Tradesecret

-->

@Stephen

And it caused you great embarrassment when I posted 2 Peter 2:7 in response to you giving us your vivid and pretty deep almost a psychological profile of Lot as a person, especially his nature. #16

I was not deeply embarrassed. I recall thanking you for reminding me of this verse. I have no reason to be embarrassed. When someone is able to correct me, it is a good thing, it helps to improve my thinking. I, unlike you, do not take correction as a negative thing.

And here we see God judges an evil city which makes a man who is prepared to give his two daughters to it - to be exploited - sick in his soul.
Backpaddling at its best!

Do you EVER think before you post, Reverend? That is most vile attempt at defending the indefeasible that I have ever read. I notice that your pathetic defence of Lot comes only now and comes ONLY AFTER it was pointed out to you that Lot was "righteous" : 2 Peter 2:7

It is not backpedaling. I made my points in my first post. I asked a question - which you were able to answer. I do take the view that Lot is not a very good role model. There is very little in his life portrayed that is commendable. Yet Peter calls him righteous. I do think of Lot as selfish. I have not changed my mind. Stop making assumptions.

Why is it that you never accept that God does something about the evil?
[A] I could maybe accept your point if you can explain to me, why it was necessary to destroy some One & half million inhabitants of four or five cities that must have included thousands of innocent babies and children under the age of 10 to save this incestuous family of two adults and just the two of their daughters what had his other girls done to be burned to death with fire and brimstone, you cannot say can you!???

Answering a question with another question. Why don't you just answer the question? Oh because there is one rule for you and another for everyone else.

If Peter is prepared to call Lot righteous, and to further elaborate on his emotional state in Sodom as to being tortured in his soul day and night - then it provides me with a new and profound respect for Lot that I had glossed over in the past #9 Tradesecret

And there it is. Clear evidence confirming my own beliefs concerning the practice of religious teachers including Ministers and Pastors that they indeed do "gloss over" these problematic verses and do steer their students and parishioners away from them because of the difficulty in explaining them away.

It is only evidence that I had glossed over Lot. Not evidence for anyone else. Another clear example of misrepresentation by Stephen.

How many times have you said that God does not protect the innocent -and yet here is an example

I'll take that in two parts, Reverend.

Example of what?

See now again Reverend, you are using the same old bullshit as ALL Christians do when caught on the backfoot. Would you like a recent example of you (as do other Christians) driving home the fact according to you and the bible that "NO ONE is innocent"?

You are saying here in one breath that god was " protecting & saving Lot & his innocent family" yet in the many, many breaths before today you cannot wait to tell us that we are all sinners and "even children die because they are sinners" and that "no one is innocent", when it suits your narrative. You do love your dilemmas don't you, Reverend.

Did I call Lot and his family innocent? You just make stuff up. I seem to recall that I called Lot selfish and self interested. Hardly innocent. God judged Sodom - he judged pure and unadulterated evil - and still you try and throw it back in his face. Wow! Do you even understand the concept of grace? No - well let me explain to you again. Grace means "UNDESERVED GIFT". When God saves any person it is not because they deserve it. It is precisely because they do not deserve it. And when God judges someone it is because they do deserve it. Precisely because they do deserve it. No one is innocent. God redeems sinners. Jesus said he came for the sinners not the righteous. And the righteous he was talking about was not the righteous in practice but those who thought they deserved to be saved because they in their own mind are good people.

Your insipid response above just reveals you do not understand grace and mercy. You have a false view of how good you are and of how good people are in general because you have not figured out what sin is. And just for the record because I know you will attempt to say I did use the term innocent. Here is what I said in context:

Words are words - and causes are causes. The Bible is the bible which is full of flawed people. Even the righteous make mistakes - since they too are sinners. And here we see God judges an evil city which makes a man who is prepared to give his two daughters to it - to be exploited - sick in his soul. And still you try you complain. Why is it that you never accept that God does something about the evil? How many times have you said that God does not protect the innocent -and yet here is an example - and rather than saying - Well done God, you still stick your finger up and say - the bible is evil and even its righteous people are evil.

I have underlined the sentence within context. The context of the passage is that the bible is full of flawed people AND even righteous MAKE MISTAKES - since they TOO are sinners. Can you read this? So with the premise that Lot and his family are flawed - make mistakes, and are sinners, I then ask you the question about why you complain that God never does something about the evil. And then ask my underlined question - which is not actually my question - but yours. And then I say "Here is an example". So within the context where I have said Lot and his family are flawed and sinners, what might the term "innocent" mean? It obviously here in this context is not meaning "pure as the driven snow". It obviously is not saying "sinless". God could have let them die in Sodom and it would have been perfectly just. Innocence in this context is talking about people who are being exploited and abused without good cause by evil people.

Again,
How many times have you said that God does not protect the innocent and yet here is an example - {.................._ and rather than saying - Well done God,

Yet you, only NOW are holding up this story of Lot as a shining example of gods love and generosity for rescuing and saving the lives of "the innocent"

Answered above.

You still stick your finger up and say - the bible is evil and even its righteous people are evil[.......................] rather than saying - Well done God,

You still stick your finger up and say even its righteous people are evil

I am, AS DID YOU until it was revealed out to you BY ME, that Lot was "righteous" >>>>2 Peter 2:7 . OR have you so soon, forgotten your own psychological profile of LOT that you meticulously put together for us and BEFORE my revelation ? Here it is , written forever and I have broken it down for all our readers #16, But I am sure you would rather forget this embarrassment now and have your friends bury it under plies of their bullshit to save your sorry arse

I have indicated that I don't have a high opinion of Lot. He is a terrible role model. He is a sinner and selfish. Yes, Peter called him righteous. In my mind that means he is a believer - but it does not mean he is perfect. God redeemed him - not because he deserved it. But because he showed grace and mercy.

Why is it that you never accept that God does something about the evil?
Why is that YOU,after many requests for you to create a thread showing your god in a more better and positive light, never do so?

I think I show God in good light on every occasion. I can't think of any part where you have tarnished his goodness. In fact it would surprise me if you could.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

Is teaching kids about Hell moral?

-->

@Sum1hugme

I preach about Hell at times. But only when it comes up in the text I am talking about. I don't use it as a means of "guilt manipulation though. There is no point to guilting people into the kingdom of heaven, because it would not be a real conversion.

I also preach about heaven, when it comes up in the text. But I do not preach about heaven as a means to try and say - look how cool it is - you should come there.

The gospel is not just about the ends. It is about the means. This is fundamentally one of the reasons why it cannot be considered a socialist notion. Socialism is an ends based worldview. The Gospel is not.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Kid vs religion.

-->

@Checkmate

Aaah !

I love it.

But if you really wanted the truth - you would not try and capture it on your own terms - but on the terms that are clear and equitable to everyone.

You want to debate the question of God.

But surely not with the conclusion already within the premises of the debate? ?????

This is why the debate must be equally between both sides.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

Kid vs religion.

-->

@Checkmate

I can most certainly defend my claim that God is almost certainly not real. What I do not wish to do is make this a debate about the universe, as that is not my strong suit as I am not a scientist. Sure, if I invested hours into researching the cause of the universe, I will be able to answer all critiques against scientifically recognised facts, however, I am not prepared nor the right person to write a paper about the origin of the universe. What I am equipped to do is debunk reasons religious people think make a good cause for the existence of God.

Wow! a person who admits that they will only debate on strong topic of their own. Just curious - then, that obviously means that when you debate someone - that they admit they know their stuff - otherwise - they are weak and lose the argument. What does that prove? Not the truth. Only that you are a better debater.

What a sad way to conduct debates. My view is that debates are about truth - not finding out who is the best debater.

I think people should not be debating just to find out who has the biggest ????

no wonder the world is having a hard time with truth - no one actually wants the truth - they just want to be the best story teller.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Is teaching kids about Hell moral?

-->

@Checkmate

I don't know anyone who would tell anyone - a kid or an adult that they will burn for lying.

But if people are going to talk about heaven - as a place that people go to when they die -and people do that all of the time. Then talking about Hell is just as relevant.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Is teaching kids about Hell moral?

-->

@Checkmate

Or is it wrong to just ignore the truth of the future and say nothing?

If we offer no warnings - then we are negligent and evil.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

The God Topic

-->

@BrotherDThomas

TRADESECRET, a Bible 2nd class woman NOW, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO, Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, an admitted sexual deviant, and had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, a LIAR of their true gender,

Hi Brother, good to see you are back. Without you about, things were getting a bit dry. So good to see the entertainment is back. I just want to correct a few things of your flattering description of me.

What is a bible 2nd class woman? That sounds strange. Can you please find a first class bible woman? Thanks Brother.
I have not run away from any debate. How strange? Indeed, all you had to do was demonstrate that you could concede graciously and I would have jumped in without a doubt. So, the ball is in your court and has been for a long time now.
What is a Bible denier? I don't deny the bible. I think it is real. I have several in my possession.
I don't deny that Jesus is the Son, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. I have never denied this. However did you come to your false conclusion? Oh yes, because I denied that Jesus was the Father. And I denied that Jesus was the Holy Spirit. Can you please confirm what you think? Is The Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit all the same person or are they three persons of the SAME GOD. I would certainly not call the Father, the Trinity. I would not call the Holy Spirit the Trinity. And I would not call the Son, the Trinity. Yet all three together, not separately are the Trinity. And they are ONE GOD. Not three separate gods.
I have not run away to a division of Christianity. I know what I am. If you are a true Christian, you would be able to discern. Hmmm.
I have not committed the unpardonable sin. The fact that I call Jesus LORD sincerely and in good faith demonstrates that truth.
Am I the number 1 biblical fool? Happy to accept that compliment. Thanks Brother.
Noah's Ark. I am happy to work with what the Bible says.
I never said that kids who curse their parents MUST be killed. I have indicated in the first place I believe this is talking about adult children. I conceded that some perceptions of it might include minors. I never conceded that I thought it. I indicated that cursing parents is akin to "threats to kill" or to "harm". I don't take the view that is simply swearing at them. Blessings and Curses in the bible - were instruments used in a covenantal sense. To bless someone meant to do good - to curse someone meant to do something harmful. When an adult child cursed their parents - as Jesus suggested the adult pharisees were doing to their parents, Jesus reminded them of the OT law. I have also indicated that it is my position that the statute relating to the death penalty - is a covenantal death - in the Hebrew - it literally reads, "dying, you shall die". It is a Jewish idiom and suggests that the maximum penalty is death. Maximum is not the only punishment. Furthermore, the more serious the penalty on an offence - the higher and greater value was placed on the preserving of society. In this instance - families - honoring parents is a particularly high moral point to preserve. I do not resile from my position.
Yes, the Bible contains some works of fiction within its pages. Many of Jesus' parables for instances - were works of fiction. Possibly based on true stories - but essentially the point was made whether true or not. The truth of the story was not the actual story but to what the story pointed to.
I am not guilty of Revelation 22:18-19. I do not add to the words of God and I do not take away from them. Any of my words or discussions are not at in any way an attempt to be authoritative as revelation. Nor do I reduce any of the words of the Bible from being authoritative. I interpret the Scriptures in a particular way and manner which is consistent with many others in this world. Please give me an example of where I have added to the scriptures or where I have taken away? That would be a good start for your assertion.
I am not guilty of 2 Timothy 4:3. It is you, not me who tolerates false doctrine. You need to argue your point.
I have never admitted to being a sexual deviant. I am not a sexual deviant. And I find your continued repetition of such lies harassing and unjustified.
I have not had gender surgery realignment. But if I did, it would be none of your business. I do not find it to be categorically ungodly either. I have changed my profile on my account on numerous occasions because I wanted to model you. After all, you have the most FAKE profile on this site.

Jesus. and I want to thank you for understanding that in your silence to the link shown below, and subseuent to my quote listed herein, you admit that I outright own you and your biblical ignorance! LOL. Obviously your run away subsequent posts to my post #6 were a vain attempt to address it, and embarrassingly do not count in any type of refutation, understood, Bible fool?

You do not own people. That is illegal. You certainly own your own biblical ignorance all by yourself. Can you explain how I can post subsequent responses to your post and still be a runaway. Isn't the definition of a runaway - someone who does not stick around to respond? Oh by the way - you did not ask any questions so I presumed that you were making a speech.

“Tradesecret, listen, to save yourself from even further embarrassment in opening up the flood gates regarding our serial killer Jesus, just remain silent because you DO NOT in any way have the acumen to discuss this topic with me as shown before, okay? You have made yourself enough of a Bible fool within this forum, therefore why add more proverbial egg to your face? Get it? Therefore, in you remaining silent upon this post, reaffirms the fact that I and many others completely OWN your Bible ignorance upon this forum. Thank you for agreeing to this simple notion.”

I assume you must be speaking about Jesus Barabbas. He was a serial killer wasn't he? Silence is a great tool. I agree. To bad you don't have the capacity to use such a great tool.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

This is the thread. You say the words in the bible can cause homophobia. I say that argument is invalid as it proves too much. I argued that if words can cause homophobia then a woman wearing provocative clothing causes men to rape. This is what your argument proves and you know I am right.

You do not wish to be proved wrong but you cannot get away from this. And you know it. You know you can't say that provocative clothes can cause people to rape - yet this is your argument.

Grow up - and take it like a man. Stop trying to prove you are clever. Your arguments is invalid. It proves too much. I have demonstrated it. You need to refute my argument. And know you can't. Suck it up princess. Isn't that what you always say?

Unless you accept that provocative clothing - a much more visible act than passive words in a book can cause men to rape girls - then your argument for the bible is invalid. The words can cause homophobia is less persuasive than the other clothing argument.

You have derailed your own topic. Because you don't have the gumption to realize how weak your argument is.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

Stephen -

I did not lie.

And I have no reason to lie.

I never put my credentials on the table to be exploited or abused by yourself.

I put them only in a response to your question. And only to explain a point you were asking me. About counseling - in relation to the example I gave.

That was it. If you have never asked the question - and if I thought you were not asking in good faith - then I would never have responded to you. You are the one making a bigger thing of it than I.

As for experts knowing everything - about everything - what nonsense. You just continue to demonstrate that you are an ignorant and uneducated person. Experts - never pretend to know everything. I have never pretended to know everything. Have I read the bible? Yes. Stop telling lies.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

Why is it so important to you - to try and humiliate me. You don't call any of this an attack. ????

I had forgotten about the verse. There are many verses in the bible and I have not memorized them. Once you reminded me - I recalled and then I knew that you would try and lie about me. But, you see I don't care what lies you say. I know what I know - and I know the truth. Why would I need to raise it?

You seem to think that everyone is like you - with hours of free time able to pour over every passage and ask every question. Some people actually have jobs. They work. They have families. They need to spend time with. They have a life.

I also come to the bible quite differently than you do. I ask questions from my position and you ask from yours. Yours is to find as many ways to prove God is evil and the bible is inconsistent. Mine is not.

As for rewriting the story. Go and read it yourself. The city men rejected Lot' proposal. Yes. We are in agreement there. Yes they wanted to have sex with the angels and pushed past Lot. Yes we are in agreement there. The angels then pulled Lot in and blinded the city men. We agree with this as well. The difference is that you say or imply without any evidence that the angels were happy to let the girls get exploited. And I say the angels were not in agreement with Lot's proposal and did something about it. You say - the angels did not do anything until their lives were put on the line. I say - the girls and the angels were inside the building SAFE and protected from the city folk. I say the angels never had any intention of letting the girls be harmed. They were angels and knew their powers. And were not afraid of the men. Lot's proposal was wrong.

And the angels did not do anything particularly ungallant. You just make stuff up. As I said previously. Lot and his daughters escaped unharmed. The city was judged.

Your continual attacks on me - and my character are attacks. You perhaps think you are just being critically helpful or constructive. I don't have a reason to lie.

Words are words - and causes are causes. The Bible is the bible which is full of flawed people. Even the righteous make mistakes - since they too are sinners. And here we see God judges an evil city which makes a man who is prepared to give his two daughters to it - to be exploited - sick in his soul. And still you try you complain. Why is it that you never accept that God does something about the evil? How many times have you said that God does not protect the innocent -and yet here is an example - and rather than saying - Well done God, you still stick your finger up and say - the bible is evil and even its righteous people are evil.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

So you are going to try and distinguish the two?

LOL! What a load of rubbish you talk.

If the Bible causes homophobia - words and yet the very real and visible provocative dress does not cause men to rape, then your argument is completely and utterly gutted.

And you know it - and won't concede.

Oh well, it does not surprise me.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

Good pickup Stephen,

yes, I did forget about that passage. And it is fascinating isn't?

I suppose that goes with Abraham's prayer to God to save Sodom and Gomorrah if there were even 5 righteous men in it.

Yet, at first blush I admit I do find it difficult to it be so black and white.

I accept that Lot certainly indicated to the men in the city that he would give them his daughters. I find this a repulsive thought.

And the angels clearly thought so too - given that they prevented it from happening.

Yet, Lot's example in that picture and I suggest in many episodes in his life, are not meant for us to follow.

(Just also thought I would point out your inconsistency in quoting this verse when very often you fail to use other passages from the NT when interpreting the OT) You choose not to use the book of Hebrews for instance. Refuse to engage completely. AND if it wasn't you - then certainly you never said otherwise did not like me referring to the Hebrews passage in relation to Abraham and Isaac. )

But I have no issue using this passage. If Peter is prepared to call Lot righteous, and to further elaborate on his emotional state in Sodom as to being tortured in his soul day and night - then it provides me with a new and profound respect for Lot that I had glossed over in the past. See, Stephen, you can teach me too.

Of course Peter is also talking about rescuing people - and he did that with both Lot and his daughters.

So getting back to his daughters, how could he have done this? I honestly don't know. Did he know these men were angels? yes. Was he somehow cognizant that they were powerful? I don't know. Surely he might have asked them for help. But he did not. I said above that he was acting selfishly for himself - more fearful of the angels than of the men. It seems that I was wrong. Yet, again - being a righteous person does not make you a perfect person. David is also called righteous but look at what he did.

So if he did not do it out of a selfish reason or motivation (and I am not saying he did not do that either), why did he do it? Possibly to protect them from the men and violation. Perhaps as a middle eastern culture - it was more shameful for guests in the house to be violated than for one's own family? Perhaps this shame and honor culture played quite a significant role - even as it still does in many cultures around the world?

Whatever the case - and again I have had to think more about this - so thanks. The daughters were not harmed. The angels did not let it happen. the men in the city were judged. As was the city and Lot and his family survived. God rescues his people. That is a great thought.

The other thing you mention initially is that perhaps this sort of act was normal in that society. And I think that is probably the case- - but the society we are talking about is specifically Sodom and Gomorroh. A wicked and evil city - where the wickedness that occurred tortured Lot's soul.

The other thing worth noting is that God did not order this. God is not using this an example of righteousness. Even righteous people can be tainted by sin. This is a good example for all of us not to think we are somehow immune to such a thing. So Good pick up Stephen.

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

Respond to my whole post.

Explain your conundrum about females wearing clothes that are provocative.

Do you think that doing so - causes men to rape woman?

Or will you wimp out of dealing with the issue like you do everytime things get tough?

If words can be a cause - then so can photos and so can videos and so can clothing. Each communicates in passive ways.

The way that people respond in each and every occasion is a matter for the individual - and total responsibility and cause lies with the person responding.

Unless of course you do accept that men are caused to rape woman because of the clothes that woman wear?

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Kid vs religion.

-->

@Checkmate

I am not going to debate on the existence of God without the atheist also contemporaneously debating on the origins of the universe.

You know as well as I do, that you cannot refute a negative. And every positive I put up you will attempt to refute.

I see no reason why I would give you a free hit. You might see that as a courageous and brave thing to do. But it is not.

It tends to only confirm your own position and it also confirms the position of theist who sees the underhanded deception of the atheist.

If you want a fruitful discussion - start with equal presumptions - otherwise - grow a pair.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Kid vs religion.

-->

@Checkmate

If you really believed in this all-powerful God, you should be pouncing to defend him.

Hi Checkmate,

guilt manipulation is not becoming for you. It makes you look weak and desperate. I have been on this site and others for many years arguing the toss.

If you really were an atheist - you would defend your position. But you won't. You don't have a starting place and can only refute others.

You cannot beat something with nothing. You have nothing to offer. Nothing that is tangible. Nothing that is consistent. Nothing that is real.

I offered you an opportunity to discuss your position and you chose to run away.

Come back when you have grown a set and have something to offer. Anyone can refute - but to provide an alternative is quite another thing.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Kid vs religion.

-->

@Checkmate

Of course you don't.

You want your cake and to eat it as well.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Kid vs religion.

-->

@Checkmate

I am not proposing that at all.

This is a topic by an atheist trying to demonstrate the absurdity of God.

Hence it is you who is making the assertion not me.

I responded to you.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

One simply has to ask , why did these two men of god not bat an eyelid or say a word in protest at the idea or prospect of these to young virgin daughters being gang raped to save their skin ? And where was god to reprimand Lot?

I am not sure if you read the story or not?

The angels did not accept Lot's proposal. They reached out and pulled Lot in and then blinded the men in the street. Then they destroyed the entire city.

To say they did not bat an eyelid is incorrect. They prevented it from happening. Lot was looking out for no 1. The angels prevented needless abuse.

in relation to God reprimanding Lot, can you read or not? HE lost his home, his wife, and his dignity. God has not left a lovely record of Lot. Eventually his children and descendants will be judged to be annihilated for ever.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

........do what you like with them".

How generous of this man Lot, to offer his virgin daughters in place of two strangers said to be messengers of god himself.

One simply has to ask , why did these two men of god not bat an eyelid or say a word in protest at the idea or prospect of these to young virgin daughters being gang raped to save their skin ? And where was god to reprimand Lot?

8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.” Genesis 19:1-21

It is as if this was the normal practice for a father to offer his little girls when he or his god sent guests are in danger.

and someone on another mentioned Morals:

The tale goes on to tell the familiar story about Lots wife turning into a pillar of salt <<(I know, ) and eventually Lots two virgin daughters rape Lot while he is drunk or asleep or both.

Of course; Lot cannot of course be held accountable for this incestuous depraved and immoral licentious act , because he was out of his head and "didn't know a thing about it, honest guv" . Genesis 19:30-38

I can't seem to recall anywhere in the Bible where Lot was ever held up as a paragon of virtue or righteousness.

In fact it seems his relevance really is because of his uncle Abraham.

Can you think of anywhere in the Scriptures where Lot is help up as being a model for Jews or for Christians? I can't and I would never hold him up as so.

From the beginning - he was in it for himself. Selfish and loyal only to himself. I would suggest that what he does in this story - is exactly making that point.

He was scared of the men in the town. But he was more scared of the angels in his house. He wanted to live - in his own way and would do anything to get there. He had no loyalty to his daughters. I take the view that he was incestuous, depraved, immoral.

Created:

4 years ago

3

Posted in:

Kid vs religion.

-->

@ethang5

Great question as always.

My view is that a question about origins places the burden on both parties.

the question of God's existence is impossible for an atheist to disprove when they have the burden. It is also impossible to prove for the theist because of the implicit conclusion within the premise.

Neither party wants to give the other person a place of power. I certainly don't want to do that.

If we both start with the burden in the topic I mentioned - then it is for the atheist to prove his burden of how the universe started and likewise for the theist.

It then permits both sides to cross examine the opposing arguments and refute them. Understandably - both sides will be refuted because neither have the ability to verify their positions.

the winner will be not the one with the best arguments but the one who has the most votes - obviously on this site - numbers and democracy seem to be the determiner of the winner of the debate - not necessarily the arguments.

Hence - in my mind - at least the premise of the discussion will be fair and equitable.

The outcome won't be. But I can live with that if I lost the debate because of numbers. Yet I would find it a nonsense to set up a debate where the position has been dispensed with in the very first premise.

To argue about the existence of God per se - is implicitly to deny God's existence in the first place. It is impossible to come back from that position in a debate. Well in my view anyway. I certainly am happy to be shown otherwise.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Kid vs religion.

-->

@Checkmate

Well,

I don't wish to debate that particular issue where all of the burden is on me and none is on you.

That is a fight where I lose before I start.

Either we start one where the burden is fair and equal and just or we don't debate.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Kid vs religion.

-->

@Checkmate

There’s something about your snarky attitude and sense of self importance which annoys me. Would you like to debate with me about the existence of God? I would rather not entangle myself in an endless comment war. Also, I think I’ll enjoy beating you.

Thanks for the compliment.

A debate. Well that might be nice. But the debate won't be about the existence of God. It will be about the best explanation for the origin of the universe. That way the burden of proof is on both of us.

Please start the debate and set up the guidelines.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

The God Topic

-->

@ethang5

I really do not see how that argument is actually used since it does not refute God or his existence.
Are you sure? For example, If something else can explain the ground being wet, then it didn't rain.

So I came out of my house the other day and saw my neighbor washing his car with a hose. He smiled at me and said, "I bet you think it's strange of me to wash my car right after a big rain. I told him that his hose adequately explained the wet ground and therefore I know it did not rain.

I learned that bit of brilliant science from atheists.

Hi ethang5, yes I understand that argument and I don't have an issue with it. But in relation to God it is an non-comprehensive argument or only a partial argument. The reason being that God is understood to be the ultimate cause of all things - the first cause. Hence for it to be a valid argument against God, then the atheist needs to refute not just the second causes - which occur - but the first cause as well. Atheists using the above argument only ever get to first base - and thinking they have scored a homerun, miss the fact that the biblical God is not just a God of first base, but of all the other bases as well.

This means in practice that the above illustration misses the point. It explains only the second cause. Not the first cause. It is inadequate to do so.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

"The verses told me" ... "I did it" ... had I not done it. Ethang is not saying the Bible caused him to do something. He is indicating that he read the words - or even that the bible spoke to him. But he responded to those words. And please notice - Ethang5 could have chosen to respond passively. But the BIBLE DID not cause him to do anything. He read the words - he evaluated what they were saying -and HE CHOSE to respond and to believe. If the Bible could cause anything - why did it not simply make him believe "without asking Ethang to do anything".

But he is saying exactly that. The words "told" Ethang5, as he clearly admits it, he says so. And he responded to those words that" spoke to him". His "response " was CAUSED by those words.

You can play semantics all day Reverend. But words do cause people to respond, act and feel, in all sorts of ways.

I am not the one playing semantics. Your argument is proving too much. Essentially you are saying that everything causes everything. After all, we and everything responds somehow to everything around it. It takes the entire notion of cause and makes it mean nothing.

Cause - is an active verb. I caused this. Words are passive by definition. When I say words are powerful and influential - I still mean that they are just words. Just because a word is a powerful expression does not stop it from being just a word. When a word is influential does not stop it from being just a word.

A word in a book, a picture on a screen, or even music - are all tools that can be used for communicating messages. But they don't have the capacity to CAUSE anything.

You need to be able to demonstrate that any particular sentence in any particular book that anyone reads CAUSES everyone who reads it to respond in exactly the same way. IF it does not cause EVERY person who reads it to respond in exactly the same way, then it is not correct to say the book causes anything. IF reading the bible - every person who read particular words in Exodus becomes homophobic, then you would have some substance to your argument. Yet, if most people do not become homophobic after reading those words, then it cannot be said to cause homophobia.

Your comments on this site, under your logic, or using your reasoning, could be construed as CAUSING people to become homophobic. In fact some of your words could be construed using your reasoning, to say it caused some to kill themselves by suicide. Is that something you think is reasonable. Because then we could say that you killed these people. You caused it to happen by your words.

I, on the other hand, would suggest that your words are just words. Words which might be reckless, negligent or even foolish. Yet words all the same. How people choose to respond to your words - is a cause from within that person not from the words you said. How I choose to respond is a matter for me - not a cause by you. Yes, I have said you have attacked me. And you have done that with your words. But that is not a cause. When I respond by either ignoring you or by responding back in kind, it is me ACTIVELY responding. Yet it me who is ultimately responsible because the way in which I respond is CAUSED by myself. You might provoke me. But provocation is not even recognized by the law any more as a defence. A girl who dresses in provocative clothing is not causing the guy to rape her. Yet that is your argument. You say at least in your argument that the way a girl dresses provokes or causes the man to rape her. Provocation may well contribute to the manner in which the man responds - but it is not the cause.

IF a girl is unfaithful to her husband, and he slaps her. He has responded to the circumstance. Yet her action has not caused his response. His response is caused by himself. He alone is responsible.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Without Gods morals we are evil

-->

@Utanity

IS there a difference between doing evil things and being evil?

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Is the Bible True?

-->

@Utanity

Ok. Utanity,

You have your views. Good for you.

Are you interested in discussing these matters or are you so adamant you are correct, that there is no point.

It's ok. I don't mind either way.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Utanity

And for the record, the passage in Peter is not hearsay. It is what the bible says. To call it scaremongering is to "hide from the truth".
Your getting real stropy now just because you dont understand and even the other guy here is asking you are accusing me of mocking God. That is blaspemy and you should no better if you are a true christian. The bible says something that is scarmungering so but that doesn't mean it is it means that it is saying that false prophets are scarmungering and you were just trying to make out that it is hiding from the truth but it isnt.

You have no idea what blasphemy is -if you think is blasphemy. LOL! Oh Brother, whatever will we do when the facades stop?

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@ludofl3x

Great question. It means when God wants to deal with someone mocking him, he will do in his own terms and according to his will.

It does not mean of course that people will not be able to mock him. After all people mock God all of the time. It means that judgment will happen either in this life or in the one to come. It means - that eventually and inevitable your sins will find you out. So don't get all narky about it, when judgment comes.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Is the Bible True?

-->

@Utanity

And if not, then can you explain to me how there is only one true God and yet still call Jesus God? Would that not make Jesus a false god?
Thats being dumb. If you say that Jesus is God then God isn't false so that therefore Jesus is not a false God.

Hi Utanity - you are making me smile with your mature thinking.

You said Jesus was God and then you said he was not. You are the one being illogical.

I said Jesus is the second person of the Trinity and that if Jesus is not part of the Trinity then he must be a false god. That is quite logical if the Trinity is the ONE TRUE GOD.

I notice you did not respond to my question about whether you believe in the Trinity or not.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Utanity

I am not trying to test you. Don't be silly. I merely asked to consider other passages in the BIBLE.

And for the record, the passage in Peter is not hearsay. It is what the bible says. To call it scaremongering is to "hide from the truth".

God's covenant with his people is a promise that while people are faithful to him, that he will bless them. On the other hand, the same promise tells us that if we betray him that he will judge us. That is what he did to the world in Noah's day and this is why in Peter he talks about these things happening on the Day of the Lord.

You can ignore it - but you do so at your own peril.

God will not be mocked - by you or anyone else.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Is the Bible True?

-->

@Utanity

We talk to Jesus so it is like talking to God and God does things through Jesus so that when we talk to God we are really talking to Jesus, And when we talk to Jesus we are talking to God which is the same thing. Jesus said that he and God are one and he almost got stoned on it but that doesn't mean that he means that he is God though. But I think God is Jesus which is different because God is being himself to us through Jesus but Jesus is still different though.

Thanks for responding. I take the view that the Bible indicates that Jesus is the second person of the Holy Trinity. Do you believe in the Trinity and if so, do you think Jesus is the Son, the second person of the Trinity?

And if not, then can you explain to me how there is only one true God and yet still call Jesus God? Would that not make Jesus a false god?

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Utanity

So how do you understand 2 Peter 3:10 "the heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare"?
And then how do you understand 2 Peter 3:12 " That day will bring about destruction of the heavens by fire and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.". ?

But you are just scare mungering to frighten people because that was only here say talk because in Peter 2 it warns us about what false prophets will say and this is the kind of scummy stuff they will talk about like you do. So you are being a false prophet if you say things like that without saying that is what actually the false prophets were saying.

What actually if you read my words, I am asking you how you understand these words? If you are telling me that you think that they are the false prophets speaking that is a matter for you. And do you know what hearsay is?

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

CONTEXT!!!!!

-->

@Stephen

Strawman.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Is the Bible True?

-->

@Utanity

do you believe the bible is the word of God or do you believe Jesus is the word of God?

Why are you unpacking anything that I didn't even wrap up anyway? I said exactly what you said which is that the bible is the word of God so it must be true. But your question is good though because we believe in everything through Jesus since he is our saviour and he is as good as talking to God

Do you believe Jesus is GOD?

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Utanity

Your not right because all of that is wrong. No, planet Earth will never be destroyed, burned in fire, or replaced. The Bible teaches that God created the earth to be inhabited forever. “The righteous will possess the earth, and they will live forever on it.”Psalm 37:29. So heaven and earth are mentioned together because they will always exist and you don't even get that.

So how do you understand 2 Peter 3:10 "the heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare"?

And then how do you understand 2 Peter 3:12 " That day will bring about destruction of the heavens by fire and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.". ?

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

The bible is words.
All books are full of words, Reverend

I am not sure why you are attempting to conflate the two.
It was you that brought the "holy spirit" into mix, Reverend. It wasn't me. . You said your calling was from god not the bible. I have simply asked you did god use words to call you?

Your know exactly the way you attack me.

No I do not. . So I would like to know how it is that you believe I am attacking you.

It is always an attempt to ridicule me.
How? Give me some examples how I "ridicule you"? or attempt to?

It is not like I need to remind you - just in order for you to use this as some how suggesting I am a victim.

But you do. You see, you keep suggesting that I am "attacking you and ridiculing you" also suggesting that you are somehow a victim without offering a single example. So I do need to be reminded of how you believe I am "attacking you" .

As for Ethan's post - go and ask him.

I have . And he confirms what I believe and contrary to what you have said. Do you remember what you said? Here you go>> ""The Bible is a book. It can't cause anything",#3

I am not his keeper.
I know. But I think he may believe he is yours,Reverend

And if you care - ask him - and if he cares he might respond.
I have and he has. And contrary to your thoughtless stupid statement that you are still trying to defend although I have shown you to be hopelessly wrong about.

And if he does not - then you will just need to suck it up.
I said he has replied and more than adequately and in great & precise detail. See here how detailed and explicit he made his point >>>  #29. And what he wrote is in complete contrast to your own belief that "words are just words" . #45 And "The Bible is a book. It can't cause anything",#3

He clearly states that it was bible " verses told me what to do in order to find out if the words were true. I did it and found out the bible is true. Had I done it and not found out, I would have concluded the bible is not true".

Just 40 words from just two verses in the bible " Jhn 7:16 - &  Jhn 7:17" , he says.

Do you see. He had an Epiphany of sorts , caused by the words of the bible? The same book that you say "can't cause anything",#3

How many times to do have to humiliate yourself before you get it? The Bible is a book of Words. No book is able to cause anyone to do anything. Words are words. Words may be powerful. Words may be influential. But that cannot cause you to do anything. Neither Mopac nor Ethang5 said that the words caused them to do anything. Stop mischaracterizing their words. You see, even you are not caused to do anything with their words. You respond to them.

I have already discussed Mopac and given him the opportunity to respond. Ethang5 did not say the words in the bible caused him to do anything.

"The verses told me what to do in order to find out if the words were true. I did it and found out the bible is true. Had I done it and not found out, I would have concluded the bible is not true. All you need is to read more slowly and take off the bias glasses." https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5044/post-links/219889

Can you even read Stephen? "The verses told me" ... "I did it" ... had I not done it. Ethang is not saying the Bible caused him to do something. He is indicating that he read the words - or even that the bible spoke to him. But he responded to those words. And please notice - Ethang5 could have chosen to respond passively. But the BIBLE DID not cause him to do anything. He read the words - he evaluated what they were saying -and HE CHOSE to respond and to believe. If the Bible could cause anything - why did it not simply make him believe "without asking Ethang to do anything".

You are a joke. You twist words around and make them say something they do not say. Words cannot CAUSE people to do anything. Even the words of a judge saying "You are guilty and you are going directly to prison" does not cause the person to go to prison. People must respond. And if the person does not choose to go to prison - then the police will respond and ensure that he does. But the words do not cause it to happen. People respond to words.

Words can certainly influence - but that is as much as they can do. They don't have power to cause. People reading or hearing words - MUST react and respond to the words. If people don't react - or respond which is clearly the case with many people. For instance - Stephen - you read the words of the Bible - but do you hear and believe? No - you react or respond to those words. IT does not cause you to believe or you would believe. But you don't believe so it is not causing anything. In fact the words of the bible make you react in all sorts of ways - repulsiveness towards God - and towards people. But they don't cause it. The words are for all to read. Just like porn is there for people to watch. Just like violent video games exist to play. They don't cause people to do anything. People have to watch or read or play and evaluate and do something. Words and pictures are powerful and incredibly influential - but they are not the CAUSE of anything. People will evaluate and respond differently. And to suggest otherwise is to give the book something a persona.

If it could be established that a book could cause people to do something - then people who kill others in the name of God using a book as their authority and cause - would be able to argue that they did not have mens rea. That they had been acted on by a force outside of their control and without their free will. In legal terms we would say that person had become an automaton. Yet, this has never been upheld by any court in the Western World. And the reason is because it is nonsense to attribute cause to a book.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

The God Topic

-->

@FLRW

Why did God make life so difficult for Neanderthals? In a sample of 206 Neanderthals, based on the abundance of young and mature adults in comparison to other age demographics, about 80% of them above the age of 20 died before reaching 40. This high mortality rate was probably due to their high-stress environment. However, it has also been estimated that the age pyramid for Neanderthals and contemporary modern humans were the same. Infant mortality was estimated to have been very high for Neanderthals, about 43% in northern Eurasia.

How is this relevant the topic? Fascinating questions though. Why don't you start your own topic?

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

The God Topic

-->

@Stephen

This is why I neither try to prove or disprove the existence of God.
No. You just believe he exists. Follow his commands and "pass on"  without question what you have been taught about both; to your students " the teaching you yourself have received. when "lecturing at universities" in your qualified capacity as either a Pastor or Chaplin.

I think that is what you told us here > "I in most parts are merely passing on the teaching of what i have received. ".    #20

The Christian God is not one that any one can pick. He chooses you.

How? You have told us that god didn't choose you via words in the bible: you said " A calling is not from the bible - it is from GOD the Holy Spirit" #45

So how did he contact you to let you know that you had been called?

We all love how you just repeat things - thinking that if you say it again - and again, then we all have to answer it again and again,. Well enough already.

My dad was an atheist. He schooled me in atheism from a young age. I do pass on teaching. And that is absolutely appropriate. It means that I won't get caught up in my own self-delusions. Thinking that somehow I have secret ways to understand the mysteries - like you Stephen. It means I don't come up with all sorts of novel interpretations that people such as yourself and David Koresh come up with. It means I won't get seduced into a cult.

But what you omit again is the information I also told you - that I study the original languages, translate them to English, and compare and contrast with others in relation to the meaning of the texts. And when I do my independent studies and research - I come more or less to the same conclusions and analysis that others do - and within the range which demonstrates my translations are not left field or novel. The range I have already explained is from the very leftist atheist theologians to the rightist conservative theologians - and also includes theologians from other religions and non-religions. In other words, there are many people with whom I disagree with fundamentally on a particular interpretation - and who disagree with me on a particular interpretation - yet who still accept my interpretation because it is within the acceptable range of what is plausible. You on the other hand - just do it yourself. And NO ONE at all apart from your self comes to the same conclusions. You are totally on your own in your novel ideas.

And you berate the scientific methodology which I use - and which others use. Hence why I called you a pseudo- fake.

Telling you how God calls me is akin to explaining to a blind man -the color blue. Or explaining to the deaf man, the sound of a child laughing.

I could explain to you the medical definition of what a kiss is. "The anatomical juxtaposition of two orbicularis oris muscles in a state of contraction." -- Henry Gibbons, Sr., MD (1808-1884). This would be technically correct - but it would not capture what a kiss is.

And so far as you can see or hear or feel - you are in your own little dilemma. The only way to know God is for him to kiss you. And since you don't want to be kissed by God, you are going to keep searching for the meaning in words. Ironic really. Words which I have said before are words. Yes powerful words. Influential Words. But not able to cause to do anything. You might evaluate them and respond to them - but that is still you doing the responding or non-responding.

But there is no point in me trying to give you a deeper understanding of anything - while you want to wade in the shallows - thinking that you have the answers to the deeper issues.

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

I am Gay - if your god told you to murder me, would you murder me?

-->

@Stephen

Anyway, Abraham did offer Isaac, and God stopped him after that,
It is not what is in dispute and you know it.

But that is the point and the one that some don't want to engage with. God did not kill Isaac. He never had any intention for Isaac to die. The lamb provided shows this.

Why is it so difficult this was a much bigger picture than the small one you are attempting to make it? The only reason that springs to mind is that the bigger picture does not fit with the narrative you want to believe - and not only want to believe - but have to believe. If you can't show God is a monster then it cuts off your hands.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Whatever Did Herod Mean?

-->

@Stephen

Nor am I.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in: