Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Hello Brother,
That you see my words as a contradiction does not surprise me.
Nevertheless, I stand by my words.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Do you think that somehow you are immune from hypocrisy? The fact is religion has many definitions and not just one. In fact I listed several. So to be perfectly honest, I don't care how you want to read it. But I reserve the right to use it in as many different contexts as I choose and to use it differently when I so choose. It is not an abuse of English or any other language. The fact is - it has different definitions depending upon the context. So my suggestion to you - is get over it and stop being such a silly little boy.
Just because I have learnt and studied does not mean I have finished doing so. Your comments are nothing but churlishness and stupid in that respect.
I'm not playing games with you. You are a fraud and a fake and a failed student. I don't owe you anything. And you don't owe me anything either,
Me - expressing suppositions is nothing more or nothing less. The fact that you cannot express any humility let alone acknowledge that you don't know everything is well getting a bit old and dry. Perhaps you ought to try another look - since - you continue to demonstrate what a complete and utter joke you are.
I am able to present my doubts on subjects. I know this bemuses you. I don't care. I will continue to be honest and also retain my dignity and integrity. You have lost yours a long time ago which is why you continue this double charade.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I have distinguished different definitions of religion - used depending upon who is being addressed. It is not a contradiction - unless you can demonstrate that I used the term "religion" in both ways with the same definition. I doubt you have the skills to try and figure that out for yourself.
And not the first when it comes to these scriptures is it, you bible dunce? And what a novice schoolboy error for one that claims to be both a "Pastor and a Chaplain" #20, and one that also claims to have" studied and was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church"#91, and charges universities to tutor their students in religious studies"#20 and adds further to these wild claims;"I have been taught to memorise the bible from very young. I have read the bible numerous times. I try and read the OT once every year and the NT twice a year. I know it reasonable well and can even read Hebrew and Greek. #52. You keep opening the door Reverend Münchhausen and I will keep plowing right on through.You also ignored the fact that Mary was also human which by your own claim of inherited sin makes her sinful and in turn Jesus also sinful. This will be one those knots I mentioned above that you have tied yourself into.
Yes, I make mistakes. No loss there, is it? You make mistakes and NEVER admit it unless - unless it dragged out of you. I have never ignored the fact that Mary was and is human. Mary did inherit sin. I have said as much in the past. I have expressed the idea that Jesus may have inherited original sin. It is a matter I am still exploring. I still hold that Jesus was without sin. The question is whether or not sin and sins are the same or how they are linked? Jesus never committed a sin. But does the fact that he might have had original sin - prevent him from being without sin? If it does then clearly he does not have original sin. If it does not then he might well have original sin. This is intriguing for it obviously has many implications.
Mary was a sinner. She sinned. She has both original sin and sinned. I think original sin or total depravity of sin is inherited - not by dna by the way - but covenantally. Don't mix the two up as you seem to enjoy doing. If Jesus has inherited original sin - it was via the covenant. Not because he was the biological son of Mary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barnardot
I did not dodge the question. The question assumesSee what I mean. The question doesn’t assume nothing.You deliberately assume something so you can doge it because you just can’t argue the point that god or Jesus never heels anyone . It’s amazing when goddists get caught out they make up bigger and bigger baloney to think they can get out of the dog mess.
The problem is I did not answer the question the way you wanted me to. The question did make assumptions. You have not refuted that position of which I articulated. Typical like another poster here used to do - assert and never argue.
The NT provides lots of examples of where Jesus healed people. These are provided by eyewitnesses and or those who investigated the healings.
Were any of these specifically people who had lost limbs? IDK - but I see no reason why not. Not every illness was described. But to say there was none is to argue from silence.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
The Bible is God's word.And you can prove that can you?I don't need to.You have made the claim, Reverend Münchhausen.
So.
It [the bible] proclaims itself as such.So self proclamation is proof of fact is it? You wouldn't get away with that claim in a court of law, now would you our resident lawyer "tradey". You do claim also be a lawyer don't you?what is the one book that has been in almost every courthouse in the West over the past 300 hundred years.It matters not. The bible was at one time in every room in every hotel in the world, what's your point.
It wasn't used in every hotel in the world in the same way it was used in the courtroom. If you don't understand the point, I can't help you.
Correct. So here you make one claim and then contradict yourself with a follow-up claim.
Sorry - no contradiction in my words.
Homosexuality in the OT and in the NT is considered sinful.That is punishable by death according to both books.As a maximum penalty - just like theft and murder and adultery and telling lies.Well death IS the ONLY penalty for homosexual practices according to the bible. Stop trying to water it down, you clown.
Nope. Maximum penalty only. Adultery for instance carried the death penalty as well. Yet David did not suffer death for adultery, did he? So stop telling lies about the Hebrew culture which you continually fail to understand.
Just like in Australia where you can get 20 years for stealing a loaf of bread.Nope. You'd be very unlucky to get even probation for stealing a loaf of bread in Australia. Stop talking shite.
Yes you can. It is the maximum penalty. It might be unlikely - but certainly possible. After all it is the law. In the OT - the death penalty was also the maximum penalty - not the only one.
I assume you are familiar with 1 Corinthians 1 and 2.Nothing there that supports your claim. And no surprises there then.
LOL! nor does it surprise me of your stupidity.
Christ Crucified. Why would or how could someone die for someone else? How could any person represent someone else? This could never happen in our world? Could it? Christ Crucified. That God would become a man - how foolish? After all, everyone knows to do anything useful you must be powerful.. Man must become a God - with superpowers. That is wisdom - man's wisdom anyway.Christ Crucified - God humbling himself to the very creation he made. What foolishness. What stupidity.Jesus, was crucified for sedition; crimes against Rome.Nope. He was crucified because the Jews wanted him dead for blasphemy.What the Jews may have allegedly charged Jesus with is neither here nor there. Try looking up les majesty.
It is the point - it was my point. Just coz you don't like it - changes nothing.
The Romans didn't want to kill him but politically didn't want to cause an uprising in Israel.Nope. Jesus was causing sedition and the claims made of him being the messiah and "king" were enough for the Romans to nail him up. You really are a dunce aren't you, Reverend Münchhausen.
Pilate didn't want to kill him - even offered an alternative. Washed his hands of Jesus.
Give me God's wisdom any day of the week.And you have. This will be the same god that doesn't even learn from his own fkn mistakes.If you don't make mistakes - there is nothing to learn from. You see the cross as a mistake - God saw it as success.Then god is thicker than even you!
I make mistakes and admit it. Unlike you. God on the other hand is PERFECT. He does not make mistakes. And you have never come close to proving otherwise.
The Jews saw it as a victory for themselves - yet they never understood it was a mistake for them. The God of the Bible made no mistakes.Then although you claim to have "memorised the bible" you seem oblivious to the BIBLE fact that god made quite a few mistakes that he seems far too dense to understand and realise, just like yourself.
I have memorized parts of the bible. not the whole lot. And I have read the narrative that people of your ilk like to conjecture about God making mistakes. God does not make mistakes. Even you. You are not a mistake, despite the fact that you think you are. God loves you. Yes, even you.
Ever since the fall of Adam and Eve everyone has inherited sin covenantally as soon as they are conceived. The only exception to this may be Jesus who was miraculously born from the virgin Mary .You should read what you have written there very closely, Reverend Münchhausen.Yes, I read it again. It looks correct to me. Every person in this world including you and me and the Pope and the Virgin Mary is sinful except Jesus.But wasn't Mary human? Born as you say, with "inherited sin". And Jesus wasn't " miraculously born" you bible dunce, it is only alleged that he was "miraculously conceived".
Ok. see i made a mistake. I admit it. I move on. Without the miraculous conception there would have been no birth. Semantics on your part. But yeah you are correct I made a mistake.
Give me God's wisdom any day of the week.Define "gods wisdom"?
No.
This is why Jesus' death on the cross was an acceptable sacrifice to God.Yes some savage that god of yours. His ONLY son cried to him to be relieved of his burden and his "father" didn't even answer him. So Jesus wasn't too happy about it was he?
God the Father is not the biological father of Jesus. God the Son - is not the biological son of the Father nor even of the Spirit. Jesus is part of the Trinity. God sent himself as the sacrifice. This is not God sacrificing his child. This is God sacrificing himself for the world.
And for someone that believes that "all religion should be abolished".#52 and to have "never believed in religion" #52 or even believe "religion to be right"#60 , you certainly spout quite a lot of your own self proclaimed religious beliefs and bullshite don't you, here>> #24 here#30 here#31 here #37 and here #46 just on this one single thread alone!!!!!!!!!!!Your a contradictory clown Reverend Münchhausen.I have explained myself on religion. You just want to confuse people by quoting - me out of context as always.Nope, your anti religion statements are all there for anyone interested to see for themselves and IN CONTEXT. You are just a contradictory clown that cannot remember what you have written yourself or what others have written on your behalf.
Twisting by the pool. Stephen, the only clown on this site is you.
My day is only getting better. Thanks for asking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
When I was younger, my Christian faith was rocked by the false teaching and misunderstandings of how to interpret the Scriptures. I grew up in a home where both atheism and fundamentalism was taught. I grew up thinking the false hermeneutic of literalism was the way to understand the bible - but also to believe that the bible could be proved by reading the newspapers and watching current events. When things did not pan out as expected - it made me question the bible. I left the church - and at some stage - ventured on a journey to experience truth - traveling and visiting and talking with various teachers.- Any specific such instance?
Of what?
I was rocked as an atheist by the profound emptiness of atheism but also by the fact that I had to actually stop using my brain. Yes, question everything but the fact of atheism. Inconsistency and hypocrisy rocked my thoughts and led me away from such a depressing and sad and twisted viewpoint.- Were you actually an atheist though?
Yes.
I have never practiced a different religion than Christianity. Yet, I have experienced and talked with and studied with many of the different world religions. I have found all of them - similar in respect to Atheism. They all are pointless and devoid of life and meaning. They all have the façade of profundity yet - all fall at the first hurdle.- Any specific hurdles?
Yes, consistency.
Things are no longer the same as they were in the past for me. In the past - I was one looking for God. Or some kind of meaning for my life. This in essence is the pursuit most attach to life and probably for religion too. The most profound realization came one day - it is not that we look for God - but rather that God came for us. This profound and deep thought has rocked me more than any other in this world. And it changed my world and everything in it. My perspective was turned upside down. A paradigm moment I suppose.- What does it mean for God to come to you?
It means the opposite of what I had been taught by everyone. I was taught we should look for God. In fact it was the opposite. God came to us - Jesus.
It shook me so much - but at the same time - then was a deep sense of real peace that flooded throughout my entire body and mind. Suddenly everything became much more clear and real and vivid. Not that I suddenly knew everything - because I don't and in reality don't know that much at all. Yet - the realization so changed my perspective that suddenly the clarity was overwhelming.- Any specific thing you gained clarity into?
Truth. Love. Meaning.
Yassine - I wish that you could be so rocked - so changed that your life would never be the way it was.- In Islam we experience true spirituality, which you won't be able to understand unless you experience it first hand. But that's not the point here is it.
In Christianity we experience true spirituality as well. We don't however base this on a feeling though, like Islam. It is not fear or love. Or a warm fuzzy out of this world experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
What constitutes an organized religion.
What an interesting question.
I would think that a set of consistent beliefs and set of rules would be necessary.
This is why I would call atheism a disorganized religion. It only has one consistent doctrine.
I don't think it would need an organizing body - although it would be helpful.
Christianity is organized religion - and yet it has several denominations. And many Christians not part of any denomination.
Yet for the most part Christians hold to about 95% of the same doctrines.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
What is to you the undeniable proof that the Bible is true?
That's a very interesting question. Not sure it is the right one - but a very interesting one all the same.
I don't think there is an undeniable proof that the bible is true. It would depend upon the measure of truth in the first place and by what measure of truth would be acceptable. As far as I am concerned however the Bible is infallible. It is inerrant. It is entirely trustworthy. It reliable.
What does truth mean to you?
Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life".
Jesus is the embodiment of truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
From a scale of Jon Snow to 10, how much do you know about your belief system?
approximately 1/100.
From a scale of 1 to Jesus, how strong is your belief?
1/100
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Psalms and Corinthians loosely repeat human tales.And your GOD conforms to the will and the character of the character GOD, as depicted by those who loosely repeated 2000 year old plus tales, 2000ish years ago.And the cross as mentioned in said tales, is representative of said tales, and said tales certainly helped to shape more recent human events and societies.And "we" don't know the half of it, and may never do so. But by virtue of species evolution we have undeniably acquired "superior " knowledge.....Knowledge that said repeaters of said tales were never able to possess. Hence we have actually exceeded the need for a humanesque creator GOD and it's associated Middle Eastern tales.It's a shame really that you and millions of other's refuse to get it.But such is data transfer and data conditioning relative to social order and the human desire for wealth and power.....And you and I are just pawns in the game.So realistically it's not a shame at all.....It's just the way of the human world.And if the biblical GOD works as a coping strategy for you, then who am I to deny you that comfort.I cope perfectly well without.
Coping strategy. ????
I don't believe in God as a coping strategy. That may be the reason you believe in evolution. After all, its plausibility is so ridiculous that the only way any rational person could believe it - is the FACT that the only alternative is the existence of a CREATION GOD. To acknowledge the truth that evolution is a hoax - creates an even worse dilemma - the reality of God. People would prefer to believe the stupidity that is evolution - than the reality of God.
On the other hand, I can believe in God and evolution. Not that I do. But I could. reason and irrationality at the same time. But atheists - have no such choice.
I pity the atheist. I really do. So lost. So confused. So egotistical in their lostness. Arrogant. They would prefer to take their cricket bat and go home rather than admit they were out.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
The Bible is God's word.And you can prove that can you?
I don't need to. You can't prove its not.
It [the bible] proclaims itself as such.So self proclamation is proof of fact is it? You wouldn't get away with that claim in a court of law, now would you our resident lawyer "tradey". You do claim also be a lawyer don't you?
Yes. Axiom. One day you may understand. Or not. Tell me dear Stephen, what is the one book that has been in almost every courthouse in the West over the past 300 hundred years. The same one - that people were told to put their right hand on and make an oath. True today - many courts now use affirmations to tell the truth - but the oath even now is used by a significant proportion of people. The book remains however in the court room - whether people use it or not or whether they choose to put their hand on another religious book - the bible is still there. I don't have to make any claims - you continue to tell us all. LOL!.
It is rational that God would communicate with words and put it within an objective piece of writing. The Bible is one of the few books in the world that ACTUALLY proclaims it is of divine origin.
Oohh it hurts doesn't? This book is just a book. It has no magic powers. It cant make anyone do anything. It doesn't have a brain or an arm to force someone. It contains words. Of course how people respond to words is on the person who is responding, isn't? Why is it that some people listen to Obama and get inspired and others fall asleep? Or what about the clothing that females wear? For others who see and respond - some get a lot out of control and others don't worry. Is it the clothes - is it the words or is it the way people respond? The bible proclaims its divine origin. The question is not the words - it is how will you respond? Were they written by human hand? Of course they were. I have never said otherwise. God chose to use human hands - this is very rational. I would not trust words written by any other form - would you?
Homosexuality in the OT and in the NT is considered sinful.That is punishable by death according to both books.
As a maximum penalty - just like theft and murder and adultery and telling lies. Just like in Australia where you can get 20 years for stealing a loaf of bread.
The Bible distinguishes between the wisdom of God and the wisdom of man.Where? Or are you making up scripture on the hoof again?
I assume you are familiar with 1 Corinthians 1 and 2.
Christ Crucified. Why would or how could someone die for someone else? How could any person represent someone else? This could never happen in our world? Could it? Christ Crucified. That God would become a man - how foolish? After all, everyone knows to do anything useful you must be powerful.. Man must become a God - with superpowers. That is wisdom - man's wisdom anyway.Christ Crucified - God humbling himself to the very creation he made. What foolishness. What stupidity.Jesus, was crucified for sedition; crimes against Rome.
Nope. He was crucified because the Jews wanted him dead for blasphemy. The Romans didn't want to kill him but politically didn't want to cause an uprising in Israel.
Give me God's wisdom any day of the week.And you have. This will be the same god that doesn't even learn from his own fkn mistakes.
If you don't make mistakes - there is nothing to learn from. You see the cross as a mistake - God saw it as success. The Jews saw it as a victory for themselves - yet they never understood it was a mistake for them. The God of the Bible made no mistakes.
Ever since the fall of Adam and Eve everyone has inherited sin covenantally as soon as they are conceived. The only exception to this may be Jesus who was miraculously born from the virgin Mary .You should read what you have written there very closely, Reverend Münchhausen.
Yes, I read it again. It looks correct to me. Every person in this world including you and me and the Pope and the Virgin Mary is sinful except Jesus. This is why Jesus' death on the cross was an acceptable sacrifice to God.
And for someone that believes that "all religion should be abolished".#52 and to have "never believed in religion" #52 or even believe "religion to be right"#60 , you certainly spout quite a lot of your own self proclaimed religious beliefs and bullshite don't you, here>> #24 here#30 here#31 here #37 and here #46 just on this one single thread alone!!!!!!!!!!!Your a contradictory clown Reverend Münchhausen.
LOL! you get so boring. And tiresome. I have explained myself on religion. You just want to confuse people by quoting - me out of context as always. Perhaps one day you might quote me in full context - providing a measure of integrity by explaining my position properly. But I won't hold my breath. You are a fake and a fraud. And your agenda is never for the truth - just for your own twisted agenda. Have a nice day.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Of all the s*** that goes on in the world it befuddles me that people worry about what two grown adults decide to do in their bedroom. Like they're the biggest sinners on the planet. Not murders, not women and men who beat their kids, not people that commit sexual assaults. Two grown consenting adults having sex is the biggest problem the world faces.
Fascinating really - in Australia recently despite the government stating that what goes on behind closed doors is none of their business - they started this new rule which contradicted this idea. It was triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic.
Apparently, adults - consenting or otherwise WERE mandated to wear masks behind closed doors or risk getting fined or going to prison. Behind closed doors - consenting adults were not allowed to touch each other - but had to practice social distancing.
Funny really - health reasons apparently TRUMP the idea of what consenting adults behind closed doors are allowed to do. The extension of this notion is very interesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Whether you're christian
When I was younger, my Christian faith was rocked by the false teaching and misunderstandings of how to interpret the Scriptures. I grew up in a home where both atheism and fundamentalism was taught. I grew up thinking the false hermeneutic of literalism was the way to understand the bible - but also to believe that the bible could be proved by reading the newspapers and watching current events. When things did not pan out as expected - it made me question the bible. I left the church - and at some stage - ventured on a journey to experience truth - traveling and visiting and talking with various teachers.
or atheist
I was rocked as an atheist by the profound emptiness of atheism but also by the fact that I had to actually stop using my brain. Yes, question everything but the fact of atheism. Inconsistency and hypocrisy rocked my thoughts and led me away from such a depressing and sad and twisted viewpoint.
or jewish
I am not nor never have been Jewish. I quite like Jewish thought - in particular the ancient Hebrew.
or else,
I have never practiced a different religion than Christianity. Yet, I have experienced and talked with and studied with many of the different world religions. I have found all of them - similar in respect to Atheism. They all are pointless and devoid of life and meaning. They all have the façade of profundity yet - all fall at the first hurdle.
what is the most serious objection or question or scriptural quote or doctrine or experience...
Things are no longer the same as they were in the past for me. In the past - I was one looking for God. Or some kind of meaning for my life. This in essence is the pursuit most attach to life and probably for religion too. The most profound realization came one day - it is not that we look for God - but rather that God came for us. This profound and deep thought has rocked me more than any other in this world. And it changed my world and everything in it. My perspective was turned upside down. A paradigm moment I suppose.
that shook what you believed in or at least made you uncomfortable or unable to deal with?
It shook me so much - but at the same time - then was a deep sense of real peace that flooded throughout my entire body and mind. Suddenly everything became much more clear and real and vivid. Not that I suddenly knew everything - because I don't and in reality don't know that much at all. Yet - the realization so changed my perspective that suddenly the clarity was overwhelming.
Yassine - I wish that you could be so rocked - so changed that your life would never be the way it was.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Why does a GOD have to conform to a cultural mindset the prevailed prior to the 1st century, only in the Eastern Mediterranean/Arabian Peninsular region of this one small Planet?
Who says that he does? I don't think that God does. What I do think though is that in the 21st century we think we KNOW IT ALL and are SUPERIOR to every other time in history.
If a GOD is going to conform to any mindset, I would suggest that it would be a super-intelligent, logical and universal mindset.
God conforms only to his own will and character. 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 reminds us that God's foolishness is brighter than the most super intelligent logical and universal mindsets.
Thereby rendering tales of apples and snakes, floating Zoo's, general miracles and nailing blokes to posts for our sins, to the realms of super-intelligent comedy sketch shows.
The Garden of Eden never mentions an apple. Stop repeating lies. Was there a snake or serpent or a man or an angel? Who knows? Floating zoos. I assume you are talking about Noah's Ark. I assume therefore you would have preferred for nothing to have survived the flood. Jesus nailed to the cross. Hmmm - wisdom personified. Sin ??? Something you don't understand. The picture of the cross as the defining moment in history is profound. It's a shame really that you don't get it.
One assumes that GODS enjoy a good laugh at the human comedians.
Why? Psalm 2 tells us what God does laugh at.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barnardot
But that wasn’t the question and I think your trying to Roger doger the question because you know very well know that god and not even Jesus ever put a leg back on. What is real dum is that goddists are always in denile and always doge the truth and if they didn’t to that and answer the question truthfully then they wouldn’t be goddists anyway.
LOL@ you.
I did not dodge the question. The question assumes many things. For instance that he never healed an amputee. In the NT Jesus healed a man who had an arm which was effectively useless.
Jesus also healed many people who came to him for healing. Were any of these amputees? It is very possible?
But the other thing I commented earlier was - why doesn't God heal every amputee? But let's get even more serious. Why doesn't God heal every single problem in the world? And why not go even further - why does not God stop every little evil that occurs before it even starts? After all he knows all things and can do anything he wants.
This question on this page is like saying God is mean and nasty because he doesn't heal an amputee's leg or arm. The point of saying this is nothing short of arrogance and egotistical. For God is love - and God is powerful - THEREFORE God is obligated to heal these things. And if he doesn't then either God is mean, and nasty and cruel and wicked, or he does not exist. Can you see the naïve assumptions underlying this kind of thinking? I don't reckon you can.
Just because God is love - and knows all things and can do all that he desires - why should that mean he MUST have to heal an amputee? I love my kids too. And I can do lots of things for them - and I can prevent them from harming themselves - (if they were to listen) and I can give them opportunities to enjoy life (if they would take them) but although at times I will - I won't do it everytime. Sometimes they need to learn for themselves. Sometimes they reject what I can help them with. I want my kids to grow up and mature. I don't want them holding onto my apron strings for the rest of their lives. And none of this is to suggest that God is like me at all. It is only to demonstrate that even in ordinary human life - the assumptions above are so crazy it is ridiculous that people continue to throw them out - like they are a winning question.
God is God. He is not a human like you or me. He does things according to his own plans and desires - and he tells us it is ALWAYS good. Now you don't have to believe it. But I do. But nor do I start with assumptions that God somehow has to conform to the cultural mindset of the 21st century humanity.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm indifferent with regards the Bible.
Gee shock horror. Tell us something we didn't know.
It's just a book, variously interpreted, variously translated and variously republished.
I agree it is just a book. Of course it is not just like any book. After all it contains lots of letters and other pieces of writing from a great variety of writers written over a 4000 year period of time. I'm sure not too many books can claim such a background. But yes, it is a book. A compilation of many books actually. And yes it has been translated in various ways - into English and many other languages. Of course - it was still written in one language - depending upon which book we are talking about - translations generally mean it is WORTH translating into another language. If it was not worth reading - it would not be worth translating. And republished. Again - totally agree. There are many publications - obviously more so - because we live in a modern world of legalities where such republishing occurs to protect government tax and publisher's investments.
It of course makes unique claims about itself. Not many books do that. It also has been a best seller worldwide for many years. It is also a book written pre-Gutenberg - so even that makes it unique as well. It means it ought to be read differently and understood differently too.
The so called word of your particular GOD, probably predates the Bible by a good few hundred years anyway.
And your evidence for this is where? Besides God is eternal - so God would predate the Bible. Even the bible records that Moses compiled the first five books. But it is obvious from reading - that there were many others who assisted in the authorship. And too be perfectly honest - your comment adds nothing to your argument and it detracts nothing from mine.
So consequently what has been arrived at today is most certainly of later human concoction, with a typical mythological format.
Hmmm - do you mean people wrote about things after the fact? Surprise Surprise. Mythological? What makes the bible mythological? Again even if it is mythological, this does not mean it is neither worth reading or understanding. Do you typically throw EVERY mythological book into the bin? In any event - your quip about human involvement is entirely consistent with the Christian understanding of the Bible. Of course - we would not use the word concoction - because that means humans made it up. You have no evidence for this. Yet we fully agree that humanity was involved in the writing of it. In fact we would be opposed to any position which took humanity out of the picture. God works through his people for the most part. He does not just throw magic and superstition and subjective airy fairy feelings into the sky and hope they land on someone. Christians as a general rule - do not rely upon feelings. Yes, some unfortunately do - although I suspect that is the influence of new age philosophy and individualism rather than Christian teaching.
Elements of human reality, juxtaposed with a naive creation hypothesis, 2000 year old social ideology and a smattering of supernatural fantasy thrown in for good measure.
I'm ok with stating the first chapter of Genesis is a poem. For me the primary point of that chapter is to communicate that God is the creator and he created everything. It is not necessarily about describing how those events occurred in any other manner save and except a picture that humans can understand and remember. God is the creator. He created the creation. This is a proper demarcation and makes sense.
You deny the reality of anything outside of the material. Again that is your prerogative. Well I suppose it is - if you believed in prerogative since that is non-material. As is love. As is philosophy. As is logic. As are the laws of nature. The denial of the immaterial denies logic. So given that you don't actually deny all things immaterial, what is the basis of such inconsistency in relation to other things you find immaterial?
There are just so many reasons why the Bible is not representative of a clever, tri-omni GOD.
I think the reasons why the Bible is God's communication tool to the world far outweigh those against. Nevertheless, given you don't actually believe in God, it is foolish to think you would consider any of these reasons valid. For me it is not the reasons why - it is the reasons why that matter.
I look at the world - and man's best explanation makes no rational sense. It really does not. All we need is a million billion years - and everything chaotic will become sensible. It's not intuitive. It is not plausible. It is not rational. It is not probable. It cannot be demonstrated. It cannot be repeated. And yet - since we are here it must be so - why? Well because the idea of God is superstition and even crazier. In fact - we stop asking why and just ask how although we will never get a satisfactory answer for the thinking person.
In my view - God is inescapable.
But if God is inescapable - then other questions arise. Is there more than one God. What is God like? Why did he make everything?
Purpose implies intentionality. What is that intention? Why?
The atheist says - why is unimportant because it just is. The believer asks the questions why and then how and who and what and when and where?
The atheist puts his head into the sand on anything immaterial. Anything he cannot see with his eyes and touch with his hands.
The believer also deals with all of the senses - and comes to a different conclusion. Different premises. And BOTH have premises. Neither start with nothing.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Why is there no mention of Jesus in the historical record until 40 years after his death?If you think that Jesus was a genuine miracle worker who resurrected the dead left and right, fed multitudes, and healed more sick people than you can shake a stick at, then I suppose we should expect more people to have noticed and mentioned it.But if we’re taking a purely historical point of view, Jesus was an itinerant peasant preacher, faith healer, and exorcist—none of this was particularly rare, and none of it was at all notable. He probably did not have a large following, and most likely no one would have bothered to mention him at all if his followers had not come to believe that he had risen from the dead and ascended to heaven. He was not notable in his own time; he only became notable in the subsequent decades as the size of his ‘following’ grew.Very few writers at the time bothered to write about messianic claimants and Jewish preachers at all. The few who did, like Josephus and Tacitus, did mention Jesus, however briefly, but only when posterity had made him significant.
So just to make sure you are serious about this historical record. Can you please list the names of all or some at any rate - of authors who lived in Israel at the time of Jesus? And please provide links to their writings for all of us. After all, I am sure that there must have been some - and some historical matters that took place in Israel even if Jesus did not exist.
Oh and while you are doing that - can you please provide the date of the earliest ACTUAL document we have from any of those authors? That would be nice.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Therein is the difference. I don't think I am being wise.
You dislike the bible ok.
And yet - there it is. A wise God communicates to the world in a way that is transparent. A way that is easily accessible. A way that is not reliant upon magic. A way that is not reliant upon making some weird and wonderful incantation. A way that is so simple it is laughable.
And yet, the mighty and wise man - won't jump into the Jordan River and wash himself. Give him something much harder - much more difficult - something that has real zest and power. And then the wise man might think it is worth pursuing to see if it fair dinkum.
But give him something even the plebs can read and understand - and it becomes obviously not worthwhile.
Pride - wisdom - intelligence - power - authority - - all these are worthy - but not humility - not something the weak can understand.
Is it myth and legend? Conveniently for some - so that they can be dismissed.
It is your loss.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
- You're going in circles. Isn't it convenient, albeit absurd, to refuse providing arguments for your claims by accusing me of rejecting them pre fact.
See I show you why and you deny it is an argument.
Just go back to any of the discussions recently on Islam - almost every post.- Then plenty of examples you can show me are false statements or propaganda, instead of just making empty claims.
Why repeat what is everywhere. Gee just check out your last answer to me. Rather than admit the veracity of an argument - you deny there is one and tell me I am going around in circles.
Truth does not have to be compelling. Truth is truth.- I said 'your truth', not Truth -which does have to be compelling, & indeed is. You just don't have it.
I don't agree there is my truth and your truth. There is only one truth. It does not need to be compelling because it is what it is. As for who has it, I reject any view that you have it.
You know the doctrines as well as I do that Muslims are obligated to speak the truth to each other - but not to non-Muslims.- Lying is categorically prohibited in Islam, regardless to who or what, including "white lies". So, who's lying now?
Well - you are. Lying is prohibited in Islam - yet what is a lie according to Islam? Not the same as rejecting an objective truth. If the lie - leads to advancing Islam, Islam approves it.
When such doctrines exist - it creates a mistrust in any dialogue before we begin.- There is definitely mistrust towards you, since you started this with lies.
It's not a lie. It is simply revealing once again that Islam practices the view that the ends justifies the means. In other words, whatever will advance the cause of Islam is acceptable. And whatever does not - is rejected. When Muslims, like Progressives, and socialists start to understand the fact that such a view actually undermines their own view, then perhaps - a better dialogue might be possible. It is no different to those who preach tolerance yet are the most intolerant against those who disagree with them. The truth will set us free - not just when it advances a cause - but probably more so when it reveals all of the warts. One of the reasons why the Bible is more consistent with the truth is because it is not afraid to tell the story warts and all. Truth is not just about the ends - it also includes the means. The destination and the journey go hand in hand not just when you feel like it is going to help you.
Lying according to some is acceptable if it advances Islam.- No such thing. This is just childish. Knowingly & willingly lying about Islam is apostasy: "do not tell lies about me, whoever [Muslim] tell lies about me deliberately, let him take his seat in Hell Fire" the beloved Prophet Muhammed (pbuh).
Selective quoting. But if you wish to carry on with this lie - perhaps there is no point in going further.
Would you agree or not - knowing full well you have every motivation to lie about it and deny it as well?- I'm pretty familiar with this little circular trick. It's a childish spell they use to trap the dumbest & most gullible of Christians, to make sure they never look elsewhere to check their lies: "you have to trust us, because they are lying to you, because you have to trust us". Pretty neat trick.
It is not trick. It arises because of the doctrine within Islam - that the ends justifies the means. The best way to counter this would be to admit it - at least that would establish an attempt at honesty and then provide a step to consider how we might go forward. Denying it just repeats the cycle and encourages mistrust.
See above - And this is just one flaw. Out of many.- Which is?
Intentionally missing the point is another way of avoiding the truth.
Islam does not irk me. I just happen to think it is wrong and dangerous and unhelpful for those who want truth and salvation. Islam in that sense is a religion that denies the deity of Christ. It denies his resurrection. It denies the Trinity. Each of which are clearly expressed in the Bible.- So did the earliest Christians. Why are we compelled to believe your Bible? Christ is obviously not God, for God is not a body, else contingent, thus not-God. The resurrection did not happen, not even according to the Bible itself, it's just an extraordinary conjecture inferred from two ordinary facts. The Trinity is literally an absurdity, a square-circle, an impossible being.
The earliest Christians did not deny his resurrection. Nor did they deny the Trinity or his deity. The earliest Christians died not of because of belief - but because they witnessed the risen Christ and were prepared to die for him and the truth. The Trinity is brilliant in concept and in practice. It is the only doctrine which brings together the contradictory natures of the One and the Many. It is not absurd.
There is not much point debating if we cannot come to an understanding of what truth is and when we should use the truth and when - advancing our own religion becomes more important than telling the truth. My discussions with Muslims can seem helpful until that issue raises its head and then truth gets thrown out the window reducing the entire discussion to ashes. Nevertheless, the good thing is the Holy Spirit is bigger than these things and still penetrates to the person's heart. I have observed many Muslims convert to Christianity, even at the cost of losing their families.- Do you mean by "truth" the Bible or Reason? Why are you running from debate after all this barrage of insults & claims? Since you seem very confident & sure about your beliefs, why not have a debate?
No one is running. All I am attempting to do is to get some common trust going here. Telling the truth may well be insulting. A debate without common trust is pointless.
I say - "God the Holy Spirit" has made be believe the Scriptures in the first instance. And this has been confirmed over and over again by reason, and experience.- That's blind faith. What makes you believe, as in have a positive judgement regarding the truth of scripture?
No - blind faith is completely different. Revelation is God's truth. Confirmed by reason - and experience. Confirmed but not necessary. Surely you do not deny revelation? Otherwise - you attest that the Islam results from blind faith.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Wisdom is as wisdom does.I could say that I prefer a GODS biscuits, to human biscuits.Doesn't actually change anything.
Wisdom is not as wisdom does. What a load of codswallop.
You can say anything you like - wisdom is still wisdom.
The Bible distinguishes between the wisdom of God and the wisdom of man.
Man wants miracles or it wants fine arguments.
Yet the wisdom of God says - that the wisdom of man is as foolishness to God.
Christ crucified - is staggeringly brilliant - yet the wise humans fall over the place with that one.
Humanity thinks humanity is wise and God is dumb.
And it has been the way since the beginning. Adam and Eve wanted to decide for themselves what was good and what was evil. They wanted to be wise - and so it has been ever since. And yet, God left man to his own devices and what happens? Climate change, genocide, wars, pedophilia, abuse, crime, - hey all this is the wisdom of humanity.
If humanity had simply let God be God and humanity be humanity - and if humanity had not been jealous and wanted what was never theirs in the first place- then the world would be a much different place. This is the truth.
Of course, humanity in its wisdom, denies the creation, denies God, denies the fall and arrogance of humanity - and thinks it is wise and full of wisdom. And you like the rest of humanity just go along for the ride - because you cannot think outside of the narrow parameters of this framework. It is ironic.
Christ Crucified. Why would or how could someone die for someone else? How could any person represent someone else? This could never happen in our world? Could it? Christ Crucified. That God would become a man - how foolish? After all, everyone knows to do anything useful you must be powerful.. Man must become a God - with superpowers. That is wisdom - man's wisdom anyway.
Christ Crucified - God humbling himself to the very creation he made. What foolishness. What stupidity.
Give me God's wisdom any day of the week.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
I haven't changed my mind about Islam since reading your dialogues. I knew Muslims loved talking about religion and were argumentative. I also knew that they had an agenda and were not moved themselves by other's arguments and evidence.- Maybe the other's arguments & evidence weren't that good? I'm probably the only Muslim here, how come you've never showed me those arguments?
Well most of what you you write falls within that framework. Respectfully, when someone provides evidence against Islam, you either deny it, or attack Christianity. Or the writer's character. Mocking someone is not in my view an argument. It is rare that you acknowledge even a half hearted argument.
Even now reading more of your dialogue, it is amazing how EVERY argument somehow becomes propaganda or is false.- Examples?
Just go back to any of the discussions recently on Islam - almost every post.
I also accept more fully the truth - that Muslims don't care about the truth except when it suits them.- Have you thought that maybe your truth wasn't that compelling? Try it, hit me.
Truth does not have to be compelling. Truth is truth. You know the doctrines as well as I do that Muslims are obligated to speak the truth to each other - but not to non-Muslims. When such doctrines exist - it creates a mistrust in any dialogue before we begin. Lying according to some is acceptable if it advances Islam. Would you agree or not - knowing full well you have every motivation to lie about it and deny it as well?
Since I reject the ends justifies the means argument, I find this flaw of Islam concerning.- Which flaw is that? I thought you were talking about Muslims.
See above - And this is just one flaw. Out of many.
I have had some meaning exchanges with Rosends about the Jewish religion. Also PGA.2 has helped me to change my views about the preterist position. I have found it helpful discussing with some of the atheistic views on determinism have reshaped my thinking. And my views in relation to Orthodox church have been tested by some of our resident forums.- Would you accept arguments & evidence for Islam then? –There is nothing stoping us from having those meaningful discussions. What irks you about Islam?
Islam does not irk me. I just happen to think it is wrong and dangerous and unhelpful for those who want truth and salvation. Islam in that sense is a religion that denies the deity of Christ. It denies his resurrection. It denies the Trinity. Each of which are clearly expressed in the Bible.
Emotional factors rarely shape my thinking. An intellectual argument can be quite persuasive if it is compelling. I don't care about the popular views.- Same here. Maybe we can have a debate Christianity vs. Islam, so we can find those compelling arguments.
There is not much point debating if we cannot come to an understanding of what truth is and when we should use the truth and when - advancing our own religion becomes more important than telling the truth. My discussions with Muslims can seem helpful until that issue raises its head and then truth gets thrown out the window reducing the entire discussion to ashes. Nevertheless, the good thing is the Holy Spirit is bigger than these things and still penetrates to the person's heart. I have observed many Muslims convert to Christianity, even at the cost of losing their families.
Mostly, however my views can be changed and shaped by revelation - the Scriptures.- What makes you believe in Scriptures.
I say - "God the Holy Spirit" has made be believe the Scriptures in the first instance. And this has been confirmed over and over again by reason, and experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
- I've been arguing with you lot about faith, mostly Islam, for a while now. I'm curious, have any of you changed your mind or revised your views about the religion or any topic regarding Islam after our exchanges. If so, what topic? Why? Or why not?
I haven't changed my mind about Islam since reading your dialogues. I knew Muslims loved talking about religion and were argumentative. I also knew that they had an agenda and were not moved themselves by other's arguments and evidence. Even now reading more of your dialogue, it is amazing how EVERY argument somehow becomes propaganda or is false. I also accept more fully the truth - that Muslims don't care about the truth except when it suits them. Since I reject the ends justifies the means argument, I find this flaw of Islam concerning.
Also, what other faith related views have you discarded or adopted in general during your time on this Forum? & why?
I have had some meaning exchanges with Rosends about the Jewish religion. Also PGA.2 has helped me to change my views about the preterist position. I have found it helpful discussing with some of the atheistic views on determinism have reshaped my thinking. And my views in relation to Orthodox church have been tested by some of our resident forums.
- What factors contribute most to your evolving opinions? Emotional? Intellectual? Popular?...
Emotional factors rarely shape my thinking. An intellectual argument can be quite persuasive if it is compelling. I don't care about the popular views.
Mostly, however my views can be changed and shaped by revelation - the Scriptures.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
It's fascinating. I will look at it further detail.
Perhaps this is why Jesus came through Mary - and not Joseph.
Still - Jewishness and Christianity are not the same. The OT Jews died out at AD 70.
Since then those who follow the Jewish religion - have essentially started a new cult.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
The Wisdom of God v the wisdom of humanity.
Hmmm, I know whose wisdom I prefer.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
The concept of sin, is the concept of sin.Just like the concept of a GOD (any GOD), is the concept of a GOD.Just like a book is a book,And everything that you just espoused is of human conceptual origin.The only reason for thinking otherwise, is thinking otherwise.No actual GODS required.
Really?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You are going to have to explain what you mean.
Created:
-->
@Barnardot
I see the thing your getting at through all that which is interesting but totally wrong because your working on the pretext that being a homo is sinful which really means that your scared of them and trying to make the Bible fit around what you think.
Hi Barnadot,
thanks for your comments. How about you tell us what a sin is? And who determines it as well. BTW I am not scared of homosexuals any more than I am scared of those who have any sort of sexual experience before marriage - which is well - most people. I don't need to try and make the bible say anything - it is out there and open - transparent.
But the Bible is old and nobody with a decent mind goes along with all that dog mess now anyway.
Really. Is that what you are going to go with? So do you think we should reject Plato and Aristotle and anyone who is old? you might well insult the Chinese and the Greeks and everyone else in one foul sweep.
So what you really should be doing is clean up your mind and stop trying to make out that other people are wrong because their not like you just so you can feel good off of it.
Thanks for your moralistic advice.
Created:
-->
@Yassine
Yes, she has been sentenced to death.- No.
Yes she has been. Sentenced is not the same as having been carried out. She is still in the waiting position - all the different appeals etc and confirmation from the courts have to be conducted first.
She will sit in prison until she is released or until the sentence is carried out. The 20 years of prison was in addition to the death penalty.- No. Lmao! That doesn't even make sense.
Of course it makes sense. She is in prison right now - awaiting for her sentence to be completed. That is how it works in every legal system around the world. Even if the death penalty is determined to scare her - it is still the case.
Yes - maximum penalties but not death. If someone were charged the likely penalty would be a good behavior bond without conviction
Blasphemy is still a charge in many Western Countries - but no one is ever charged with it. And many jurisdictions are discussing removing it from their books.- You just love saying things don't you! Not because things came out of your mouth does that make them true...
Blasphemy is not the same thing as insulting others. It is quite a different law - although somewhat related.
I am not sure what you are talking about - do you have a link? But insulting a black family is not blasphemy.- You seem to want to say racial derogation is not under the category of blasphemy, because it's not designated as such in some countries. That's a fallacy. The merit is not in the label, it's in the content itself. Not because you chose to give it a different name, does that absolve you from the charge. LOL!
On the other hand you want to say it is under that category because it is the way you see it. Same fallacy. I don't consider blasphemy to be simply a racist or insult. It has to be directed towards a religion or religious deity or something that is meant to insult either one.
Anti-semitic slurs and holocaust denial is racist. In places like Germany and France or even Israel these charges would be more aggravating than in most Western nations. 15 years would also be the maximum penalty - not the minimium.- You're all over the place. Which is it?
Not at all. I have distinguished between blasphemy and insults and racist comments. I have distinguished between maximum and minimum penalties. You should really think more about this before you simply post another comment.
For the record, I think blasphemy is a serious matter. Nevertheless, it depends on what country you are in and how the general public perceives it that ought to considered. I would think in a country like Pakistan - that it would aggravating to blaspheme against their predominant religion. If Pakistan was promoting itself as a tolerant country or a multi-cultural nation - it would be silly to have such a law - but it is not its policy or its intent.- How you ever been there? Pakistan is in effect much more tolerant & hospitable than most Western countries, if not all. Derogating others & denigrating their sanctities, such is the case in the West, is the opposite of tolerance.
Never been to Pakistan - I have to Bangladesh. Perhaps I have been misled by the newspapers. Yet I have had missionary friends in Pakistan who testify to much intolerance.
In Australia we have blasphemy laws - never used.- Contrary to your wishful thinking, any profanity against sacred or sensitive things for a people is blasphemy. It doesn't have to be profanity against the Christian faith. What is sacred or sensitive to Pakistanis is not the same as such in Germany, or Australia. Each nation has its own cultural & historical conditions from which such boundaries are set.
I understand this - I never said it was only to Christian faith. Australia historically has been a Christian nation. Yet we have turned secular at least in policy and practice.
Our country might still have a majority of Christians - yet the nation is not promoted as a Christian nation - but as a secular and multi-cultural one.- No. It's not multicultural at all. It's Liberal Secular, unless you mean by 'multi-cultural' superficial diversity, such as skin color & attire & rites & such, as long as said diversity does not affect any systemic institution of the country; namely, law, administration, justice, education, academia...etc.
It is multicultural. And it is liberal secular. It is not polytheistic. Interestingly, only Western nations are multicultural.
In fact - Christianity is pretty much the only religion or worldview that is permitted to be criticized without repercussion - with the justification that they are the majority or have been pretty horrible in the past and that they deserve any ridicule they receive now.- This is total BS, especially in Australia. I don't think I've seen a more Islamophobic country in the Anglosphere than Australia. Christianity in the West is not really criticized as Islam is, for the former is the default cultural religion, while the later is the time-immemorial enemy religion. The Christian faith is pretty well understood & the overwhelming sentiment about its founder -Christ- & its ideals are very positive -never vilified or demonized at any noticeable degree. The opposite is the case for public sentiment about Islam, even if in truth the contrary is the case. – In fact, & in the same way, Islam is constantly criticized by all sorts of modernist groups in the Arab & Muslim world, by secularist, liberals, nationalists, atheists, even christians...
Sorry - you are incorrect. In Australia - there may be some Islamphobic people - but not generally. We are quite tolerant of Islam and actively promote it - especially the Greens - and the Woke left who are trying to promote what they call tolerance - against the Christian religions. Come out to the country towns - they are very happy to set up a Mosque or a Hindu temple - but if a church wants to plant a new church - large hurdles and finally not approved. No one wants to offend the other faiths and risk getting canceled. We have a law that says no knives at school. A hindu wore a ceremonial knife to school attacked another child. He was allowed to keep his knife and was not prosecuted. But a christian boy prayed with another christian child at school- he was sent home and then expelled.
If someone criticized the Muslim religion here or the Hindu religion they may well be canceled for being intolerant. Yet Christians if they suggest we want to have a nativity scene at Christmas time - get told to shut up and stop being tiring. Of course the law is still the case that if someone came into a church and disrupted it - it is a criminal offence. I am not sure that anyone would really care- - but it is a criminal offence.- I'm more familiar with Australian news than you might've hoped. Australia is the country with the most anti-Islamic in the anglophone world.
nonsense. You seem to be totally lost in your own little world. None of my Muslim acquaintances would agree with you.
For someone to be sentenced to death in a Muslim Country for disrespecting Muslim ideals is to be expected. Pakistan is not pretending to be a democracy.- Despite my vehement dislike of the tribal system that is democracy, Pakistan is actually a democracy, sadly!
I'm no fan of pure democracy. But what is the alternative?
- There is fare more free speech in Pakistan for a Muslim than in any western country. I could say a 100 things which would get me in serious trouble in western countries, yet nobody would care about in Pakistan. Drop this "free speech" nonsense. No state allows speech which undermines it, by design, else self-destruction. I can't understand why westerners don't get that this type of propaganda does not work with the rest of the World.
Forgive me for not agreeing with you. My point is Pakistan is not pretending to be a Western nation with Western Values. I also think you have a different view of free speech than I do.
They are not the same as Western Laws - so for Western People to be upset is simply intolerant and inconsistent.- The West will always be upset about how others conduct their business if doesn't fit with their current feelings, which they think are absolute universals. That, since the time when they had virtually no rights & all violence. The 19th century Ottomans had religious freedom, legal pluralism, rights of property, divorce, education for women, animal rights, of which Europe had none, yet that didn't stop them from being upset & critical. This is part of the very Western mentality & thought paradigm, that's how they justify themselves, & hence their crimes instigated against "evil" & "lesser" others . This mentality is sick & needs to disappear.
And the non west will always be envious of the West. Not of their value systems but of their wealth and prosperity. And of their authority and power in the world. The non-west may well not desire the wealth or prosperity - but it does cause them to question their own faith. And even if it does not cause the oldies to question their faith - the youngsters are influenced and are attracted to the West and its attractions. For the record, this applies to many Christian families as well. Many Christian Family despise the materialism and value system of the West and have reverted to home-schooling and separating themselves from the mass media of the West.
There is a place to compare and contrast legal systems and to analyze the same - but it is necessary to provide your basis for the criticism that arises when it arises against a culture. The death penalty for instance is neither good nor bad. It is a punishment that a country - may impose and EVERY country does in some form or another - even those opposed to it. Yet - why is it ok in America to put someone to death for theft or murder and not ok to do it in Pakistan for blasphemy. Each country has laws that reflect its personality. There is nothing intrinsically wrong or incorrect about sentencing someone to death for blasphemy. Of course for an atheist culture -it seems superstitious and dumb. Of course for a culture that values free speech above respect for religion - it will seem nonsensical and even undemocratic.- Care to compare & contrast legal systems? Without the indoctrination & propaganda, & the "I'm strong therefore I'm right".
It is not a matter of indoctrination or no indoctrination - but rather whose indoctrination. The West indoctrinates the non-west and the non-west indoctrinates the West - we all do it. We would not call it this. We would prefer to say we are educating our people or other people with the truth. But whose truth?
Created:
-->
@Barnardot
So what does sin have to do with being a homo?
Sin in the Bible is understood to be anything that falls shorts of the Standards of God.
In Christian theology sin is described in two different ways. One as sin - and one as sins. In other words there is both a generality to sin - and a specificity.
Generally, every human is born into the estate of sin. Ever since the fall of Adam and Eve everyone has inherited sin covenantally as soon as they are conceived. The only exception to this may be Jesus who was miraculously born from the virgin Mary after God breathed into her - in a similar fashion to the way he breathed in Adam to give him life. In this sense Jesus became a new thing. Just like Adam was a new thing initially.
The estate of sin generally means that every human is born awaiting death. Everyone includes the pope and every wonderful delightful and good human. It also includes all the evil and all those somewhere between. This estate of sin - essentially means that humans decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong - and the core of what sin is. People are born to die. This is the estate of sin and death. A decision made by our first and greatest human and we live with the consequences that he knew would be brought about by his decision. This decision of course amounted to treason. Why? Because only God is truly able to determine what right and wrong is - and the best decisions humans make - always fall short of this mark.
Specifically, sins are the individual sins that humans make. The 10 commandments provide a basic list of these sins and every other sin is derived from these 10. The 10 themselves can be succinctly reduced to two - love God and love others. When we fail to love God and when we fail to love others - we sin. The bible lists lots of sins - some of them specifically for the nation of Israel. Some of them specifically for certain tribes within Israel. Some of them for the nations of the world and people within it. There were some sins that only Israelites could commit. And did not refer to the Gentiles. For instance it was not sinful for a Gentile to eat pork whereas for a Jew it was sinful. Of course Gentiles were considered unclean. But unclean is not to ALWAYS be equated with sinfulness. Although at times it was equated with it.
Homosexuality in the OT and in the NT is considered sinful. The point of its sinfulness is that it breaches the 7th Commandment. The 7th Commandment's positive assertion was to promote the sanctity of marriage and the making and raising of children. Homosexuality by virtue of simple math cannot create children. It requires either adoption or a surrogate. Neither of which is the ideal situation.
Similarly, we can see why prostitution is sinful. Why we see fornication is sinful. Why we see adultery is sinful. Why we see pedophilia is sinful. Why we see bestiality is sinful. Why we see masturbation is sinful. Why we see bigamy is sinful and polygamy too. This is why even a de-facto relationship is considered sinful in the eyes of God. And pornography. And incest. Homosexuality is but one of many sinful behaviors according to the bible. But heterosexual activity outside of marriage is just as sinful. The bible is not homophobic - it is pro marriage and pro children.
Unfortunately many Christians spend far too much time focused on homosexuality giving a distorted view of the bible.
And your totally wrong about nature because it is natural to be homosexual and always has been.
It is once sense natural since the fall of man for people to sin. Homosexuality is therefore probably part of the natural order of sinfulness.
We ought not compare ourselves to animals. Animals for instance might in some species have same sex attraction. Yet animals also have lots of other natural tendencies which humans do not share and would not wish to put on humans. For instance cannibalism. Would we eat other and consider that normal just because some animal species do that? Of course not. Some species kill for the sake of killing, for pleasure. Should we consider this therefore normal for humans? Of course not. Some animals eat their own facies. Should we consider that normal or natural and start doing this? No of course not. Some animals rip each other off. Some steal other species children or eggs. Some poo where they eat. Some wear clothes and some don't. The point is - humans are humans. We are not animals. We have our own rules and customs - that are quite distinct from every animal on this planet. We would be stupid to look at an animal and say - well that is normal for them - or even a hundred different types of species - it is therefore normal for us. It is a silly argument - and one that simpletons rely upon.
We choose who we are attracted too and we choose who we are not attracted too. We have the ability of self -control. We don't look at that person and just give in to our desires and lusts - there has to be reciprocal consent for it to take place. Animals just do what they want - no matter whether there is consent or not. Rapists do the same thing.
I can choose not to look at or desire any other person save for my wife. I can control my self. Can you? Or do you just follow your groin - and let it lead you where ever it wants to go?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Not the Romans nor the Greeks - but the Jewish society didDon't believe gay lies. Ancient Greece had a small time period where homosexuality was active but was quickly repressed after Augustus conquered Greece.Also what "Jewish society". Galilee was diverse at the time and had many groups. Jesus wasn't Jewish. He come from the stock of Joseph, not Judah
Whatever the true extent of Grecian homosexuality and I still think it was well known within that circle along with pedophilia, the Romans did practice it extensively. And my point was simple. It was not promoted in the Jewish circles Jesus was preaching in. It would not have come up as a topic to rebuke because it was already culturally frowned upon.
I have no idea where you are coming from in your final sentence. Jesus was a Jew. His cousin was a Levite. His mother came from the stock of Judah. He was adopted into the line of David through Joseph. Joseph was from Judah.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
How on Earth would you know what a GODS standards were?
God does not leave himself without a witness. The Christian holds the view that the Spirit of God - the Holy Spirit witnesses with our spirit in relation to the things of God. The truth about God and his standards are in the Bible.
Your bible and it's subsequent interpretations are all human standards.
The Bible is God's word. It proclaims itself as such. It is rational that God would communicate with words and put it within an objective piece of writing. It would be irrational to have it any other way. The Bible is one of the few books in the world that ACTUALLY proclaims it is of divine origin. The Koran does not for instance.
We have no proof that anyone has ever discussed standards with a GOD.
What does that even mean? You don't even have proof that you exist. Or that your grandfather exists. I have the Bible as proof. A book that God says he wrote. A book that proclaims that it is written by God.
Your illogic is based upon one giant assumption, that a GOD might have standards.
What a weird comment. Of course God has standards. That goes without saying. To reject such a thing requires you to provide an objective standard.
Which is based upon the even bigger assumption, that there is a GOD who might consider standards.
Ha Ha! God does have standards. Otherwise - the concept of sin has no point. I get that you don't like this. And must reject it. Yet - God's standards as understood in the Bible is and remains the standard of perfection in history. Now I know I am not getting into the nitty gritty here. Yet your comments seem to spring out of a deep resentment in your heart. That surprises me. You don't normally come across as so emotional. I apologize if I have hit a sore point. I will not however apologize for the truth.
Created:
-->
@Yassine
- She wasn't sentenced to death. Nothing happened yet. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison, yet to be ratified by the court.
Yes, she has been sentenced to death. She will sit in prison until she is released or until the sentence is carried out. The 20 years of prison was in addition to the death penalty.
Which is about the same sentence you will get if you blaspheme in Europe or the US, or less.
Not in a European country, you won't. Nor in Australia. Blasphemy is still a charge in many Western Countries - but no one is ever charged with it. And many jurisdictions are discussing removing it from their books.
Like that White couple who got 15 years in prison for insulting a Black family, -
I am not sure what you are talking about - do you have a link? But insulting a black family is not blasphemy. It seems unlikely in a Western Court that some one would get 15 years just for insulting someone - even if it is done with racist intent. Still, I am happy to be shown wrong. Where is the link to this case?
which is what anti-semitic slurs & Holocaust denying gets you in France or Germany. – It mustn't feel great when you're no better than a third world country like Pakistan.
Anti-semitic slurs and holocaust denial is racist. In places like Germany and France or even Israel these charges would be more aggravating than in most Western nations. 15 years would also be the maximum penalty - not the minimium.
For the record, I think blasphemy is a serious matter. Nevertheless, it depends on what country you are in and how the general public perceives it that ought to considered. I would think in a country like Pakistan - that it would aggravating to blaspheme against their predominant religion. If Pakistan was promoting itself as a tolerant country or a multi-cultural nation - it would be silly to have such a law - but it is not its policy or its intent. Most of the country - 98% according to this article are Muslim. Other people in the nation - ought to respect to some degree the majority view. They don't have to agree. But to get frustrated because it applies its own law is a bit precious.
In Australia we have blasphemy laws - never used. Our country might still have a majority of Christians - yet the nation is not promoted as a Christian nation - but as a secular and multi-cultural one. In fact - Christianity is pretty much the only religion or worldview that is permitted to be criticized without repercussion - with the justification that they are the majority or have been pretty horrible in the past and that they deserve any ridicule they receive now.
If someone criticized the Muslim religion here or the Hindu religion they may well be canceled for being intolerant. Yet Christians if they suggest we want to have a nativity scene at Christmas time - get told to shut up and stop being tiring.
Of course the law is still the case that if someone came into a church and disrupted it - it is a criminal offence. I am not sure that anyone would really care- - but it is a criminal offence.
For someone to be sentenced to death in a Muslim Country for disrespecting Muslim ideals is to be expected. Pakistan is not pretending to be a democracy. It is not pretending to be a safe haven for the woke left. It is not pretending to agree with free speech. It is very clear on its laws. They are not the same as Western Laws - so for Western People to be upset is simply intolerant and inconsistent.
It seems to me that those in the West want to be considered tolerant of everyone - but this only really consists of those that agree with them. Personally, despite the fact that I disagree totally with the legal system in Pakistan and its Sharia law - I think that as a sovereign nation it has the prerogative to determine for itself how it legislates morality, the law and regulates its people. I also think it is petty for the West to criticize it by measuring its own self against Pakistan.
There is a place to compare and contrast legal systems and to analyze the same - but it is necessary to provide your basis for the criticism that arises when it arises against a culture. The death penalty for instance is neither good nor bad. It is a punishment that a country - may impose and EVERY country does in some form or another - even those opposed to it. Yet - why is it ok in America to put someone to death for theft or murder and not ok to do it in Pakistan for blasphemy. Each country has laws that reflect its personality. There is nothing intrinsically wrong or incorrect about sentencing someone to death for blasphemy. Of course for an atheist culture -it seems superstitious and dumb. Of course for a culture that values free speech above respect for religion - it will seem nonsensical and even undemocratic.
Yet there is nothing intrinsically wrong about making such a law that reflects where the majority of people in a culture stand. Nor is there anything intrinsically wrong with such a law reflecting ONE dictator in a country.
For it to be intrinsically wrong - one would need to provide a basis for determining right and wrong - perhaps that everyone agrees with - not just democratically minded woke Lefties.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Are they a worse type of sinner? Some might say yes. Others would say no. Yet whether it is worse or not - it is still sinful.Jesus condemned religious leaders his entire ministry but never spoke a single word against homosexuality. He even spent a lot of time with sinners and didn't ever attack them -- his mere prescence changed them for the better. Today Christians are destroying the lives of lgbt people for no other reason than "sin", yet Jesus never took the condemnation approach - he stated clearly that the one without sin can throw the first stone.
Why would he need to speak out against homosexuality? The society at the time already condemned it. Not the Romans nor the Greeks - but the Jewish society did. If homosexuality was not sinful but was being persecuted the better question is why did Jesus not speak in favor of homosexuality and why did he not call out those who were condemning it? Yet Jesus never once spoke in favor of it - and in fact seemed to actually support marriage as between one man and one woman in his wedding miracle but also later on in his reply to the Pharisees.
Jesus' statement to the pharisees in respect of "not throwing stones" is not an argument against bringing judgment on sinners. In fact he said - first take the log out of your own eye before you start judging others. It was a pre-condition to bringing judgment or evaluation or to call sinners to repentance. The other interesting thing about that particular incident with Jesus and the adulterous woman was the very real possibility that the leaders at that time were probably part of the problem and he was calling out hypocrisy. Hypocrites ought not judge. First remove the log.
I actually don't know any Christians who I would consider homophobic.Thats a good thing. To simply assume that someone is a worse human just because they belong to a certain group is nonsensical and harmfull.
I am not sure I agree with your last sentence. Pedophiles' in my view belong to a group - and I think are among the worst type of people in the world. But are they worse people? I think they are dangerous. As are socialists. And left wingers. Dangerous people in actions and in ideas. Yet I would not consider that homosexuals are any worse than any other kind of person. Yet - what is a worse person at any time? Even thinking some might be worse than others - is so subjective.
I'm not sure there are ANY scientific studies that support the genetic background for homosexuality.Even if you don't buy that being gay specifically is caused by your genes, the Christian doctrine of heredetary sin serves the same purpose: its impossible to avoid sin. Only a miracle can heal a sinner, meaning God decides when he wants gay people to stop "sinning" --- Christians have no right to try doing God's job.
I've read some of those studies - but remain unconvinced. The flaws are to obvious as are the biases.
I said above that the fall of humanity tainted or infected the whole of humanity. This sin infection infects every part of the person - and every person differently. The miracle of Jesus is the only way to stop sinning. And every new person in Christ is on the path of sanctification - again a work of the Spirit of God. I disagree that Christians have no right to call people to repentance. We are commanded to by God. His workers are commanded to call every person to repentance and to new life. True the Spirit of God will convict and change. Yet Romans is clear. Unless someone preaches - the sinner won't hear. How can they call upon the one ... unless someone preaches.
Christians all over the world have the duty and responsibility to call everyone else to repentance on a daily basis. Of course this needs to be done in love and a sincere heart. Not out of hypocrisy nor spite.
But to deny this truth is to deny the Gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Solaris1
Do you have any evidence/arguments that would prove that humans have souls/immaterial minds?
Humans are souls. They don't have souls. This soul is both physical and spiritual. The evidence for this is life and death. While a person is alive - they are a soul and when they die - they simply become a shell. It is what distinguishes a living being from a dead one.
Evidence against the immaterial part of the mind is Phineas Gage [1].Popular reports of pre-accident Gage often depict him as a hardworking, pleasant man prior to the accident. Post-accident, these reports describe him as a changed man, suggesting that the injury had transformed him into a surly, aggressive alcoholic who was unable to hold down a job.Damage to the Brain = damage to the mind, therefore mind is not separate from the brain.[1]
Interesting but missing the point.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Benjamin-
Not sure what the point of this topic is.
Christians as a general rule agree that all people are sinners. All sin separates God from humanity. One of those sins is homosexuality. Another is adultery. Another is telling lies. Another - judging one another falsely.
I actually don't know any Christians who I would consider homophobic. I am sure there are many out there. I just don't come across them in my circles.
I'm not sure there are ANY scientific studies that support the genetic background for homosexuality. And in particular peer reviewed material. Mostly studies have steered away from doing so - just in case - some right winged nut job gets into power and decides to genetically switch all of the gay genes off.
There was some earlier material attempting to prove the gay gene - but it turned out that all the people who were studied with a particular gene had actually died from AIDS - and it was the AIDS itself which was giving a unique gene - and this was confirmed after druggies who died from AIDS but were heterosexual were found to have the same unique gene.
The Bible indicates all have sinned and - it is therefore unsurprising to find people who are homosexual in our world. Are they a worse type of sinner? Some might say yes. Others would say no. Yet whether it is worse or not - it is still sinful.
The question about sinful is interesting. What does that mean? Does that mean we isolate them from the world like the unvaccinated? Or the leper? Does that mean we treat them like 2nd hand citizens like the unvaccinated or the uneducated? Does that mean that they have no hope for the future? Or indeed for heaven?
Good questions - but hardly likely to be answered let alone resolved on this website.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Yet - if God exists - suddenly the atheist is up in arms about evil. Why? That is the question. Somehow what can happen when God does not exist is IMPOSSIBLE to be part of the answer if God does exist., Mirrors and smokescreens. Talk about escapism and denial.In the atheist model, there is no all loving, all powerful being watching over the cosmos. In the atheist's world view, evil is a product of free will. In the theist's world view, evil is a product of free will but is also permitted by an all loving father.
In the theist's world - evil is condemned by God - and is dealt with through Jesus. Permission is an odd thing to suggest. You fail to delineate between first and second causes. God set up a system in the OT to punish evil. He also set up a system to deal with individual evil. Why fail to mention these things? Are they inconvenient truths?
God gave humanity the ability to do the right thing in their creation. Yet he also gave them the ability to follow their own choices. Why this is difficult to understand is staggering?Fibromyalgia.
Listing a disorder is not an argument. I have argued elsewhere that the existence of evil is definitive proof that God exists. A disorder demonstrates that the world we live in is not perfect - and has rebelled against God and his designs. It is evidence of sin and its destructive power. It is a natural effect of the cause of sin. If we did not have disorders in our world today, this would demonstrate that sin is not a problem. Yet sin is a problem and evil and its destructive consequences are real demonstrating God exists.
Free will is the reason for evil.Who willed cancer?
Twisting meanings in wordplay is silly. One might suggest that Adam and Eve by intentionally disobeying God - willed for every consequence because of that choice. Cancer is a distortion of the human body in its perfect form. Cancer is destructive and deteriorative. If Adam had not sinned, cancer would not be a thing.
God's existence does not change the facts about evil.It doesn't, that is correct. Consider the following example.
- A kid in a school brings out a rifle. The teacher who is known to be loving stops them. The threat is deescalated.
- A kid in a school brings out a rifle. The teacher who is known to be loving does not stop him because he does not want to intervene with the child's free will. After all, freewill is a gift given by God, who is the mortal teacher to judge the child? Everyone in the school dies.
In both examples, you are correct to say that free will is the driving force for the terror. The fact that a loving teacher is there does not change this. However, the issue arises when the teacher claims that they are loving, and further problems arise when the teacher reveals their reason for not stepping in.
A bad analogy. you are attempting to use a Hindu - understanding of free will as practiced on the Star Ship Enterprise in Star Trek as the model for Christian or biblical free will. It is effectively a straw man argument.
Christians don't hold to the view that God won't intervene if he chooses to. We don't say that God won't interfere with free will. In fact we say the opposite - God will interfere - and does in every person who becomes a Christian. This is one reason I challenged you to become a Christian a while ago. It is precisely because it requires God to interfere with your Free Will that anyone becomes a Christian.
Btw many kids could take a gun to school and there might never be an issue. In fact many kids do takes guns to school and no issue ever occurs.
Some teachers might try and stop kids from bringing out guns - loving or not - and gets shot and killed. What point was there in interfering?
Free will is an explanation for cause and effect. And for culpability. People who break the law intentionally or recklessly should be held accountable for their actions. A teacher is responsible for their class room and makes the rules within it. Kid's should not bring a gun to school in my view.
Every day God judges the world - historically but also finally on judgment day. Every day people die - because people sin. Death is the consequence of sin. Sometimes God acts in a direct way but sometimes he acts in an indirect way in history. At other times - God's judgment is going to be on that last day.
You talk about God permitting sin. I think that is unhelpful. And it doesn't further the discussion but rather is a way to shut it down. Yet it doesn't address even a little bit of how God does think about sin. It doesn't address why God bothered to say sin is bad and will lead to death. It doesn't address why he set up both a legal and a Levitical system to deal with it. It does not address why God sent prophets to warn his people not to sin. It doesn't address why he sent Jesus to die for sin for others. It doesn't address why God will judge the world for sin. In fact it misses the entire point that God told Adam and Eve not sin in the first place or they will suffer consequences.
To me - it looks simply like you are trying to find a way to justify why you can be sinful without consequences and how you want to blame God for your own actions. It is not the position of someone who is prepared to accept their own responsibility. It is rather someone looking for loopholes.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Sin is a concept relative to biblical bollocks.And people have been fiddling with each others bollocks and bits, ever since they realised it was temporarily satisfying.
Sin is anything that falls short of God's standards.
Fornication and adultery. Swearing. Stealing. Murder. Taking the Lord's name in vain.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
"In my view - homosexual nature was not created by God. "Who is God's co-creator then?
God created humanity - Adam and Eve.
Their children are not directly created by God - but indirectly through humanity.
A person's nature is neither homosexual nor heterosexual. It is sinful. Yet God did not create a sinful nature.
It is one which already created very good but has now been tainted and distorted by sin. Sin has distorted - reshaped - remade - it - but not created human nature.
Humans born after the fall have inherited this distorted nature - not biologically although it certainly influences it - but covenantally.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
Many issues you bring up.Christians call Eden a fall, while at the same time sing that Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary to God's plan.Perhaps that is why the Jews who wrote the myth called it Original Virtue and our elevation, not our fall.What position are you favoring and accepting?
I disagree with you.
I know of no Christian group which sings of Adam's sin as a happy fault. Please provide some evidence for that particular view. Was it necessary for God's plan? That is a different question for a different topic. God created humanity very good. He did not create a homosexual nature.
The Jews might call it something else and hold a different view. That is their prerogative. It is not the Christian position however.
I accept that God created humanity very good. Humanity fell into the estate of sin. I accept this was a bad thing. Not to be celebrated but to be acknowledged and understood as in doing so - provides us with the explanation of why Jesus came to this world and died on a cross.
Humanity from the fall on - is not very good. It is now dead in its trespasses. Essentially zombies for want of a better word. Distorted from what God created them to be.
It is only as life is breathed into them again - by the Holy Spirit that people stop being zombies - or dead men walking.
The notion of homosexual nature is therefore a red herring and irrelevant. ALL humans - heterosexual and homosexual are distorted by sin. All humans need Christ to redeem them and to breath life into them by the Spirit of God. A heterosexual sinner is as condemned as a homosexual sinner. Neither have a higher moral ground.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
I don't think Christianity is homophobic. I think some elements of the church are homophobic.
The bible is not homophobic.
NEVERTHELESS - it depends what homophobic means.
If it means disagrees with homosexuality then yes it is homophobic.
If it means hates and wants to be violent towards homosexuals - then it is not homophobic.
These two ideas and concepts are very different.
If homophobic combines the two then it does harm to ideas and thinking in principle.
Christianity is not myogenous. Some people within the church are myogenous.
The two are not synonymous.
Define what a just cause is. And then explain why that actually matters.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?I think the answer is is quite important as it would show us the cause/source of homosexuality.If God, as believers think, then why is God creating gays?
I think there are multi answers to this question.
Firstly, I would hold the view that the Bible indicates that ALL humans are sinful. Created very good - without sin and without flaw. Yet with the capacity to both sin and disobey God. (For me this in more in accord with perfection than for a person to be created without the capacity to sin and to disobey God)
The Fall of Humanity brought sin into the world as we know it and thereafter all of creation was tainted by sin. God not being part of creation was not tainted by sin.
All humanity after Adam and Eve being their progeny were not created directly by God like Adam and Eve. Although God in his providential manner creates the means therefore of life - it was no longer created in the same sense as in the first creation. Adam and Eve were not created Gay. They were created with the desire for each other - in a monogamous relationship of marriage.
Their children however were born into the estate of sin due to the translocation of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden into the world. Sin impacted their children and indeed the creation around them - causing distortion everywhere. Not making everything evil - or as bad as possible - but distorted - and with sin now taking a hold and growing stronger and stronger.
Sin in that sense - became a decaying force in nature. Humans did not live as long. Humans became less and less aware and fearful of God. Humans began more and more to do whatever they liked to whomever they pleased.
This demonstrates that sin causes humanity to move away from God and further into death.
So to answer the question:
Are homosexual natures created by God, by nature or nurture?
They were not created by God. God created two people directly. Adam and Eve. Both were heterosexual.
Sinful Nature - A nature that moves away from God and does whatever it likes - may be a contributing factor of how homosexual natures were created.
Does nurture create homosexuality? I don't know.
In my view - homosexual nature was not created by God. Humanity now re-creates - not creates - everything in accordance with the sinful nature of humanity.
New humans are not being created in the same sense as when God created Adam and Eve. Now humans are born from the original creations - but the intervening even between their creation and now is the Fall.
I would say that the Fall - is a factor which needs to be understood - and factored into the the possibility that people are now born with homosexual natures.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
I think these must be very selective studies.
Studies that distance atheism from those who pride themselves on being atheist such as the Communists in China, the Soviet Union, Cambodia etc.
These societies - based specifically on atheism have killed and destroyed more lives in the 20th century than every religion in history.
Now - most atheists today simply deny that these societies and groups are an example of atheism but rather just defective people with defective agendas. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy is at the bottom of this denial.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Are you like serious - I'm never this blunt, but that is such a terrible defence.If it's that basic then you are willing to debate? I propose: The Free Will defence is not sufficient in refuting the Problem of Evil.
Thanks Bones for providing us all with such a humorous comment.
If God did not exist - then free will is the only reason available for the existence of evil. If God does not exist - then all the evil that has ever existed in whatever state can be put down as human freedom to choose to do it for whatever reason. It is true that some atheists might suggest that determinism plays a part - but that does not refute free will nor evil. At best it puts it into a particular context of culpability. It does not stop the evil - only explains it in part. That is part of the reason why the atheist continues to lose this argument. Ignorance and foolishness.
Yet - if God exists - suddenly the atheist is up in arms about evil. Why? That is the question. Somehow what can happen when God does not exist is IMPOSSIBLE to be part of the answer if God does exist., Mirrors and smokescreens. Talk about escapism and denial.
The Bible clearly says - God is not responsible for evil. The passage in Is does not say God created evil - unless of course you use an inferior English translation. But of course the dilatant will still attempt to do so. Why? Because they don't have the ability to think.
God gave humanity the ability to do the right thing in their creation. Yet he also gave them the ability to follow their own choices. Why this is difficult to understand is staggering? God did not want robots to worship him. He desired people to worship him freely and voluntarily because of their freedom not in spite of it.
Free will is the reason for evil. It is - if God does not exist - and it is still the reason if God exists. God's existence does not change the facts about evil. To try and suggest that somehow it becomes a refutable part of the argument if God does exist is nothing short of smoke and mirrors. It is intellectual dishonesty at its worst. Is this surprising? Not for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Belief is not the same as internal data storage.
Who says so? They are not mutually exclusive are they?
You are as aware of atheism as I am of theism.
I am certainly aware of the concept of atheism. Yet I have never met a consistent one, even when I was one. I was atheistic out of brainwashing.
So on this basis I can similarly say, that everyone doesn't believe in GOD.
What basis is that again? That belief is not the same as an internal storage system????? Again - you need to give that some meat.
Though I would not be so arrogant as to say GOD.But rather, A GOD principle.
Given your concept of atheism that seems fair.
Though to be fair, in conclusion you do repent for this sin.
LOL! I am not sure that I agree. I certainly indicated that proving God exists is one thing - but proving the God of the bible is another thing altogether.
And a sixth view might say that there might or might not be a GOD principle, but there is currently no way of knowing.
Yet that 6th view is easily debunked, isn't? How could one say there is no way of knowing - whether a God principle exists or not - without knowing about a god principle in the first place. The premise MUST be - the one thing I know about the God principle is - I can not know and that my friend is a self contradictory statement which actually proves logically the opposite. But shhh - don't tell anyone.
And a seventh view might say that GOD is a cheese and pickle sandwich in a motorway service station.
Well - some people become quite creative after having some bad pizza and cheap wine. Glad to see you are no different. Basically you are saying - there is no god. and that people who do believe in God - have no more reason to believe God is good than God is a bit of cheese and pickle. Very patronizing and ignorant really.
And so on.Such are the variable possibilities of the unknown.
The problem is - Christians don't say God is unknown. Or even unknowable. We do say God chooses to reveal himself and make himself known in a personal way to his people. Yet we also say that God has made himself known in the universe around us. Either the world formed itself out of pure dumb luck and chance - or it was designed. Statistically speaking - scientifically speaking - the former position is irrational and unscientific. At least the notion of a designed universe is scientifically satisfying - for most - except the part about a divine person doing it.
Evolutionists throw science away - they ask people to believe in blind faith - and to put their brains on hold. Evolution is unscientific. It is a pseudo science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
What you have done with your post #33 is attempt to cover your arse and your contradiction. I simply want to know what definition you had in mind when you said all the above. its not a difficult question.
It is a simple question in that regard. Yet if you read post 33 - you will see which definitions I used. I see no reason to prolong this discussion. If you can't read and understand that post in 33 - then no matter how long we discuss it - will suddenly you begin to see. You simply do not have the capacity to use your brain cells. Something to do with your masonic or secret society background probably.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Is it perhaps a duty in religion, or in some parts of a religious groups, to convince others that your god is real?
This is an interesting question. And not really answerable with a yes or no.
For instance I hold to a position - presuppositional view. This means that I take the view that everyone believes in God. There are those who who deny it - but I would suggest that they hold the truth down because the truth is to unpalatable for them to believe.
Others hold to an evidentialist view. They say people need to be able to be persuaded that God exists prior to believing - erst otherwise they won't believe.
A third view suggests that knowing God is a matter of faith - and therefore is unable to be proved. In fact attempting to prove God exists or even doing so - actually disproves the existence of God. Bizarre. But some people hold to this.
A fourth view suggests that it is impossible to prove whether or not God exists - since God is otherworldly.
a fifth view would say there is no god - therefore it is unprovable.
In Conclusion my position - presuppositional or axiomatic is that it is impossible to prove that the God of the Bible exists. Interestingly, I do think it is possible to prove a god exists. Which god of course is another question. I suggest that the only way it is possible to prove God exists in that manner is by way of logic or reason. It is not possible to do by experience. Yet reason and logic can and do get us to that point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
You know God still loves you, even if you go to hell. Hell is not fire and brimstone. God believes in free will.. your death means that you will be merely separated from God, or as separated as is possible with an omnipresent entity. In hell, you will not be tortured. You'll get your arms and legs back. You'll also still have the opportunity to repent and be with God.
Can you demonstrate these doctrines of yours from the Bible or are they just your understanding of how things work?
You know God still loves you, even if you go to hell.
How and why would you say that? It is true God loves the world so much. Yet, what is the world in that passage referring to? Elsewhere we read that God loved Jacob but he hated Esau. Hence we know that God does hate some people. Why would it be difficult to imagine that the people in Hell are not the ones that God hated? Can you please find me some evidence that God loves those people in Hell.
Hell is not fire and brimstone.
What is it then? And what does the Bible mean when it describes Hell as a burning lake of fire in Revelation.
God believes in free will..
What is free will? And how can free will exist in a universe where God controls all things? And what does free will have to do with anything in this topic? If someone hurts themselves or loses a leg, are you suggesting that was part of God's plan or was completely outside of it?
your death means that you will be merely separated from God, or as separated as is possible with an omnipresent entity.
What do you mean separated from God? Isn't an Atheist separated from God on earth? Does that mean Atheists live in Hell already? Can you find for me any reference in the bible which talks about Hell as being separated from God?
In hell, you will not be tortured.
Surely Jesus' point of teeth being gnashed has to do with torture? And surely you would agree that torture can take a form other than physical? There is such a thing as emotional or psychological torture? Wouldn't the fact that you know that you are separated from God be a form of torture? This is not to even enter the discussion of torment or burning fire.
You'll get your arms and legs back.
Really? So where do you get this information?
You'll also still have the opportunity to repent and be with God.
Again, where do you get this information? And if this is the case, why does God put preachers and evangelists on this planet in history? After all, if we just live like we want and then go to Hell and seeing the obvious we repent - that would be the best outcome, wouldn't?
An interesting question to add for you:
Do you believe people are born with immortal souls? If so why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Since you fail to understand how to read the legislation and since you are a dummy when it comes to court life - I can see how you might interpret it that way.
Of course - you are wrong. But that's ok. Why don't you go and get a law degree and see why.
Oh that's right. You failed school.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
If you look above Stephen,
in the post that you half quoted -
you will see that I answered those questions.
Of course - if you didn't understand as per usual.
You can go and try and read it again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The biggest thing which refutes your incompetency and sheer stupidity is the truth.
I know what I did, when it happened and why.
You can produce anything you like - it does not change the facts.
I simply cannot be bothered with you. I have met many imbeciles over the years - but you take the cake.
Yes, you can add that to your CV.
You talk so much garbage and threaten with no teeth at all.
Please explain what "foreign relations" in the context means before you issue such hollow warnings.
Created: