Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
It is not derailing it. It is answering it. The fact is - it is one of the ways in which God shows his love to us.
And he did this while we were still enemies.
Another way is he provides the earth for us to live on. He provides the rain and the sunshine. He provides the food.
He also disciplines his children.
God loves us and shows us - no one is without excuse. Only those who stick their fingers in their ears and cover their eyes would argue differently.
And the ironic thing is - you wouldn't have eyes or fingers or ears unless God provided them to you. Let alone the brain.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
And didn't you love the results of the World Cup last evening? As they say, the cream rises to the top.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, good luck with that. Personally, I am not sure whether you can change your spots.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, usuallyWhen person does things that he knows will kill himIts called voluntary suicide. When he has a choice not to...Now, Maybe you have different views on what suicide means, I dont plan to discuss the definitions, sorry.
People in the armed forces do things that they know have a high probability of getting killed.
People working in the police force have the same view.
People who work with contagious diseases recognise the same thing.
None of those would be considered suicide.
Jesus, death was the defence of another. OF his people.
Suicide is when one person dies and not necessarily voluntarily, although it is a self killing. because he can't face living anymore. And that is the point. Jesus didn't kill himself. He did wish to keep living.
He was killed by the Roman Soldiers, under the order of a Roman authority, in accordance with its laws, and under the influence of the Jewish leaders of the time. No one with any genuine belief holds the view that Jesus' death was a suicide. Others, some on this site, think Jesus didn't even die at the cross.
There is simply no rational logic that can honestly suggest Jesus committed suicide.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
you should start a thread to defend that positionNo, I dont want to tease mods to ban me. Sex with animals is illegal I think.
You've never worried about complying with the rules before. Why start now?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Why did you become Christian? You are not a virgin.According to Bible, only 144000 men will enter heaven, and they will all be virgin men. The rest go to burn.I am a virgin, so even as satanist I have better chance of going to heaven than you!
Curiously enough, I was a virgin when Christ saved me. I was around about 8.
The Bible doesn't say that only 144,000 men enter heaven. And the rest burn. That is not true. I assume you are referring to a specific passage in Revelation. Why don't you quote it in context?
Are you a virgin? I suppose given your language, which is of a teenage boy with hormones, that might sound true. Although, in your case, you are simply an immature 40-year-old Indian who lives in Canada. And if you are a virgin, it is not through choice, but rather rejection.
Satanists won't go to heaven unless they are saved by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Christ died for usChrist didnt die for me. I dont benefit from Christ's voluntary suicide. All that proves is that Christ is an idiot.
Paul was talking to believers. Christ died for the believers, or for his people.
Now that may or may not include you. Certainly at the moment, given your attitude, it is quite possibly true that his death has no positive benefit for you. Nevertheless, his death has consequences for those who don't believe.
How does Christ's death prove he is an idiot? It wasn't a voluntary suicide. Your interpretation of the event doesn't make it the truth.
Is there anywhere in the Scriptures, that suggests or proves it was suicide?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Romans 5: 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
I can live with that.
Thanks.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Without God in the picture, evil still existsWell, your God says he created the world.So no God, no world, no evil.I mean, you religious folks really gotta think of some better arguments.In case of Lucifer, Lucifer is not creator so he isnt at fault for evil.Christians really shot themselves in the foot when they claimed God created everything.Now they have to defend the position that every evil in the world and every rape in the world is not only justified, but necessary.Lol at you
Nothing like NOT answering my point. It's too difficult for people like yourself to actually have to think, isn't it?
Whatever I think about evil - and what part God had in it or not is IRRELEVANT really. And I have addressed elsewhere.
The Atheist knows evil exists. It is all around the Atheist, every day. And this is the case EVEN though they "know" God does not exist.
Take God out of the picture and the exact amount of evil still exists. It doesn't change. The Atheist has to concede that its cause is not God.
Hence, unless they are prepared to agree with the idea of first and second causes, then they can't attribute anything to a being they don't believe in.
I believe in the first and second causes. Just like the story of Jonah described. In Chapter 1, the sailors threw the prophet into the sea. And in Chapter 2, Jonah asserts it was God who hurled him into the deep.
The Christian says God created all things. Evil of course is not a thing. It is an action or lack of action. It is a lack of goodness. It isn't a thing per se. Rape is not a created thing. It is the breaking of a rule. It is an action or a lack of doing something good. You can't create a rape. Sin is in the same category. Sin is not a thing. It is an action or an omission of an action. Theft is taking something. It is not a thing. Adultery is the breaking of a rule. It is not a thing. Murder or killing something is not a thing. You don't create a murder. You don't create an adultery. You don't create an evil.
You need to think. You need to define your terms better. You speak so much nonsense that you actually believe. Yes, the Bible says God created good and God created evil. I've read that - but he is not talking about creating a thing. He made only good things. And no one can find anything in the universe that God created - a thing that is not good. Even Satan. God made Lucifer. He was an angel. Lucifer rebelled against God. That was an action. Satan is simply a rebellious angel. He is not evil per se.
Even in your comments - you swing between things and actions. between nouns and verbs. evil is not a thing. It is the lack of doing good. And in the context where God is said to create evil, the context is clearly about judgment on those who do evil. And the word evil like most of us would agree becomes subjective. God does evil upon the evildoers. In other words, like the criminal in court who is sentenced by the judge will call any sentence evil or bad or not good, so God causes judgment on those who do evil. In the eyes of the evil doer, God's judgment will always be evil, even though the rest of the universe will say- praise God. And thank you for bringing judgment on that person.
judgment of course is not a thing. It is an action. An action on evildoers. It is not created out of thin air. It is not something you can pick up and put in your pocket. It is not something you can take to the bank and say - look after this. It is an action. If God judged the evil doer, the evil doer says - evil. If God does not judge the evil doer, then the good in the community say "evil". It is action.
Created:
-->
@linate
The answer is no.
This however is not a sign of God's non-omnipotence. It is a sign of God's rationality.
God can do whatever he wants to do and so he does. In other words, whatever God sets his mind to do he can and will do.
But God does not set his mind to do things that are absurd to reason.
Hence, the original question is not asking whether God can do all things but rather will God do what is irrational? And therefore the answer is no.
Created:
-->
@SethBrown
You forgot an important factor.
Or perhaps I didn't read it.
Without God in the picture, evil still exists.
This I think is one of (not the only one) the best evidences that evil doesn't spring from God.
If God doesn't exist, evil still is as evil as it ever has been. Ask ever atheist. They can't have it both ways. They recognise evil in the world right now. They know how terrible it is. If they don't believe in God, then they must have an explanation for it. What is it? They can't turn around and then blame it on God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
The Bible tells us that Satan's power was significantly destroyed by the cross.
Jesus can't be overcome. You don't have Satan. He doesn't even have you. Jesus is God. It may be true you don't want to serve Jesus, but that doesn't make him tyrannical. Are people tortured eternally? That choice is surely your decision. If the choice is - serve God or be tortured forever? There is no point in saying, I don't want to do either. By saying you don't want to serve God, you are saying, please torture me forever. Your choice. There is no gun at your head.
Satan doesn't want your soul. He wants to see your soul destroyed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
LOL @ you.
Christianity is not about rules. It is about grace. We are not saved by rules. We don't believe in salvation by the law or by works. We believe in salvation by grace through faith.
In fact, the entire message of the bible is that rules can't save you. And that if you try and obtain salvation by rules, then you have misunderstood the bible.
Are rules bad? I am not saying that. Everyone has rules. But rules aren't the solution to salvation. I think the 10 commandments are pretty good rules. And honestly, I think that they are very valuable to follow if we want to have a good life here on this planet. But they are not going to help you get to heaven.
It's not what you know that is important, it is who you know. And grace is a free gift from God not from Satan. Satan doesn't even have grace. All he has is a door to pain and agony.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SethBrown
NO! Neither Adam or Eve could have a belly button because Adam was made from earthly dustI don’t think Adam was created literally from dust, even if he was how does it follow he couldn’t have a belly button?
Interesting thought. I can't think of a reason why Adam would have needed a belly button if he was just created. Perhaps so he could fit in with the rest of the people. But is it a point of discussion with atheists who mock God on every level?
Not necessarily true, “we” could be referring to god & the angels, not necessarily the trinity (although I think it does) ns where you got serial killer from eitherand Eve was made from ONE, I repeat, ONE of Adams ribs, therefore Adam should have had only 11 ribsUmm, I don’t think so. Every human has 24 ribs in total, so he’d have 23.
Another interesting thought. The "We" in Genesis might be referring to God and his angels. Some theologians take that view, along similar lines to the beginning of the book of Job. It may be referring to the Trinity of course. The word Elohim in Hebrew is plural. So either god or gods. The ribs thing is a bit of a red herring though, isn't it? A distraction. The point is - God initiated here at the beginning of the world, a death and a resurrection at which the end - new life came about. True Adam didn't really die. But he went into a deep sleep. And the rose from that deep sleep. A bit like Jonah in the fish, Daniel in the Lion's den and Joseph in the pit. And Isaac on the mountain when Abraham was commanded to kill him. All are pictures of Christ. The true resurrection.
and this godly gene should have been passed on to his children, but as shown, it didn't because men have 12 ribs just like the 2nd class woman Eve!How does it follow the “god gene” (which it isn’t even a gene more of a essence) should’ve been passed down? And why does Adam having 23 ribs show he doesn’t have the “gene”, I agree he doesn’t but that’s poor reasoning
Totally agree with you that there is poor reasoning on the part of your opponent.
Therefore, with the biblical axioms portrayed above, it is truly embarrassing to see fine artists depict Adam and Eve with navels as shown in this ungodly painting herewith which is BLASPHEME:I don’t think you understand what blasphemy is.
Agreed. But I would extend that further. He doesn't have much understanding of anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Hell is a prison. It is not a place of freedom. Satan doesn't rule Hell. He is a prisoner there. If you are like your father, you will certainly join him in prison. What sort of power do you think Satan has? Satan is less than a worm. He wants to be a tyrant but he lost any power he thought he had. The Bible is a truthful book. It explains the history of humanity. It explains why humanity is sinful and messed up. It provides the remedy. It is a remedy that is not a bandaid. Humans want bandaids. They desire supermen to come in and fix the problem and yet they don't really. Stop the evil, well stop that evil over there, but don't come and look at my heart. "I'm ok. I just get drunk or use drugs. I don't respect other people. I mock and destroy and steal and cheat and commit adultery."
Jesus came to deal with the heart. That's the difference and it's not a band-aid and it's not a quick fix, because the problem is deeper than that. There is pain involved in dealing with sin because sin is like our little god. We don't want to give it up.
God is the one who has given wisdom and knowledge to humanity. Humanity has taken that and attempted to get rid of God. They want to be their own gods. Lucifer has encouraged them to be their own gods. He just minimises the implications of that course because he uses deception. Humans are gullible. Your attitude is quite sad. I understand that you are mocking me and think it is funny. Yet, somehow I think that you don't get - that playing with fire will inevitably get one burnt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Give us one lie the God of the Bible wrote. Verse, context, occasion, Hebrew or Greek understandings.
Define the meaning of Tyrant and then provide an example of how God is a tyrant.
Yes, your master rebelled against God. This is the reason he is in prison now.
There is no question about your master losing, he has already lost. Of course, you will probably have to explain what winning and losing looks like.
Your master is a tyrant. Hence, your argument has no force. He is described only as a metaphorical dragon. Angels are powerful, but yours is currently tied up in Hell with no real power. He can't escape.
And he doesn't want to help you. He just wants you to die with him forever. Lovely bloke. He doesn't care about you or your parents or your children. He is spitting chips because has lost and wants to drag as many down with him as possible. You on the other don't seem to need dragging down, you are a willing co-conspirator.
I hope you have a good lawyer. I know one. His name is Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Wow! Another apology. You really are getting used to begging. That's a good start.
Lucifer is not a dragon, except metaphorically. But seriously, it's a little bit like a flea against a mountain. We don't have two equal antagonists. We have God, the creator of all things v a fallen angel who has lost even his bite at the Cross.
Satan has essentially the power to accuse and deceive. He is tied up metaphorically in Hell. He is not prowling about as a lion. Those days are gone. Now he simply accuses. Perhaps his minions might do something. But he is not omnipotent. He is not omniscient. He is not omnipresent.
Sure people say they praise him or worship him. But most don't. Look at yourself. You talk the talk but don't walk the walk.
He's currently sitting in Hell, waiting for judgment day. Rule the world, LOL @ you. Talk about deception. All I can say is, be careful about what you wish for. It might come true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Not me old chap. There is only one to praise and his name is Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I am sorry Christian, but I am afraid that I will not be asking for forgiveness for my sins. I like my sins a lot. My father who is a dragon, he is the Lord of sins. He will defeat your tyrannical God. You may say as much words as you like, as much lies as you like. You will lose. You have wasted your life in fear, where I live my life in pleasure, honoring the dragon who fought so that I am not a slave of your God. I only pray that dragon shows you the path so that you too may live in pleasure of the flesh and overcome your fear of God.
Hey, don't be sorry, that sounds like begging. LOL @ you.
If you like your sins, then you really don't have a proper argument against God, the one who judges sin and evil.
Your excuse becomes pathetic. God is evil and so is Satan. And so am I. Whatever.
God is not tyrannical. If he was, there wouldn't be so much evil in the world. The very fact that he doesn't punish every sin immediately is evidence of that.
I don't need to lie. It's not about me. I could care less if I lose or win. I don't live in fear. My fear was crucified with the cross. You say you live in pleasure, but we all know your fears. Your depression. Your wasted time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You don't necessarily have to be evil to drown your kids. Although you would have to be mentally disturbed to do so.
In Australia, we have our fair or unfair share. It also comes out in different way, intentional, reckless, stupid
It happens. We had a young immigrant with three children, drove straight into a dam. Sad, pathetic. Evil?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Begging in this instance is what people who are rational would do. Christians don't need to beg since God has already given them faith.
I suggested to you that in your situation, which is the same position as the people of Nineveh in Jonah, you should beg.
The people of Nineveh were not the people of God. They were outside the covenant. They were enemies of God and of Israel. Like you, they hated God and Jonah and Israel. They hated the people of God.
Yet, when they saw Jonah, when they heard his message, they knew their time was up.
You don't get anything more than the sign of Jonah, a dead prophet in the tomb for three days before he rose again. You don't get anything more than the same message.
Are you rational or are you stupid? Your words so far, simply demonstrate an ignorance of what Hell is like. And of what God is like.
Everyone's got a bill to pay. And one day the debt collector is coming to collect. How in the world do you think you are going to pay?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
It truly is sad that you think this is a joke.
You are a strange one really. On one hand, you think evil is evil and you could never worship a God you say is evil.
And yet, you love to wallow in evil, as this entire topic suggests and actually condemn in your mind, the one being in this universe who wishes to punish evil.
Eternal punishment is reserved for people who desire to wallow in evil. For those who think evil is perfectly natural and their right to commit.
As for Satan, he already was defeated at the Cross. He was so blind to his own pride, that he missed this point. The cross was the victory and it blindsided Satan and it destroyed his power. Every day that someone else is given faith to believe - is another nail in the coffin for Satan. Every day that means another person is freed from the slavery of sin and evil that your Father is so proud to claim. And yet this gets up your father's nose so much.
Having said all of the above, while there is life, there is hope. Even for someone as deceived and ignorant and evil as you. Confess your sins, beg for mercy, who knows? Who knows? God might relent and forgive you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
The Sins you have committed, like the rest of the world, are so many it is impossible for them to be countered by doing good.
This is why it was necessary for God to send Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity to this world as an atonement for the sins of the world.
God would never be satisfied otherwise and his wrath would fall on all people. Thankfully though, God has redeemed a people to himself, a people from every nation of the world. He has given them faith. And they have had their sins paid for. In Christ, they are justified. And in Christ, God's wrath has been turned away from them. In Christ, they have been reconciled with God, and in Christ, they have true peace.
Furthermore, in Christ, their old sinful nature has been crucified, and they in Christ have been resurrected to new life. The Old is gone, and the New has arrived.
They are no longer slaves to sin, but children of God. It's a wonderful thing to know Jesus. And to become more and more like him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
It's not like you need a crash course. It's part of the sin nature.
That'll be enough for you. According to Romans 1.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You let evil happen all of the time. What a hypocrite. Most of your utterances are evil. As are most of the utterances by others on this page.You don't have an issue with abortion. With euthanasia. With worshipping false gods. With blasphemy. With drunkenness. With orgies. With adultery. With not paying all of your tax or finding loopholes. You don't have a problem with lying or causing others to look bad. These are all evil things you ALREADY do. And then you have the gall to say - "should we just let evil happen". You don't need someone else to follow, it already is what your character does.Okay, you got me, I am evil.But the topic was if I should be like your God.So should I? Its a simple yes or no question. Will you answer it?
Yes. I will answer your question.
Should people be like the God of the Bible? Yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A character in a fantasy novel can only save the lives of fellow characters from the same fantasy novel.You're getting fact and fiction all mixed up Trade.
Not at all Zed, Harikrish or Best.Korea or whatever his name is - is evil. He speaks evil. He does evil. No fantasy there sadly.
Which isn't to say that fantasy characters do not inspire real people to do stuff.
Okay.
So, I haven't surveyed a whole lot of life savers, but I'm guessing that people are likely to want to save drowning children irrespective of fantasy literature.
Unless they're a murderer of course. And that happens, quite a lot sadly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Christians say that their God lets evil happen.
What is your source for this?
So should we be like Christian God?
Begs the question.
Should we just let evil happen?
You let evil happen all of the time. What a hypocrite. Most of your utterances are evil. As are most of the utterances by others on this page.
You don't have an issue with abortion. With euthanasia. With worshipping false gods. With blasphemy. With drunkenness. With orgies. With adultery. With not paying all of your tax or finding loopholes. You don't have a problem with lying or causing others to look bad. These are all evil things you ALREADY do. And then you have the gall to say - "should we just let evil happen". You don't need someone else to follow, it already is what your character does.
If I see a drowning child, should I save that child?
And if a Christian sees someone heading for HELL, a place much worse than drowning. what say you? Should they just tell you to stop?
Christian God obviously wont.
The Christian God has certainly saved many drowning children in history. To say he won't is an exaggeration.
Should I be like Christian God?
How do you mean, be like Christian God? God does what God does. God doesn't do what you want him to. You are his piece of string. Not the other way around.
Well, should I?Or is Christian God wrong????? Yes?????
Pointless
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
would agree that it's not so far fetched to think Jesus might have really meant that generally, only sexual deviance was the only grounds for divorce. People r not always precise in what they say plus this is just a recording and translation anyway even if Jesus was precise
If you view it as a general sense, then it might be argued. Yet, since Jesus was very well informed of the OT covenants, he would clearly have understood that the marriage covenant could be breached in numerous ways, including death. The death certificate is a necessary divorce certificate. And it's recognised in our legal world today, even as it was then. not that they had death certificates. But death ended a marriage.
But what you seem to fail to realise is that every crime listed in the OT as a death sentence penalty also breached this covenant. Jesus would have recognised that - which is why he hammered the Pharisees. They changed the law or rather interpreted differently so that they could simply divorce a person - if they didn't like them. or if they said "I divorce thee". Jesus had a high view of marriage. Unlike ours laws today, there needed to be a breach of the covenant. One that went to its heart.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
it's one thing not to be a literalist, like maybe the text of a story isn't meant to be taken literally. but the bible passage about only sexual immorality being grounds for divorce is clear, and there's not much context to think it's not meant to be taken at face value. the websites i posted make good arguments for why we shouldn't take the verse at face value, but it's going beyond the words of the verse. if you are willing to take a verse that is clear like that and then throw the label "not literal" on it, and then completely change its meaning, you are very much undermining the bible, if you truly believe the bible is the inerrant word of God.
A literalist is someone who believes that the words in any given passage have an actual real meaning. It doesn't mean that you have to accept that the passage has to be understood in a wooden way. That is the mistake and error that Fundamentalists and others make and is not helpful to any discussion.
If a creation scientist quotes an evolutionist - from one part of their life story but forgets or omits everything else that scientist says from other parts of their life, they rightly gets whacked by every person who genuinely cares what the scientist believes. It is the same, I suggest, for Jesus. It is foolish to take one verse and say that is everything he says about divorce.
A literalist is - someone who believes that words have real substantial meaning. It is the opposite of someone who is allegorical. That each word needs to be understood as mystical. this is why context needs to be emphasised. To not do so - would be to say that Einstein believed in the Jewish God. When if we take his entire life, he probably is an atheist.
Jesus' words had a context. and he was responding to a particular argument, then is is nonsensical to say that is all he had to say about it. I think most people on this site are literalists when it comes to the bible. The question isn't whether the bible is to be understood as literal or not, it is as to how and what we mean by literal. I think poetry is literal. The phrase used in the Psalms for instance, God owns the cattle on 1000 hills. It is literal, but it is also poetical. Each word has real meaning. And yet it is a poem. It is not allegorical. It doesn't mean - for instance that God is the owner of all the mass prisons in Rome. It doesn't mean that the end of the world has come. It doesn't mean that Obama will be president.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Sceptics actually don't have much of a think about this at all. Hence why no one genuinely cares. I appreciate you are attempting to start a dialogue. Good luck with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Typically nonsense from our number one fan of Harikrish.
Every child in history is forced into most things as they grow up. And that's not because of an evil intent on the behalf of parents but simply because that is how life works. Children are children - they are not old enough to make their own decisions about pretty much anything. They are forced by most governments to go to school and to taught whatever the local government thinks is the correct curriculum. This is dogma. Education for the most part is dogma.
Adults who obviously are allowed and permitted to make such decisions in their life - are not permitted by the government to leave their children at home whilst they go to work, go to play sport or go to the movies, nor are they permitted to leave them at home while their parents attend to whatever religious activity they are permitted to attend. Hence, children during non-school times when they are systematically dogmatised by the local public school in a worldview of secular garbage with our their consent (after all it is compulsory) tend to go with their parents to do with whatever their parents are doing - sport, political rallies, environmental rallies, movies, church, religious activities, and this is how it works.
No child is ever asked and told - they must consent to learning at school. they simply must obey. And their parents and them can get into serious trouble if they don't comply.
Parent's can't leave their children at home while they go to church. And to insist that they should is STUPID. And at odds with everything else we do in the world.
Hence, another stupid topic for our number three nonsensical person on this forum.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Nope. I don't think that would be a reason at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I've sometimes heard when discussing Communism, the term personal property."Private property, to a communist, is not your shoes or toothbrush, or even your house.
Those things are called personal property and under socialism and under communism they continue to belong to workers in much the same manner as they do now.
When Marxists speak of private property under capitalism, it refers to the tools of production that should be owned by all of society, such as factories, lands, stores, mines and all those things that are gifts of nature or are built by many people over many centuries, but are now being monopolized by a few. These few don’t concern themselves with how many years of human labor went into their creation, just so long as they alone can reap profits from legal ownership of that property."
Yes, I've heard that too. I think it is just words. Private and personal are the same thing.
Arguably, I 'think it's still possible to steal from other individuals in a communist society.
Of course it is, you can't get rid of private property absolutely. Unless you are a slave or have become one.
I 'do like what you say about "voluntary" action, not the "state".As keithprosser says, I don't remember Jesus talking much about organizing a country on Earth in the Bible, and laws and force he intended to use upon people,Talked 'more about personal action,But I don't read the Bible too much, so might be he says more than I think about State Laws.
Voluntary is the basis of private property and private transactions. It is when we are compelled that things get messy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
Forgive me, but can you define the different theories of free market capitalism? I understood it as simply anything goes as long as its making profit.
Free market capitalism is defined by some like the movie Wall Street - as - anything goes. I would think that is not capitalism because it doesn't explain what freedom is. It can't mean being free to do whatever you want. No one thinks that is correct. How can someone enter into a contract if there are no rules?
Yet, free market capitalism - simply means - in many respects - free from government interference. It is asserting that the government has its own domain and so does the private citizen and business. And that the two should not overlap. This doesn't mean breaking the law, ripping people off, over-exploiting markets, and theft.
Some people have said - and I tend to think it is true - that free enterprise requires a system of government that has a high moral view - where people respect other people. Some have said you can't export free enterprise. And I think that is true. Whenever people have attempted to have a market system in a country without proper morals and a system of law, it tends towards corruption and greed.
There is a difference between classical capitalism based on supply v Keynesian capitalism which is based on demand. the former says - build on what you have already. The latter says - use what you don't have yet to make more.
Which form of communism/socialism do you think is the intended form? (Government vs community based)?
I don't think the bible would promote either form of socialism or communism. It is private property based.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Jesus said getting remarried after divorce is adultery, except in cases involving sexual immorality. St Paul has some other exceptions such as believers being married to unbelievers.so what if a wife is a victim of domestic physical abuse? She can't get divorced and remarried if there's no sexual immorality in the marriage. literalists would say the most she can do is separate from her husband and never remarry.I think this is a case of maybe the bible isn't inerrant after all, or being too literal about what it says. maybe Jesus meant 'generally' only sexual immorality is the only exception? this is running loose with interpretation. I'd take that stance, but I'm not a bible is inerrant kinda of guy.I know there aren't many fundamentalist Christians left on this site, but, what say you'll? can a victim of domestic abuse with no sexual immorality involved get divorced and remarried?
There are lots of views in relation to marriage and divorce within the Christian religion. Some take a very literal view. Some don't. Inerrancy and literalism are not the same thing. There may be some overlap - but definitely the same thing.
In the Presbyterian Church, we hold to what is called Covenant Theology. We use the WCF as our subordinate standard.
In my view the bible is inerrant. And what that means is - that it is its own measuring tool. There are no other divine measuring tools so therefore no one can say whether it is inerrant or not. Hence, why it is referred to as axiomatic. I accept other people use inerrancy differently. That is a matter for them and I have no issue with that. The question of course, then comes down to what is an error. And again, there are different views about that.
Marriage is a covenant institution. It is the commencement of what I would describe as a private family. It has two or three witnesses. Often the church, the state and the family. In the Presbyterian church, we hold that anything that breaks the covenant is a plausible and legitimate reason to divorce. Divorce however is not inevitable and is up to the victim to decide whether they will exercise that right or not. Unfaithfulness is a plausible reason as is domestic violence. As is desertion. As is leaving the faith. There are other ways that a covenant comes to an end, e.g. death.
I don't think Jesus advocated that sexual morality is the ONLY grounds for divorce. I know some think that. Yet the context - is important. And the fact is in that particular passage - Jesus was primarily arguing against pharisee's easy divorce system and saying, there needs to be a genuine reason.
I think most people don't understand the idea of literal interpretation. They mistakenly use it as a genre when it is not. The fundamentalists tend to be literalists. I consider myself, confessional. That means I look at the context, the genre, the type of language used, inter alia with a whole lot of other things.
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
This is simply nuts.
The Evangelical Church is much more than the Dispensationalists in America.
Dispensationals are the movement that says - the church is just a parenthesis in the history of the world.
It is a movement that started in the Methodist, and Brethren denominations and has moved into the church of Christ and baptist denominations.
The Reformed churches in America and around the world are not dispensational. they do not believe the church is a parenthesis. Same as the Lutheran church and the Episcopalian denominations.
the Baptists are a mixture - hence some are and some are not.
the Reformed evangelical churches ARE NOT dispensational. In fact they are often accused of being anti-semitic since they consider that the church is God's plan for the world, not Israel.
Hence, why this topic is simply nuts, since it only takes into account part of the evangelical movement.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
What a load of nonsense given the definition of atheism on this site. I attempted to show that Atheism has a worldview and that its only so-called doctrine naturally led to a whole range of ideas. I was soundly refuted by many on this site. Of course, "refuted" doesn't mean I was wrong or proven wrong, but in this case, it meant that most people disagreed with me - and said Atheism is just one doctrine, and nothing more
To suggest therefore that it teaches peace is nonsense. And for any atheist to agree with you - it would be nothing less than hypocritical.
Unless Atheism is a Worldview, it can't teach anything. It has one distinction only. People who don't believe in God.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Ok.
well, let's agree to disagree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I like the idea of intersubjectivity.
I am still attempting in my mind to distinguish it from subjectivity.
But since I think subjectivity is helpful per se, then I don't find the subset of intersubjectivity to be unhelpful.
Perhaps you might enlighten me some more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
i agree, that 'evidence' in its most simple form, legally, is whether something is 'probative', whether it makes the liklihood of something being more true or not. it's not a high standard.
I think that perhaps we need to take a step back and ask ourselves - what is the purpose of evidence? Evidence doesn't exist in a vacuum. Evidence is distinguished from facts. Facts exist. But a fact is not necessarily the same thing as evidence.
For us to even consider what evidence is - we need to have a theory or an idea or speculative thoughts for us to test the so-called evidence against.
In your scenario - you have one fact, one theory and one assumption. One is footprints in the woods. The other is a theory about Big Foot. And an assumption about Big Foot; i.e. Big Foot doesn't exist. And then you ask the question - is this evidence of Big Foot or just evidence that is consistent with the idea of Big Foot?
If the assumption is fact, that Big Foot doesn't exist, then the footprints are neither evidence of Big Foot nor consistent with the idea of Big Foot. They would simply not be considered evidence of anything to do with Big Foot.
"At first glance, I read this and agreed with you that it was a good point. But now after considering it, I don't. It really is an unscientific way of looking at evidence and theories. It presumes much and it denies the purpose of evidence which is neutrality. "back to the big foot example. If Big Foot doesn't exist, the footprint is more accurate to say consistent with big foot, but it'd be sketchy to call it evidence. If Big Foot does exist, then it'd obviously be evidence. but what if we don't know? i guess that is your point... we'd have to be neutral. but at that point, is it, or is it not, evidence of Big Foot, if we don't know if Big Foot exists? I know you said the footprint is evidence of something... but on that specific point, how do you answer it if we don't know if Big Foot exists?
I think I answered this above. In my view, if we don't know whether Big Foot exists or not, you could say the evidence was evidence consistent with Big Foot, presuming of course that the measures you have in place enable you to reach this conclusion reasonably. After all, a footprint in the Woods is just a footprint. It might also be correct to say it is evidence of Big Foot if, in fact, it was Big Foot who produced the footprint. Of course, even that depends entirely on your theory. Interestingly, enough, if there is a footprint in the woods, that was produced by a giant rabbit for instance, and assuming Big Foot does exist, would the fact that the footprint was made by a rabbit be evidence that Big Foot didn't exist, even if we know that he in fact did exist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
can evidence exist for something that doesn't exist?
Intriguing question.
what if you saw footprints in the woods, and claimed that was evidence of Big Foot? and, we'll assume Big Foot doesn't exist. is it fair to call that evidence, to begin with, then, if Big Foot doesn't exist?
Footprints in the woods prove not much at all. It is evidence of something. Someone would need a theory for evidence to be relevant. Assuming Big Foot doesn't exist is anti-scientific since scientists don't make assumptions and is therefore irrelevant. But if someone wanted to know whether Big Foot did exist, then one a theory is proposed, data could be collected, and perhaps then this footprint might be analysed and weighed against the tests for determining Big Foot's existence, and then the data collected would be used as evidence either for or against the proposition. Or it might be discarded entirely since it didn't fit within the parametres.
or we have more speculative things. we have lots of credible people like pilots who say they see flying objects doing things in the skies that aren't possible to our understanding of physics. is that evidence of UFOs? would it be evidence if UFOs didn't in fact exist?
Same as above.
an atheist at this forum made a good point once... he said, we shouldn't be so quick to call things 'evidence' if all it is is 'consistent' with a certain theory.
At first glance, I read this and agreed with you that it was a good point. But now after considering it, I don't. It really is an unscientific way of looking at evidence and theories. It presumes much and it denies the purpose of evidence which is neutrality.
i know, to get more religious, a lot of philosophic arguments for God exist, but they could just as easily be called 'merely consistent' with the the God theory than 'evidence for' the God theory. when it comes to these philospohic arguments, for everyone you can make, there is a at least plausible alternative non God argument that could be made.
Let's see, an atheist presented this as an argument. It's a fallacy of course. Fallacies can often sound pretty good. It doesn't stop them from being fallacies.
then there's more scientific arguments, less philosohical. i do think when we get into things that look like supernatural healings, and atheists becoming theists during NDEs, that those are more in the realm of evidence and less about merely consistent with the God theory. but, it would be possible to spin even those things, if you have a darkened heart and mind, into things that are merely 'consistent' with the God theory and not look at them as evidence.
We could also throw the theory of evolution into this list, along with wormholes, dark matter, the Big Bang theory and love to name a few. We could just ditch the word evidence and pretend it doesn't actually mean anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
As I understand it, modernism is the belief in the objective, while postmodernism is the belief in the subjective. It seems that postmodernism tries to devalue any sort of standard for objective knowledge because it lacks rationality, since we can never experience what is imperceptible, but I believe this to be a mistake. I understand that objectivity is irrational, and I understand that subjectivity proves any objective to be false but also the inconsistency of what knowledge means.We must contemplate the true nature of knowledge and its purpose. Knowledge, as I perceive it, is meant to serve as a foundational framework upon which others can build and advance, driving progress in fields like technology and medicine. Both the strictly objective and entirely subjective approaches fall short in fulfilling this purpose. Perhaps it is intersubjective knowledge that truly aligns with this objective, as it facilitates effective communication and mutual understanding among individuals.It seems as though those who claim to advocate for objective knowledge might have miscommunicated their stance, as intersubjective knowledge is likely what they intended to emphasize. Denying the existence of any knowledge standard appears to be an inaccurate viewpoint, considering the significant advancements we've achieved in technology and other domains. Similarly, endorsing knowledge that is entirely independent of perception appears irrational, lacking a scientific method to validate its rationality. If we shift our perspective on modernism from its inherent irrationality to its possible original intention, we can recognize that postmodernism falls short of achieving the intended goal. Modernism, too, failed in accurately describing itself. Hence, we might benefit from focusing on the true essence of knowledge and acknowledge that intersubjective knowledge aligns most effectively with our purpose for having knowledge to begin with.Would you agree that objective knowledge is irrational, subjective knowledge is useless, but intersubjective knowledge is useful?
thanks for taking the time in the first place to listen to what I was talking about and secondly, exploring what I said. Thirdly, thanks for giving it some thought and analysis. And then a question for me to ponder. I appreciate that very much. This is what I think is proper dialogue. Many others could take a leaf out of your book. Of course, there are many people on this site who do that. Just not so much here in the religious section.
I take the view that objective knowledge is not irrational per se. I don't agree that subjective knowledge is useless. I will need to explore the idea of intersubjective knowledge before I can determine its application. (I won't do that here but will research and return to discuss it)
As a theist, I hold to the view that everyone's including God's view is subjective. Nevertheless, since, I also hold to the view that God alone is perfect and eternal and the measure of truth in every dimension his subjectivity alone is an objective basis for everything else. In Economic theory, the theory of utilitarianism is a theory of objectivity. The ends justify the means. The great good argument is considered objective in its nature. In Legal theory, whether a fact is considered reasonable or not is based on the reasonable person. The tests can be either objective or subjective. If it is "what would a reasonable person understand in the circumstances" it is objective. If it is what would that particular person reasonably do in those circumstances", then it is considered a subjective test. In literature, there must be an objectivity of a kind in order for us to communicate. These letters on the screen must be objectively understood as particular letters of the English alphabet. If someone just subjectively understands them however they want, then communication will devolve. Words must have meaning objectively. Of course - it is true that words evolve over time. Of course, not all words evolve over time. Mathematics and Science both require objective truth and knowledge to exist in order for them to make rational decisions. For example, how could a scientist determine the age of the earth or anything without the view that some things remain consistent throughout history? If the speed of light dipped, or changed, it would cause enormous problems not just for scientists but for everyone. It is a constant and therefore it is an objective picture of knowledge.
Of course, subjective knowledge is also useful too. It depends on what the knowledge is and why it will be used. When I fall in love, it is a subjective experience. And while there may be better alternatives for me to marry or for someone else to marry, the subjective test will in the West at least become a measuring stick of some description. Preference is also subjective knowledge. I prefer Coke to Pepsi. It is subjective knowledge and therefore useful. In theology, subjectivity is also relevant and at times useful. I believe there are objective principles to follow in the Scriptures, but most of the time God wishes for us to apply wisdom to certain situations. This application of wisdom is going to be a form of subjective knowledge and experience.
Interestingly, although I don't yet understand inter-subjective knowledge, my particular view is as follows:
- I don't 100% agree with modernism. The reason for that is not everything is black and white. Not everything requires a right or wrong absolute answer or response.
- I don't 100% agree with post-modernism. The reason for that is not everything is somewhere between black and white. There do exist some absolute truths that are absolutely right or absolutely wrong.
I hold to the view - that "There is ABSOLUTELY no such thing as an ABSOLUTE", is a self-defeating statement. It rationally proves that absolutes do exist. As such so does objective knowledge. It is akin to the agnostic statement that "we can know nothing about God", another self-defeating statement. It rationally proves at least one thing about God can be known, and therefore that god exists.
As a Christian, I also hold to what I have explained to you before as covenantal theology. Sometimes called Trinitarian Theology. It is the idea I described to you in relation to the Garden of Eden. There is freedom - therefore subjectivity is useful. Yet true freedom MUST be defined by boundaries. Hence, objectivity is rational. Freedom loses its meaning if the Boundaries are removed. I used the term Trinitarian Theology because it is only within the Christian Religion that Trinity is known. Yes, there are other religions that have three-headed or multi-headed gods. There are other religions that have similar - but NONE that reflect the Trinity as Christians articulate.
The Trinity is a unique concept. It is both simple and complex. It is both objective and subjective. It reflects both the One and the Many. Yet unlike other similar views - it completely separates the creator from the creation. The creation does not evolve into the creator. This distinction is unique. And it consistently reflects the objective and the subjective. But more than that the Trinity despite being distinct condescends itself to become part of the creation in the person of Christ.
Hence, in contradistinction to every other religion where the creation desires to become God, God in Christianity, adds to himself humanity. He maintains this distinction. It's fascinating.
Again thanks for listening, and for considering, and for exploring. Now I will go and explore and research your question to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Can you explain what you mean by "in our post-modern world?"It was my impression that "modern" means in the current, while "post-" means after.
The Western World has over the past century undergone a complete transition in respect of its epistemology.
Historically, the West has in the past 500 years or so been enlightened or illuminated to believe that words had meaning. That truth was absolute. That feelings ought to be subject to reason.
Yet, in the late 20th century, this so called modernism has evolved into a broad skepticism on anything absolute, it has moved towards subjectivism, or relativism. It has contained a general suspicion of reason, authority, absolutes, and anything associated with the same.
In some ways, it is really the engagement of the West with the East. Multi-cultural thinking has embraced the Eastern philosophies as culturally superior to the more conservative West.
Modernism in this sense doesn't mean current, it means objective and universals whereas Post-Modernism does refer to the after - but not after the current - but after the objectives and universals - we have the subjective and relative. This is one reason Christianity is out and Buddhism and Hinduism is in. The latter are new age - the former is conservative and tied to institutions and objective authority.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
In our post-modern world, people will refuse to interpret the Scriptures properly, because to do so or to suggest to do so - is a form of authority.
And people in our post-modern world all want to be their own gods and masters.
It requires people of course - to shut their eyes to reality and pretend that they are actually not real.
but there you have it.
Until the world takes another turn, and people start to accept that truth and reality might be a thing, it will only change one person at a time as they are converted to truth by the truth himself.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
Some Christians will support Israel and some won't.
It's not like it's only the Jews or Israelis that persecute Christians.
I think the Nazis persecute Christians as much as the next.
In fact, anyone who finds the Christians to be a competitor will do so.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Good to know. I won't bother responding to your comments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I'm not responding to Stephen. I concede it looks like it.
But Read the book by C S Lewis. screw tape letters. judithwolfe.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk/files/2017/08/Screwtape.pdf
After that, I don't care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, again I think you are incorrect.
Assuming that everything that Christians do makes Jesus angry. He said - love your enemies. So Jesus doesn't hate Christians.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
ou can do whatever you want with your property.Christian God owns humans, so everything he does to humans is good and not evil.Humans are God's property, so no matter how much God tortures humans, it is not evil because they are his property.Kinda like today, when children are the property of parents.Only in the case of God, God owns everything so he is allowed to do anything he wants to his property.
It is rare that I agree with you, Harikrish, and guess what? I don't here as well.
It is true that God created all things and as such has a proprietary interest and ownership of all things.
Yet there is a vast difference between the property laws of humanity and the fact that God is the creator of all things. The two are just not comparable.
God's goodness is not determined because he is the creator. It is determined by his holiness. He does good because he is holy. Not because he owns stuff.
God determines what good and evil is. He is the subjective determiner of such things in the universe and as such becomes our objective measure of good and bad.
He is the reason we acknowledge murder and rape is evil. Without God's subjective measures, humanity would have only subjective measures. And ironically as humanity moves away from this truth, we are becoming more individualistic and more relative in our moral norms.
Children are not the property of their parents. Sadly, this was considered true in some past cultures. Not all. But some.
In our world today, ownership of property is not absolute. We have a bundle of property rights. But this doesn't mean we can do whatever we want to with what we own. Interestingly, slavery is predicated on the idea that humans are property. Hence, most states in the world have legislated to say - humans are not property. In other words, the States own people. Humans are public property - not private property.
So the primary reason you are incorrect is that ownership is not the basis of goodness. Ownership certainly provides rights and proprietary interests but it doesn't determine good and evil.
Created: