Tradesecret

I have to abuse the demonic study of

Biology

Painful one would imagine.

So what was Mary's age?

Is this mentioned in the Bible? 

A discussion for Pharisees who, had they been in the crowd listening to the Sermon on the Mount, would have called out,  "Wait, Rabbi!  Before I can take any of this too seriously, we need to discuss your mother's sex life... "

Jesus is not recorded as having made this claim and I am quite confident that he would have considered the question entirely irrelevant to the lessons he was teaching.   

#1.

Yep.

All very confusing.

I call the whole question entirely irrelevant to Christianity.  If Christ  thought it was important for people to perceive him as a magic triplet god, he would have said so.  It's only important to people who want to focus on the doctrine of monotheism and scriptural precision instead of listening to and believing in the Sermon on the Mount.

Just as I predicated.

Trinity is a paradox or mystery. Jesus is god and the father is god but Jesus is not the father. I accept the trinity but either it isn't logical not that it's suppose to be or it needs modified. Maybe all three equal god? I'm open minded to new thinking given it don't make sense to humans

TS said: “It is clear that Jesus usage of the term "sword" is metaphorical not literal”

Tradesecret's Bible  erroneously states in her quote above that Jesus' sword was metaphorical, NOT!

In Jesus  using the term “sword,” He meant it to be as intended, a sword to kill as the following “inspired by Jesus passages show below:"

“Then said he (Jesus) unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough. When they which were about him saw what would follow, ………. they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. (Luke 22:36-38, 49-50,)

“Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who stands next to me,” declares the Lord of hosts. “Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered; I will turn my hand against the little ones.” (Zechariah 13:7)

“And my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless.” (Exodus 22:24)

“If a man does not repent, God will whet his sword; he has bent and readied his bow;” (Psalm 7:12)

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34)

“When they blew the 300 trumpets, the Lord set every man's sword against his comrade and against all the army. And the army fled as far as Beth-shittah toward Zererah, as far as the border of Abel-meholah, by Tabbath.” (Judges 7:22)

“He gave his people over to the sword and vented his wrath on his heritage.” (Psalm 78:22)

“And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.” (Luke 22:38)

“Then they said, “The God of the Hebrews has met with us. Please let us go a three days' journey into the wilderness that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God, lest he fall upon us with pestilence or with the sword.”  (Exodus 5:3)

Rosends and  Tradesecret, why don't the two of you discuss the blatant differences between prayer relative to Judaism and Christianity?  

TS said  "One wonders what type of drugs you are using.  Prayer is quite simple really. It is talking with God.  That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. It is talking."

Brother T asks: when you pray for "something" that you need, you are insulting God because of the following passage: "Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him" (Matthew 6:8). 

Furthermore, I have learned that prayer in this respect is like gambling, where you never talk about your losses!  

So how does "the Christian bible" define the word - righteous?

And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - blameless?

And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - perfect?

And although mankind's fall means we will remain sinful does this mean we will not ever be perfect until  we accept Jesus, the resurrection and die?

LOL! Go and read the bible and find out for yourself.  Romans is a good place to start.  Compare it to Luther's comments. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7634/post-links/329868

Prayer.

Utilising one's ability to either visually input and repeat data,  or recall stored data and convert it into a narrative, either internally or projected externally as sound.

Something that humans sometimes attribute temporary significance to.......A bit like ordering a meal from a Chinese restaurant.

Or like the above discussion, in fact.

And then do something else, and forget about the prayer, or digest the fried rice.

Humans are brilliant at doing stuff.

And if temporary satisfaction is gained peaceably from any recreational activity such as praying, eating Chinese style food with friends, debating or watching  pornography, then who is to criticize.

Though criticizing others,  is yet another example of how humans acquire satisfaction from their ability to store and recall complex data.

So in all sincerity......Enjoy your praying and your debating and your meal and your porn video.

Regards Zed

Turning into a right little troll aren't you Reverend  Munchausen. 

LOOK, Just simply stop responding to me if your intent is to keep refusing to answer my questions that are clearly in the bounds of your own fkn dictates, you sanctimonious, contradictory, backpaddling whining little tart . Its not fkn hard.

There is no personal attack made by me on  this thread. You are just desperate to avoid the questions even if it means breaking rules set down by yourself.

What you hold to is a tautological impossibility. It's a dichotomy to maintain either my will is authored by myself, or a result of past causes. 

I accept the fact that we can only know God based on insufficient reasoning. Hence why I am pleased God chose to reveal himself through the Scriptures. 

Your conclusion that god revealed himself through Scripture is based on insufficient reasoning. How do you know it's the right scripture? And even if it were right, the "rightness" would only conform to 0.05% of all possible knowledge. 

p1. Humans were made good. 

p2. Therefore it is inconceivable that humans could have been made any "gooder". 

p3. A human who is able to contend morally reprehensible temptations is "gooder" than a human who cannot contend morally reprehensible temptations. 

p4. Humans (Adam & Eve) did not contend morally reprehensible temptations (the serpent)

c1. Therefore it is conceivable that there is a "gooder" human that could exist. 

Ergo. A contradiction arises between p1 and c1. 

I am fine with p1.  I think that p2 is flawed since both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil existed.

It's not possible to affirm only one of p1 or p2. Being made good in this context necessarily entails that one couldn't be any better, for if it were conceivable, then the conception itself would have been what God create. Either God created ultimately moral people or he did not. 

p3 is an interesting proposition.   Yet I can't agree with it yet. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by contend. It may be you mean resist. Yet I am still not comfortable with the term "gooder".  We will have to explore that further.  If you don't mind.

I think resist is a good term to use. Is it not trivial that a person who resists the urge to be evil is better than person who cannot? A person who caves in to their desire to steal is less moral than a person who uses rationality to conclude that it is wrong. 

c1 again is probably true - but not necessarily flowing out of the above conclusions. 

If he could, then what benefit does creating these sinning people.

Another topic I have been pondering is why God created in the first place. It is an issue, as I see it. 

p1. God is infinitely good, that is, God's essence is that which could not be any better. 

p2. God creating humans does not make reality any better. 

c1. There was no point in creating people. 

Jesus, who Christians consider a new thing - like Adam, was also tempted from without.  the devil came to him and despite the thoughts being put to him - Jesus rightly rejected them all. 

So if Jesus was a "free" man who rejected all sin, why couldn't God make people like Jesus? That would be a true utopia - free will individual who chose only to do what is good.

He did make a person like Jesus. 

My question isn't whether he made a couple people like Jesus, but rather why didn't he create the population as he did Jesus? What is the point of all these sinning people? We have established that "free will" is not a defence for sin, so what's the point?

So gratuitous evils, such as animal suffering in the billions, serves some good to the future? This seems wholly implausible. 

That is not what I said. God is not utilitarian. The means and the ends matter.  The point I was making is that whatever world you can imagine, it would not be better than this one for the purposes it was made. 

If our world is the best possible world, then would you agree that every murder which occurs is not only morally acceptable, but morally obligatory? If we live in the best possible world, and in this world there are street mugging and whatnot, then the street muggings and whatnot must be apart of what makes this the best possible world. WIthout the muggings, it would not be as good. 

As I said above - I hold this in tension.  Out of the possible worlds that could have been created - this is the best possible one.

So then you would affirm that every murder which occurs is not only morally acceptable, but morally obligatory. 

But on the other hand - every human is entirely responsible for their actions. 

This entails free will then - people are the authors of their own actions. 

So why not skip our world and create New Heaven? 

Just because someone wants to skip school because it contains bullies, does not mean that school is not the best option. 

But if the option of skipping school involved you being transferred into heaven, which is supposed to have all the "goods" of this world and much more, then yes I would take that option for there would tautologically be no harm in doing so. 

God has not given us that option.   I suppose he wanted us to learn something about good from the evil we witness.

God could have instilled that wisdom into our minds, just as how he intils intuition. 

Your  little ploy of trying to close down and stifle genuine debate  hasn't worked , so you return to your  default position and ignore your own dictates.

Judaism views prayer as a necessary component to Jewish practice but it breaks prayer into separate categories. Only one small section of prayer is equated to "ask." Prayers are more often either praise of recognition/thanks (or, in another sense, permission).

A prayer therefore can be structured as "thank you for being you, God" or "I have this obligation to do something so I'm recognizing that I have this obligation" or "I know that the whole world belongs to God so before I do ____ it is important for me to acknowledge that."

That leaves that small section of "please grant me _____" and even those are for more general ideas, not for specific items. Though individuals can add in private requests, we "ask" about big concepts, not things. But even on that level, because asking for big ideas is not appropriate on the Sabbath and holidays, those sections are omitted so the prayer can just be about praise and recognition/thanks.

People outside of Judaism seem to see "askling" as a central and intrinsic part of prayer and they therefore measure their prayer by "getting an answer." But if you see prayer as not about asking, then you don't judge its efficacy by some discernable response.

I request that you refrain from talking of my personal life in the future. 

I can never forget your previous glorifying of yourself. And will always raise the point/s when given cause to do so. 

I think I already have. But I promise to go over your questions when I have more time. Anything I cannot prove I will admit to, as I always do.

I request that you refrain from talking of my personal life in the future. 

Which part? The part where I referenced to you being a lawyer, or the part where I referenced you being a Christian? Both are true are they not?

My point to Bones is that Christian doctrine is not defined by a dictionary but by the Bible.

Leaving you open and free to redefine just about any word you feel like redefining when it goes against the Christian grain and the Christian narrative.

  I have no issue with others defining free will how they choose or desire. That is entirely a matter for them.  Just don't THEN conflate what the individual's personal definition is with what the Christian defines it as.  That is my point. 

Ok, how does "the Christian bible" define the word - righteous? And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - blameless?

Your contention then seems somewhat redundant doesn't it? Confessions are admissible in court. Yet it depends upon the circumstances and how it was obtained.  What is admissible in court is a different to my point to Bones. Thanks for asking so that it can be clarified. 

Well to be honest I didn't expect a different answer to the one you have given. Because you have intentionally  ignored the point where I clearly wrote ;

Stephen wrote: "A confession made of one's own free #21

Do you see that? It says - own free will -  that means not coerced, not forced and not given under duress or torture, but freely, and in the exact manner that you often give freely details of your personal life to the members of this forum . So it is not as redundant as you want it to be. 

So then- would a freely given confession be inadmissible to you?

Just don't THEN conflate what the individual's personal definition is with what the Christian defines it as.  That is my point. 

And my point is that you simply redefine the universally accepted definitions of words when they do not fit the Christian/ YOUR narrative.  And this is why I started my first question to you by asking you;

Do you agree with the definition of the word Genuine?

And do you agree with the definition of the word  "Serious"?#2  These are both words used by you and of your own free will in your own OP Here>>#1

So, how does the Christian bible define the words - Genuine and Serious? 

Human nature places a blocking mechanism on free will to do what is possible and proper.  

There are restraints but would you agree or contend the idea that human free will is truer than determinism? When someone sins, do you believe they do so because of a necessary causal chain, or because of choice? 

You speak as though you believe you know all things.  Are you omniscient?  Is there anything in this universe you don't know? Given a very generous gift, I think you would know less that .05% of everything.  Are you really saying that because you find something pointless in your .05% of everything, that in the other 99.95% of everything that the answer might not be there?

If we know .05% of all that is to be known, then our knowledge of God is one which is based in insufficient reasoning - precisely, it is based on only .05% of all facts. I know things just as how you report you know things - because they best conform to what we know. 

We say humanity was made good.  They were made without sin. Sin, you will notice, or the temptation to sin, did not arise from within the person, it arose from outside the person, in the form of whatever the serpent was. 

p1. Humans were made good. 

p2. Therefore it is inconceivable that humans could have been made any "gooder". 

p3. A human who is able to contend morally reprehensible temptations is "gooder" than a human who cannot contend morally reprehensible temptations. 

p4. Humans (Adam & Eve) did not contend morally reprehensible temptations (the serpent)

c1. Therefore it is conceivable that there is a "gooder" human that could exist. 

Ergo. A contradiction arises between p1 and c1. 

Jesus, who Christians consider a new thing - like Adam, was also tempted from without.  the devil came to him and despite the thoughts being put to him - Jesus rightly rejected them all. 

So if Jesus was a "free" man who rejected all sin, why couldn't God make people like Jesus? That would be a true utopia - free will individual who chose only to do what is good.

So gratuitous evils, such as animal suffering in the billions, serves some good to the future? This seems wholly implausible. 

That is not what I said. God is not utilitarian. The means and the ends matter.  The point I was making is that whatever world you can imagine, it would not be better than this one for the purposes it was made. 

If our world is the best possible world, then would you agree that every murder which occurs is not only morally acceptable, but morally obligatory? If we live in the best possible world, and in this world there are street mugging and whatnot, then the street muggings and whatnot must be apart of what makes this the best possible world. WIthout the muggings, it would not be as good. 

So why not skip our world and create New Heaven? 

Just because someone wants to skip school because it contains bullies, does not mean that school is not the best option. 

But if the option of skipping school involved you being transferred into heaven, which is supposed to have all the "goods" of this world and much more, then yes I would take that option for there would tautologically be no harm in doing so. 

1. What do you think of assumed Christians that are despicably amoral in being sexual deviants that practice sickening sex acts with their family members?  

2.  Since this abhorred sexual situation described above goes directly against Jesus' inspired words within the scriptures, and like you have noted all the time, these sexual deviants should be punished because they knew they were going against Jesus’ inspired words, therefore they are Hell bound upon their demise! 

The dictionary does not define the Christian notion of freewill anymore than the definition defines the Christian concept of God. We understand the meaning from the bible itself.  I don't hold to the idea that freewill is something without constraint. If that is your definition then it is not the Christian definition and then your entire argument becomes irrelevant to me.  I take the view that our free will - whatever that actually means - is constrained by lots of things. I would like to fly. But I can't. I am not a bird. I would like to marry a beautiful model.  I can't because she is already married to someone else. 

You can't fly not because you are constrained by physics, not fate.  Free will refers to your "choice" of tea over coffee, the choice of walking instead of cycling. Do you believe in this postulation? 

P2. People in heaven do not sin.  

There is no sin in heaven.  It is not a matter of whether they do not sin. There is no sin in heaven.

Is there no sin in heaven because it is forbid, or because people choose not to sin? 

In the New Heavens there is no sin. God has destroyed it completely.   People don't want to sin even if they could choose.  Their eyes have been opened to the reality of God and his power.

So what's the point of our world if God could create New Heaven? The sin is needless. 

God did create people without sin.  He made them and he put them in the Garden of Eden.  They chose to rebel and sin. 

If they chose to sin then they weren't sinless were they - there was some "sinful" desire in their body which prompted them to act immorally. 

I would say that his omniscience has led him to create this world because it was the best world of any potential scenario.  And any other scenario would have been  much worse. 

So gratuitous evils, such as animal suffering in the billions, serves some good to the future? This seems wholly implausible. 

I think I have suggested that the New Heavens is a world without sin.  That is the only better world.  

So why not skip our world and create New Heaven? 

The dictionary does not define the Christian notion of freewill 

A confession made of one's own free will would be inadmissible to you then, considering you tell us that you are a lawyer and a Christian that represents criminals?

P1. All people have free will. 

Ok. But what does that mean?  Some Christians think it means free to do anything they want. Reformed folk think that there is not a logical connection between doing what one wants to do - and what one ought to do.  

Free will 

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

P2. People in heaven do not sin.  

There is no sin in heaven.  It is not a matter of whether they do not sin. There is no sin in heaven.

Is there no sin in heaven because it is forbid, or because people choose not to sin? 

C1. People can have free will (by virtue of being people) and not sin (by virtue of the existence of heaven). 

you premise is true only in the fact that people in the New Heaven are able to be sinless.

That's fine it doesn't matter which heaven we reference. 

C3. God has created people who have free will and do not sin.

God is not making new people in the New Heaven. 

how did they actualise then. 

C4. God can create people who have free will and do not sin. 

Yes, he can but not flowing on from C3 as implied by you.  

Nevertheless, if the conclusion is true then why didn't he create the sinless free people without the sin? 

P1. God is that who can institute any possible world 

I don't agree with this premise.   Holiness is God's chief attribute.  The world he creates - must accord with holiness in the manner in which he made it. 

This premise isn't supposed to be some riddle - it merely stipulates that God is all powerful and therefore can create any world which is logical. 

P2. A world in which free will exists and no sins occur is possible (evidenced by heaven and the existence of God himself, who is presumably sinless and free) is possible

C1 God could have instituted that world 

I think God created our world - and that this was good and therefore everything else is pure speculation.

This world is good? So you cannot conceive of any possible world in which is marginally better than ours? 

First thing, how long is it going to take for you to address my post #11, 

BONES QUOTE TO YOU: “God created all People.”

YOUR ANSWER: “Yes he did.”

 Have you read the Old Testament lately Bible?! (Jeremiah 31:31-33)   

Then how did Yahweh create the person shown in the link below if ALL people were created by Yahweh as Jews?!

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a6/df/ad/a6dfadad7b0a4716d14c69f98fae7d5b.jpg

Do you want to debate me upon Yahweh  creating all people?

BONES QUOTE TO YOU: “God can create people who have free will and do not sin.” 

YOUR  ANSWER: “Yes, he can but not flowing on from C3 as implied by you.”

 Yahweh cannot create man with free will because He controls everything regarding man? 

YAHWEH  SAID:  “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.” (Jeremiah 29:11)

Do you want to debate me upon the "Free Will Topic," ?

BONES QUOTE TO YOU:  “A world in which free will exists and no sins occur is possible (evidenced by heaven and the existence of God himself, who is presumably sinless and free) is possible C1 God could have instituted that world.”

 

YOUR  QUOTE ONCE AGAIN TO ANSWER BONES: “I think God created our world - and that this was good and therefore everything else is pure speculation. I also think that God is not vindictive and he is not malicious or capricious.  Therefore he had no desire to make any other world.”

 You “think” Yahweh created the world?  The very first passage in Genesis answers [this]: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

I hope your personal life is well. 

In the time of your absence, I have unleashed an unrelenting and undisputable falsification of the Christian God, which takes the following form. 

P1. All people have free will. 

P2. People in heaven do not sin.  

C1. People can have free will (by virtue of being people) and not sin (by virtue of the existence of heaven). 

P3. God created all People. 

C2. God created the People in C1. 

C3. God has created people who have free will and do not sin.

C4. God can create people who have free will and do not sin. 

P1. God is that who can institute any possible world 

P2. A world in which free will exists and no sins occur is possible (evidenced by heaven and the existence of God himself, who is presumably sinless and free) is possible

C1 God could have instituted that world 

What do you have to say about this? 

Thanks for deciding to quit feeding the trolls. 

It's been my experience that Theists love to show up to religious threads.  They get to have their say. They get to destroy their opponents.  They get to prove how cool they are in the world of philosophy.

But this is why I say they are cowards.  Because they are afraid to reveal what they believe.  For instance, what do Theists believe? 

Nothing. One common doctrine. God does exist. An argument based on an unfalsifiable claim. That is it.  Nothing else. We are not allowed to know what else they believe - because there is no common factor. 

Hence why Theists are COWARDS.   They criticize - but without fear of being criticized. That is not criticism. That is safe ground.  Bogus. really. 

Are there more doctrines for the Theist than there is God? No.   nary  a one. LOL! laughable. And weak.  Cowardly really. there is no other words that can account for this state of being. A worldview - that is not really a worldview - a position - that is not really a position - a statement that allows no criticism. Imagine if we tried to apply to that any religion?  It would be laughed out of the stadium.  that is why Theism is cowardly. One rule for them. 

My view is that only people with worldviews should be allowed to contribute in a religious forum.   An Theist ought be rejected unless they can provide a worldview to be considered.  Unless this occurs - then there is no basis of comparing and contrasting. There is no basis for conversation.

Unless an Theist is able to come up with a worldview - then the Theist's opinions ought not be welcome. 

We should not be permitted to criticize others unless we have something alternative to offer. Theists have nothing to offer - of their own admission - so why ought we subject to ANY of their criticisms.  By admitting they have no other doctrines, they admit they use religious doctrines to live their lives.  

Why should a lying church get a tax break, for just being a place where lies and fictions are taught as fact?

Why should liars get away with their religious lies and get tax dollars back for being liars?

I don't find atheists so much into exploring ideas as they are in destroying ideas.  And ridiculing people along the way.  If they had something better to offer it might assist. 

From what I can see, it doesn't look like you're interested in exploring the views and ideas of atheists. It looks like you find their criticism true in some way and want to retaliate (by destroying their views) while you are quite literally ridiculing (atheists are cowards).

If you sincerely want to know someone's views - you would just ask rather than pretend you are a victim.

Some have gone so far as to argue religion may actually be a form of mental illness. In 2006, biologist Richard Dawkins published his book The God Delusion, in which he characterizes belief in God as delusional. Dawkins cites the definition of a delusion as “a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of a psychiatric disorder.”

It wouldn’t be so frustrating if you had enough evidence to meet the burden of proof you give yourself when you make a claim, such as “a god exists”.

You’re confusing atheists with atheism. Atheism has no worldview because that’s not what it is.

It’s the rejection of theistic claims. Any attempt to add a worldview into that is wrong because there is nothing about any worldview you add that is necessarily a part of atheism. This is like the question “what do all women want?”. The very act of answering this question with a desire you believe to be common amongst all women is itself demonstrative of the fact that you don’t understand the scope of the question.

If there is one thing most atheists accept as a foundation of their worldview it’s skepticism. So if you’d like to have a conversation with atheists about what they believe while sticking to this subject, spend some time discussing epistemology. Things what kind of evidence is needed to support various claims, where is the line between accepting a proposition vs not accepting vs denying it as false, and where the default position lies.

There was no question needed Miss Tradesecret because my post in question above is just showing the FACT to the membership that you couldn't debate yourself out of a broom closet, let alone trying to debate the Trinity Doctrine with me that you ADMIT you can't do it by running away from my challenge!  My said post #481 PROVES WITHOUT ANY DOUBT that you have ran out of excuses to debate me upon said topic, and now you have to live with this FACT Miss "Scaredy Cat!" while you are upon this Religion Forum. LOL!

You have essentially been debating me with your every weak refutation to my godly posts to you over and over and over again while upon this esteemed Religion Forum

If atheists had an alternative and you could legitimately criticize it, would that make your beliefs true? 

No.  Of course not. Yet it would give an opportunity of open discussion.  An opportunity to explore ideas. 

If other people's views have no bearing on the truth of your beliefs, why must they be part of an open discussion?

What do non-smokers believe? Nothing. This is essentially what you’re arguing. Most atheists just live their lives just as religious people do.