsupported tripe. Anyone can make a claim but the proof is a different matter. Your worldview sounds very flimsy, especially with your relative, subjective, limited authority.
Peter
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
John 21:24-28 is a different situation, different circumstances, yet Thomas believed once He saw Jesus alive again after death. His doubt was returned to trust by Jesus.
YOU: So at least here you are not disputing that they both doubted without punishment yet Zacharias was punished for what the "angel" said was "doubting"."
Jesus was gracious to Thomas like He is graceful to all those who come to faith in Him. The punishment Zacharias received was a CONFIRMATION that what the angel told him was true. He doubted the words given the angel were from God thus calling into question that God is true to what He says.
Then you don't understand grace - God's UNMERITED favor, and you don't understand God's sovereignty. God permits situations that greater good will arise from them.
YOU: Why had the doubting of these two - John the Baptist - who was filled with the holy spirit" no less and "great in the eyes of "god " no less and the suicidal "doubting Thomas" received any kind of warning and or punishment for doubting and neither had Abraham &
sarah. Your excuses/reasons are absolutely nonsense.
He was filled with the Spirit for a purpose, to announce the coming of the Lord. Later he doubted and Jesus said that John was the least in the kingdom because of that doubt, yet by God's grace John was still saved.
YOU: "There was simply no need to punish Zacharias in the light of these other biblical revelations of people "doubting". The whole story concerning the Baptist is false. IN MY OPINION
His not being able to speak was a sign that God had spoken to him. It confirmed the truth of what was spoken by the angel.
What makes the story of John the Baptist false?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
ME: "THERE IS NO REASON. REASON comes from mindful personal being. How can that happen in a mindless, indifferent universe? How do you get to "you" in such a mindless universe? You just presuppose it can and it makes no sense."
YOU: "Pretending that you don't die is an idea dreamt up by ignorant primitive shaman's who wanted to control the absurdly gullible tribe members like you."
You continually fail to answer my questions.
Your last statement is your ASSERTION. Now prove it. Prove that God does not exist. Prove that what I believe is untrue. Show that what your worldview is based on is more reasonable. You can't. It makes no sense (nonsense).
Peter
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
ME: "If this life is all there is and you are a biological bag of atoms that react to your environment one way, and me another, why SHOULD you care, why should anyone?"
YOU: "Life exists and death, the cessation of life, also exists. You are too afraid to confront that reality and your shaman's fantasies allow you to avoid that reality."
My belief gives hope for a future. It is based on a necessary authority. You are not that authority. Yours does not. It is not based on an ultimate authority. My belief is REASONABLE AND LOGICAL. Yours is not. You and your beliefs originate from what? From biological matter without reason or mind. You have no reasonable answer UNLESS you borrow from my Christian worldview.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
ME: "Why is that? Why do you borrow from my Christian worldview that says things do ultimately matter?"
When you strip your worldview down to its basic foundation (its starting point), you can't but borrow from my worldview to make sense of anything.
The origin of your worldview is mindless, impersonal, irrational matter, yet here you are. The core/foundation that your whole house of cards rests upon is blind, indifferent purposeless chance happenstance, because without a mind as the origin of everything there is no INTENTION, nothing to hold anything together or sustain the uniformity of nature (natural laws) because everything is a by-product of chance. Why would CHANCE keep things uniform? What ABILITY does CHANCE have? When you roll the dice and six repeatedly is thrown then you know the dice are fixed, there is intention/purpose behind the role.
The origin of your worldview is mindless, impersonal, irrational matter, yet here you are. The core/foundation that your whole house of cards rests upon is blind, indifferent purposeless chance happenstance, because without a mind as the origin of everything there is no INTENTION, nothing to hold anything together or sustain the uniformity of nature (natural laws) because everything is a by-product of chance. Why would CHANCE keep things uniform? What ABILITY does CHANCE have? When you roll the dice and six repeatedly is thrown then you know the dice are fixed, there is intention/purpose behind the role.
Your core/foundation has no meaning behind it, it is just invented by you, which means why is what you believe any BETTER than what I believe? There is no reason other than you forcing your ideas on those weaker than you because you have no ultimate best. BEST is a QUALITATIVE value that goodness and evil are compared to. Without a BEST what makes your views any BETTER than mine? NOTHING. It just makes what you believe preferable by you if you can enforce your preference.
What does the fear of death have to do with you making meaning true?
I asked you specific questions, and you eluded them because your worldview can't make sense of itself. It does not have what is necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
ME: "You LOOK for MEANING (and find it)."
YOU: "Meaning is what I make of it, anyone who bases their meaning in an invisible friend created for them by a primitive shaman is seriously deluded."
You are manufacturing your own truth/meaning (postmodernism). If you believe it then it becomes true to you. Why is that? If you believe you can fly and jump off the Empire State building does that make your belief/CLAIM true? You are not flying, you are dropping like a lead balloon. If you come to a red light and believe that "red" means go, does that make your belief true? Do you have the correct meaning? Such beliefs result in a quick death. They are contrary to what is real.
Why would you continually find meaning in a meaningless universe? Why is there meaning in an ultimately meaningless universe? THERE IS NO REASON FOR IT from such a universe, yet you continue to find it. What does that tell you? It tells me you starting from the wrong foundational presupposition that can't make sense of anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
ME: "I am pointing out the INCONSISTENCY of your worldview. If God did not exist you would be a by-product of blind, indifferent, impersonal chance happenstance where ultimately nothing really matters, yet you treat existence as if it does."
YOU: "God doesn't exist and yet I still do, I am still me and you are still desperately hoping that you won't die as the shaman told you."
Is that an absolute statement, because you stated it in an indicative mood? You are declaring what is factual. Prove God does not exist instead of just stating it.
Again, make SENSE of why a blind, indifferent, unintentional, impersonal, chance universe would produce sentient, logical, intentional. purposeful, mindful, personal beings. You can't make sense of why it would because THERE IS NO SENSE BEHIND IT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I've tried using the quote function before. It does not seem to work all the time, plus I can't bring in the rest of the context. Maybe you have some suggestions on how to make it work?
I can only post small segments at a time, thus the numerous posts. I'm not sure if it is a flaw of the system or if there is something I'm not understanding. Straighten me out if you found something that works. I find that sometimes words are all scrunched together when quoting, too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
YOU: (2) What you state concerning the amount of "trust" Thomas had is ridiculous considering Thomas Didymus was later to “doubt” Jesus had “risen.”
[John 21:24-28 was quoted by Stephen]
***
Not following your points. They are a little disjointed.
John 21:24-28 is a different situation, different circumstances, yet Thomas believed once He saw Jesus alive again after death. His doubt was returned to trust by Jesus.
Anyone can take a separate verse and isolate it to make a point that has nothing to do with the first point they were making or the greater scope of the original context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
PGA2.0: “Because they trusted Him to death and many had wanted Jesus dead. They risked their lives as His followers. Here,in these passages, He conveys an important message to them about resurrection and trusting in Him”.
YOU: "Apart from the well-known fact that many wanting Jesus dead, the rest of you[r]
labouredresponse
is something you have simply invented."
I did not invent it. I took other accounts of NT Scripture that state as much, such as:
“Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.
But Peter declared, “Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.” And all the other disciples said the same.
See Mark 8:35; Mark 14:31; Matthew 16:25; Luke 9:14; Luke 17:33; John 6:35; John 6:68; JOHN11:25 (same passage); John 13:37; John 15:13; John 15:20, as other instances that reaffirm my viewpoint.
YOU: (1) The gospel writer here goes nowhere near to explaining this enigmatic statement. What you have
wrote
to explain away this ENIGMATIC and puzzling verse is your OWN OPINION and nothing more.
Scripture is its own interpreter. God answers the questions of Scripture with other Scripture. His word bears witness to itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Still waiting for an answer to post #13.
YOU: "There isn’t a question at thirteen. That is why there is no answer!"
You made a claim and I challenged it. Thus, you need to respond instead of putting up many other smokescreens to deflect from that argument.
You do what JW's do. You change the subject by issuing forth other Scripture that has nothing to do with the original subject matter. That diverges from the topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I address your questions and your thread because I care about truth,
YOU: "It is a crying shame these gospel writers didn’t care as much as you do."
Let's examine that statement. Are you game?
What they say is often TESTABLE, since it concerns history. Jesus' words, as they record them, focuses on many prophetic utterances, such as in the Olivet Discourse. The discourse centers around the destruction of the city and temple. That happened historically. It is reasonable to believe. Show me otherwise or show me the evidence that these gospels were written AFTER the fact.
Was Jerusalem destroyed in AD 70?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
what you consider anomalies and enigmatic verses have REASONABLE explanations.
YOU: "Not to me and you have provided none either. To claim a supernatural omnipotent being is not “reasonable”it is at least silly and worst outrageous."
Do you see what you did with that statement? You made truth dependent on what you believe. Why does what you believe determine truth?
Then, on top of that, you claim a supernatural being is unreasonable. Is blind, indifferent, impersonal, illogical, amoral, chance happenstance more reasonable? When you strip away everything to core presuppositions/foundational beliefs, what you are left with is everything originating from one of two ultimate origins - creation or chance.
Reason comes from reasoning being, not unthinking matter, yet a worldview devoid of a Creator would have to believe that chance happenstance is responsible for all that exists. It does not make sense, nor is it capable of making sense.
Do you see what you did with that statement? You made truth dependent on what you believe. Why does what you believe determine truth?
Then, on top of that, you claim a supernatural being is unreasonable. Is blind, indifferent, impersonal, illogical, amoral, chance happenstance more reasonable? When you strip away everything to core presuppositions/foundational beliefs, what you are left with is everything originating from one of two ultimate origins - creation or chance.
Reason comes from reasoning being, not unthinking matter, yet a worldview devoid of a Creator would have to believe that chance happenstance is responsible for all that exists. It does not make sense, nor is it capable of making sense.
I address yourquestions and your thread because I care about truth,
It is a crying shame these gospel writers didn’t care as much as you do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Rightly understanding the author's meaning is called exegesis.
YOU: "Really, and who are you and what authority do you have to claim that you perfectly understand the “authors meaning”. You appear to simply going on faith and taking these gospels as written and on face value. I don’t. And I have every right to question them."
I am no one important. The authority I have rests on the biblical God and His existence. I have an authority that claims to be the ultimate authority. Why is your authority ultimate? Which relative, subjective, limited authority would you posit as ultimate? Do you have what is necessary for such an ultimate authority, given your worldview? If not, then what makes your word, your authority, any BETTER than any other? Because you say so? In the big picture why does what you say matter? It only matters if it is true. So, prove that what you say is true.
You miss the point. If you are not getting the authors INTENDED meaning, then have you understood what the Author has said?
What I am saying is that the interpretation I give is reasonable and logical to the text I am interpreting. I can show that. Can you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
YOU: 5) What happens to me when I die? I die, I am no more, I'm not here.
ME: "You either are no more or physical death is not the end of you. Either this natural realm, this order is all there is or there is another realm/other realms."
YOU: "There is no such thing as "physical death" there is only DEATH. Fairy tales are fairy tales."
That is YOUR presupposition, not mine. Why are you right? Who made you God? How do you KNOW these things? Why do most people believe in an afterlife through world history? Add up the current situation - approximately 1.5 billion Christians, 1.5 billion Muslims - how many atheists?
***
ME: "You gamble that this is all there is."
YOU: "Life is life and death is the death."
Tautology.
YOU: "The stories of your Shamans are stories."
I don't believe in Sharmen. I believe in an ultimate, necessary being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
YOU: 4) What difference does it make? None
ME: "So why are you making it as if it matters? Who cares if nothing matters?"
YOU: "That would be your problem not mine. I know that my life is only meaningful to me and those I love and I have no belief in my everlasting importance as you consider yours to be to defend. It would seem that you consider your existence to have a universal importance. Good luck."
I am pointing out the INCONSISTENCY of your worldview. If God did not exist you would be a by-product of blind, indifferent, impersonal chance happenstance where ultimately nothing really matters, yet you treat existence as if it does. You LOOK for MEANING (and find it). Why is that? Why do you borrow from my Christian worldview that says things do ultimately matter? If this life is all there is and you are a biological bag of atoms that react to your environment one way, and me another, why SHOULD you care, why should anyone? THERE IS NO REASON. REASON comes from mindful personal being. How can that happen in a mindless, indifferent universe? How do you get to "you" in such a mindless universe? You just presuppose it can and it makes no sense.
I am pointing out the INCONSISTENCY of your worldview. If God did not exist you would be a by-product of blind, indifferent, impersonal chance happenstance where ultimately nothing really matters, yet you treat existence as if it does. You LOOK for MEANING (and find it). Why is that? Why do you borrow from my Christian worldview that says things do ultimately matter? If this life is all there is and you are a biological bag of atoms that react to your environment one way, and me another, why SHOULD you care, why should anyone? THERE IS NO REASON. REASON comes from mindful personal being. How can that happen in a mindless, indifferent universe? How do you get to "you" in such a mindless universe? You just presuppose it can and it makes no sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Who cares what you CLAIM.
YOU: "You do. You have spent enough time trying to explain away some of these anomalies and enigmatic verses with the excuse that a supernatural being is the answer to everything.
I simply don't accept that."
Okay, point taken.
You can't ultimately make sense of anything unless you first presuppose such a Being.
Your beliefs are your own private business. I CAN'T change those beliefs. They are ingrained in your nature. It is when you state things that are untrue on a public forum that I object. I do not care that you hold those beliefs/claims. You are free to believe/claim whatever you like. It is your loss if you haven't investigated your worldview enough to know what holds it together and how rational and logical it is or is not.
I care about truth and I see you misrepresenting it. I don't care that you can claim something. I care when your ideas bring others into a false view of reality. You are free to claim whatever you want. When you have nothing but assertions and private belief to back up your claims I choose to expose those beliefs on the grounds of lack of reasonable evidence. Your beliefs do not affect me in what I believe. What matters is not your claim but whether it is true or not. Anyone can claim anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
YOU: 4) What difference does it make? None
So why are you making it as if it matters? Who cares if nothing matters?
YOU: 5) What happens to me when I die? I die, I am no more, I'm not here.
You either are no more or physical death is not the end of you. Either this natural realm, this order is all there is or there is another realm/other realms.
You gamble that this is all there is.
Created: