Shila

PM

--> @Shila

The good is people are not abandoning the Bible. They are just reacting differently.

well, if you get it wrong

does that mean you won't get into heaven ?

--> @3RU7AL

free-will is not only not justifiable as a necessity, it is logically incoherent

Oh pulease, how about you  explain this logically incoherent statement. 

Human "creativity" is (EITHER) caused by previous influences (OR) indistinguishable from random - - WILL cannot be random - - FREE action cannot be caused by previous influences - - FREE is incompatible with WILL

The problem here is that this argument is simply a contrived dilemma designed to give the false appearance that it addresses the problem of free will when all it really does is put forth a false dichotomy logical fallacy; these two premises and their conclusions are not exhaustive, which is to say that they are not the only two options.  This is compounded by the fact that both arguments 1 and 2 are logically invalid premises.

Regarding the first conditional statement (#1); “caused by previous influences”, is not a logically conclusive process, the physical evidence has never justified the presumption of determinism by any stretch of the imagination. Regarding the second conditional statement (#2); “indistinguishable from random”. This argument introduces the logical fallacy of composition, while it may be true that randomness occurs in some quantum events, it is a hasty generalization fallacy to leap from the fact that some events are uncaused and involve chance, to characterize all events as undetermined and random.  It does not logically follow that if indeterminism is true, which appears to be a scientific fact about reality, that all events are therefore undetermined and random, and therefore we cannot be in control of our will.  Chance can indeed generate alternative possibilities for thought and action without being the necessary cause of our actions, which is to say that they can be adequately determined and therefore free will can exist and be compatible with determinism or indeterminism. 

Your argument is logically refuted on all levels; the structure of the argument is a logical fallacy, as are both of its premises. 

--> @Elliott

This can be seen in early cave paintings, where hunters are portrayed completing a successful hunt, this is intended to influence the potential for future successful hunts. 

Cool, thanks for supporting my assertion that there is an evolutionary advantage by mentioning sympathetic magic which would obviously compel a belief that makes it more likely to persevere in the face of what looks like defeat and not to mention the known benefits of the placebo affect.

One reason I believe (not the only one) in God is because the alternative is simply irrational.  It is totally unreasonable and implausible that everything that exists in all of its myriads of ways simple came from nowhere and without purpose.  None of the theories that anyone has put up has really provides a satisfactory response or answer to that.  

This belief in God of course does not necessarily extend to believing in the God of the Bible.  Of course the God of the bible is one of the few gods who actually makes the claim of making everything.  Most gods in most religions are very specific in their deity status and what they represent and don't claim to be the creator of the universe. 

The God of the Bible also is one of the very few gods who provides a transparent and objective communication with humanity. It is one which specifically states it is his word.  Not every religious book does that. Not that necessarily proves anything except I suppose he is not hiding anything. 

The Bible presents God in ways that are both mysterious and simplistic.  It provides a purpose for the world, and a plan. It explains the problems of humanity and a solution.  It doesn't pretend to be book that that is easy to read - and nor does it necessarily fit with out concepts of what God ought to be like.  It answers many questions and leaves many unanswered.  

Respectfully, I don't see the other religious books doing this.  And I don't see the other gods doing this either.  Most are simply about appeasing the gods and doing their will.  The biblical God has some of that  - but much more as well.  

The Bible doesn't pretend that its heroes are perfect - save and except Jesus.  No one else in the entire bible is seen as exemplary in that manner. In fact most of its heroes are downright - scumbags. David had troubles- Jacob was deceitful. Adam - the first man stuffed up the entire world and his son was the first murderer.  

After Jesus, Paul and Peter and James etc - none of these are portrayed as perfect.  There is no pretence - it gives the book credibility. 

Of course there are the miracle stories and the creation and the Noah's flood. And Jesus rising from the dead.  Yet the interesting about the bible is that these things are rare.  They are special events.  Not the norm.   

so my answer to your question about how can I know it got it right? 

Well, what is the alternative? That God created everything - but then left us to muddle on our own.  To leave us without communication with him. That he made life for a purpose and then never told us about it. 

I suppose - he could have done that.  Yet it really makes no sense that God would create and then just leave us alone. 

--> @Shila

The Bible is consistent, but that does not imply those that convert to Christianity are consistent. Hence the variety of Christian denominations.

what good is a consistent text

if the people who purportedly believe and follow those instructions

can't agree on the interpretation ?

-> @Tarik

And what is your objective moral standard?

Love

I reject your moral standard and assert 'well being' as the standard of morality.

How do we objectively resolve this?

--> @Shila

Shila wrote: It shouldn’t surprise anyone if Muslims confuse Jesus with their own prophet.

Stephen wrote: I am sure they understand the differences between a man that preaches "turn the other cheek" and one that preaches " do not take Christians and Jews as your friends".

Shila wrote: Muslims see both Jesus and Mohammad as prophets.

Yes I know. It was you that said Muslim" confuse " the two. 

Shila wrote: She deliver on that promise. Jesus is seen as saviour , lord and King to billions of Christians.

Stephen wrote:  So you keep saying, but what is your evidence of this dying and rising god-man ( of which there have been many) saving anyone? And you are still hopelessly appealing to numbers.  Not to mention the other failed prophecies promised to his mother.

The evidence for fulfillment is the billions that worship Jesus and call him Lord, King and God.

 There you go again, appealing to numbers. It doesn't prove anything. 

This discussion has now turned circular.

 

--> @Tradesecret

Because the mediator which is spoken about in Hebrews is the atonement - the cross.  Not prayer.  Only Jesus could make that sacrifice on the cross - since only he was perfect in himself - without sin. No one else can be the mediator. 

It is not talking about prayer.   The bible clearly says Jesus prays for us. It also says the Holy Spirit prays for us.  the Spirit of God is not Jesus. So how does the Spirit of God intercede for us?  

We are commanded to pray for and on behalf of other people. This is called intercession.  Intercessionary prayer is normal in every church I have ever seen.   We pray that God will heal someone. Or pray that God will comfort someone.  We pray that God will forgive people for their sins.  

Athias, I am not Catholic.  I don't pray to Mary.  I think Mary is dead.  I think the Catholics misinterpret lots of things.  I was providing a reason for why they hold to this view. Not saying I agree with it.  

Having said that - the creeds call her the Mother of God. God created a body - and breathed into it - and it became a living soul. Jesus is fully God and fully man. Mary was clearly the mother of Jesus.  

I'm not suggesting that you're Catholic. You assumed their proxy when you stated this:

I'm not a Catholic. And I am not sure whether the author is coming back or has left for good. But I will take a stab at what Catholics are likely to say in respect of your questions:

Perhaps you intended to have me understand their reasons, but you are in effect defending their reasons. 

As far as Mary's being the "mother of God," the dispute I have is in eliding the distinction: Mary was charged with the responsibility of giving birth to Jesus. She gave birth to Jesus "the Man"; Just as Joseph sired Jesus "the man"; Neither of them "conceived/created" Jesus "extension/son of God."

Read the verses and find it yourself.  

I have. 

The martyrs - those under the altar, petitioned God - and said how much longer - before you will avenge us?  Clearly if this is a picture of heaven, then it leads to the conclusion that people in heaven know what is going on in earth and pray or petition God to assist. 

Where does it state that the souls of the martyrs were in heaven?

Again, I am protestant.

Again, I am questioning you as a Catholic proxy since you volunteered to answer my previous on the basis of your impressions of Catholicism. 

Yet, the substance of the commandment is about worship.   Don't worship anything except God. What it doesn't say is - don't make anything at all.  

Actually, that's EXACTLY what it states. Otherwise the text would have simply stated, "don't worship." But text states DON'T MAKE them AND DON'T WORSHIP them. 

Again, you would need to define worship as you understand it.

I don't have to define worship, because my contention suffices on their creating and possessing them alone. But if you require a definition, the standard one will do, or any that is synonymous with idolatry.

Catholics don't consider it worship. 

That's where my questions come in.

Its contained within the whole story of the vision he had - with respect to the Gentiles.  The point was clear. What God calls clean is clean.  Pig was unclean in the OT and something happened when Jesus came - that changed it from being unclean to clean. the same with the Gentiles. they were unclean in the OT and yet something happened which made them clean.  The principle of interpretation is that Jesus is the intervening event.  How did his coming fulfil the law so that Gentiles could become part of the family of God? 

Is the chapter to which you're referring really about Peter/Simon eating "bacon" or "ham," or his questioning God's authority, and segregating himself from those whom he considered "common" and "unclean"?

In relation to the Sabbath, Christ is our rest.  Again read the book of Hebrews.   Read Paul's writings where he says - no one particular day is more sacred than another.  We celebrate Sunday because that is the day that Christ rose from the dead - on the first day of the week. It is the day the Christians met to worship. How do we know that they weren't meeting on the Jewish Sabbath? Because they were collecting money.  Something which was forbidden on the Sabbath.

No, you don't just celebrate on Sunday; you observe the weekly Sabbath on Sunday. And your response is that since Christ has become your rest, you've opted to observe Sabbath (veneration or rest) on the day you allege he resurrected despite no explicit instruction in the Bible to do this.

The bible - NT clearly says Jesus rose on the first day of the week. 

Matthew 28:1-4 reveals the women went to the grave  on the first day of the week. Dawn. So half way through the first day.

Mark 16:9 "when Jesus rose early on the first day of the week". 

Luke 24:1 "on the first day of the week the woman went early in the morning. " Again halfway through the first day. 

John 20:1 early on the first day of the week, the woman arrived at the empty tomb. 

 

so the gospels indicate the woman went early on the first day of the week. Mark indicates Jesus rose on that day.  It is the day that the apostles and the Christians met and worshiped. I think it is pretty clear.   

I've provided you a count. Do you dispute this count? End of the Weekly Sabbath is the same as the end of the seventh day, which would have been Saturday at sundown. Jesus indicated himself that he would resurrect three days and three nights after he was entombed which would have been Saturday at sundown. So why doesn't the observance of the resurrection by Catholics start Saturday at sundown? 

I' not sure you do.  the Sabbath is not eliminated.  It is ongoing.  the sabbath has not been redesignated.  the sabbath is the sabbath. We are in a new age since Christ arrived and died and rose again.  We worship Christ on Sunday the first day of the week - the 8th day of the week.  we rest in Christ continually as we await for his return. 

And I'm asking, "why Sunday" if the first day of the week would have started Saturday at sundown? 

It does actually.  You don't like the answer. I can see that.

My "liking" the answer or not is of no consequence.

What Catholics do is on them.

Then why did you volunteer in your assumption of their proxy? 

What day do the Orthodox celebrate church?

Sunday.

Every major denomination in the world agrees.

Appeal to consensus? 

It has been the way since the beginning of the church.

No, it has been that way since Constantine I, who attempted to replace the Judaic observance of Sabbath with the veneration of Ra (Sun God.) Would you like to take a stab at which day Ra was venerated? 

It can't be put on the Roman Catholics.  

Yes, it could.

Sin? From Adam and Eve.  People in power often have opportunities. 

Why do you believe they use their opportunities to sin to such an extent? 

I don't agree. It is human sin.  And sin is universal.  

It's not a subject of whether you agree. The Catholic Church predates every institution you mentioned with the exception of "schools" and brothels. But since the subject we're discussing Catholicism, stating "sin is universal" provides no mitigation.

I am not saying otherwise.  Yet, by looking at the Catholic Church without recognizing the prevalence in the society universally

But it's not particularly relevant to "recognize" the prevalence in society since the subject matter is Catholicism. If you believe there's a societal factor that informs the institutionalize pederasty in the Catholic denomination, then mention it. But stating "everyone sins" provides little to nothing.

1.     Why do (Catholics) celebrate the date of Jesus's birth on Christmas, December 25th

I like the explanation that says God would often start and finish events on the same date.  For instance the passover in Exodus and the crossing into the land of Israel over the river Jordan 40 days to the day later.  A common occurrence in Jewish history. 

 

Applying that Jesus' birth is quite simple really. If we don't know specifically when he was born. We find out when he died. Easy. Passover in a particular year.  That just happens to be in that particular year March 25.  Jesus died on March 25.   If he was conceived on the same date - March 25 - move forward 9 months - December 25.  not that difficult really. And it makes sense. 

How can Jesus have been conceived on March 25, when he was conceived six months after John the Baptist's conception, which was in late June? (Info from Zacharias receiving word of John's conception during the Course of Abia.) 

Why is the observance of  the resurrection named "Easter"?

the obvious answer is easter is the name of a pagan deity.  And thence it is following after a festival held on the same day.  And probably there is truth to this. That a crossover of events - led many to call it Easter.  

I'm not really sure what the problem is.   It is vey likely in a world where people exist - that nations and groups of people celebrate events on the same day.

Well, Ishtar/Ēostre who were associated with images of bunnies. And No. We're not discussing two concurrent celebrations. Easter and the Resurrection have been conflated, and not by accident.

I have a birthday next week

Happy Birthday in case we do not interact next week.

- which I am sure others - probably millions of people will also be celebrating their birthday. Does that make mine any less true or significant?

Non sequtiur. 

Easter is a name.

No it's not. Catholics observe "Easter" as the day of resurrection. A holiday that venerates "Easter Bunnies" and "Easter Egg Hunts," which are associated with the pagan deity who's the namesake, and had nothing to do with Jesus's resurrection. And I've already stated the reason I believe this to be the case: 

I do believe that Catholics like an overwhelming majority of Christian denominations are being coaxed into accepting Luciferian rituals, because the Pope and the Catholic elite, I suspect, ARE LUCIFIERIANS--the pope himself being Lucifer's vicar. 

I wonder whether you refuse to use the names of the days of the week. And if you do - use them - does that make you a suspicious character - a luciferian for instance.

Why would you have to wonder? I've used four of them in my discussion with you. And this is also  a non-sequitur. 

But we can also appreciate that names such as Easter, or the days of the week - are actually about unity rather than trying to worship some kind of false god.  

Uniting what?

--> @Shila

because it doesn't prove anything. It's just he said this, she said that

--> @Shila

Your title defines you as the SkepticalOne. You mock everyone by being Skeptical of what anyone says.

SkepticalOne: My username has to do with skepticism, not cynicism. I am skeptical of all claims which cannot be substantiated through reason or evidence. If someone considers this mocking, that's not my problem.

--> @Shila

With over 2 billion Christians Christianity is a fact. Christians converted because they believe the Bible, that too is a fact.

The Bible must be internally consistent to Christians for them to commit their lives to Jesus Christ.

if it's so consistent

why are there over a thousand christian denominations ?

your definition of free-will requires freedom from fate

I opened this thinking it was going to be a spirited discussion about the facts of Monkeypox and the current science. I was wondering if I was going to learn a thing or two.

Then the posts reminded me I'm on planet earth.

--> @Shila

Please don't involve me in your mocking of other users. 

There is but one only,1 living, and true God:2 who is infinite in being and perfection,3 a most pure spirit,4 invisible,5 without body, parts,6 or passions,7 immutable,8 immense,9 eternal,10 incomprehensible,11 almighty,12 most wise,13 most holy,14 most free,15 most absolute,16 working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will,17 for His own glory;18 most loving,19 gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin;20 the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him;21 and withal, most just and terrible in His judgments,22 hating all sin,23 and who will by no means clear the guilty.24

God hath all life,25 glory,26 goodness,27 blessedness,28 in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He hath made,29 nor deriving any glory from them,30 but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them: He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things;31 and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleaseth.32 In His sight all things are open and manifest;33 His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature,34 so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain.35 He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands.36 To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.37

In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.38 The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father:39 the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.40

1 11 25 37

Deut. 6:4; I Cor. 8:4, 6. 2 I Thess. 1:9; Jer. 10:10.

16; John 4:24, with Luke 24:39. 7

3 Job 11:7, 8, 9; Job 26:14. 4 John 4:24. 5 I Tim. 1:17. 6 Deut. 4:15, 8 James 1:17; Mal. 3:6. 9 I Kings 8:27; Jer. 23:23, 24. 10 Ps. 90:2; I Tim. 1:17.

Acts 14:11, 15. 13 Rom. 16:27.

Ps. 145:3. 12

Rom. 11:36.

John 5:26. 26

I Tim. 6:15; Dan. 4:25, 35. 33 Heb. 4:13. 34 Rom. 11:33, 34; Ps. 147:5. 35 Acts 15:18; Ezek. 11:5.

Rev. 5:12, 13, 14. 38 I John 5:7; Matt. 3:16, 17; Matt. 28:19; II Cor. 13:14. 39 John 1:14, 18. 40 John 15:26; Gal. 4:6.

Gen. 17:1; Rev. 4:8. 19 I John 4:8, 16.

14 Isa. 6:3; Rev. 4:8. 15 Ps. 115:3. 21 Heb. 11:6. 22 Neh. 9:32, 33.

16 Exod. 3:14.

17 Eph. 1:11. 18 Prov. 16:4; 24 Nah. 1:2, 3; Exod. 34:7.

20 Exod. 34:6, 7.

Acts 7:2. 27 Ps. 119:68. 28 I Tim. 6:15; Rom. 9:5. 29 Acts 17:24, 25.

23 Ps. 5:5, 6. 30 Job 22:2, 3.

31 Rom. 11:36. 32 Rev. 4:11; 36 Ps. 145:17; Rom. 7:12.

--> @Shila

Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophesies in the Bible.

Harry Potter fulfills the prophecy of the Harry Potter series. All you're saying is that the Bible is internally consistent. 

I'm more interested in what's actually true in the real world rather than internal consistency

--> @Polytheist-Witch

If you people don't want me to judge you by what you say then don't say it.

Funny, I'm being judged by words I haven't said and being told to watch my words. The absurdity...

--> @Shila

I'm guessing that college professor believed in God ( low reasoning ability) and when his finger was cut off he said,  “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

--> @Shila

Free will definition: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

please explain how anyone can escape fate

The issue of slavery is a complex one. If you want to read a brief discussion of the application of laws in that regard, you can start here and (with overlap and more) here.

Suffice to say, manumission's being prohibited was not as simple as that half anecdote suggests (though that anecdote was a responsa for finding a way to ensure freedom regardless of the apparent superficial prohibition).

The topic continues to be debated and its intricacies worked through such as in this exchange.

There are 2 kinds of evolution:

Microevolution: a smaller level of evolution which has been proven to exist

Macroevolution: A larger level of evolution which has not been proven to exist and the only supposed evidence that Scientists point to it is the really messy fossil record(which does not even support it either,  as new families just appear from nothing in it).

Polytheist-Witch: Training is a weird thing it has to be training in something that's relevant. For instance I had a college professor who was brilliant at understanding social policy and cultural anthropology. But he cut his finger off because while cutting his grass he thought something was caught under the mower and he stuck a finger under there to work it loose without turning the mower off. Obviously some of his training didn't actually make him better at everything it just made him really good at being a professor.

--> @Shila

I'd be first in line.

at what point is your "discretion" in any way, disconnected from your accumulated experience ?

do you believe that people with better training make better decisions ?

do you believe that people with better training make better decisions ?

Humans do all the most interesting shit. That's not to say I don't care about what animals and proteins and stars are doing. But my main area of concern is what we are doing. Now, technically, I'm a transhumanist, which in this context means I think humans could stand to be a lot cooler than they are now. In no way does it discount humanity as it currently stands, because it's still the best there is rn. If I met an alien race today, I would place them at an equal or higher point of interest because 1. they do interesting shit, and 2. I know nothing about them, which makes them more interesting.

at what point is your "discretion" in any way, disconnected from your accumulated experience ?

--> @Shila

Polytheist-Witch: Do something about your death threats or fuck off, pussy.

Full disclosure: I'm not convinced the Bible represents eye-witness or literal accounts...at least not completely. Some of the 'history' didn't actually happen or can't be verified. Eg. Global flood, the Exodus, The dead rising as Jesus died, etc. Some of the purported eye-witness accounts are merely attributions added to anonymous Gospels. I think it is fair to say, the Bible represents a mixture of history and myth. 

The Bible was written over thousands of years by many many writers. Each probably had a different set of motivations. I would agree none probably intended to provide room for criticism, but  claiming to speak for a perfect deity in an imperfect way provides ample room for it.

i hesitate to make broad statements here, but some seem to be suggesting that nobody is arguing that a human decision is free from all previous influences. i think this is a fair statement. the best attempts at explaining free-will seem to suggest that there is some kind of influence-gap. that is to say, it has been suggested that a human decision is influenced up to some unknown point less than 100% and then there is some i-gap of unspecified quantity and free-will lives there spreading magic fairy dust, however small or improbable that i-gap might be. i have never heard anyone propose a way to measure this i-gap in order to perhaps somehow gauge how much free-will someone might have, or to figure out if children have it, and if not, when do they get it? the i-gap sounds to me more like an ignorance-of-influence gap (this would also seem like the compatibilist's opinion). if this is the case we should be able to dial up free-will by dialing up ignorance. 

the main problems i see with this proposal are as follows:

1) there is no way to measure the influence-gap. it is in all likelihood merely a knowledge-of-influence-gap or lack-of-precision-gap.

2) even if the influence-gap is considered to be a real thing, wouldn't that gap simply increase the value of the other influences? how could the influence gap possibly be considered an influence? it's a gap that is by definition non-influential.

3) let's consider based on at least a small shred of logic, what could be in that pesky i-gap that might actually be an influence. well, whatever is in that i-gap can't be influenced since it is inside something defined as an influence-gap. so maybe there's an uninfluenced-influence in that i-gap; we could call it something mysterious like, an uncaused-cause, or maybe a first-cause, or better yet ex-nihilo. could that uncaused-cause be influenced or originated by anything at all? no, of course not because it's in the i-gap and it is defined as being uncaused. so could a human take credit for a decision or action that emerged from the i-gap? how could they possibly take credit or be responsible for something they had no conceivable control over? anything emerging from the i-gap would be indistinguishable from a random event. and randomness is incompatible with choice.

4) but what if it's the essence of "me" that is in the i-gap. are you kidding me?! i don't care if it's your grandmother, your dead child, or your ever lovin' god. if you put them in the i-gap they are at-best indistinguishable from random noise and at worst non-existent.

5) what if the gap is not an influence-gap but instead a black box? if the gap is not an influence-gap, there is no place for mr. free-will to spread his magic fairy dust because the gap instantly fills with influence and is then no longer properly described as a gap. additionally if the output of the i-gap is non-random, that is to say it emits some identifiable pattern, then whatever is happening in the i-gap must have some way of knowing what the hell is going on outside of the i-gap and this knowledge is definitely influencing its output thereby introducing influence into the i-gap which would then promptly disappear in a cute little puff of logic.

i think it's important to fully comprehend this influence-gap. imagine, if you will, that i am constructing a human being. when the recipe calls for me to add "a dash of free-will" i can't just add any old thing, willy nilly; i have to first construct a proper influence-gap to protect my human from the evil determinism. this would be some container that is impervious to all conceivable influence. i probably have a sound-proof, shock-proof, opaque, air-tight, empathy-proof, magic-proof, momentum-proof, time-proof capsule of some sort just laying around my house, i'll just set that to the side for now. ok, adding an empty box to the mix isn't going to do anything of course so we have to put something in it. since whatever is in this i-gap is supposed to advise me on important moral decisions my selection is of critical importance. well, the most intelligent and moral person i know of is my friend george, so since i don't seem to have a better option, i throw george in the i-capsule and seal him in tight. now days, weeks, and months have gone by and i've pretty much forgotten about george until one afternoon i am confronted with an intractable dilemma. i am faced with a decision with staggeringly profound moral implications and i must make a decision immediately. what do i do? well this sounds like a case for the magnificent george! so i locate my everything-proof capsule on which i have scrawled the descriptive term "i-gap" with my handy wax pencil, and i ask my question. i exhaustively explain all of the known factors leading up to and logical implications of this monumental decision to george, my moral, spiritual and financial advisor, and then i wait for an answer, any answer at all. nothing happens. things are getting desperate, so i beg george to give me an answer, to point me in the right direction. nothing happens. i light some candles and wave a magic wand over the i-gap, but still i can't divine any response from george. i realize there is a problem with the i-gap's design. so i quickly scour my garage for spare parts and retrofit a one way intercom system onto the i-gap so i can hear what george has to say. mind you he still can't hear anything or in any way perceive anything that i have to say, thus preserving the integrity of the influence-gap, but now he can speak directly to me, thus becoming an uncaused-cause. of course george has causes, he was born and raised and had both happy and sad experiences, but i'll just ignore all that for now. george is pretty much an uncaused-cause now that he is housed in the exclusive and luxurious, new and improved i-gap. so i ask george again to answer my plea for guidance. nothing happens. every once in a while george does actually say something but it's usually along the lines of "let me out of this f#cking box you god#amned muth#rf#cking muth#rf#cker!" heh, that george is such a kidder!

obviously george is constrained by the parameters of his confinement and is therefore incapable of offering any advice that would be requested from him.

the same would be true if you put jesus, or krishna, or a unicorn, or any conceivable entity or event in the modified i-gap.

ipso-facto, no free-will. 

--> @Shila

In response to your harping claim that I've been harping,

You keep using that word. - YouTube

As for the rest you say,

I'm not inclined to comment.

--> @Shila

where do you show any disagreement between Jews? Your quote (which had the error) was from "Chicago Bible Students" which isn't a Jewish site.

Not on this end you do.

--> @Shila

"harp on

: to talk about (a subject) constantly or repeatedly in an annoying way"

Harp on Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Might be you found my post harping,

Myself I'd find continuous focus and repetition on the use and definition of the word atheism, harping.

As I think the Topic originator was looking for something else in conversation, when he made his post.

Or He does conditionally.

your cut and paste material is wrong

that spelling means "I was"

there is no present tense "I am" in Hebrew as a stand alone form of the to-be verb.

I have seen the phrase used to point to God. I can't find a source/explanation for the phrase other than the KJV, but the KJV seems inconsistent in how it translates the corresponding Hebrew word (in Judges 6:16, as one example, it translates the same word "will be"). So what is the source for the decision to use "I am" in Ex 3:14? Is it in order to connect to the John 8:58 use of the word "eimi" in the Greek?

I 'already stated my opinion that that he was using the word atheism a bit broadly.

But still, ideas, people who claim identities,

Can be roughly categorized at times,

Depending on when and where.

Take the identity of Americans for example,

They can 'roughly be identified by different values, depending on timeframe.

Take Communists, 

They can 'roughly be identified by different values, depending on timeframe.

Though for the Communists as time passes, it becomes required to use where,

As the belief spreads over such distances and numbers, that vast variation occurs.

Anyway,

I like talking with people at times,

And wanted to address his topic for what I thought he 'meant,

Rather than harping on what he 'said.

Personally my opinion aligns in a similar manner as,

zedvictor4           #3

3RU7AL                #21

SkepticalOne     #23

Though arguably atheists could be grouped into various groups based on beliefs, the variety, number of beliefs, and lack of formal organization makes that difficult I think.

. . .

But for conversation,

Let's say you were talking about a specific atheist/s

Who did not believe in God, an Afterlife, or Objective Morality.

And wanted to follow Humanism.

My view of such, is the divorce between the intellect and the heart, as well as conditioning.

. . .

Also the having of other values.

-->@Conservallectual

Personally my opinion aligns in a similar manner as,

zedvictor4           #3

3RU7AL                #21

SkepticalOne     #23

Though arguably atheists could be grouped into various groups based on beliefs, the variety, number of beliefs, and lack of formal organization makes that difficult.

. . .

But for conversation,

Let's say you were talking about a specific atheist/s

Who did not believe in God, an Afterlife, or Objective Morality.

And wanted to follow Humanism.

My view of such, is the divorce between the intellect and the heart, as well as conditioning.

I have seen the phrase used to point to God. I can't find a source/explanation for the phrase other than the KJV, but the KJV seems inconsistent in how it translates the corresponding Hebrew word (in Judges 6:16, as one example, it translates the same word "will be"). So what is the source for the decision to use "I am" in Ex 3:14? Is it in order to connect to the John 8:58 use of the word "eimi" in the Greek?

Thanks for clarifying your position and revealing your own blatant hypocrisy and bigotry. 

No such thing. Atheism isn't an epistemology, a moral framework, an ontology, a methodology, etc. Atheists' outlook on life can be shaped by any number of things, but it ain't their answer to 'Do you believe in gods'.

That's where the OP goes wrong.

What I mean to say is the Bible is foundational to Christianity. No one alive today could have been eye-witness to the life/death of Jesus or the destruction of the temple. No one alive during the life of Jesus could have been witness to the Exodus, the battle of Jericho, or the seige of Jerusalem. 

The point being, ignorance of your holy book isn't a defense to legitimate criticism of your religious position. 

Actually, in the Bible the sabbath is just another term for holiday.  It is a holy day. And was more than just the 7th day of the week.  

In the week of Jesus death for instance - there was the passover.  It was a holiday - a high sabbath.   And it was not on the 7th day of the week - but dependent upon the moon.  

Polytheist-Witch:  Another reason there's no point to discussing religion with atheist and another reason to despise them.  There's no point in you being here you should really piss off.

more copy and paste

Who?

Interestingly, it is the cults which consider the Sabbath still Saturday.   Let me make an exception for the Jewish religion. Yet, it is not Christian in any event.  the church has celebrated Sunday as its day of worship since the beginning of the church.  

Christians don't actually celebrate the Sabbath. Yes, many Christians at times equate the Sabbath with the day of rest - and since Sunday is the day we now worship and a day of traditional rest - there has been a crossover in people's minds.  Yet, Christians get their definitions of the Sabbath and of the Lord's Day from the Scriptures, not from the dictionary like those who don't understand the religion. 

I never reduced Christ to a Sunday. What a nonsense.