Total posts: 3,520
It is clear that only humans have developed a religious perspective on this planet.
Other animal and life forms simply are not evolved enough to be able to consider let alone relate to a religious being or religion.
It is ironic therefore that there are some, nominally called atheists that reject this evolution, preferring to live wild like animals and a yesteryear.
Consider for instance - the curiosities that the so called elitists consider culture: living in the wild, eating vegetable, eating rare meat, eating raw meat, living like savages, living free spirited, without control or rules or social norms. Each of these is a desire, so it seems to revert back to animalism. to a time before they were enlightened, spiritually awakened, evolved. eat whatever, copulate with whatever, crap wherever, and the most obvious form of animal thinking, dispense with logical thinking.
Atheism is therefore obviously a non-progressive form of thinking. It's not progressive, it's not conservative, it is simply a revert back to the most primitive means of living.
To disagree with this - prove a more primitive animal than humanity has religion.
Created:
-->
@b9_ntt
Yeah, come and join us in the wild wild west. Our animals and reptiles and plant life are incredibly dangerous. But our people have become slow and dull and politically correct and worried about offending the sensibilities of anyone - anyone but the Christians. Offending them is the newest game in town. and Acceptable.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
God of the Bible punishes sinGod punishes nations that are disobedient. God does this by destroying their offspring and reducing their birth rates and their numbers, giving them diseases, misfortunes and wars and conflicts and civil wars to eradicate them.We can see the examples of nations having very low birth rates, because they are sinning too much. They are dying nations."I have seen these people, the Lord said to Moses, and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them." - Exodus 32:9 to 32:10"Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation" - Exodus 34:7Exodus 34 says that children are punished, possibly destroyed or deformed, for the crimes of their parents.This is what the Leviticus 26 says about God's punishment:"I will do this to you: I will bring on you sudden terror, wasting diseases and fever that will destroy your sight and sap your strength. You will plant seed in vain, because your enemies will eat it.""I will set my face against you so that you will be defeated by your enemies; those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you.""Your strength will be spent in vain, because your soil will not yield its crops, nor will the trees of your land yield their fruit.""I will send wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children, destroy your cattle and make you so few in number that your roads will be deserted."Making a nation few in numbers means to eradicate them by lowering birth rates and making them die to reduce their numbers."If in spite of these things you do not accept my correction but continue to be hostile toward me, I myself will be hostile toward you and will afflict you for your sins seven times over. And I will bring the sword on you to avenge the breaking of the covenant.""Bring the sword" means bring wars and violence to society."When I cut off your supply of bread, ten women will be able to bake your bread in one oven, and they will dole out the bread by weight. You will eat, but you will not be satisfied.""You will perish among the nations; the land of your enemies will devour you. Those of you who are left will waste away in the lands of their enemies because of their sins; also because of their ancestors’ sins they will waste away."This means how enemies of the nation will outnumber it greatly. God does this by causing wars and civil wars and conflicts and divisions in society.
The God of the Bible is a covenant God. He is holy and just. Magnificant on every level. And he is also a God of mercy and love and grace. He will punish sin. Indeed there will be a day of Justice for all those whose sins have not been punished. Most of us hopefully, will say on Judgment Day that God himself paid for our punishment and we will receive life. Those who trust his Words and Promises will no doubt declare this truth, whereas the rest of us will be punished for our own sins. That is our choice. And one we make while we are alive on this planet.
The other interesting matter you raise is the OT covenant blessings and cursings. I wonder whether you realise blessings will only flow for those nations that are in covenant with God. Those nations which are in covenant - receive blessings for complying with the covenant and receive censures for non-compliance. On the other hand, those nations and or peoples who are not in covenant, receive only the censures. And not because they are non-compliant, but because they are the enemies of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Interestingly, I think most people, non-religious people, don't think in the long term but in the short term.Possible, but I plan for the long term. I also don’t want to give away my wealth and most Christians that plan for the long term don’t want to either.
Many of the Christians I hang around with - have a long-term view of both the earth and the Eternals. For them, they are not just caught up with the ENDs. For them, the means are equally important.
Most Christians I know consider the question of wealth an important one. We are planning to lay up our wealth for the future. To do that means not just spending it now but investing it. Yet it also doesn't mean idolising it or choosing NOT to help people who need it. This is one of the reasons why Christians are one of the largest groups in society that give to charities. We have a duty to help the poor and the vulnerable.
In relation to Jesus' teaching, he was talking more about idols than wealth. Yes on the surface he specifically mentioned riches to a rich man. Yet he spoke to those who valued family about family. And to those who valued this world about eternity and death. Jesus wanted people to get their priorities right. Starting with loving God, and then loving everything LESS than God. Whether that be wealth or life or even family. He also used hyperbole to make these points clear.
I also wonder how long is a LONG TERM for you? None of us knows when we will die. And what is the point of thinking long-term unless you have a plan for the long term? There is much truth to the proverb "you can't take it with you". There is that story Jesus referred to in the gospels about the rich man who built bigger barns for the bigger harvest he achieved, only to die that very night. He got his priorities wrong. He thought that his long-term plans depended only upon himself. I trust that while you are planning for the long term that this planning includes planning for eternity.
Created:
-->
@b9_ntt
They have lobbied to ensure that Christian influence is removed from almost every arena in society.To say "from almost every arena in society" is laughable.Christianity is proclaimed in churches, on TV and radio, on street corners, waiting rooms, billboards, etc.Christmas music is everywhere in public during that season. Bibles are in every hotel room.Secularists, such as I, lobby to remove Christian influence from tax-supported venues, such as public schools. That is because non-Christians pay taxes too. That is all we ask.
Taxes are a general problem. For the record, I don't think it is fair that a nation pays for the education of every religion or worldview unless they are a nation that supports freedom of religion. (The only way that a secularist nation would be exempt is if they concede that secularism is a religion) Personally, I don't think the government should pay for school at all. And that includes both public and private schools. The secularists amongst us - we are constantly reminded - are the most educated, and perhaps the highest paid. This means that presumably that they are also the most likely to be able to pay for their own schooling. Ironic really. Yet interestingly, it is the elitist Left who presumes that their children should be paid for by the government.
I think honestly that it is children who suffer. Either the government pays for NO children to be educated or they pay for ALL children to be educated. If they choose for ALL people to be educated, then they ought to let Parents decide upon what education their children get, with no qualifications.
I suspect you are taking my "almost every arena" and suggesting I am being too minimalistic. Christianity is in every arena. Not just almost everyone. I wonder how long it is since you went travelling and used a hotel. In most Western Nations, the Gideon Bible has been removed from hotels, motels, hospitals, medical clinics, dentists, and the list goes on. In Australia, we haven't had Christianity ads or movies that promote it for decades. Our local Christmas Carols like many in our nation actually ban - prohibit any songs or carols that talk about Jesus. We are not permitted to put up on public land or for public consumption nativity scenes, or anything promoting Christianity. Ironically, other religions can on their religious holidays.
But hey thanks for the thoughts. Perhaps America is still more Christian that the rest of the World.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Thanks for your thoughts.
Interestingly, I think most people, non-religious people, don't think in the long term but in the short term. this is why people have so much private debt. This is why people don't choose religion. This is why people live for today and don't consider consequences.
There are those who make 5-year plans etc. But not most people.
Jesus' point in the story, you sort of relate to us about the rich man giving all his money away is about priorities and I guess there is a sense in which he is comparing long-term and short term so I think you are partially correct in relation to your thoughts. But the point of the story was particular for this man not for everyone. It was not a generalisation in relation to money. the general point was about priorities, not about money. In other words, for the man who values money, it is an issue, but for the man who values his own intellect, then that is the issue, or for the man who values his family, then his family becomes the issue, or the man who values some other idol, then that is the issue. Jesus is making the point that he ought to be the priority over anything else. Money, intelligence, family, and idols. and that is where the comparison between long-term and short-term is valid. what needs to be understood is that Jesus was also using hyperbole. He is not literally saying - you must get rid of these things or you must hate them, he is saying that you must put me first.
There is also another element here that is missing. And that is that God is not utilitarian and he does not want his people to be either. He believes in both the means and the ends. The ends don't justify the means. Hence, I find the notion that - you are calling a bluff, a bluff. It doesn't make sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
love God and then he will teach you to love others. love is not an emotion, its a behavior rooted in the Holy Spirit. which is necessary for salvation and can only be given to those who obey God, asking and waiting on it in faith.
thanks for this topic. I agree that God will teach us to love others. I think love is an act of the will - but it also is an emotion. I don't see any reason why it can't be both. Light comes in waves and in particles.
I also agree that love is a gift from God. Yet it is also part and parcel of who most people are. The love that comes from God is the type of love that enables you to love your enemies. the love we grow up with as an emotion will help us love ourselves, our friends, and our family.
Paul describes love in 1 Corinthians 13 in many ways of application. There is a sense in which love is also described as "obeying God's commandments". We love God thereby by obeying the commandments. And we love each other, including our enemies by obeying the commandments. Hence we love our fellow persons by respecting their marriage and not committing adultery, or raping someone. We love our neighbours by not killing them unlawfully, or assaulting them. We love our fellow citizens by not locking them up unnecessarily or being vigilantes but by seeing that justice is brought. We love others by respecting private property and not stealing. We love each other by not lying or being deceptive or bearing false witness.
This is one way that love is described. Of course, there are emotional elements that might attach at different times. Yet I am not sure that emotion is what Jesus is necessarily talking about when he says love your enemies. Rather it is about "how you respond and act towards that person".
Still, thanks for the topic.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would disagree.The statement in question was designed to provoke a response.it is totally devastating to them on almost every level.A typically trite and insubstantial jibe.What is devastated totally?What levels?Almost every, so not totally then?Just a provocative trolling comment.
Ok. I see what you mean. Thanks for explaining it to me. Your understanding of my words "it is totally devastating to them on almost every level" is that they are trite and a jibe which is intended to provoke a response. This therefore for you is an example of "trolling". A provocative trolling comment.
Well ok. Certainly it is a provocative comment. That doesn't make it trite, of course, or a jibe either. The question of this entire post is "How much has Christianity F.... people up Psychologically? I was answering the question. My answer essentially was that Christianity's impact upon people depended upon whether you believe or don't believe. Yes, I used a generalisation. Many people for instance who believe have also been damaged by others within the church. And many people who don't believe have not been damaged by Christianity because its influence has rarely touched them. There are always going to be exceptions to any generalisation.
In relation to the specifics though, there is a general trend by the Left in today's society to reduce the impact of Christianity in our society. They have lobbied to get rid of prayers out of schools. They have lobbied to get rid of the nativity scenes at Christmas. They have lobbied to ensure that Christian influence is removed from almost every arena in society. In some places, churches are not even permitted to preach their own gospel, but a watered down version of it that resembles more of an eclective ceremony than anything Christian. The reasons for this reductionist approach to Christianity is that it is harmful on society. It is harmful on children. It is harmful on a cohesive society. The fact that these lobby groups have such a broad brush - shows how total they think Christianity is destroying people's lives.
Now it is true, that this pervasive brush of the LEFT lobby groups has not gone everywhere and is not as thick in some places as others. Yet, this diminishing of the Christian religion and its influence is not coming from those who believe - but from those who don't believe. And it also true that not all those who don't believe share in this vision of the world by the LEFT. Yes, it is a generalisation, yet it is a real thing.
Freud stated that sin is a device to guilt people into doing the right thing. Marx declared that religion was the opium of the masses. Nietche tried to argue that God was dead. Dewey tried to de-educate religion out of schools. John Lennon - asked us to imagine a world without religion. Most of these people used religion generally - when they were specifically talking about Christianity.
Christianity is an exclusive religion. It declares there is only one way to God. It rejects the rest as fake. It is not backwards in declaring it. Yet its path is not by war. Although it has dabbled with it at times. It is by peace and love. And grace and mercy. Nevertheless, mention the word sin and that sin is the reason for the problems in the world, and people roll their eyes and say "stop it". Sin is psychologically damaging for many people. Say someone is a sinner or that what they love doing is sin and it shuts conversations down. Entire groups suggest that even labeling something sin, may well lead to suicide or mental health problems like depression, anxiety etc.
People who get drunk, drunkards would prefer to be called alcholics rather than a drunk. A drunk implies lack of self control which is sin as opposed to an alcoholic which is a disease. People can't help their diseases. Or their genetics. But call it sin. and it is pyschologically damaging. Most of our known sins are now diseases. Adultery and promiscurity is sex addiction. Theft has become kleptomania. Call it a disease and it is not my fault.
And the sad thing is that once you call it a disease, it can no longer really be cured. It can be managed. Strange really. Once upon a time a disease might be cured. And I guess for some they still are. But these days - mental health diseases are never cured. Alcoholics can't be cured. The next drink is always the enemy.
Ironically, Christianity would teach at least historically, that drunkardness is a sin which can be cured. And being cured, is not getting rid of the desire to have another drink. But to learn self-control. We call it redemption. Alchol is not the enemy. Abuse of it is - which is due to your own sin.
But hey thanks for your thoughts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Can you explain why you hold that God is finite?That occupied space, which has integrity, can only be finite....." the state of being whole and undivided. "...Google it ---the word whole inherent means finite----...? What is the meaning of in coherent?: logically or aesthetically ordered or integrated : consistent. coherent style. a coherent argument. : having clarity or intelligibility : understandable. a coherent person ".. Google it..' entire....intact.....essential.........complete......full.......https://www.powerthesaurus.org/integral/synonyms..." Structural integrity refers to an asset's ability to withstand loads without deforming beyond safe levels or generating cracks that may compromise the asset's ability to continue to perform its functions in the future. "... Google it
The God of the Bible doesn't occupy a space. He is Spirit. Spirit which is omnipresent. Everywhere, in every time, and out of everytime. He is not a structural entity like us or any other object. At least not in the way he is presented in the Scriptures. There are lots of images depicted in the bible, which are communications from God to humanity. Yet any picture of God, such as having hands, breathing out, sitting on thrones, etc, are all metaphors.
I can't see anything that you have articulated which convinces me that God is finite.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope, no trolling there.
Of course, the definition of trolling might have changed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@Sidewalker
Hi Poly, and Sidewalker
I haven't left and so I can't be drawn back. I have the trolls on block. I'm not responding to them. I don't read their posts. They probably assume I do, but given that they are so far up themselves, they wouldn't think anything else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
1} Eternally existent finite Universe = Eternally existent finite God ergo they are likened to synonyms God/Universe, ergo,...1a} not a God that created Universe.
You post very long posts. And perhaps I might read it all sometime. But in the first place I was puzzled your first line.
Eternally existent finite universe = eternally existent finite God THEREFORE they are liked to synonyms.
Can you explain why you hold that God is finite? The Biblical God would not be considered so.
Please humour my foolishness at the need of asking this question.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I'm a solid christian in my beliefs. I believe in the afterlife and that God is love. I have concluded that the best way reconcile all this is to say God loves everyone but there r consequences to our actions.
Sounds like a reasonable position.
I grew up catholic so that catholic guilt colors my psyche. But beyond that, even focusing on the words of Jesus instead of the rest of the new testament can be disheartening. He said we r judged by how we act, we can't know we r saved, some sins r unforgivable. What do those of us think who know we r wretched sinners? Modern protestantism gives a different spin on all these issues, but if we take the gospels as they r, it can be very upsetting. No wonder there's so much depression and sorrow in the world.
I'm not sure that this explains depression and sorrow. After all, depression and sorrow existed before the church and before Jesus wrote or said those words. In fact it is probably true to say that the world is a lot less depressed and sorrowful since Jesus came into the world. At least now there is a certain hope that did not exist prior to then.
Also, surely it is a positive thing when someone can expose us to the realities of the world as it actually is? The old adage that it is only when we admit our problems, that we can begin to address them must have some weight. Denial of a problem doesn't help. Yet, when someone reveals the truth and the solution to it, then surely that must be a positive. After all, if Jesus had offered a solution that didn't work, it would be evident by now. The thing is - billions of people in history testify to the worth and value of Jesus' words. Of course, this doesn't make numbers a test of truth. Yet, it certainly doesn't make it wrong either.
The answer to the question that you posed in your title is - to those who believe, it has not caused damaged - but to those who don't believe - it is totally devastating to them on almost every level. And yet despite the problems of the latter group, even they have the possibility of turning things around. And they retain this possibility until the moment they die.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I like to think of it analogous to lightning starting a fire in a forest. The general observable rule of the universe is that everything naturally is more likely to become disordered rather than ordered. This is reflected in everything from an expanding universe, dying stars, corrosion, erosion and decay, and of course, death of life. On an atomic level energy, is constantly trying to escape and all compounds are in a long process of breaking down from complex forms to basic forms.
Thanks for your response. I can read books too.
So in a forest, there is a very small chance for lightning to start a fire, but when it does, it goes through a cycle of consumption, reproduction, and finally extinction. I tend to see life as a similar cycle. We are but sparks of accidental flame in an otherwise vast cold and sparkless universe.
Cool. Glad you see it that way. I hope that helps you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
How did life come about?we dont know, and most likely never will. Simple. No irrelevant tangents needed.
Well that depends upon your assumptions. I am confident that life came about because God created it. This is based on the reality that I exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
This seems like a very loaded question. Why did life come about? Because something happened that created life. How did life come about? That is, as far as I'm aware an unknown.
Of course it was loaded. This is a religious debate page apparently. But life has not always existed. Or has it?
As someone who is not an evolutionist - and what little I thought I knew, seems to becoming more vague every day, so would someone please assist me here.Now I know that this may well do with the origin of all theories - yet - I am not asking about why or how non-life came into being - we can assume that for the sake of the discussion. I am asking about the evolution from non-life to life.This is a false equivalency. While the word evolve means to change gradually, the theory of Evolution doesn't address the origins of life, only the development of life (that's abiogenesis, which is specifically the pre-evolutionary origins of life). Beyond the false equivalency I'm also curious why you feel it's fair to say life evolved from non-life? That implies a gradual change, got reason to think it was a gradual change?
It's not a false equivalency. the theory of evolution doesn't address matters of how non-life came into being. Yet it's fair to say that the theory must have underlying assumptions that speak to the origin of life. Evolve might mean change gradually, but there are other words, which do the same thing. In many ways the word Evolution is actually redundant. I don't think life evolved from non-life. I think life came about because God created it.
Now admittedly, having a brain seems better than not having a brain. And the ability to move and communicate seems to be better than not being able to do the same, but they are both value statements.They are and my admittedly very basic understanding of the theory of evolution is that it doesn't have anything to do with 'better' so much as increased ability to survive and procreate.
that's correct. But its implicit. the survival of the fittest is a value statement. It's not always the fittest, sometimes, it's the strongest, or the weakest, sometimes its the smartest, sometimes its the best looking, or the one prepared to break the rules. Sometimes it is just a fluke. A random event that allowed the right thing to be in the right place at the right time. Nothing to do with the survival of the fittest. Just plain dumb luck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
In the existence that exists, why did the non-life evolve to a life form?We have no evidence that biologic life ( * I * ) came from before where there was none.
That makes logical sense. Obviously before there was life, there could be none. Although it is an argument from silence.
We have no evidence that our finite, occupied space Universe (@) came from where before there exists only truly non-occupied space.
Perhaps, but isn't that an argument from silence. Pretty weak argument.
..." The genetic code includes 64 possible permutations, or combinations, of three-letter nucleotide sequences that can be made from the four nucleotides. Of the 64 codons, 61 represent amino acids, and three are stop signals.64 + 2 poles of system = 6666.4 = Cosmic Pi-Time ---Pi^3 } { XYZ/abc minus P^4 { dt } = 66.4---66 lines-of-relationship exist for 12 --3 * 4-- vertexes or nodal events aka points66.4 / 3.14 15 92 65..... = 21.13 57 7 64 66 75....21.13 57 7 64 66 75 / 7 = 3.01 93 96 63....7 = agent of change via irrational angles 128.7 of a regular and convex heptagon128.7 / 7 = 18.38 57 1 42 85 7 14 28 5 71 42 8 5714 repeat all eternally except for the initial stable 3 on irrational side of decimal3 = structural integrity via 60 degreeness /\ and is stability4 = systemic integrity via 90 degreeness [ ] and is transformation LINK4-fold Vector Equlibrium has 7 axi via di-polar set of 8 surface triangles /\ ergo 4 diametric axi of spin and 6 surface squares [ ], ergo 3 diametric axis of spin(@) = eternally regenerative, finite, occupied space Universe, ergo, begin with the whole and no parts can be excluded from our consideration.What is the minimal number that can represent the greatest whole? 7?12 + 2 14 = rhombic dodecahedron LINK and it is dual to the Vector EqulibriumRhombic Tricontahedron LINK.." The rhombic triacontahedron is somewhat special in being one of the nine --3 * 3--- edge-transitive convex polyhedra, the others being the five Platonic solids, the cuboctahedron, the icosidodecahedron, and the rhombic dodecahedron.....The rhombic triacontahedron is also interesting in that its vertices include the arrangement of four Platonic solids. It contains ten tetrahedra, five cubes, an icosahedron and a dodecahedron. The centers of the faces contain five octahedra.....It can be made from a truncated octahedron by dividing the hexagonal faces into 3 rhombi:"...Egg/ovum (o)Spermazoa <----...." The DNA of life on Earth naturally stores its information in just four key chemicals — guanine, cytosine, adenine and thymine, commonly referred to as G, C, A and T, respectively.....Now scientists have doubled this number of life’s building blocks, creating for the first time a synthetic, eight-letter genetic language that seems to store and transcribe information just like natural DNA...."
Doesn't all of that simply suggest that the universe and life is not random? And that some kind of law, whether that be mathematical or other existed that exists in the very fabric of everything? How did said mathematical equations and laws evolve? Or did they originate and remain consistent from the beginning. One of the interesting things about some people relying so heavily on evolution is - it didn't include the scientific laws and physics and mathematics in its framework. I wonder why that is the case? That some things appear to evolve or grow and mature, and others things just somehow "randomly" came into existence or were perhaps always there?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Nevertheless, I think it is a very weak faith that is threatened by the theory of evolution.
Hi SW,
I reject that premise in its entirety.
Firstly, what entails faith being weak or strong? And why would it be an issue? Paul talks about those who eat meat and those who are concerned about eating meat dedicated to idols. He doesn't say that their faith is being threatened. Perhaps he could have. In our time, alcohol is another issue. People who drink alcohol choose not to for the sake of those who think it is wrong to do so. But whose faith is weaker? Is it those who are choosing to drink or those refusing to drink out of perceived obedience? Or is it the person who drinks without care for those who might be weak?
Let's apply that now to the theory of evolution. Is it a weaker faith for someone to hold to a view or to push a particular view? Does faith in science means there is a lesser faith in God? Or is there another way to measure such faith? Or such mix?
For the record, I don't feel threatened by the theory of evolution. I think it is wrong. And I also think it is untouchable in our modern society. No one is allowed to question it. That makes it suspect.
Do I question gravity? At times. But gravity is a different kind of theory - since it is actually observable. I can test it in my own life time. The theory of evolution - is a mishmash of ideas that are in contrast to its original position. As a creationist, I have no issue with adaption, mutation, maturation, etc. All these things I consider to be part of God's ongoing plan for creation. And for the most part these things can be tested. Yet when creationists disagree with evolution it is not with these things that they disagree - but primarily in relation to the crossover of kinds. And the age of the earth.
In respect of the age of the earth, tricky. Yet how can one ever be confident that such measures of the age are true. Yes we can certainly get several - different measures and if they tend to agree - like a cluster that might provide some confidence. And for those who have great faith in science or perhaps blind faith that might work for them. We can observe some of these things - such as rings on trees, or ice levels on glaziers. We can certainly estimate many things to arrive a conclusion we already are partially in general agreement with.
Yet, until we actually develop a Time Machine, there can be no absolute certainty. I don't have a particular issue with God creating a mature universe which has all of the various times inbuilt. I don't think it is deceptive to do so. Any more than creating a mature man like Adam was not deceptive. How old was Adam when the Bible says he was created? Not a baby. So if was a mature human of say - 30 or 40 in appearance is that deceptive of God?
What about the light that comes from the sun - or further stars which to arrive - must mean the stars are millions if not billions of years old. Obviously, this must mean the earth is old - or the universe is very old. Yet why?
Let's imagine for just one moment - that God in his power and glory decided to make the earth and the stars today. And he wanted the people on the earth to have light . Would he make the sun and the stars billions of years ago - and let humans live in darkness for billions of years - in order for them not to feel deceived? That is your argument and to be honest - respectively it is a dumb one,.
I think God is bigger than all that.
Just for the record as well, I don't have an issue with the first couple of chapters of Genesis being poetry or language depicting a framework of the creation. I just don't have a valid reason to discount the original telling of the story. Besides Jesus, took the view that Adam and Eve were real people - and that it was in the beginning.
I also raised this topic to discuss alternative positions. There are many things about the secular understanding of how the universe came about that simply beggars belief. I don't have to feel threatened to question it. I think real science requires people question it. Yet today - most scientists simply believe what they have read in a book - text books, and what their priests have told them to believe - lecturers - and they are told "don't question it". It is fact. Me, I don't just believe whatever I read in a book or what my priests tell me. I like to question and to critique. It seems to me that you start with science and then try and marry it up with your theology. That's a matter for you of course. But not everyone works that way - or wants to. And that is ok. It doesn't make their faith stronger or weaker. That dear SW was a total red herring and unhelpful comment.
You need to be able to articulate where sin came from? And also how Jesus death on the cross and resurrection was able to remedy this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The heart is a lump of muscle that pumps blood.
yes.
And theists don't start with false assumptions and draw false conclusions? Pull the other one.
I never denied that some do that. But are you suggesting that atheists NEVER do that? Surely not.
And Gods aren't deceptive, because they're make believe. People are deceptive.
I don't think God is deceptive. I agree many people are deceptive. God is not imaginary. The fact that you exist proves God exists.
And you've largely ignored answers to the OP.
I've answered a few. I have Stephen and Brother on block at the moment. A permanent block until either apologise for their stupidity. I expect both are too stupid to do that - so it will remain a permanent block. I won't engage with them. But given neither know really how to engage - nothing is lost.
Which might suggest that you are being deceptive.
I suppose it could mean that. I answer questions when I can and I have the time.
And science starts with evidence and seeks to understand, proposing, testing and rejecting theories along the way. Science is all about the burden of proof.
Actually science starts with observation. Then it moves onto a hypothesis which it either confirms or rejects. If it was about the burden of proof, then why are so many people worried that I am trying to switch the balance of proof? Why not just assert and then prove your proofs?
Whereas Christianity accepts Middle Eastern Folk Tales as undeniable fact without question. So for sure, the burden of proof isn't burdensome if you completely ignore the burden.
I don't actually know anyone who accepts anything without question. Is that how you operate? I do believe the bible, this is true. Yet there are sufficient inner and outer evidences which support its reliability. And this has been scientifically demonstrated by many in that field. Not sure what you mean by burden of proof here. If someone accepts the bible as true - that is a matter for them and their conscience. Most things in life- that people do - are never scrutinised by science - and have no need to. Do you have to do a scientific test to know whether to go a pub and have a beer? Or do you just decide that it sounds like a good idea. And when you listen to the people in the pub telling stories - do you have to test each story by scientific test before you laugh or not - or do you just listen and consider whether it's funny or not? And when you are hungry do you have to do a scientific test to know whether you really are hungry or not before you open a fridge to find something healthy or not in the fridge to eat? Do you do a scientific test on each bit of food before you eat it? Or do you go on experience or intuition?
I happen to think the bible is a pretty useful tool. It can be used and abused. it provides for me a way of looking at the world. It doesn't stop me from looking at the world through modern eyes either. But overall it's a pretty valuable book and has shown that over the years. Yes there is some stuff in there that freaks me out at times. But so what? There are some things in Harry Potter that freak me out too. And some things in our political halls that freak me out. and some things in our court systems that freak me out as well. All of us come to the situations we are in from a perspective. That is a truism.
To say that people just believe the bible blindly or without thought or without question is really the ramblings of a person who has actually never thought about it very much. I don't think you have actually ever questioned the person who told you that nonsense.
Conditioned ignorance is bliss I suppose.
Well I agree with that. the heart of every evolutionist is ignorant bliss. Don't question it. And many scientists will never question it. Oh yes they might question aspects about it. But not the theory of evolution itself. It is sacrosanct. It is the holy grail. It is untouchable. How do I know? Because I observe every time that anyone dares to questions its validity, people come out of the woodwork and swear that is untouchable. You my friend are one of these people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Evolution is the development of matter from start to finish.
In a very broad definition. Yet historically, this term was never used prior to Darwin for such development.
Darwin was only concerned with one bit.
So what? Yes he took a narrow definition.
But, out of species evolved intellect, science and unscientific pseudo hypotheses, namely theism.
Theism is a progressive view. Is that what you are saying? Primitive animals and other systems haven't evolved to being religious. So are you primitive or progressive? There's an interesting take.
And out of science came real answers.
Science is a wonderful tool. Like most other things this tool can be used or abused? It shouldn't for example be used as a guide for what is right and what is wrong. It provides facts, not interpretation.
And out of intellect and science evolved technology.And so on.Refer to this process as GOD if you like.
Not sure what your point is of course. But I am sure you will be happy to enlighten us.
But someone who fucks a virgin and gets her pregnant is a philanderer or a rapist.So if you want to worship a rapist. Well, that's your choice.
God didn't have sex with any human. There simply is no evidence of this. Did he produce life in Mary? Well the bible says so. It also says he produced life in every human. Some - like Adam and Eve and Jesus were special examples. But the rest of humanity is pretty special as well.
God did not rape anyone. The definition of rape is quite clear - and it includes more than not having consent. There needs a physical act of some kind. The bible never suggests any physical act, in fact the Holy Spirit is - Spirit. Not flesh. There is simply no evidence to suggest otherwise. Even if for the sake of your argument - Mary did not consent - which I suggest by her song is clearly not the case. Yet even if it were the case - this still doesn't qualify as rape. Hence, your "out there" statement is simply ridiculous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
I'll presume this position is based on a contrived presumption that the theory of evolution in some way contradicts Christian faith, but that just isn't true.Well I guess it depends on what you think is the Christian Faith. And it also depends upon what evolution is as well. Many of the different sciences you lay out below are not dependent upon evolution in the manner by which Darwin posited it. Although you state it is a unifying theory - you are simply incorrect.Perhaps however before we continue that aspect of our discussion, you might provide a definition of what you think the Christian Faith is and also what you define as the theory of evolution. I suspect that your presumption of contrived presumption won't stack up. Still, I will await you definitions to see whether they match or not.I use both terms in the traditional sense. It's your OP and you used the terms, if you have different definitions than the rest of us, you need to let us know what you are talking about. Make your case, what is it about evolution that contradicts Christian faith?
Well that doesn't answer the question. It's a side step. Ok. Christian faith requires certain doctrines which are difficult to accomodate evolution. The fall of humanity requires a first human who was created as a new thing. Not evolved. Without this first human - and the first fall, then there would be no need for Christ or the cross. Traditional Christianity would fall apart. It would fall apart in the sense that people are not born with sin and in need of a saviour. It would also provide no historical explanation of why there is separation between humanity and God. Now I concede - that many Christians in our world, believe in Evolution and remain Christians. Believing in evolution doesn't stop our faith. Yet it provides fuel for skepticism and this is abundantly evident in society. As people become more and more inclined towards evolution the decline in Christianity occurs. And the move by Christians towards a more liberal Christianity reliant more upon good works, social activism, and a pursuit of happiness. It also explains a greater move towards inclusion and diversity of views about religions per se. There are significant groups set up by Christians - such as the biogenesis group led by Walton and others that have now suggested that the original sin and a first human is unnecessary for the Christian faith. And perhaps in a Christianity which believes in the power of humanity to forge one' own faith this is possible - but it runs against the teachings of both the Reformation and of the early church. The point is - without original sin and the doctrine of total depravity, there is no need for the Cross - and no need for God to send Jesus to deal with sin. It would be the classic case of overkill. There is also the further question of death before the fall as Romans put it. Evolution requires an entire body of skeletons in the closet. Now I am not saying there was no death before the fall - but certainly there was no human death prior to the fall. And that implies - humanity was a new thing. Not just something that came about as a result of evolution. The latest species of humanoids in a long history of humanoid type creatures before. The entire notion of humanity being just another animal destroys the picture of humanity's role as steward and priest and representative of God to the creation. The other interesting thing here is that like Adam was a new thing - Christ also was a new thing. Christ was born of humanity and of divinity. If Adam was not a new thing - then it clearly makes the question of Christ moot. Hence, the question of the virgin birth. Why was this necessary if sin is not transmitted covenantally genetically?
Evolution as a theory came about because Darwin visited an island and made observations about birds. His theory was specifically and narrowly based in biology. It was not broadly defined to include things outside of biology. Today in law - we speak of the evolution of the law. In economics we talk about the evolution of ideas. In society we do the same thing. What was once called development is now called evolution. The two are not the same thing although I concede it has become part of our language. Yet it conflates the two ideas. Where once evolution specifically and narrowly was talking about biological matters, now the term has become more broadly used - to the point that now everyone - including myself uses it - even if I am only talking about he development of an idea.
What you are contending requires a direct refutation of the most general principles of most of our physical and biological sciences. As a unifying theory of biology, evolution holds true. Its mechanisms are by no means completely understood and it does not in any way eliminate the mystery of life, question the existence of God, or bring into doubt any of the basic tenets of Christianity.Not at all. It really is going to depend upon how broad or narrow your provided definition of the theory of evolution is going to be. We need to see what you think are the basic tenets of Christianity are before we can draw such a conclusion.No we don't, if you want to challenge what I'm saying, you need to say why you disagree, you can't just say you're wrong and expect me to tell you why you think I'm wrong.
I raised a question in my opening piece precisely because I wanted to know what others think. It was not to say they were wrong. It was not to express my own opinion. It was to hear ideas and then to engage with it. You are the one who picked up on a couple of words I wrote - saying I was not evolutionist and then decided to use that as a way of saying I was wrong. Yet you didn't give reasons for that. You just proceeded to presume - and then dismiss my non evolutionary position as nonscientific. You asserted much without evidence.
But it is absolutely central to science.Totally disagree. I perform scientific experiments of a sort everyday without using or applying evolution.Yeah, well my comments are accurate for the rest of the scientific community.
Just saying so - doesn't make it true. The scientific method - doesn't require evolution to make it true. It is not central to the scientific method. Observation, formulating hypothesis, conducting tests, drawing conclusions - none of these require evolution. It may be that by using the scientific method - one might conclude evolution is correct. Yet that is the result of science - not the central aspect of the scientific method. Do you know the difference between cause and effect ?
The theory of evolution is the great unifying principle of biology, as powerful a model to biology as Newton's model was to physics. The conceptual framework of the theory of evolution makes sense of a profoundly wide range of scientific facts and it does it in a magnificent and comprehensive way. It provides a principle of unity, a framework by which science can attempt to explain, to unify, and to order, a vast amount of disparate data into a consistent whole providing tremendous coherence and clarity. To deny evolution you must bring into question the entire interwoven fabric of scientific research.Again we are going to have to see how broad or narrow your definition of evolution is. Change is not evolution. Adaption is not evolution. The maturing process is not evolution. Yes, I know evolutionists consider that these are part and parcel of evolution. Yet those opposed to evolution in its narrow definition believe that such things as change and adaption and the maturing process are able to be satisfactorily explained without the theory of evolution.Nope, on what basis do you "oppose evolution", and if it is on the basis of some kind of special definition of evolution, then please let us know what that definition is.
So Just to be clear - you are not prepared to give a definition of evolution. Put simply, the theory of evolution by means of natural selection can be described as "descent with modification." Dictionaries tend to provide a couple of definitions.
1. the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
2. the gradual development of something. "the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution".
The first one is narrow - and the second is broad.
Nonsense, evolution is a scientific theory, it establishes the context within which the unified sciences operate, it doesn't speak to theology, and it is nonsense to say that the scientific consensus is an atheistic position, any attempt to make it into an atheistic position is contrived and agenda based.
I never said it wasn't a scientific theory. So will you be using it in its narrow sense or broad sense? Above you seem to use it both ways - applying it both biologically and then much broader into other areas of science.
Yes, you have said that and are now repeating yourself. At least in the first part of that paragraph. Your final sentence presumes much without any evidence to support the same. Let's see what your definitions are and then perhaps we might be able to discuss this properly.All of you sentences presume much without any evidence.
You did repeat yourself. The evidence is in the posts. You said several times that evolution doesn't challenge any of the basic tenets of Christianity. not once have you provided any definition of what basic Christian tenets are. Or what denomination you are coming from? And now you accuse God of being deceptive. Tell me - is it more deceptive to write that he created humanity from nothing in one day or to let scientists think that the world is actually a lot older? Why is one more or less deceptive than the other? I assume you read OT Hebrew since you must be able to explain why God would deceptively use the language - in the first chapters which describes historical narrative - you know using the waw consecutive as opposed to other language signals that could easily just describe it as poetry. I am looking forward to why you think that language is not deceptive.
I disagree. There is are many different topics that could be explored in that paragraph. But let's start by you - defining and providing the basis of Christianity - and for the theory of definition and then we can go from there. Thanks by the way for your response.Lets go with with the topic I addressed, your concept of a deceptive God, explain to me why you think that is a tenet of Christianity? I know my Bible, perhaps you can provide some scriptural reference to support this trickster God concept, I sure don't find it in the Bible. I'm also comfortable that the Bible supports my position on this evolution matter, maybe you can provide some scripture to support the argument against evolution.
Hmmm, I don't think God is deceptive. I think the heart on the other hand is deceptive above all things. I also think that when scientists start with false assumptions that they will draw false conclusions. I am pleased you think the bible supports your evolutionary theory. Where did I say God was deceptive? In fact it appears that you are one who thinks that. Or are you simply trying to turn this into the burden of proof is on me. Which is ironic considering this entire topic is not for people to put burdens of proof down - - but to provide an explanation. That is what I asked for - and although I thank you for your question and it is interesting - it is a clear derailing of the OP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
As someone who is not an evolutionistI'll presume this position is based on a contrived presumption that the theory of evolution in some way contradicts Christian faith, but that just isn't true.
Well I guess it depends on what you think is the Christian Faith. And it also depends upon what evolution is as well. Many of the different sciences you lay out below are not dependent upon evolution in the manner by which Darwin posited it. Although you state it is a unifying theory - you are simply incorrect.
Perhaps however before we continue that aspect of our discussion, you might provide a definition of what you think the Christian Faith is and also what you define as the theory of evolution. I suspect that your presumption of contrived presumption won't stack up. Still, I will await you definitions to see whether they match or not.
What you are contending requires a direct refutation of the most general principles of most of our physical and biological sciences. As a unifying theory of biology, evolution holds true. Its mechanisms are by no means completely understood and it does not in any way eliminate the mystery of life, question the existence of God, or bring into doubt any of the basic tenets of Christianity.
Not at all. It really is going to depend upon how broad or narrow your provided definition of the theory of evolution is going to be. We need to see what you think are the basic tenets of Christianity are before we can draw such a conclusion.
But it is absolutely central to science.
Totally disagree. I perform scientific experiments of a sort everyday without using or applying evolution.
The theory of evolution is the great unifying principle of biology, as powerful a model to biology as Newton's model was to physics. The conceptual framework of the theory of evolution makes sense of a profoundly wide range of scientific facts and it does it in a magnificent and comprehensive way. It provides a principle of unity, a framework by which science can attempt to explain, to unify, and to order, a vast amount of disparate data into a consistent whole providing tremendous coherence and clarity. To deny evolution you must bring into question the entire interwoven fabric of scientific research.
Again we are going to have to see how broad or narrow your definition of evolution is. Change is not evolution. Adaption is not evolution. The maturing process is not evolution. Yes, I know evolutionists consider that these are part and parcel of evolution. Yet those opposed to evolution in its narrow definition believe that such things as change and adaption and the maturing process are able to be satisfactorily explained without the theory of evolution.
Flat out denial of the theory of Evolution requires the concomitant denial of an astounding range of scientific disciplines, not just the disciplines of geology, paleontology, archeology, radiometric dating, genetics, and zoology but also such fundamental disciplines as physics, astronomy, astrophysics, chemistry, biochemistry, geophysics, biology, botany, microbiology, and meteorology, and many others. Because of the interrelated aspect of the sciences, you can't really propose that the theory evolution is false without being fundamentally anti-scientific. You can contend that the theory of evolution is incomplete, nobody claims it is complete. If you could in fact, deny the theory of evolution, it would, in effect, unravel the world of science.
It appears that you take a very broad definition of evolution. Applying it to all sciences. I never said the theory of evolution is non-scientific in this thread. I said I am not an evolutionists. I can certainly propose that evolution defined narrowly is not related to any other aspect of science. I disagree that the world of science is held together by evolution. That would be an atheistic position. And it couldn't be a religious one held by someone who holds to the tenets of Christianity.
And I just don't see why anyone would want to do that. I simply do not see evolution challenging any of the basic tenets of Christianity; unfortunately, I can't say the same thing about your contention here. In order to support the belief that evolution is false, you accordingly have to postulate a deceptive God, don't you?
Yes, you have said that and are now repeating yourself. At least in the first part of that paragraph. Your final sentence presumes much without any evidence to support the same. Let's see what your definitions are and then perhaps we might be able to discuss this properly.
You would need to propose a God who would create Man with a rational mind, a sense of wonder, and seeking intellect, while creating a universe with the false appearance of tremendous age with the overwhelming evidence of "evolution" occurring in creation as a trick or something. This concept of a deceptive God is very hard to accept, it strikes me as a much greater challenge to Christianity than any damage the concept of evolution could ever hope to do.
I disagree. There is are many different topics that could be explored in that paragraph. But let's start by you - defining and providing the basis of Christianity - and for the theory of definition and then we can go from there. Thanks by the way for your response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Is this another one of those"if I dont know the answer, then God is the answer"?
Nope, the god of the gaps theory is a strawman argument pushed by people like Dawkins. No self respecting Christian would use such a lame argument. Mind you - it certainly entertains a lot of pieces of paper.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Did you mean to post this thread in the religion forum?
Yes I did.
I was coming at this from a religious perspective - and wanted to know some of the alternate views. I anticipate that I will engage with these in due course. Thanks for asking though. I considered the other forums, but knew it would ultimately become a religious discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
In the existence that exists, why did the non-life evolve to a life form?Random mixing of chemicals. If you think the chances are low, keep in mind the Earth is 4.5B years old and the earliest organisms is 3.7B years ago, meaning that we had hundreds of millions of years of chemical mixing and colliding and forming new chemical substances.
So are you suggesting that in the earliest periods it was all random then?
Does this imply that non-life forms have the ability to be dissatisfied? Or the capacity to want to exist forever? Moreover, how did it come about? Was it intentional, under the guise of the survival of the fittest - although I am not sure how that works. Or was it an accident?Although I am not an expert in animal biology and psychology, I am pretty sure that humans are one of the select few organisms to question the existence and purpose of themselves. That is why the Bible existed: Some smart guy back then just thought there was a god and created the Earth in 7 days, and that was the leading view in the extent they are in control of(Europeans cannot even access America back then). I don't think the earliest organisms even had the capacity to think, they just hung around, and the ones that didn't die mated as usual and the ones that died are unable to pass on their genes, resulting in a change in allele frequency and...yeah, basically survival of the fittest, natural selection, evolution.It was a chain of accidents, but it ain't broke, so don't fix it.
Ok. So completely and utterly an accident or chain of the same? How do you know it ain't broke?
Now admittedly, having a brain seems better than not having a brain. And the ability to move and communicate seems to be better than not being able to do the same, but they are both value statements.Because of the environment. Given the human society now, it is obviously more fit for you to be, say, a woman, than a hen. Life have evolved so brains, legs, and lungs existed, because those with these traits have survived long enough for it to be dominant. And yes, having a big brain, being able to move and communicate, etc. is peak for the human-constructed environment we live in right now. This is also why sponges don't construct apartment buildings. They have lived in the water like that for millions of years and if it ain't broken, again, don't fix it.
Yes, but not life forms exist for many more years than life forms. you are using a value statement about woman over hens. and again - who says it ain't broke and how can we know? Is there some kind of universal measure for broken or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Because we have done experiments that under circumstances both physically and chemically, nucleotides and amino acids could form, bringing about the first RNA, then the first DNA, then the first prokaryote cell, then the first eukaryote cell, and everything just evolved until it became us.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Can you please put it in layperson's terms? thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
In the existence that exists, why did the non-life evolve to a life form? Does this imply that non-life forms have the ability to be dissatisfied? Or the capacity to want to exist forever? Moreover, how did it come about? Was it intentional, under the guise of the survival of the fittest - although I am not sure how that works. Or was it an accident?
As someone who is not an evolutionist - and what little I thought I knew, seems to becoming more vague every day, so would someone please assist me here.
Now I know that this may well do with the origin of all theories - yet - I am not asking about why or how non-life came into being - we can assume that for the sake of the discussion. I am asking about the evolution from non-life to life.
Now admittedly, having a brain seems better than not having a brain. And the ability to move and communicate seems to be better than not being able to do the same, but they are both value statements.
Thanks - in anticipation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I don't have a problem with sexual deviancy.We know. And that is your problem. You admit to it here >> https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEGUEW9 . And don't seem embarrassed or ashamed to admit it Reverend.But your god has a big problem with it.Leviticus 18:6-18‘None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, that is, the nakedness of your mother. She is your mother; you are not to uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness.The nakedness of your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home or born outside, their nakedness you shall not uncover. The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for their nakedness is yours. The nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, born to your father, she is your sister, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s blood relative. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s blood relative. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother; you shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, nor shall you take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are blood relatives. It is lewdness. You shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness.
You're as daft and stupid as the buffoon Thomas if you actually think quoting a verse entirely out of context is a winner. In the first place - there is no reason for me to be embarrassed for the link. I have explained why - just because you can't read doesn't change that fact. I was not talking about myself - and you know that. Just imagine for a moment that you have any decency, I know that will be hard. But just imagine that you did - why would you bring such a quote from another website that within the context of an entire conversation which incidentally you have not provided - and suggest that it has anything to do with me and my own values? It is just the height of stupidity to think that it would. but just imagine that you figured that out.
And then imagine with this new found decency - you actually thought - hmm - why am I repeating such nonsense and interpreting it EXACTLY the opposite of what the author purports it to mean? Why am I doing that? Perhaps in your newly imagined sense of decency, you might see how trivial and silly you were. I don't hold any hope of that of course.
but the fact that you and Brother continue to bring it up - is the best evidence I have that I whipped your proverbial butts all over the place. You don't want to actually engage with the bible. You just want to spout your misinformation. And when I or others tell you to pull your heads in - what do you do? Go back to your little books of stalking 101 and find "out of context" comments to attack us as people. Do you have no clue as to how weak and pathetic you look.
I'm not embarrassed about what I wrote - although in hindsight I regret that I did write it. I didn't consider that such comments would become so twisted by people like yourself - Brother and Harikrish - that it would be essentially your only weapon. But I guess that is your MO. Without any brains and any half decent arguments - you have to resort to attacking people.
Well there you have it. I didn't want to do this. But I am going to put both you and Brother on permanent block. In the real world, we wouldn't put up with the trolling and the rubbish you both throw out. I have put up with it for far too long. I have always endeavoured to believe that you might actually want to discuss religion in a reasonable manner. Yet your constant verbiage and intentional attacking of persons has changed my mind. All the best - as I do not intend to continue our conversations without a proper apology and desire to change.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Addressing yet another runaway from your MO of being an ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT in your post #374:
LOL @ your pathetic attempt to lie again. ONCE MORE - I have never made any such admission. I have denied any such admission. I have explained and engaged with the post within that other now defunct website and this one. Consider this to once again another time I have not run away. It actually concerns me that you are so obsessed with bringing this up.
Miss Tradesecret, listen, I have learned that when you are so embarrassed about Jesus and I bringing up your ungodly SEXUAL DEVIANCY WITH FAMILY MEMBERS, AND THAT YOU ADMIT TOO, you have to use every lame excuse in your ever growing list of excuses to RUN AWAY from it as it was comically shown in your mish-mash statements in your post #374! . Okay, we get it!!! ALRIGHT?!
I don't have any embarrassing situations to bring up about my family members. I have denied each and every one of your lies. I don't have to make a lame excuse. But for the sake of your embarrassing argument, let's say I did try and make a lame excuse, then that should have been the end of it as well. After all, are you a judge, prosecutor, some kind of sex deviancy police? Well no on every score. You are simply an embarrassment of an excuse of a human being. You get nothing - dear Brother because your brain on permanent hold.
I have tried to get you to talk about your immorality of being a SEXUAL DEVIANT WITH YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS since the topic was first brought up to try and help you, but instead, you ran away from the topic ad infinitum. Why don't you want me to help you in getting rid of your ungodly SEXUAL DEVIANCY? I gave you a link of organizations that are experienced with despicable SEXUAL DEVIANT woman like you represent, and you never told me if you contacted them or not, as shown in this following link: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8091-the-case-for-the-historical-jesus?page=25&post_number=611
My morality is ok thanks very much. But the fact that you continue to repeat such nonsense reveals your own attraction towards such matters. I don't run away - I just don't see any point in replying to you. I don't have a problem with sexual deviancy.
YOUR LYING POST WHERE YOU SAY THE FOLLOWING: "And more than that - you don't engage with the scriptures."
Nope. It was the truth. You run away and REFUSE to engage with the actual scriptures. Of course that makes sense - since you don't understand them as has been demonstrated by well almost every one else on this site.
Dear, try and be up to date, because in the post in question below I have shown you what Jesus thinks of your SEXUAL DEVIANCY WITH YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS with biblical passages herewith: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8091-the-case-for-the-historical-jesus?page=25&post_number=610
the very fact you go back there again - is running away from the fact that you are a dunse. You go back to attacking people. Not their arguments. But is that a surprise really?
The explicit and ungodly link in you admitting that you are a sexual deviant with your family members is shown herewith: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEGUEW9
what part of - I don't check your links out - don't you understand? You are a troll. Nothing more - nothing less. A troll with no testicles. No courage to actually come out and be a real man - a real person. Come on Brother - stick your neck out - - or would it be too embarrassing for you? Sad and pathetic excuse of human being.
Now, the only entities that you have left, is to just accept your despicable and ungodly sexual ways with your family members in NOT being a Christian, or at least TRY to overcome said sexual proclivities with explicit proof to the membership of this esteemed Religion Forum, its just that simple.
Boring. Do you have any idea how boring it - how dull it - when a fake person masquerading as fake christian - purports to be the determiner of a real christian or not? Obviously not - or you would have stopped by now.
NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE "MISS TRADESECRET" THAT TRIES IN VAIN TO GET THE TOPIC OF HER ADMITTING TO SEXUAL DEVIANCY WITH FAMILY MEMBERS BE REMOVED FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, WILL BE ...?
Certainly if any Christian would like to have an opportunity to demonstrate your stupidity - they are welcome to it. I have become bored with your stupidity and refusal to actually discuss, engage, have a half decent conversation without resorting to ad hominem, strawman, and other fallacies that you don't have the sense to understand or comprehend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I know it is hard to get it through your think skull, but seriously.
when one looks at this site - it is clear that the only person who runs away from the discussions is you, Brother.
Yes, you don't literally take off except when you are suspended or have other things to do - but there are other forms of running away.
One way is to post as many possible links into one post. Absolutely impossible to respond with any reasonable post. Yet you do it KNOWING FULL WELL that people won't be bothered responding. And then you laugh because they don't respond.
That's just stupid.
And more than that - you don't engage with the scriptures. I know public schooling is pretty atrocious in America but you really demonstrate that by the way you think you are engaging.
Furthermore - your bullish and continuing contempt for every other poster here - demonstrated in the beginning of every post is disturbing. It shows you have no respect for the DebateArt website or its reputation. Your continued lies - despite adequate responses from others simply means people don't want to respond to you. Not because they can't - but because they simply don't have to nor want to put up with a kindergarten bully. Especially one where there are no consequences available. Yes, every now and then someone does respond for a while. but pretty soon the same result will occur. Just look at the number of links you have put u for our recent member. Despite the fact that he/ she has responded in many posts.
Yes, we know you are a parody. A pretty silly one too. And at times - in the beginning anyway it was amusing. now it is just boring. The only time I end up responding to you now is - to tell you to stop tagging me on your posts. I really don't find it at all helpful to respond to anything you write since you are not interested in actually knowing what the passages say. you have made up your mind and can't actually consider the posts and contexts in anything but a stupid strawman way.
the funny thing is you think engaging is - repeating the same thing over and over again. If others repeat the same thing - you call it running away.
As I said - I hope you have a merry Christmas and get some clarity. It seems from your last post to me - that this sounds like wishful thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
You continue to surprise me with how petty you are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You must be bored to be commenting about my quote.
Do you miss me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Honestly, you are so boring I lost interest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Brother Thomas,
Merry Christmas.
I hope this year brings you more clarity, and less foolishness.
Are you ever going to stop running away?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Why is it you are so desperate to get rid of me?Sound like more victimhood to me.
wow - that old chest nut again. you really are so predictable.
What are you scared about?On the contrary. I believe it just maybe you that are worried that some here just might start taking on board what I am actually saying about your scriptures and find out for themselves if or not that my take on the New Testamant story of Jesus is more plausible than the myth that you have been regurgitating and adding to for over the last two thousand years.You don't even have to read what I have to say concerning these unreliable and ambiguous half told stories that makeup the four contradictory gospels. . It should be of no interest to you whatsoever. After all, you are the one that knows better than any - "drug addled kiddy fiddling#33" - atheist, aren't you?Is the bible a religious book, Tradesecret? Or just another history book to you?
Are you a drug addled kiddy fiddler? Certainly you are a stalker.
what makes a book religious? The bible contains history but it is not a history book. It contains wisdom but it is not wisdom textbook. I don't particularly care what lies you make up about the bible - thankfully most people are able to reason for themselves and determine whether or not what you blabber on about is plausible or not. The fact is the conclusions I draw from the bible - others do as well. The conclusions you draw - are yours alone. And even that is being generous to you, since you didn't conclude them yourself - you just read a book and borrowed them.
Have you ever had an original thought? I doubt it.
As for reading your words, I concede I can't be bothered most of the time. Every now and then I check through a few posts. But given what you write most of the time is old - and refuted already. There is nothing new under the sun - someone said. (I anticipate your next line will be something like - "Tradesecret - I have to tell you again - since you don't know the bible even though you say you have memorised it from a young age" it's in the bible." and then you will probably refer to me to Ecclesiastes. But you know what - since I said - "someone said", you will make the assumption I don't know where it comes from. And then you will assume that I should have known it came from the bible - but I didn't because somehow I am a liar. )
Predictable is what you are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Axioms are circular. They are self serving premises for any kind of evidence. Reason is an axiom. How do we know? Because we can reason our way to it. Experience is an axiom. How do we know? Because our experience tells us so.
These are the basic tenants of understanding truth. The bible is another - or revelation. How do we know revelation is truth - revelation has revealed it.
Your argument above against revelation was based in reason. Reason is your axiom. Good for you. But it is not mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Trinity is just theistic gobbledegook.Or, are you're saying that three GODS created the Universe.In the beginning GODS created the heavens and the Earth.Ah, someone missed the S off in translation.I see.Do you know which one created which bit, and who witnessed who's bit?Does it say in the BOOK?
Zed, every now and then you say intriguing and brilliant things. But every now and then you say silly things. This is one of those occasions.
The concept of the Trinity is the UNIFYING concept of the universe and everything else. For many it is a really difficult concept - pretty much everyone who finds life difficult.
Yet - to understand the Trinity - and its philosophical understanding is without doubt - what this world needs. It is one and it is many. It is absolute and yet relative. It is all and yet it is one.
Still it is a matter for others to consider.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.It is not an argument. It is a statement of fact.A statement of fact testified to by the only witness who was there. God.- This is circular. How do I know God indeed said that?
yes, how observant of you. It is called an axiom. Do you know what that is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Hello Brother,
No one on this site plays your game. Everyone - laughs at you.
Stop playing stupid and come and join in.
We are all waiting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Now those kinds of things have happened in other religious traditions too, but the difference is this:These people were actual eyewitnesses to what they were claiming.- The authors of the Gospels are anonymous. The names John, Luke, Matthew...etc are conventional -decided a century after the fact, & not of the actual disciples of Jesus (pbuh)I'm quite surprised one of these claimed gospel authors wasn't name Simon. Simon's were everywhere in Jesus' day according to Tradesecret. They were more common than donkey shite.
Such a silly comment. Wait a second was it Simon or Stephen we are talking about?
Tradesecret wrot; In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.It is not an argument. It is a statement of fact.A statement of fact testified to by the only witness who was there. God.Yassine- This is circular. How do I know God indeed said that?If it came from the mouth of Tradesecret, then you can guarantee that it is a lie.
Yeah cool man. Why is it you are so desperate to get rid of me? What are you scared about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If a GOD created something, then it could not also witness the act.For that, a GOD would have needed a witness.The above statement (#156) was a tad silly.Admirable devotion to biblical mythology, but a tad silly.
As I said God is ONE but God is also Trinity.
Trinity is THREE persons. Where there are two or three witnesses. Calling it a tad silly is - well a little silly itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Do you really think that quoting Jesus out of context somehow refutes what I said? You really are sadder than I thought.
Jesus is the Son of God. The Second Person of the Trinity. He is one person.
God in the beginning created the world as the Trinity. Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
When Jesus was on this planet in the form of a human, he was not the TRINITY, even though he remained as the second person of the Trinity. In fact Jesus is never one and the same as the Trinity. He is the Son. Not biologically. Ontologically.
I know you don't understand that - but that is the doctrine of the church.
Hence the only witness to the Creation is God the Trinity. He is three persons. But one God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
It is not an argument. It is a statement of fact.
A statement of fact testified to by the only witness who was there. God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Blah blah blah.
Anytime about now when you are ready.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Go and find it for yourself. You are the one with the search engine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Brother - perhaps I did change my meds? And if so, so what?
That doesn't make any of what you said - any more plausible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
- Say, the Universe has a Creator, God. Prove to me Jesus / Yahweh is said God.
Genesis 1:1
Created: