Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The KKK do not consider the bible to be their axiom. What a load of nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(1) My parents and Church leaders are infallible (or at least unquestionable)(2) An old book, which has been edited and copied and translated thousands of times is 100% accurate(3) The "YHWH" described in an old book is NOT logically incoherent AND loves me or whatever(4) If I don't understand some apparent conflict in the text of an old book, I must trust the infallible Church leaders to guide me(5) If everyone followed the instructions of an old book, then the world would be a perfect place for everyone(6) Only idiots and evil mean and ugly people don't believe in old books and good stuff like me
Strawman.
I don't think my parents or the church is infallible. In fact I became a Christian as an adult after I had been an atheist for many years. My father was an atheist even though my mother was a Christian. The church I knew as a youngster is not the same denomination as the one I attend. There is a significant difference in the doctrines of that first church, my mother and where I am now.
I indicated that the Bible is what I call an axiom even if other do not. Since it is its own self witness - and measure of right and wrong, the number of edits and copies become a secondary matter.
The God of the NT and the God of the OT are the same. He is logically coherent - despite your strawman arguments. Saying God is omniscient, omnipotent and all benevolent is not a true picture of God of the OT. The overwhelming characteristic of God is holiness.
If I don't understand something, I study, I ask people, sometimes I never receive an answer or resolution. This is a common feature of everyone I know.
I don't think following the bible would make the world a perfect place. In fact this would contradict the bible.
People of every colour and creed believe in the Bible and people of every creed and colour don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
Go and check out the European legal systems which use the inquisitorial system of Napoleon. France is one such nation. There the law is not innocent until prove guilty. When you say there are no such jurisdictions, you are incorrect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen,
It seems to me that you simply want to call me out.
Good for you.
If you want to play pedantry all of the time, go for it. I have sought to clarify my words - but I guess you only want to see what you want to see.
And still you refuse to comment on "exceptions to the rule".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
No I am not a hypocrite.
I have demonstrated over and over again - yet you refuse to read it. There is a general principle of who has the burden of proof - but there are exceptions to the rule. You must have read my words before - yet you still have not addressed this. Is there a reason for your omission?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
The problem is that there are two lots of positive assertions being made.So would you consider the prosecutor and defendant of a legal case to both be making positive assertions?
Sometimes. If a prosecutor states that the defendant has broken the law and the defendant says I do not have the capacity of forming the intent to break the law. Then the burden falls firstly on the prosecutor, but then once the defendant raises this point which they are legitimately expected to do - then the burden shifts from the prosecutor to the defendant. I think the same thing applies in a manner in this particular discussion. Theists (although I think the reverse is more true) raise God. Then the atheist says - I have seen no evidence for God, therefore, the burden shifts - because the atheist is asserting positively that they have a standard they using to measure the existence or non-existence of God.
The theist does assert that there is a god.The atheist asserts that there is no god. Or he asserts that he has found no evidence for the existence of God.This is not how asserting works. By your logic, if I was accused for murder, I should be given the appropriate sentence if I am unable to defend myself. This is not how legal cases work. If I am just accused of something, the accuser needs to back up their claim, instead of saying "well you can't prove you didn't do you it". The person being accused is not asserting anything, they are simply defending their ground and maintaining the status quo.To say that atheists are asserting there is no God is not accurate. It would be more sensible to say that they are simply neutral as religious people have failed to change their position with facts.
You seem to know little about courts work. You are also working on the assumption that western courts are more legitimate than European Courts where the burden of proof is on the accused not on the prosecutor. You are working on a culture assumption. Nevertheless, even in a Western Court, once the prosecution makes their case, the defense needs to prove a defense - if they don't they will be sentenced. The defendant does not need to provide a defense unless the prosecution proves their case. Again it depends upon which jurisdiction you are being tried in.
Atheists are never neutral in relation to God. Neutrality is a myth. Atheists don't believe in God. That is their prerogative. Nevertheless, I have never met an atheist who is one our of neutrality. They always say - I have never seen evidence for God's existence - or no one has proved God to me. Both of these statements require a standard to make such a measure - and that standard is a positive assertion. Personally I don't know why atheists are scared of having the burden of proof to make. It is predominantly the atheist which is making the assertion.
Asserting there is no god - might sometimes be understand as a negative. But in this case the statement is misleading.Atheists very often say "I have found no evidence for the existence of God". This is a positive assertion. Yet, they continue to flip it around.This is incorrect. Saying "I have found no evidence for the existence of God" is not a positive assertion. A positive assertion is when one proposes a usually new idea. To say "I have found no evidence for the existence of God" is to simply say that I shall remain neutral and unbelieving until evidence is provided.I shall give you an example. Assume that I started a cult where we prayed to invisible dwarfs of whom were intangible, inaudible, invisible and undetectable in any ways. Imagine that someone came to question it. They would presumably say "Where's the evidence, give me some proof". Would it then be wise to say "Well, as you are asserting the idea that there are no invisible dwarfs, you must provide me evidence as to why these dwarfs don't exist."The dwarf denier will now be presumably frustrated. Clearly, if he stated that "I have found no evidence for the existence of invisible dwarfs", he would be making a a positive assertion. Right?It seems extremely logical that the dwarf denier needs not to deny the dwarfs if nothing has been put forward to him. It also seems stubborn to say "well, the dwarf deniers are positively asserting the idea of no dwarfs so they therefore need to prove it"
With respect your example is nonsense. People do not make dwarves the center of their universe. nor do they make the red nosed ignuana from the planet os the same. God is not in the same category as santa clause or imaginary creatures.
God is a completely different matter. People all around the world place their lives into his hands everyday. They build entire philosophies and doctrines and religions around God. They don't do this with imaginary creatures as such - oh yes there is the Yedis or whatever they are called - but this is completely a mock religion in any event. And it started of in such a manner. To equivocate that with God is an absurdity.
Did you even read what I said? I indicated that normally it would be the case that using "no" makes something a negative rather than a positive. I understand that it is impossible to prove a negative. Yet, this is not what atheists are doing. In your case of an invisible dwarf, that is a negative thing. In the case of God, there is oodles of proof, it is not the amount of proof, nor the extent of it, it is the understanding and interpretation of it that is the issue.
The person who believes in invisible dwarves does not say - everything proves its existence. They say there is no proof. For the record, if someone came to me and said they believed in invisible dwarves - I would not call myself an adwarf because I could not prove its existence. It would not be an issue to me.
If I said that the nature of humanity is evidence, would you accept it? No. If I said the existence of evil is evidence? Would you accept that? If I said the existence of the universe is evidence, would you accept that? No. If I said that the existence of absolutes is evidence. Would you accept that? No. If I argued from first causes? Would you accept that? No. If I argued from the probability that evolution is impossible would you accept that? No. If I argued from the ontological position, would you accept that? No. Do you see the issue? Everything put up as evidence - and indeed even in isolation or as a totality the evidence is there. But this is not enough for you. You are not using a standard of on the balance of probabilities. you are not even using beyond reasonable doubt - your standard of evidence is way above what is acceptable in any sense of a proper test of evidence. You are asking for a standard where there are no lingering doubts - or indeed something of such persuasive weight that you have no alternative position.
Yet, if I could provide that to you, then I would have to reject God. For this would go against everything I believe is possible.
It is an assumption based on personal experience.I find it very interesting that when these so called "personal experience" occur, the people also conveniently see their own God saving them. You would never hear a Muslim claiming Jesus saved them, or a Christian claiming that Zeus has been sighted. Odd.The burden of proof ought to be on both sides - this has been my argument from the start.And I refute this claim.
Actually I know of several Muslims who claim that Jesus has saved them - and become Christians. Although they don't tell their family because they are fearful of being killed.
I don't rely upon personal experience alone. Every one of the items I referred to is part of the reason I believe. Not one by itself is in isolation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
The problem is that there are two lots of positive assertions being made.
The theist does assert that there is a god.
The atheist asserts that there is no god. Or he asserts that he has found no evidence for the existence of God.
Asserting there is no god - might sometimes be understand as a negative. But in this case the statement is misleading.
Atheists very often say "I have found no evidence for the existence of God". This is a positive assertion. Yet, they continue to flip it around.
The burden of proof ought to be on both sides - this has been my argument from the start.
Which is why I started the God topic The God Topic (debateart.com).
Why does the atheist want to find out whether God exists or not? Is it because someone else asserted it or is it because they seriously want to know for themselves?
I totally assume the existence of God. It is an assumption based on logic. It is an assumption based on revelation. It is an assumption based on personal experience. It is an assumption based on many people's shared experience. It is an assumption based on human life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Your perception of what is true means little to me if you cannot prove either its actuality or its practical consequence as unique. The fact that the bible is harmful to multiple minorities and advocates for equal amounts of hate and love makes me even further against it. My mind is not closed, if you were to demonstrate the bible true or elements true I would believe it or those elements. That's called not being gullible.
The fact is you cannot prove logic. This is indisputable. And the reason is because it is its own self-witness. Logic is often harmful as well when it is used incorrectly. The bible is not harmful to anyone per se. How people use the bible is subject to errors just like logic is used erroneously often. This is why having a proper hermeneutic is essential just like having proper learning in respect of logic is essential.
I use logic because it is necessarily true, in other words, if we were to try to use the implications of there being no logic we couldn't even call logic unlogical, therefore yes it is proven to the most it can be. The bible is not like that at all. No, the specific axiom need not be proven, but you have to prove that x or y should be considered a valid axiom, else people could make up whatever they wanted and regard it as an axiom, a most dishonest tactic.
You use logic out of faith - not because it is necessarily true. Logic is good when logic is correctly constructed. Yet you are not infallible. You make mistakes and will get things wrong even though you believe it is necessarily true. As I have said above I am not anti-logic. Logic is a necessary part of life which bases reality in the objective. Logic has no meaning in the world of relativity. Hence another reason to believe in God. Yet without God there is only the relative and the subjective. Even logic becomes fluid - consider how the modern teachers of logic refer to water logic as opposed to rock logic as they move away from certainty and objectivity.
I no more need to prove the bible to be true than you need to prove logic to be true. The bible is an axiom whether you agree with it or not. There are very few things that could be an axiom. logic/ reason, experience, revelation. Just because you have never considered this does not mean I am using a dishonest tactic. In fact, it is your throwaway line that is disingenuous. No axiom can be proved except by self witness. All axioms are circular in reasoning. Not everything has the same basic ability to self-witness. These three things are unique in that regard.
A meaningless appeal to populum, I don't care, if I was looking to persuade you then maybe I would care a bit more. I'm not. At least not in this thread, I want to find the truth, and I can't tell if you honestly want to reach it as well or not. Just because people don't blindly accept your beliefs that doesn't make them close-minded, now, if you were to continuously present evidence, or if I said that it was impossible to prove your position abundantly, then yes, I would be closed minded.
Yes, I considered how you would respond to my comments about millions of people using this as an axiom. I expected you might attempt to refute it by suggesting it was an appeal to populum. But that is not what I was doing. And so I included it not as evidence that it was true because of its wide use, but rather as an appeal to you to open your mind, to understand that others do use it as such. That you went ahead and attempted to use it as a refutation, simply reveals you do not read well.
People looking for truth - don't go looking on debating sites. They do research in the real world. Yes, you might find some arguments you have not heard before here - but it is naïve to think you would find the truth here. I never said you were close minded because you did not believe me, I suggested you broaden your mind so you might engage with those who have different positions. Please don't think I am being negative with you. I am not. I am enjoying our discussion.
As for presenting evidence, at the moment, we are conducting what might be called preliminary discussions. There is a time for evidence - but not before the discussions have been finalised.
Again I thank you for your comments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
It is true that many young people at university also turn to Christianity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Maybe you could rephrase the question, as i don't see any mystery about this phenomenon. It is most often young adults who turn to Christ because the older we get the more set in our ways we become and are less likely to become Christians. Deathbed conversions are extremely rare.
Mind you, I see a lot of middle aged people turning to Jesus. Male and female. And often quite educated people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Everyone has assumptions. No one is immune or an exception to this rule.Yes, but who is making the fewest assumptions?And who is making their assumptions (AXIOMS and definitions) EXPLICIT?
I think I am making fewer assumptions. I have one. You have many. More than one.
I am quite explicit about my assumption - Given the existence of God, my Axiom is that the Bible is the measure of right and wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Wrong, at the very least we have very definitions of faith. But I don't even have what I think you mean by faith. Axioms are things that have to be true in order for things (in general) to work, reality being reality, logic, that kind of stuff, so no. I still don't think the bible is an axiom.
Not sure by what you mean is wrong. You seem to have switched the topic. I suggested that the reason you use logic is not because it has been proved to you. It can't be proved. It is an axiom. I said the reason you use it is "faith". It is blind faith for you. If not, then you have a definition??? When I use the word faith - I mean "trust".
I disagree with you that axioms are things that have to be true. Yes, I think that would be nice. But it is not. Who decides what is true? There are many people in the world who would argue that logic or reason is only true individually for individuals but not true for everyone. The other problem you have is that once you start talking about something that is true - you are suggesting that there are laws and principles that are true ABSOUTELY. Although you would probably resist that as well.
Whether you believe the bible to be an axiom or not is irrelevant. Millions, perhaps billions around the world do. These are people who live in the same world with you but have a different measure of right and wrong. Perhaps they are all wrong. Perhaps they are all right. If you wish to engage with them - though, you need to broaden your mind a little. At the moment, you have a closed mind. Not an open one. That might be ok for you while you don't have to engage with others. But you like to think you can convince and persuade people -and that is a good thing - yet - until you recognize how millions of people think and reason, you will continually fall flat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
For the bible to be 100% true
Would you stop wearing mixed fabrics?Would you start stoning divorcees to death in the public square?Would you start slaughtering prisoners of war who worshiped other "god($)"?
I can understand and believe the bible to be 100% true and not be obligated to comply with those commands to the OT Israelites.
In fact if the bible is 100% true, then those things applied only to the OT Israelites and not even to modern ones.
Each of those laws had a purpose which once fulfilled was completed. Not ended. Just completed. Even in the day of Jesus some of these things for instances the second one - was no longer biblically necessary, even if the culture at the time still condoned it.
The Bible was miles ahead of the times even for NT Israel.
The Bible has a context - and unless you are going to take some time to understand this context you will continue to throw out - strawman arguments.
Christians as a general rule do not follow the Mosaic Law in its literalness. Yet they still hold to the Bible being a measure of right and wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The bible is not attempting to prove any of the things you have listed so your point is invalid.
I never said I don't use logic. I said the reverse actually.
The point of an axiom is it cannot be proved. It is an example of circular reasoning. It is its own self -witness.
Logic testifies to itself - but you cannot prove it. Yes, you use it. But you cannot prove it. This is called "faith". Faith that it is true.
This is the same with the Bible as an axiom. It cannot be proved. It testifies to itself - this is circular reasoning. Christians believe it so by faith.
Yet, like logic, it is also reliable. And trustworthy.
And like Logic, can be distorted and used wrongly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Everyone has assumptions. No one is immune or an exception to this rule.
I don't know anyone who says - until logic and reason has been proved, I won't use it. An axiom is something which is a self witness of itself.
I can think of nothing in the Bible which has not been demonstrated to be true. Can you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
But the bible is not a necessary axiom, its quite arbitrary, of course I wouldn't accept it out of anything but what the bible says. If a comic book had on it's pages, "Everything in this book is real" and was intended by the author seriously, would you believe it? No, of course you wouldn't, now, I don't think the bible is like a comic book, just a more general analogy.
Hi Theweakeredge, thanks again for your comments.
I disagree with you. You don't see the Bible as being necessary. I do. It is the revelation of God from God. It is in written form. It is therefore transparent. It is objective. And it is the axiom of billions of people around the world.
You say it is not necessary. Yet without the Bible, as an axiom, then everything else loses focus and becomes relative and purely subjective.
I have no issue with the stories in the Bible. I think the author's intent - is genuine. And clearly communicable. What parts would I not believe?
The Bible is a bookcase of books. It has lots of genres. It was written prior to Gutenberg. It is not a textbook. Yet it is a book which has guided and helped and comforted and brought joy to millions of people in history. Yes some people have used it terribly. Just like some people have used science terribly.
As I said above, no one is asking you to make it your axiom. Yet if you want to have fruitful discussions with Christians, with those who DO see it as an axiom, then commencing with your own axiom is not going to cut it. Historically, Christians who utilize their axiom of the bible have been at the forefront of many wonderful discoveries. Explorers traveled extensively. Scientists finding new science. Mathematicians with new formulas. Christians love knowledge. I always find it amusing when atheists suggest Christians are dumb or stupid. Such suggestions come about when atheists shut their eyes to history or try and put a different spin on history.
A comic book is not suggesting it is revelation. There are very few books in the world - even amongst the religious which claim themselves to be the words of God. I would suggest that most of these books - are a bit like like your comic book. (I don't think that self-witness is evidence it is true. Yet conversely without self-witness it could not be true) Yet given the existence of God, it is self evident he would reveal himself to us - as he chooses, not as we would like. This is why no one can see God at any time, except those who he chooses to reveal himself to. Yet, for God to suggest he is not only the creator of the world, and the giver of life, but importantly also the judge of the world, it would be foolish then not to provide to humanity the standards by which he will judge.
Ignorance is not an excuse. I am sure you have heard that said before. Just because a crook says - I don't know that law or I don't accept your jurisdiction, or I don't agree with your views, is not going to prevent the judge from sentencing that crook. Yet, the judge has no power to judge anyone if there is no standard.
The Bible indicates that these standards in the past were brought by God to man through prophets. They brought God's lawsuits against humanity. These are written down for us to read - in the OT. The Bible also says that in these latter days - God has revealed himself through his son, the Lord Jesus. His Apostles and others such as Paul took Jesus's teachings and expounded them. They are known as the apostolic teaching. This is the NT.
For Christians, the bible is God's standard. It is his measure of right and wrong. It contains many examples of good people and of bad people. Sometimes good people did bad things. Sometimes bad people did good things. It is a book that shows humanity in all of its ugliness and in all of its righteousness. Yet running right through it is a picture of God, an entirely righteous and holy God who points on every page to his Son the Lord Jesus.
What is interesting is that despite the fact that Christians see the holy and righteous God in its pages, others don't. I have mentioned this before - but I think this is one of the most fascinating aspects of the Bible. That two people can read the same passage and see two different narratives. And when I say two people - I mean two groups of people. For it is not that every individual reads it and sees something different, but that there really are two ways of perceiving its contents. A holy and Good God or an evil and vindicate god. Of course there is a third subset - those who say they don't care or have not made up their mind yet.
The point is - that for Christians the Bible is their axiom. Hence why some people continue to demonstrate its weakness by pointing out so called contradictions and how it is inconsistent with science etc and why God is such an evil monster.
The problem of course for these people is that they are always starting with their own axioms. Not with the Christian's axiom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
But you are using your axiom to come to this point.
And that is part of the problem. I am not dismissing logic - but it is not my axiom.
The Bible makes the claim that it is divine revelation from God.
If it was not from God, then it would not make this claim. In that sense it is a contingent truth. Cats are mammals. All cats are mammals. Cats have claws. Not all cats have claws. The latter is contingent. The former is necessary.
A Divine revelation must indicate it came from God. Yet not all books that claim Divine revelation are from God.
Christians identify the bible as their axiom. No one says you have to agree with them - but unless you engage with their axiom, then you will always walk on a different path.
Christians will be able to engage with you - in your world - but you choose not to engage with theirs in a sincere sense. quite interesting really.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I don't agree.
There are certain accepted axioms. Logic is one. So is revelation.
Some people refuse to accept logic as an axiom. Other refuse to accept revelation. But many do.
It is a nonsense - to reject someone else's axiom as a false equivalence.
And no one is suggesting the bible needs to be true to get anywhere.
The bible is the measure of right and wrong. And it is its own measure of right and wrong. This is one reason why it is quite logical to say it is inerrant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Oh axioms.
You gotta love them - like the bible is true because the bible says it is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
So we can't use logic anymore - because it is circular reasoning. Excellent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
It's a bit like logic is true because it is logical.
How do we prove logic is logical without using logic?
Oops - circular reasoning - therefore it is a fallacy. therefore logic is a fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Don't stress about Utanity's input - he is another Atheist character trying very hard to pretend he is a Christian.
I have a feeling that he has taken up my challenge to him. That challenge was to prove the bible wrong - by becoming a Christian - all by himself. And being able to convince others of his sincerity. I said it was impossible.
I still think it is impossible. People don't just choose to become Christians. Not sincerely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
You can only get rite with god when you no their is the true god and when you saying stuffs like their is no god then you have no true faith.
Spoken like an atheist pretending to be Christian.
Getting right with God and believing in the True God or not are two completely separate ideas. Atheists might suggest that being an atheist and the origins of the universe are two complete ideas. For our purposes here - the former is correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
That old hairy chestnut again.
I do not think Words in the Bible can cause people to become homophobic.
You have asserted it. Not me.
You refuse to admit that provocative clothing worn by females which is visible and much more overt is able to cause men to assault them but are prepared to suggest that words in a book which are far less read and even less overt have the power to cause people to become homophobic.
I think that words and clothing are unable to cause such things. People respond to words and people respond to clothing. This is the product of them as people and how they choose to respond is a personal matter. Their response is not caused by clothing and it is not caused by words. Words and clothing are unable to cause anything - because unless words and clothing CAUSE the exact same response in everyone - then the cause is not the words and the clothing but the person responding.
If some people rape and some people do not - then what is the cause? Is it the clothing or the individual response? And if some people become homophobic and some people don't then is it the words or the individual response?
My view is that the individual is responsible. Not the clothing - and not the words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I think he is made of the same stuff as many a cricket bat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
But what say does have a Christian over a non-Christian?No what I am say is all mens they are bing the same and nobody is being over or being below but all mens should be warning because when your snuffed then some mens they will be over and some mens will be below and then the true christians will being over the others.
I have no idea what you are saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Honestly I have no clue as to what you said, eh Willows.
Still, The bible does not ask or address the question of the existence of God. It begins with the reality of God and never falters from that position.
The Bible is not a book which is telling you how to get to heaven. It is a book about humanity being reconciled with God. That is the point of the Bible.
When people talk about heaven and hell, they are talking about secondary issues, not the primary issue of the Bible.
Hence, why it is a red herring to worry about whether God exists or not. The more important question - is how do I get right with God?
And this is the question that religions as a whole are attempting to answer. Not whether God exists - but the questions well after that one.
Asking whether God exists is a question for people in prep. It is a basic question about abcs. This is probably why Jesus often indicated that for people to enter the kingdom of God they needed to be like little children. When we see adults asking questions about the abcs or learning to read, we realize that they are in a child like space. It is the same with asking about whether God exists or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Everyone will be dealt with by God in due course.
But what say does have a Christian over a non-Christian?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
If your not believing in god then you have the very bad problem because when you are snuffed then you will going to hell but if your not believing because your ignorant then you dont have to worry because you just need to going along like the christians like your believing god just like your telling your wife that her toosh is good looking. then you will sea that it is win win for you because you will being going to heaven.
Christians don't go to heaven because they believe in God. In fact believing in God is NOT enough to get you into heaven. The Bible says that even the demons believe in God - but will face an eternity in Hell. Many people attend church and believe in God, but this is not the prerequisite for entering Heaven.
Heaven actually is not the end game of being a Christian. Christians are those people who are reconciled with God. And if one is reconciled with God, then your destination is irrelevant.
The question then is how are we reconciled with God? The bible gives quite a different picture about this.
Why is it that the Bible does not attempt to prove God exists? Because believing in God is not the solution to eternity.
In fact the entire question about whether God exists or not is a red herring. And people who get lost in that question - have missed the boat entirely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
. COUNTABLE NOUN [usually with poss]
2. ADJECTIVE [ADJECTIVE noun]
Objective information is based on facts.
He had no objective evidence that anything extraordinary was happening.
objectively ADVERB [usually ADVERB with verb]
We simply want to inform people objectively about events.
objectivity (ɒbdʒektɪvɪti ) UNCOUNTABLE NOUN
The poll, whose objectivity is open to question, gave the party a 39% share of the vote.
3. ADJECTIVE
None of these definitions suggest that it needs to be impersonal or not attached to the mind.
Typically objective is about being neutral. Non-biased.
There is no reason at all why God cannot be subjective - in an unchanging manner - and yet our objective morality not be based in him.
Our objective morality is therefore unchanging - immutable. Consistent and eternal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Utanity,
you are correct. Christians should not hate gays.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You are not addressing the difference between the greek methodology and the Hebrew methodology.
The first says - even God is subject to objective morality.
The latter says that objective morality is subject to God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Sorry - but I disagree.
You are trying to tie objective morality to a non-person. I think that is a nonsense.
To make it exclusive to a mind - why? Explain why this is the only way to make something truly objective?
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I said on a similar topic a while ago - that I take the view that the philosophical argument is my favorite. Not necessarily a good one or the best - but it is my favourite.It is the agnostic. An agnostic is "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God." I think this beautiful statement is a perfect definition of self-contradiction. In other words, it philosophically proves God exists. It does not prove who God is or what his or her name is - but it is brilliant.I also think that the existence of evil is one of the best arguments for the existence of God. Without God, there is no evil or understanding of evil.Would you care share the philosophical argument? There are a number of them, so do you mean that the argument of gods existence as a moral standard for determining evil is your favorite philosophical argument?
As I said above - my favorite, although not the best, is the self contradictory statement of the agnostic. Agnostics argue that nothing can be known about the existence of nature of God. Logically, they are saying, the one thing we know about God is that nothing can be known about God. It is like the self contradictory statement people make about absolutes. There is absolutely no such thing as an absolute.
Both are philosophical - logical conundrums which actually prove the exact opposite of their assertions.
The relativist proves Absolutes exist.
The agnostic proves God exists.
I am not saying brilliant argument but truly my favorite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Objective morality for humans and the rest of the universe is based on the subjective morality of God.
This is because God is the creator of life and has that divine prerogative.
For objective morality to exist apart from God is a Greek philosophical understanding of the world. This is in stark contrast to the Hebrew and Christian understanding.
In the Greek method, god is subject to morality himself because morality objectively exists. This is sometimes called - natural law.
In our modern times, utilitarianism is considered an objective standard of determining right and wrong. The ends justifies the means.
I reject that standard - because not only is not objective, how can anyone determine the greatest good for the greatest number? That is nonsensical - because individual preferences are not static - but fluid. Today I prefer Coke - tomorrow I prefer water.
Yet the subjective morality of a God who never changes, who know all things, and is all wise - is a logical basis for objective morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
When the intent of your posting is not to obtain knowledge but to negatively criticize, then I have a right to offend. Yet I am not offended so there is no motive or desire to offend you.
After all, you are the great font of all wisdom. Please show us your wares.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Why would I want to answer Stephen, when you are clearly the font of all wisdom?
You don't need any assistance from me.
Besides, you would disagree with me anyway. So there is no point in engaging with the topic. After all, I am sure your answer is going to top anything I have to add.
Hence why I am waiting for your inspired words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
We are all eagerly awaiting your inspired wisdom. There is no point in responding, you have the answers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If you cannot prove that a specific GOD exists...Then I have nothing to proveIf you can prove that a specific GOD exists....Then I have nothing to prove.It's the LAW of common sense.Your above rhetoric, designed to confuse, nonetheless just goes around the houses and back to the start....If you really want to move your argument forwards, then the only way, will be to unequivocally prove that a specific GOD exists.....BOP.
My above rhetoric is not designed to confuse. It is for clarification. It simply points out that the B of P is a rule which has exceptions. Why is it that the atheist feels threatened by such evidence that the B of P is one which has exceptions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
Religious people bear the BoP. Provide an argument against this statement.
I don't agree at least when it comes to the question of the existence of God. Perhaps it might apply to other areas of religion. Yet that is quite distinct.
There is a principle relating to B.of P. And that is that the person making the positive assertion ought to prove it.
Yet there are also exceptions to the rule. Burden of Proof - Courting The Law
Generally, there are two situations in which the burden of proof takes exception to the aforementioned general rule:
- where a disputable presumption of law exists or a “prima facie case” been proved in favour of one party; or
- where the subject matter of a party’s allegations is in the knowledge of the opposing party.
Similarly, there are other exceptions that relate to the burden of proof - such as relating to the elements necessary for the defense of insanity. In that particular situation - the burden shifts from the police who make the initial assertion that the defendant committed a crime - to the defendant to prove he or she is not sane.
In other situations the burden of proof shifts in relation to default or traditional assertions - where such a default position is considered an axiom. If the assertion is axiomatic situation - then the burden of proof shifts from the positive assertion to those who attempt to refute it.
An example is reason. Reason or logic is considered an axiom - but the person who asserts that such is their axiom does not need to demonstrate that such axiom is true. IT is assumed as such. It is impossible to prove logic is true without using logic. Logic therefore becomes a circular argument. If someone uses something other than logic to prove logic is true, then that person by definition demonstrates that logic is not axiomatic.
Similarly in relation to the existence of God. It is an axiom. Only God can prove the existence of God. If something other than God attempts to prove the existence of God, then God is not axiomatic.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Still enough to deceive and therefore not be a true witness of God's existence.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Miracles can also be produced by demons and evil spirits. It is possible even if implausible that a universe might exist with demons and angels but not God.
Think of the little girl in acts who was predicting the future and the book of Revelation which indicates that the beast was able to produce miracles.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
What's your best argument for God's existence?
I think Fauxlaw's response was interesting and potentially the best.
Miracles may or may not be an argument for the existence of God.
I cannot actually think of a best argument. I think most arguments for God's existence are good - but the fact is if you don't want to be convinced - you won't be.
I said on a similar topic a while ago - that I take the view that the philosophical argument is my favorite. Not necessarily a good one or the best - but it is my favourite.
It is the agnostic. An agnostic is "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God." I think this beautiful statement is a perfect definition of self-contradiction. In other words, it philosophically proves God exists. It does not prove who God is or what his or her name is - but it is brilliant.
I also think that the existence of evil is one of the best arguments for the existence of God. Without God, there is no evil or understanding of evil.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Yeah, well I'm hoping there'll be one I haven't heard.Well you'd have thought after thousands of years that all bases would have been covered.And I suppose there was a time when they had them covered. When it was for the church much more simpler in past times of illiteracy, ignorance and fear, when priests faced less doubt and no opposition to the total control they had of a persons daily life and a much tighter grip of the human conscience and when the churchmen were able to steal vulnerable widows houses, but alas there are legal experts that have taken over that roll today.Christian churchmen cannot burn anyone at the stake any longer. There are no ducking stools for accusations made against mainly women of witchcraft and sorcery, And no rejoicing and "happiness" for " the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks". Psalm 137:9 The good ole' days eh, they mush be sorely missed.But whatever these excuses are today, they will all boil down to the preselected option adopted in the days of old mentioned at post #2 above.
Perfect example of non-engagement with OP. Negativity. Then attack on the church. Ridicule. Slam bang, thank you maam.
ABSOLUTELY - no engagement whatsoever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Humans were created good - not perfect.So that would be created imperfect, then, which means to be flawed ?But then you tell us that;
Good does not mean perfect. But nor does it mean flawed. Good is good. Good is not very good. Yet Good is not flawed. Flawed is a different thing altogether. But you know that and are just stirring the pot.
God did not make flawed beings. A being with the potential to make choices is not a flawed being.They just make flawed choices. Probably because they are made in the image of god himself.But the problem - and one which you never seriously engage with is - what about the all the non-flawed choices that are made?That may well have to do with after making many request by me for you to start a thread of your own showing god in a more positive and tolerant light and love, you have simply have failed to do so. So are you going to do that?
Just because you ask me to start a thread, does not mean that I am obligated to do so. In any event you started your own thread Wonderful Examples of God's Love and Grace. (debateart.com)which only serves to demonstrate that you have not got a clue about how to show God in a positive light. You can only see evil. This is a refection of your own darkness in your heart. Still, even with you, there is hope because God is not evil. And if he can save Paul and he can save me, then he can save even you.
What about the good in the world?I have never been asked to discuss "all the good in the world" of which there is much.
I know I have asked the question in relation to other posters including the Brother and since you love to answer for other people when I talk to them - then using your own logic I have asked you. In other words, because you make the assumption of answering other questions - then I can assume that I have asked you every question I have asked everyone else.
Rather than seriously engage with this topic, you ignore it, ridicule it, and pretend it does not exist.You came onto this thread at post #54 , you didn't "engage seriously" the OP's question with your first post, or your second, which was to do with "flawed beings" #77 which also doesn't "engage seriously" the OP's question. Your next post was criticizing - " the self-delusion of people like some of the posters on here" #85 and 25 posts later at post #110 (the post I am now responding to) you begin by criticizing me for not "engaging seriously with the topic. And I have made no ridicule on this thread whatsoever.Tell me, where have you once "engaged seriously" OP's questions in this thread. I see, that will be nowhere, then. So I hope now that you feel as incompetent and as stupid as you have clearly shown yourself to be with your glaring double standards.
Just about every post you post is one of non-engagement. You ridicule. That is not engagement. You mock. That is not engagement. You attack the person with ad hominin attacks - that is not engagement. When someone asks you to look at the context. You throw out ridiculous comments like "that old hairy chestnut" - which is nothing but avoidance. Again that is not engagement. When someone says - check out the underlying language whether it be Greek or Hebrew, you just want to look at the English in your own preferred text. That is evasion. Again not engagement. When someone points out that you are in error - you attack them. That is not engagement. If some one asks you a question to clarify what you are saying - you get all snotty and say you wont answer a question. That is not engagement - it is an intention not to engage because you are not seriously wanting an answer. You just want to tell people what you think the Bible says and when people don't agree with you - you get snotty. I don't think you have the capacity to engage with a subject - so I should not be surprised.
God made humans. He gave them free will.How is that "engaged seriously" the OP's question.
As you are aware every forum topic is more than just the opening poser and post. Very often - along the way - different topics arise and evolve. This is part of engaging with different aspects of the topic. My sentence above was providing a response to another poster's comments. It was a comment which invited another comment in response to it. Engaging seriously is more than one sentence it is a discussion with responses that invite further response.
A person cannot love without free will.Nope that doesn't "engaged seriously" OP's question, either.
It is also an invitation to respond. Seriously engaging with a topic is more than one line or comment. Or perhaps - hmmm - is that what you think is seriously engaging?
Humanity is and was made in God's image.Well OP's question aside AGAIN, that is exactly what I have said above at post #100..... Only I was technically wrong. We were made in the image of THE gods, plural, is what I should have said. And as the scripture itself tell us. Genesis 1:26.
Well actually the Hebrew indicates we humanity was made in the image of God. Although the word elohim has a plural ending- and in some occasions - in the OT is does refer to gods, or angels, or even humans, the context clearly provides that it is God, singular in this place. Now you can attempt to put a spin on that - I don't really care. Ask our resident Jew - Rosends - perhaps she can enlighten you further. But it is incorrect to say we were made in the image of the gods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Wow!
I thought Ethang was joking when he said you were obsessed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
As another interesting thought to your redundant question - Did Jesus die for all? Or perhaps he died just for the elect?
St Augustine seemed to take this idea from Paul's writings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
As always - you make "perfect" sense.
Created:
Posted in:
Humans were created good - not perfect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
That is correct Stephen, in relation to your opening poser. No one who is a sinner would ask Jesus to die for them.I don't believe I asked that. There are only two questions in my op.
You gave a poser? " I Didn’t Ask Anyone To Die For Me." That is what drew me to this topic. It like any statement is answering a question. But you can pretend otherwise, I don't really care. I addressed your poser - not your post.
And the question is why?No the questions were :(1)But who does the bible say is responsible for our crimes/sins?(2) In relation to Genesis4: 9 Is this to say that I am not responsible for anyone but myself, my actions and my own behaviour?
I never read your opening post - And I still have not. But to answer your simplistic questions - the Bible talks about sin and sins. I asked this a while ago. Another question you failed to address. I suppose you don't remember this one either. How convenient?
The Bible indicates that each person is responsible for their own sins. Crime and sin are not the same thing.
Yet the Bible also indicates that the view of world is covenantal. It is not merely corporate and it is not merely individual. I thought a great expert like yourself would understand covenant by now.
Are you attempting to use Cain as an example of how we deal with sin?
I never read anything past the opening poser.And I don't believe that for a second although you did entirely miss the questions in my OP............and ignored this one raised entirely by a claim that you yourself have made?>
Why not? I have told you before I don't tell lies. Why are you calling me a liar? That is the implication of your response. I still have not read your opening post.
The reason I responded in the way I did - is because I responded entirely to your opening statement. In fact I agreed with your opening statement as I recall.
The bible clearly talks of God completing what he begun[ ...................................] Yet it also clearly talks of humans being responsible for their own sin and needing to be saved from it. #33 TradesecretAnd where about is it that the bible " clearly talks of humans being responsible for their own sin"?
You must think I am an amazing authority. You keep quoting me all the time. I really am quite flattered by your attention.
Philippians 1:6 tells us that what God starts he will complete. Humans are responsible for their own sin. And they do need to be saved from it. AMEN!
You can do your own homework in relation to humans being responsible for their own sin. It is evident from the beginning when God tells Adam that in the day he sins he wil surely die. It is evident in the fact that Cain was cursed because he killed Abel. It is evident in the story of Noah - when GOD judged the entire world for its sin. It is evident in the story of Noah when he sinned by getting drunk and then was punished. It is evidence on and on and on - including the Levitical sacrifices and offerings. It is evident in Israel and Judah being judged for their sins. It is evident in David being punished for adultery and murder.
On and on and on. God calls on people to repent of their sins - and to pay for their own sins. Death is that punishment. And everyone will die for their sins.
Created: