Tradesecret

-->

@Stephen

It is none of your business.

You made it the business of every member here the moment you posted your comment here on a forum on the WWW. You always seem to forget this don't you, Reverend "Tradey"?

Nuh - your misunderstanding not mine.

Nope. It is clearly your own misguided misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of a forum on the WWW , Reverend "Tradey".

Why I continue to reply to me - has be gobsmacked. Every one here knows you are a loser. Still Christ loved the losers - perhaps that is my bane as well.

I posted and I can choose not to answer as well.

I agree. And that wasn't my point, as you well know.

No, your point was to try and ridicule me. Again it didn't work.

Just like you refused to answer the question others have put to you.

Stop telling lies.

I don't tell lies.

You just refuse to answer questions.

Stop telling lies.

I don't tell lies. Do you remember being asked about whether you were atheist or not? You refused to answer. It was not my question. Ironically, it was one of your pseudo alternatives. But that is a matter for you.

So to be perfectly clear- I choose when I want to answer. And whether i answer or not - is no reflection upon whether I have an answer or not .

Nope. It is purposeful avoidance for lack of a reply or answer which you often come up against.

I refuse to answer when I choose to. Is it purposeful? Absolutely. But not because it is too hard - but because I can't be bothered.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

t's all word play Trade.

Blah blah for sure.

Tell the gullible that they must repent and they will.

From almost total nihilism to the acceptance of a GOD principle, is a big compromise.

And saying sorry is not quite the same as the religious concept of repentance.....As you well know.

I like you Zed. This is the reason I keep coming back to this. But surely - your own foolishness is eating you up inside?

Repentance is necessary when you sin. We all know it is true. Guilt eats everyone up.

Pretend away - but you have my PM. Pleaser do when you wish to be a little bit more honest.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

god, the judge

-->

@Lunar108

Have you ever met the fellow on this site who used to go by the name Willows?

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

the fantasy based religions

-->

@Lunar108

Isn't the theory of evolution just magic? Or the big bang for that matter? First there was nothing - and then nothing exploded for no particular reason.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Intelligence_06

Depends on how one understands "maximally great being".

For example, the act of creating a rock that one could not lift and then lifting it is contradictory.

Then, out of all the beings, there has to be a greatest being.

In the end, perhaps this, entirely, is nonsense.

This is the point though and why this ontological argument is flawed. It puts up a strawman God or GMB and then strikes it down.

Your example of omnipotence is a perfect example of strawman. The Christian God is omnipotent. Yet omnipotence is not defined "as can do anything absolutely and no matter how absurd it is". But rather can do anything he chooses to do. Or anything he wills to do. Yes. He could create a world within a millisecond. Or six days or 10 billions years. None of these things are absurd on the face of it. Yet, to make a rock so big he can't lift it - is an absurdity - not just in reality but with wordplay. He can't make a circle square either. Circles are circles and squares are squares. But God does not choose or will to do absurdities.

Similarly, the argument above is also based upon the strawman picture of God, that he is omnipotent, omniscient, and all benevolent. Yet, the Christian God is not described in such terms - but rather as Holy. Hence, both full of mercy and full of justice. Jesus' death on the cross ultimately brought both of these into play - God's justice was seen to be done and yet it also wrought grace and mercy.

To ever simply suggest God is only the three character traits above without bringing into play his mercy and grace - in totality with his Holiness will only be a strawman god.

I think the argument is flawed for those reasons but also because it is premised upon a whole lot of other nonsensicals as well.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

I would suggest that to find something obvious, implies that something is logical.

Suggest away then. It does not imply that someone is logical.

Predictably unpredictable also implies a certain level of logical understanding.

No not really. If someone is always unpredictable - there is no logic in what they do except - the deduction that it is not predictable. That is not really does not show logic - except by the person observing.

Nonetheless...What is the difference between predictably unpredictable and predictably predictable.

Word play.

So I would further suggest that if someone is predictably unpredictable, then they are also predictably predictable.

further word play

In so much as their unpredictability is predictable.

Blah blah

And GODS can represent a million things.

what do you mean? Are you using God as a noun actively doing something or as a noun passively doing something?

And the notion of repentance doesn't register with me at all.

Well that is a shame. I thought you were suggesting you were compromising. I think repentance - saying sorry - is a jolly good start. Throw yourself on the mercy of God - and who knows - perhaps - you might see the light.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Lunar108

Respect is something that comes with the territory and at other times must be earned. Police Officers, judges in a court room, soldiers in battle, politicians in government, parents, clergy, and some others in society are entitled to respect for the sake of their office or role. A mother or a father does not need to earn the respect of their child. That would be a nonsense.

Yet, others do need to earn respect. Friends don't automatically have respect. You need to earn it. Teachers don't automatically have respect - they need to earn it. Politicians don't automatically get respect. Celebrities - have to earn it.

So I agree with you on one hand - but disagree with you on another. God does not need to earn our respect. I think that is an absurd thing to say. We need to earn his respect. And I think we fail at that daily.

God = authority. God is entitled to respect by virtue of his role as creator. As his role as judge. As his role as Father of the world. King etc.

It is ridiculous to suggest God has to deserve our respect.

Islam is a religion. As I said above I don't respect it. But not respecting - does not mean I will treat it with contempt. It does not mean I will tell lies about it. It does not mean I will go out of my way to revile it. Not respecting something does not mean to ridiculing it. I think not respecting something does not entitle us to speak ill of something. Speaking ill of something is more actually not respecting ourselves.

We can ridicule things we respect. . We would not tell lies though. Or misrepresent it. We would not revile something we respect. For example, I respect our government - but I will ridicule it when it does something worth ridiculing it for. I respect my government but there are times when I will show contempt towards it. I won't tell lies about it. I won't revile it. I disagree with it politically - but I will still respect. For me I will comply with it - unless it asks me to sin. Even if it is inconvenient for me to comply. I might ridicule it for its foolishness. Yet I will respect it by compliance.

Islam as a religion is a ridiculous religion. It is a religion that requires obedience and submission. It is a religion that indicates that salvation is earned by obedience. And obedience not just to a dead prophet but to a God that is not personal and has no concern for me. Its God - ALLAH rules by fear and the sword. Should there be respect? I said above I have no respect for it. I ought to qualify that as in regards to theology and philosophy. For in a country ruled in accord with Islam law - respect is necessary. Sharia Law is deadly if there is no respect. So, I confess I do respect it in some circumstances.

Yet, I take the view that we ought to understand Islam - as it is understood by its Scholars and academics and clergy- in order to contrast and compare it with our own ideologies. Whether it be Christian or Secular or Hindu etc. Our own measure of good and evil or right and wrong is immeasurably important to determine how Islam stacks up.

and yet there are many Muslims in this world who are lovely people. People I talk with and share meals with frequently. Not every Muslim is a violent enemy of the state - breathing the firebrand sermons of the fundamentalist. Their religion is not necessarily consistent with their book or with their teachers- they seem to have evolved above their religion to a greater and more compromised view of the world.

For these people - they deny in essence the stories told about their founder. And I would never try and convince them otherwise. What use would that be unless I was attempting to convert them to something else - including atheism or Christianity or Buddhism.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

The measure can only be my database and how it manages information.

Everything at some point must be input and assessed.

that makes no sense.

A measure can't be a database. A database contains information. Yet that is not a measure. It is just information. How is it managed? What are its values and priorities? What is its understanding of right and wrong? And correct and incorrect?

Inputs can only be assessed by some kind of measure. What is that measure?

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

Good.

I'm pleased that you find my output obvious.

That implies that my output is logical and therefore expressed accurately.

As I suggested previously.......You seem to have developed a more pragmatic approach to ideological issues.

Obvious is not necessarily to be equated with logical. Often times - people can be predictably unpredictable.

But whatever - if you are suggesting that you are coming around to the truth that God exists and you have a need to repent, then I am all for it.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

I was clearly stating my bias again Islam.

So then you are saying that you "have absolutely no respect for Islam or its leader" for "absolutely " no reason.
Not at all Stephen. My point was that I was disclosing my bias. But also providing no reason since that was not the object of my question.

But it is the object of my question to you, Reverend "Tradey".

Ok. that is your object. Good for you. But it is irrelevant to me.

I have always had a principle of enquiry when attempting to find out about a particular topic. Go to the horses head and ask them what they believe something means - rather than relying upon other people's commentary or hearsay notions about what something means.

The OP had already given his sources in his first post. Did you look at those sources?
I asked a question. The OP answered. It is none of your business.

So then, although the OP had already supplied his sources after his every comment and quote in his initial post #1, you still had the audacity to question the reliability of his sources without even looking at them yourself! Do you treat all witness statements in such a dismissive off handed manner in your capacity as a lawyer, Reverend "Tradey"?

Stephen, I asked a question. He answered it. End of story. There was no audacity in my response. The OP did not make it clear in his summaries whether these were in fact the way Muslims understood the story of their master. Quoting a text - even by a Muslim does not automatically follow that this is what they think is the correct understanding. Hey just look at the way you quote the bible and some of its commentators. You don't accurately interpret the bible - and you don't actually articulate what the commentators are saying accurately. You can't do it even when it is pointed out to you the exact meaning. You just reject it. So don't come the raw prawn with me Stephen.

It is none of your business.

You made it the business of every member here the moment you posted your comment here on a forum on the WWW. You always seem to forget this don't you, Reverend "Tradey"?

Nuh - your misunderstanding not mine. I posted and I can choose not to answer as well. Just like you refused to answer the question others have put to you. You just refuse to answer questions. So to be perfectly clear- I choose when I want to answer. And whether i answer or not - is no reflection upon whether I have an answer or not - it is simply my choice.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

I regard and assess data and output as I see fit.

Of course you do. Conditioned as you - you must.

The telling thing to ask though is - what is the measure by which you think something is "fit"?

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

Of course, no one is a Muslim as no one is a Christian.

Yes, there are some people who are Muslims. And there are people who are Christians.

We are all human beings and apply various labels to ourselves, relative to inherited packages of data.

So what? This does stop me being a human being. And nor someone who likes to use labels.

A lot of which emanated from a time of religious fervour and ideology that was extremely popular a couple of thousand years ago.

Religious fervour is inescapable. As is ideology. And it's as popular today as it ever has been and always will be.

The machinations of ongoing human migration saw/sees the regional development of various schools of religious thought.

Religious thought will always be evolving. Every time a new law is made - and an old law is overturned - a new strain of religious thought occurs.

All really based upon the premise, that if you teach your children nonsense, then they will likely as not grow up believing in nonsense.

This applies to every thought, political, philosophical, and religious.

I am not sure what this adds to the conversation. You are simply stating the obvious.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

I was clearly stating my bias again Islam.

So then you are saying that you "have absolutely no respect for Islam or its leader" for "absolutely " no reason.

Not at all Stephen. My point was that I was disclosing my bias. But also providing no reason since that was not the object of my question.

I have always had a principle of enquiry when attempting to find out about a particular topic. Go to the horses head and ask them what they believe something means - rather than relying upon other people's commentary or hearsay notions about what something means.

The OP had already given his sources in his first post. Did you look at those sources?

I asked a question. The OP answered. It is none of your business.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@FLRW

Yes, in a critique of Craig's book The Kalam Cosmological Argument, published in 1979, Michael Martin states:[
"It should be obvious that Craig's conclusion that a single personal agent created the universe is a non sequiter. At most, this Kalam argument shows that some personal agent or agents created the universe. Craig cannot validly conclude that a single agent is the creator. On the contrary, for all he shows, there may have been trillions of personal agents involved in the creation."
Martin also claims that Craig has not justified his claim of creation "ex nihilo", pointing out that the universe may have been created from pre-existing material in a timeless or eternal state. Moreover, that Craig takes his argument too far beyond what his premises allow in deducing that the creating agent is greater than the universe. For this, he cites the example of a parent "creating" a child who eventually becomes greater than he or she.

Thanks. Just out of curiosity - have you read Craig's book or just the critique of it by Martin?

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Dr.Franklin

but it is possible

Anything is possible. The limit is only to the edge of your imagination - and even then it is possible for more outside of that. Do you see how how useless the word possible actually is?

But how plausible, probable and likely is it.

I think it is highly unlikely that there are other so called dimensions of us. It assumes too much.

The greatest way to create doubt about something is to use the word "possible". The problem is - "possible" is too broad a concept.

I don't think "possible" is something we ought to promote in relation to God or His existence.

The non-existence of God is impossible.

It is an absurdity to pretend or purport that God does not exist. The very essence of everything else requires God to exist.

We don't need ontological proofs to prove God's existence.

We just need to open our eyes and observe. As I have said on numerous occasions, I have never seen anything or heard any argument presented by any person that would even make me doubt the existence of God. It is simply an absurdity to think otherwise. Nevertheless, many people do think that God does not exist.

It would be an interesting study to examine how rational thinkers in most areas of life can simply deny God's existence in the face of such obvious evidence when it comes to thinking about God.

I don't believe I am brainwashed or conditioned to think this way. I find that an incredibly naïve thing to suggest - an convenient for some to throw out.

In the first place - if I am conditioned, then it is simply the result of life - and EVERYONE else is conditioned too? It is therefore on some levels inescapable.

Hence - it is a redundant argument because none of us can escape from conditioning. It is either this one or another one. Which one is better or worse than the other one? And who decides?

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@ludofl3x

As I recall it's pretty big for William Lane Craig among others.

Do you have a reference or a link for this?

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

I am not Muslim and I have absolutely no respect for the religion or its leader. ......................................

.................................In other words, why should we trust the voices of those who have a clear bias against Islam? #33

Well that is an arse backward statement if ever I heard one!

Why do you have "absolutely no respect for" Islam or "its leader"? What are your own biases against Islam and its leader?

When you so package my words into such an argument - all it shows is how you like to twist my words.

My point above is simple even if you find it difficult to follow along.

I was clearly stating my bias again Islam. Yet I am providing NOT any arguments against Islam or its leaders - just making an assertion of my own bias.

My latter comment was to make a query. Why should we trust any voices which are against Islam about the interpretation of Islam? The topic author kindly provided information which addressed me query.

I have always had a principle of enquiry when attempting to find out about a particular topic. Go to the horses head and ask them what they believe something means - rather than relying upon other people's commentary or hearsay notions about what something means. I notice you do not have a similar principle. Rather you just make stuff up.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

Good Morning Trade.

Dart quiet at the moment.

So allowing you the benefit of my wisdom.

I would suggest, that since we started exchanging data on Debateart. We have both modified and relaxed our approach to the subject of religion and associated philosophy.

Would you agree?

I am certainly more certain that it is impossible to be certain of anything.

And you seem to be more openminded, and as a consequence, your narrative output appears to be less certain.

Have a nice day.

Hi back to Zed. Hmmm

I think that I have seen you opening your eyes to things - you had previously written off.

Me - I am a creature who is constantly learning. I am not one of those people who think they know it all.

Yet there are things of which I am certain. My covenantal understanding of the world allows me to hold both absolutely and flexibility.

The One and the Many. I would be interested to understand the epistemology of how you can move from one to the other in a consistent manner.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@ludofl3x

@Benjamin

An argument used often by Christian apologists, which does not in any way advance the ball on "MGB = Bible Character."

Which Christian apologists advance this argument?

I think the entire argument is flawed and would never use it myself. Benjamin has in his second post adequately demonstrated some of these flaws - I do not need to repeat them.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

Possible is a word that is too vague and creates doubt. I want to know whether the existence is plausible or likely or even probable.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great exists in some possible world.

Again the word possible gets in the road here. Doubt extended to further doubt. It simply is a nonsense extension of an already vague premise.

3. If a maximally great exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

Stop with the word possible. The internal inconsistency of the premise is unsound.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

Wow. Possible extends to actual. What is actual? And what can't so called "possible" world be also real?

5. If a maximally great exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

The logic could be worked backwards.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

I would like to know which Christian apologists use this so called ontological argument

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

Hi Zed,

there is very little dissent these days about whether Jesus live or existed. A few people who believe any conspiracy about the place and who don't mind visiting a rabbit hole most days of the week might suggest Jesus is made up. But very few people deny it anymore. The evidence for his existence is very strong - and even more so compared to many historical figures.

As for his words, there is more evidence to support what he said than Julius Caesar or Aristotle. First hand second hand or third hand????

No one seriously expects an original to be still extant. In fact if one was claimed it would be less genuine that later copies.

As for being made in the image and likeness of God, I don't think this is vague or relative at all. I just am making the point that it can be distinguished from the ordinary chain of being theories. Those theories which incidentally are the ones most disputed - are not Christian.

Christianity, like the Jews before it - refuted that position as well. The Jews and the Christians fully understood most people make their own gods up. This is what distinguished the Jews and the Christians in their own position.

Not that anyone up above has brought that to our attention. I expect most universities and book clubs ignore this distinction or as is more likely are ignorant of it.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Lit

We are not being God's image. We have been made in the image and likeness of God. Quite different concepts.

One is attached to the chain of being concept- we are all on our way to becoming God - just evolving or becoming in some way.

Christianity - along with the Jewish religion - teaches that Humanity is entirely separate from God. We are not becoming gods. We do not evolve to become god.

Yes, we are called the children of God, not because we are biologically related. Not that we are becoming like him. Rather that we are adopted covenantaly into his family.

As humans - not as little gods.

I will wait for someone to remind me of Jesus' words, "we are all gods". Yet the meaning there is not of little gods. It has quite a different meaning.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@FLRW

I guess the people that made up gods had a thing for young virgins.

That may a more educated guess or truth than you realize.

People who have a habit of making up gods might well have an agenda or purpose for their inventions. Power, wealth, sex, lust etc.

The same things that direct politics the world over.

Altruism is something not at all related to politics or to many religions or even philanthropists - save and except when it has to do tax savings.

Christianity on the other hand is not about power or wealth or sex. It's God also is not an invention. Rather God invented Christianity.

Christianity too is not per se about altruism. It is about redemption. The reverse of power, wealth and lust.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Lunar108

I am not Muslim and I have absolutely no respect for the religion or its leader. Nevertheless, do Muslim religious scholars agree with these allegations or are they are all derived from interpretations from former Muslims or people not associated with it?

In other words, why should we trust the voices of those who have a clear bias against Islam?

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@FLRW

Well, the Christian God did rape a 14 year old virgin, so I guess Muhammed wanted to be just like him.

Wow!

I can't wait to hear the evidence for this lie. The lie being an assertion and not a fact.

You know you really should stop listening to those voices in your head or whatever you read on the internet or in a book.

I think this comes close to hate speech.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Lunar108

dragons
vampires
werewolves
flying donkeys that traverse outer space and beyond -I can't help but wonder how do they breath ?-
fairies
giants
djinn
demons
angels
unicorns
griffins

Actually 99% of those imaginary figures live in poetry and shows on tv these days- shows written by atheists. They don't only exist in religion.

now religious people will come out and tell you let us argue using logic ; RIP logic , how the f*** do you discuss fantasy using logic ?

Do you mean like the creation of the world in accordance with the big bang theory or the evolution of humanity from nothing?

I discuss religion. I don't discuss generally fantasy. Although at times I do discuss human logic, evolution abiogenesis. The goodness of humanity. Atheists having a brain.

the entire religious argument for the existence of their god is based on -just because you didn't went to china or seen china doesn't mean that china doesn't exist -
in this case it's true but replace china with wakanda and it's false

Silly and ridiculous fallacious argument. The argument in relation to the existence of most things is not evidence - it is mostly on testimony. Wakanda may or may not exist. I don't know - its an African Marvel movie invention or perhaps it is not. It is a question of what do you trust - what are the correct resources? What are trustworthy sources and why do you trust them?

just because you never seen a unicorn/dragon/vampire/angel/demon/djinn/giant/fairy/werewolf/flying donkey/griffin doesn't mean they don't exist ? right ? the answer is wrong even though I've never seen any of those I'm 100% sure that none of them actually exist , and just because you saw some scorched earth doesn't mean a dragon passed here .

Silly argument. Just because you haven't seen something does not mean it exists or not. I have never seen the wind. I have never seen love. I have never seen an honest Democrat.

just because we exist doesn't mean that god exist or your god exist ,

Well - actually it does mean a god exists. Without a deity - nothing else has a reason to exist. Things that do exist - don't just have the supreme will to will themselves into existence.

and just because your daddy told you our god -which we believe in- exist doesn't make it the truth.

my daddy told me god did not exist. So should i believe him or not?

you need to question everything and verify the facts and the truths until you find the right religion or abandon all religion since it's totally worthless , one needs to make sure that they made the right choice here , lies and double faced religions should be eliminated .

Well only it you think you do. Questioning things is fine. But you still need a purpose or reason to question things. Does the Solomon Islands exist? I am not going to bother to verify it but I will still believe it is there. Why? Because I don't have a reason to question - it save and except when people tell me that "we need to question everything". I question the validity of atheism, of evolution, of the Big Bang Theory, of the integrity of Democrats, of Buddhists, and other religions.

I have also questioned the validity of religion - and was surprised in my findings.

each should pass multiple phases of scientific , moral , and logical assessments before they are judged to whether they are right or wrong

I totally reject that as a silly idea. We don't hold hardly anything up in life to that much scrutiny. The world has just gone a massive mass vaccine mandate - without coming close to what you are asking. People don't vote according to that measure. They don't select which schools to go on that basis. They don't select the food they are going to eat throughout the week on that basis. They don't choose their jobs on that basis. Courts don't decide a verdict on those things.

Stop putting religion up on a pedestal to be tested on such levels - we don't do it for most things in life. In fact it would only be a handful of things that have undergone such a rigorous assessment - and none to such a level that everyone agrees truth has been found.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

Your not ignorant - you don't even rate a mention.

I answered your question.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

Predictable aren't you?

I have more important things than to be your gofer. If you want answers find them yourself.

Do you really think your tired old cliches are going to change my mind or make me feel bad?

Besides, I gave you a clue. And you either intentionally or stupidly chose to ignore it.

Pride - hmmm. Humility!!!!

I suppose you have answered your own question.

All the best with that.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

You have indicated that you know the bible better than all of the Christians on this site. Please do your own homework.

I suppose one way might be to throw yourself on his mercy - repent of your sins, beg for mercy and seek forgiveness. This of course means admitting you are wrong about everything, denying your pride, and following Jesus. Humility is the key.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Reece101

I’ve noticed posts have got deleted.

How do posts get deleted?

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

Seriously!

I thought you said you had read the bible.

And you think I am a fraud. LOLL!

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

Tradesecrete wrote: Christians are not seeking God. #96

Why are Christians not seeking god?

Please read my words.

Christians are not seeking God. Why? Because God has already found them. Since God has found Christians, now the manner in which they seek God is not about his existence. They are seeking his wisdom, his love, his comfort, etc.

So why are Christians not seeking God? Because God has already found them. No longer are they lost. As the old hymn goes. I once was lost - but now am found. Was blind but now I see.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

Hi Stephen,

my students keep coming back a bit like you. They always have questions and so do you. Hmm you are my student aren't you? Good to know.

You did read where I said I was not back peddling, didn't you? I thought you said you could read? Perhaps comprehension is not your strong suit. Ok.

Let me repeat myself - now read very slowly and with confidence. "I am not back peddling". Did you get that? Good. Let's move on.

Christians do seek God. But Christians say non-Christians don't seek God. Are you able to comprehend? I know it is difficult. But please try and understand.

God will find us. Hallelujah.

I have explained why non- Christians don't seek God.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

What an absolute stupid thing to write.
Her Majesty IS still accessible, can still be contacted , addressed, spoken to and can also be BE FOUND and seen.

where as;

You understand my point. You just refuse to consider its implications. Your problem not mine. I have never said (without qualification) that God cannot be found. I have never said (without qualification) that God cannot be seen. I have said we do not seek God - as non-believers. And when I mean God - I mean the God of the Bible. And when I mean non-believers. I mean people who don't believe in the God of the Bible.

I have qualified my position in relation to people who do believer. I indicated that people who knew the God of the Bible seek his mind and his love and his comfort and him in every way. You can put lots of verses up. But you need to actually connect the dots before you make a point. I read every one of those verses exactly how I always have. And since you rarely explain what you think these passages say - you rarely connect the dots.

You also intentionally ignore the verses I raised as so insignificant that they don't even raise your eyebrow. And whenever I qualify anything - since ordinarily people who are Christians understand these things without the need for qualification - you call it a back peddle.

People who don't believe in the God of the Bible wont seek God. They won't find God. They won't see God. The Christian response to this dilemma is that God comes to us as the non-believer. God seeks us. God finds us and God reveals himself to us. This Stephen is what revelation is all about. God revealing himself to humanity. And the most profound way that God did this was in the person of Jesus. God came to earth. This is uniquely a Jewish and Christian concept. Every other religion - every other worldview is in the process of finding God of seeking God. And this includes the secular humanist worldview including atheists. They are always trying to put God under a microscope to see if God is real. To see if God is true to see if God exists.

The Bible expresses that God can only be known through revelation. Not by humanity seeking God. One day I hope the coin will drop. The light will go. And you will no longer be blind. Until then - you will keep searching and you will keep not finding. Why? One reason is you don't even know who you are searching for - the one thing you do know - is it can't be the God of the Bible. And Stephen, this means that you will hit what you are searching for everytime. Anything but the God of the Bible.

I've said for a long time now - that the entire doctrine of freewill needs to be understood in this light.

People have the free will to do whatever they want - so far as it fits within the non-absurdities of life. Yet, this does not mean that they have the free will to do what they ought to do. Human nature gets in the road. Bank robbers don't give up their guns or their money. They choose to run away rather than face justice and a police man. Similarly, humanity - sinful humanity - everyone - just gets on with life as they understand it. Yet if confronted by a Holy God who is also judge, they will either pretend God does not exist, find another more friendly God, or just ignore or run away. Which one are you Stephen?

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

The Queen?

Just a woman, Trade.

Absolutely and this exactly my point.

This human person has all of this enormous power but you still don't just waltz into her presence.

God is not in the same league - he is way over and above even the queen.

And yet most people think - so what? In fact many people think they should be able to summon God at will. Like God is a puppet and a slave.

I would understand if God chose to ignore every person - who chooses not to respect Him.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

Well actually I have shown you to be ignorant - and uneducated and a liar. And a would be "victim" as well.

Nauseating is a word that quickly springs to mind. How often do you ACCUSE of running to the moderators?

And yet, I can't recall the last time - if ever - that I have actually reported anyone. I have suggested I would.

It is not something I would ordinarily do - unless I was put into a situation where I had no choice.

And yet, Stephen - it is something you do. Isn't?

Report people to the moderator.

Now that is something which is within the terms of the rules on this site. And it should not be looked down as though it is a bad thing.

And yet, you attempt to defame me by suggesting I use it as a tool.

Stephen, despite your well known "up yourself" attitude, I am perfectly content to let people read what I write and to read what others say about me. Like the rest of us - sometimes - I react. But in the most part - water off a duck's back.

Calling me a dunce. I take that with tickets. Whenever someone like you calls me a dunce. I lap it up.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

It's not a contradiction.

Oh stop it ffs. I said YOU are: You have said while calling others " ignorant":

And yet it seems to be one callling you have to try and prove me wrong. I am so special aren't I?

You don't even realize how much your answer reveals your ignorance of Christianity, do you?

Christians are not seeking God. Christians don't ask people to seek God. We say very clearly, you can't find God. #96
But the BIBLE doesn't agree with you. YOU are contradicting what it is THE BIBLE states and what your god Jesus has to say on the matter of "seeking" and "finding " god, you complete and utter bible dunce.

Acts 17: 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.

Jeremiah 29:13. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.

Proverbs 8:17. I love those who love me, and those who seek me find me.

Stephen, what can I say? Can't you read and understand what I wrote above? Obviously not.

Acts 17, the word "perhaps" is important. But maybe it is not.

Jeremiah 29 is written to Jews who were in the Kingdom -perhaps that is not important or relevant to you.

Proverbs 8 tells us that those who seek God find him,

I really with all due respect do not see anything here that contradicts anything I have previously said.

For all of your self proclaimed "qualifications and accreditations" you have to be the most bible ignorant Pastor and Chaplain that I have ever come across. And you have the nerve to charge universities to tutor and lecture their students on matters religion, god and the BIBLE!?

You are my number one fan. After all noone but you broadcasts my credentials like you do. I wonder whether I should pay a commission. But given that once again you HAVE NOT refuted any of my statements, not once. Why should I pay you a dime?

Even your entertainments value has dropped considerably over the last few weeks, Reverend "Tradey" Tradesecret.

No one has asked you to follow me or to determine how faithful or not I am. It is ENTIRELY your choice. But STEPHEN given your ever ready decision to evaluate my every word and thought, perhaps I ought to put you in my will. What do you think? Brother.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

And if you can't find a GOD

Then how can you know a GOD?

This is clearly an ongoing contradiction of yours Trade.

It's not a contradiction. It is a matter of principles. How do you find the queen? Do you just walk up to Buckingham Palace and knock on the door and she lets you in to have a cuppa tea and scones? What would happen if you tried? You would probably be slapped into handcuffs and put in prison for a moment until you demonstrated that you were just trying to find the queen. But would you actually find her?

No. Why not? the only way you are ever going to see the Queen is if she wants to know you. And then she will find you. That is how it works with people in power. Presidents prime ministers, kings, queens, movie stars - etc. Rich people.

God is kind of like this. He is the most powerful being in the universe. You don't even believe he exists. And yet, you think that you can just waltz into his presence because you feel like it. It is incredibly bad form. It is incredibly naive. People don't just find God.

But God did come to this earth. And when he did - people basically ignored him, then treated him like a criminal, and then killed him. Now most people mock this story. they think it is a joke. But they still expect to just waltz up to Jesus and expect him to take their business card. It is just inappropriate on so many levels.

A contradiction. Perhaps to people who don't think things through. Perhaps to people who have high tickets on themselves. Perhaps to people who think it is all nonsense.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

I'm not backpedaling.

Zed was talking in the context of Christians talking to Non-Christians.

Christian don't tell non-Christians to seek the Lord.

But we do tell Christians to seek the Lord. Yet this seeking is not the sense of finding God for the first time. It is in the context of finding the Lord's wisdom and mind.

So just to be clear - Christians don't believe any one who is a non-Christian can seek and find God. The Bible says no one comes to me. He is talking about non-believers.

But Christians seek the Lord always - but again not to find him but to find his mind.

Now you can go and do all of your spin - I don't really care. You don't want to have a healthy discussion. You want to find flaws in my thinking.

The primary difference between Christianity and other religions - is we don't go seeking God to find God, God comes to us and finds us. Now that might just be words to you - spin even. But it is the difference between No one seeing God at any time and God choosing to reveal himself to some.

No one can find God all by themselves. No one seeks God all by themselves. Yet God finds people all of the time. And once God finds people - they start to seek his mind.

This is why I have issued the challenge on many occasions to the atheists on this forum and on others as well. Prove me wrong. Become a Christian all by yourself and prove it to me. Sometimes people pretend to be Christian to try and fool me. Yet, very quickly their attitude and language reveals their hearts. We have seen some on here pretending to be Christians when they were not.

You don't get this. You think you do. But you don't. And to be honest - that is your problem not mine.

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

I take it you realize the difference between someone who is a Christian and seeks the Lord and the person who is a non-believer and seeks the Lord?

One is seeking the Lord's wisdom in respect of their pre-existing relationship and one is seeking the Lord to find out whether God exists or not.

One is not seeking to find God. He is seeking wisdom. And the other is seeking to find God.

If you cannot distinguish the difference then that is your problem, not mine.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

Morning Trade.

Hi Zed,

Upset....I don't do upset Trade.

Cool.

I do early morning Debateart entertainment.

Is that what you call it?

I was surprised at your inability to understand what I meant by family....Though I'm guessing that you probably didn't try....Ah well.

I did try. I just did not get it. Please try and explain it to me. Are you suggesting that they JUST ARE.?

And Woke....As far as I am concerned, woke means awake...So I'll take it as a compliment....And hence, my dreamland re-jibe.

Ok.

And for sure, I learned to ignore Christianity 50 or more years ago....And you learned the opposite.....Conditioning Trade.

Ah you are showing your age. I have indicated previously, though you choose to ignore it, that I rejected Christianity as a teenager. I took on atheist for several years. The Christianity I belong to now is very different to what I grew up with. Where is the conditioning in that - except perhaps from a secular humanist university training?

And I know that it's not possible to find a real GOD....That's what I keep telling you Trade....So we've concluded the morning in agreement then...Nice.

I think the first step towards knowing God is by realizing you can't find God. It's a little bit like a person with an addiction, acknowledging they have a problem. Since you have life - there is still hope for you.

The next step for you might be to consider the question - given that God exist, and that I can't find him, why not? Others do know God, and they didn't find him, what happened? What is the difference? Of course - acknowledging you have a problem is one thing, it is another thing to have it dealt with. Cheers.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

And yet with all of your pretend nonsense - you fail to raise and then discuss the following verse:

"there is no one who understands, no one who seek God. All have turned away they have become together worthless. There is no one who does good not even one."

Romans 3:11-12 quoting Psalm 14.

But I am sure you can exegete and explain this passage in the context of the others. I personally don't believe they contradict each other.

But you on the other hand - well. what can we say?

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

Modern day is all that there is.

And like unconditioned non-theists who went before, we realised that it doesn't matter how hard you look you will never find a GOD, anywhere other than inside a conditioned mind.

You don't even realize how much your answer reveals your ignorance of Christianity, do you?

Christians are not seeking God. Christians don't ask people to seek God. We say very clearly, you can't find God. Try and pull your prejudiced thinking to one side just for a moment. Why am I saying this in response to your non-sequitur statement? And think about that as you keep talking about conditioned minds.

And the human family is, and various sub-families are...Irrespective of pomp and circumstance.

That does not even have a meaning contained within it. Families are … ???? Seriously!

And if I'm woke.

Then that puts you most definitely in dreamland.

O, you get upset because I labeled you woke. Surprise there eh. Well perhaps you ought to stop making assumptions about me?

You do sound awfully woke in your comments. The more fluid you get in your ideas, the more it flows out.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Reece101

From my understanding, sexual fluidity is a description of human sexual behaviour/attraction within environments where a persons sexual orientation (being gay, straight, etc) is challenged. “Prison culture” is an extreme example.

Fluidity essentially started with the Kinsey Report. The study however has very deep flaws in it.

What about other animals? They also have gay relations. Are you saying there was a fall of animals too? Do they also go to hell if they give in to their natural temptations? Do you understand how illogical you’re being with your excuses? By the way, I find it disgusting you’re equating malformation or having a disease with being gay. It goes to show where your mind is.

Honestly, I think comparing humans with animals is only mildly helpful. Spiders and many other animals are cannibals and killers for fun. No one ever suggests that they would be suitable for humans to do. And also I am not equating malformation and disease with gay. I suggested that sin has changed the human body from its initial state. Are things getting personal?

I would hold to the view that God defines what sin is and that each individual is responsible for their own sin. Did homosexuals therefore choose not to be born gay? No one chooses how they are born. Nor how they are created for that matter. But there is a clear distinction between how one was created - and then the implications of a choice of that human after they were created. Today we say - take the vaccine or not. Yet your choice has implications. God created humanity. And told them if they ate of the fruit there would be implications. Humanity knew the risk and the implications and went ahead anyway. I think this choice to ignore the risk is on humanity, not on God. Yet sin is still sin.
God knew how everything would play out beforehand. Again, God is the ultimate arbiter. With ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility.

Yes. I guess that explains why he himself chose to die on a cross. That is ultimate responsibility.

Extraordinary means more than ordinary. Magic is not ordinary. Supernatural is not ordinary. In fact both are extraordinary. Of course there are other things which are extraordinary as well. Yet when it comes to proving God, most people want extraordinary proof, not just ordinary proof. I honestly, can see only evidence for God's existence and not a scrap of evidence against his existence.
Yes, extraordinary means more than ordinary. Not what you were exclusively saying it referred to, which were magic and the supernatural. But I’m glad you’re going by the actual definition now. God is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence.

No I never exclusively said that. Go back and check. And don't put words into my mouth which were never there. Again. You intentionally miss the point.

It is not about admitting ignorance or not. That is simply me explaining why. People don't want to see creation as being created by God. Most people prefer to ignore the possibility and put forward all sorts of reasons it is a delusion. Occam's razor is a helpful tool. It is the most reasonable position to believe that the world and the universe was created rather than it just appeared from nowhere all by itself for no particular reason. Of course people would not admit that it what they believe - and would likely deny it too - calling it strawman. And yet that is the alternative.
Would you have known God if you weren’t taught it? What if you grew up in a different culture? Would a loving God really send you to hell?

It is possible. What if I were? There are many Christians in many cultures around the world. Would a loving judge ever send anyone to prison? Of course. God is loving and holy and just. He would be corrupt if he did not send people to Hell. Just like a judge would be corrupt if he let all the criminals go free.

I am not going to fall into your trap of the god of the gaps theory. I don't hold to that position in the first place. But of course there are things I don't know. I don't automatically jump to the conclusion that this proves God exists. Your assumption about God and fate is an assumption of yours not mine. God is ruled by his own character not by fate. God is also Holy. That is one thing atheists leave out of their trifecta about God. God is not three dimensional. That entire definition is nothing but a strawman.
What position don’t you hold to in the first place?
Can you tell me why my assumption is wrong?

I don't hold to the god of the gaps theory. And yes because fatalism is a position that is unable to differentiate between the one and the many.

If you want a more clear cut analogy I suggest Marvel comics. The Marvel god when depicted is sometimes thought to be the writer within the community. Though even he admits that he’s not capable of omniscience, etc. Problems arise when that’s the case which you haven’t addressed.

So rather than engage with it - as you wanted me to with the dragon - you just fob it off. Ok I suppose that makes sense. One rule for you and another rule for anyone you disagree with. sounds fair. and reasonable.

I think God is good and just regardless of what I see and understand with my own eyes. For me - he is the measure of good and just. For those without God, their measure is something else. Perhaps whatever they have been conditioned to believe, what their culture tells them, what their family taught them, what their schools taught them, what their peer group etc. Others think the majority of people provide the measure. Others think science does it. some say a group of elite professionals know the best measure of goodness and justice. Others their political party. Others rely on their conscience - whatever that is. Some use utilitarianism. Others the marxist dialect. And so the list goes on. What is your measure of right and wrong - any of these - a mixture of these - ? Something else.
Humans reason what’s right and wrong, good and bad in everyday life regardless of a belief in a genocidal dictator.
Saying that’s right or wrong because God said so, is not good enough. That’s not our standard in daily life.

So you don't have an answer then. Again not surprising.

Absolute does not mean perfect.
What did you mean by it when it came to math then?

That math required principles which are consistent and real. Not nominal and change with the wind. It is the difference between real science and the arts.

Or occam's razor. God.
Of course you would say that. What if you were taught a different god?

But I wasn't. Well that is not exactly true. The God I grew up with is in many ways very different to the God I worship now. My teachers presented God as best they could - and I threw it away. It wasn't until much later I came to know God. After I spend significant years as an atheist. God brought me back to the faith. I would not have come unless he made me.

Death, suicide, anarchy, or centralization - power corrupt power. Slavery. Thankfully, however we are not too consistent, and are restrained by God and his common grace.
That’s how you would feel without God, correct? That’s how many religious people have felt. I find it kind of childish. All those things have always existed, especially in heavily religious countries, etc. Apart from “anarchy” I guess. Less religious countries tend to be the happiest in the modern world.

Nope. It is the inevitable result of evolution for humanity. Life - death. All roads lead to death for the humanity and atheist. Tell it does not. Death is inevitable. There is nothing after life. When you die - you die. Religions for the major part are searching for a way out of death - don't think too hard about Hinduism which too is looking for death. But religions want eternal life. Atheists - seek after death. I think you will find the studies reflecting happiness - have two major characteristics - one they are secular societies - which happen to arise always from protestant backgrounds - and secondly are drawn up by academics who are primarily secular. And biased. It depends upon which religions we are looking at as well. Not all religions are equal - just like not every idea or philosophy is equal.

There are reasons why there are proportionately significant intellectuals that arise within both the Jewish World and the Protestant Worlds. Yes, other nations have intellectuals as well. But most come from a particular background.

I am glad you are not a communist. Mind you , it is a free world - no pun intended.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Reece101

So you don't have an answer? Ok. Yes, Humanity is made in the image and likeness of God.
You didn’t answer my question, so I responded in kind. Try to be a bit more multi faceted in your responses.

And homosexuals didn't choose to be created gay, correct?

No because I wanted to see where you were going. And also because I wanted to clarify your question. Now it has arisen I will respond.

I am actually two minds about this. I was settled in my view that gays chose to be gay. And honestly, I still think that for many it is exactly that. The whole notion of fluid these days, means people don't have to commit to being one or the other - just flit between one experience and the other. We can all provide examples of this. I also held to this view because I was of the view that sin was a choice.

In the past 18 months or so - from extra reading and talking with some of my colleagues - and the bible, I am comfortable with the fact that God created humanity good. Yet the fall of humanity so affected humanity in its core that perhaps some people are born gay. Hence, God did not create people gay. Sin impacted humanity by the fall. For example, people born with all sorts of diseases and disabilities - in my view is a result of the fall, not individual sins per se. Without the fall, these situations would not have occurred. Yet, after the fall since sin has entered the world and the human condition, then they are part and parcel of it. Hence in my view, it does seem plausible that some people are born gay. Yet this is not the same as saying God created people gay or malformed or with disease.

I would hold to the view that God defines what sin is and that each individual is responsible for their own sin. Did homosexuals therefore choose not to be born gay? No one chooses how they are born. Nor how they are created for that matter. But there is a clear distinction between how one was created - and then the implications of a choice of that human after they were created. Today we say - take the vaccine or not. Yet your choice has implications. God created humanity. And told them if they ate of the fruit there would be implications. Humanity knew the risk and the implications and went ahead anyway. I think this choice to ignore the risk is on humanity, not on God. Yet sin is still sin.

It's not nonsensical. You suggested originally that I was asserting extraordinary claims - therefore I needed to produce extraordinary evidence. I said that was nonsense since It misunderstands the reality of God. I think searching for miracles and magic and supernatural things in relation to God is superstitious mumbo jumbo.
Like I said, extraordinary does not refer to magic or the supernatural.

Extraordinary means more than ordinary. Magic is not ordinary. Supernatural is not ordinary. In fact both are extraordinary. Of course there are other things which are extraordinary as well. Yet when it comes to proving God, most people want extraordinary proof, not just ordinary proof. I honestly, can see only evidence for God's existence and not a scrap of evidence against his existence.

God is all powerful and can do whatever he pleases, does not mean he is going to perform for us like a puppet when we call. God has created this world we live in - and for me and the Scriptures that is where he is meeting with us. If we cannot see God in the creation we are ignorant.
The first thing is to admit you’re ignorant of ultimate truths. That’s how you expand your horizon. There’s always something more ultimate than what you already know. For example a god which is omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (all-present), and omniscient (all-knowing), is completely ruled by its own fate. Every thought and action that god makes, is predetermined. If you say he can choose to be ignorant about something, my response is, does it matter? he would have known prior.

It is not about admitting ignorance or not. That is simply me explaining why. People don't want to see creation as being created by God. Most people prefer to ignore the possibility and put forward all sorts of reasons it is a delusion. Occam's razor is a helpful tool. It is the most reasonable position to believe that the world and the universe was created rather than it just appeared from nowhere all by itself for no particular reason. Of course people would not admit that it what they believe - and would likely deny it too - calling it strawman. And yet that is the alternative.

I am not going to fall into your trap of the god of the gaps theory. I don't hold to that position in the first place. But of course there are things I don't know. I don't automatically jump to the conclusion that this proves God exists. Your assumption about God and fate is an assumption of yours not mine. God is ruled by his own character not by fate. God is also Holy. That is one thing atheists leave out of their trifecta about God. God is not three dimensional. That entire definition is nothing but a strawman.

I did. It was pride. A better word is selfish. An even better word is idolatry. And an even better word is sinful. Yes, you are right. There are millions of people in history who died not knowing the God of the universe. They died not knowing the God who controls and plans history. God is the author of life. If people are in Hell then that is because they refused to acknowledge the creator of this world. A choice they freely made and nobody took from them.
They didn’t have a choice in the matter in a world where God is the ultimate arbiter.

That's one point where we disagree. Christians talk about first and second causes. First causes talk about the fact that nothing can happen without God causing it. Second Causes talk about how things come about. You used the term author. In many ways history is God's book. He is the author and we are all the characters. In books - the author is the first cause and the characters are the second cause. In books, it is the character who is responsible for how they live and the consequences they receive depending upon the narrative. If Darth Vader kills someone, they don't blame it on George Lucas in the story. Darth Vader is the second cause and the division between him and the first cause is such that no one but Darth Vader is responsible for his own actions. Of course using the author analogy has its flaws - but it also provides a helpful analogy to consider the difference between God as the first cause and Humanity as responsible for what they do in life. No one is really going to say Darth Vader did not have free choice or that he should not be responsible for his actions. No one is going to turn around and say to Darth - hey don't worry, it is not your fault - it is George Lucas's fault. One of the flaws of this analogy of course is that God himself is a character within his own book. And sometimes we refer to God in his first cause place and sometimes we refer to God in his second cause place. God's providence and what happens is always going to happen - since it was done so through his first cause person as the author of life. But sometimes what God does is as the basis of his second cause place. At least attempting to distinguish the two is somewhat helpful.

Do fetuses go to Hell? Excellent question. Personally, I don't have an answer - save and except, that I believe that God saves everyone through Jesus. Yet thankfully, I am not God. What God does in his own way is a matter for him. I don't have an issue with that because I believe fully that everything God does is good and just. It is an assumption. or an axiom.
So if they go to hell, God’s good and just regardless? That begs a follow up question if your answer is yes.

I think God is good and just regardless of what I see and understand with my own eyes. For me - he is the measure of good and just. For those without God, their measure is something else. Perhaps whatever they have been conditioned to believe, what their culture tells them, what their family taught them, what their schools taught them, what their peer group etc. Others think the majority of people provide the measure. Others think science does it. some say a group of elite professionals know the best measure of goodness and justice. Others their political party. Others rely on their conscience - whatever that is. Some use utilitarianism. Others the marxist dialect. And so the list goes on. What is your measure of right and wrong - any of these - a mixture of these - ? Something else.

No that is an unfair characterization of my point. I took issue with you suggesting that math was perfect. I never said that. God is perfect. I do not think that therefore everything else is perfect. I said math is based on reason and logic.
Which you said is “ABSOLUTE”.

Absolute does not mean perfect.

It wasn’t an easy journey either. There’s a couple of times when humanity almost went extinct, both modern and early humans.
It is no surprise we are up there in terms of most adaptive species. It’s thanks to our cooperative brain.

Or occam's razor. God.

Yes, I have read that before. A few years ago - but it is preaching to the converted. And is flawed in many ways.

How so? I will come back to you on that one. It will involve some extra time.

In your view, what would the logical actions be of a human in which we’ve evolved?

Death, suicide, anarchy, or centralization - power corrupt power. Slavery. Thankfully, however we are not too consistent, and are restrained by God and his common grace.

Cooperation has its place - and does competition. But they are not opposites to each other nor even enemies.

Communism insists it is about cooperation - yet really is it submission to monopoly.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

Wrong....Humans define GODS, therefore humans define sin....That's irrefutable logic.

Only in a universe where God does not exist. Last time I looked, that was not this universe.

The formalisation of the beginning of a family....Mother, Father, Progeny, begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg.

A marriage is the commencement of a family. Families do not need to have children. A couple is a family if they are married.

How "a family" might proceed from thereon in, is variable...Though conditioning will have a big influence.

Nope. Family starts at Marriage ceremony. Nothing to do with conditioning. It is an institution.

True...Gay is a somewhat hijacked word....Though in terms of homosexuality, it all boils down to the achievement of sexual gratification, via an alternative modus operandi to the one previously mentioned.

Yes. I was drawing our attention to its meaning changing.

And conditioning is...Which may result in irresponsibility.

Not sure where you are going with this one.

Promoting religious fiction as the basis of universal reality is a tad irresponsible, but it's just how some people have been conditioned to process misinformation.

Flesh and blood and conditioning maketh the person, that maketh their GOD.

Spoken like a modern day woke person.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in: