Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
You must have realized it after you posted.I know full well you didn't make the 2000 year old book.
I am not stupid.
Deluded doesn't mean stupid.
Who could ever possibly know what it is you might make your god tell you next?
Maybe that God got guys to write stuff down for him from time to time? That then he got another bunch of guys to compile it into a book for him to leave for me?
Lol. Wait, did I make my God tell me that or did you say it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
With your mod team banishing trolls like Jesus casting out demons, and you making the site as smooth as a Dr. J power dunk, I may fall in love.
I predict good things for this site.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Do you think they are truths Oro?We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.
Do you think they are self-evident?
Do you think men are created?
Do you think all men are created equal?
And still today still, our great progressive liberal segregates even the works of MLK, and others sharing his phenotype, into their own little uncle Tom's cabin.
Separate but equal. Right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes, Some "modern art" is definitely the untalented, taking the piss out of the gullible, that is true true.Some "modern art" is definitely the untalented, taking the piss out of the gullible.
Take religion for example.
Right. Not, "some" religion.
Biased much?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Some great novels have arisen in the modern era.Harry Potter
Sorry Supa. Harry Potter is not an example of a great novel. It's garbage. Your other examples were good examples though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
You could. I bet your delusion can do it.
You currently think I made a book that is older than me by 2,000 years say what I want it to say.
That sounds like powerful delusion Deb.
Who could ever possibly know? Sounds like you could genius. Got any 1,000 year old books you want me to change for ya?
(Lol. I swear Gentle Reader, I do not pay this Einstein to set them up for me to knock them down. This is all real.)
Created:
-->
@Imabench
It's the 17th, and again, you called it.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
What's a republican media outlet?...Republican media outlets...
Created:
Posted in:
People die after evictions BUT
1. Those people were not brought into the house by the very one evicting.
2. Unlike a baby, their deaths was possible, not certain.
3. The evicted person, unlike babies, did something to warrant eviction, they could not be evicted simply because the property owner felt like evicting him.
Created:
Posted in:
As I started to learn more about Christian doctrine, I became more interested in religious doctrine in general and decided to research the doctrines of other religions.
Also, because by that time I had come across the atheist charge of, "If you had been born in.............. you'd be............
What shocked me was how much more intricately complex and logical Christianity was. It had concepts and ideas other religions didn't even approach.
The more I compared the religions through study, the more obvious it became that Christianity was different.
Every detail of Christian doctrine is supported by, and tied to, another detail that gives a new understanding when viewed as a whole. Nothing is simply window dressing. Every part has a logical explanation for its existence.
With Christianity, one can do the "If/then" logical test and it passes. The "if/then" logical test is a simple logical operand to test if a logical argument is sound.
Simple examples would be:
*If a chicken lays an egg, then the creature inside that egg will be a chicken.
*If Jesus is God, then He could not be killed.
*If the Holy Spirit is the third PERSON in the Trinity, then He should be recorded as speaking.
So we test....
If Jesus had to graft us into a new line of ancestry away from Adam, then He could not come from Adams line, and must have been born of a virgin.
If we share in Christ's crucifixion, then we share in Christ's resurrection too.
If Christ was to be the first new man in the non-adamic new line, then He could not genetically father any children with a daughter of Eve.
If we are not genetically born into the family of God through Christ, then we must be adopted into the family of God.
Check them. Each is true as each "if/then" argument above is specifically laid out in the bible.
Here is a more complicated "if/then" argument for the road....
IF
the life is in the blood (says the bible)
If marrow makes blood (says science)
If Jesus' blood is what saves us (says the Spirit)
THEN
Jesus' bones that housed the marrow making that precious blood could not possibly be broken.
Psa 34:20 - He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.
Psa 91:11 - For he shall give his angels charge over you, to keep you in all your ways.
Psa 91:12 - They shall bear you up in their hands, lest you dash your foot against a stone
Jesus would not be allowed to stumble and fall.
Jhn 19:31 - The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
Jhn 19:32 - Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
Jhn 19:33 - But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
Its all there. Its all true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
While you're here, the forum search tool is awesome! Love it!
Created:
Posted in:
My mother was walking, talking brain dead on so many issues as were so many country bumpkin parents of my generation.
This explains quite a lot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I think if God exists, he can't meet all the 4 As(All present,
What does "all present" mean? That all of Him is present?
all powerful, all knowing, all loving).
What does "all loving" mean? God doesn't love sin.
I don't know if it even states in the bible that these characteristics are true,
"All present" and "all loving" are not in the bible.
Sure. But if God has no real qualities that no one else has, what makes Him God?and if it does state them in the bible, then it could just be God being metaphorical.
I think....
Thanks for telling us what you think, but the bible is not secret, and there is no reason to take what you think as more authoritative than what the bible says.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
The virus is a pain. But everyone knows your star is rising on Dart. Beware of people who only want to use you as a lift.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I was being tongue-in-cheek. ; )
Created:
Posted in:
Oh please. The soldier faces potential death, possible death. Swags question to you was about certain death, and we know which way most soldiers would answer....a member of a community of people with a proven track record of prioritizing people other than blood relations.
What you call them is your prerogative, how you treat them should be based on fairness and logic. A child conceived by voluntary actions of a woman certainly does not deserve to be treated like a stranger or invader, and is clearly where he is supposed to be.And yes, I do call anyone I have not met a stranger, even if they share DNA.
Created:
Posted in:
Interesting.
Isn't it?
So what exactly does it take to qualify as an "elite"?
*Be above average intelligence.
*Be progressive liberal
*Be from the old DDO elite
*Must contribute to elite rule of the debate forum(Debate ELO was actually the original purpose of the Elite)
*Have disdain for religion generally and the religion board specifically.
Being part of some shadowy, manipulative in-crowd?
Yes.
Is "elite" a putdown or a compliment of status?
Depends on who's saying it.
Do elites have to have DDO tenure?
At first yes, but now more than a year into Dart, we have our first few elites who were never at DDO.
People don't know, but there has been great unrest among Dart elites after the great migration. The new elites did not see eye to eye with old elites. There was an uneasy balance among elites till Bsh1 tried to pull what can only be termed as a soft coup when he claimed that not even Mike could overrule him.
The new elites waited an opportunity and got rid of him when the opportunity arose and they saw that Mike was not willing to expend his considerable power to save him.
The mod team change allowed the new elites to shift the elite focus away from only debating ELO, and a fallout of that was that Ram had to go.
Wylted, unaware of the changed power dynamics within the new Dart elites, went after them as was his style. The old elite sometimes found Wylted a useful informant and tolerated him, but the new elite saw little value in him and he had to go.
Though things have settled a bit, there is still uneasiness among the big boys. They really wanted Castin, but she turned out to not be really interested in elites. Drafterman has been inducted into the Dart elite, but Drafterman has very different ideas about the Dart elite than does Ragnar.
So right now, things are solidifying into two camps, the old school elite made up of the old DDO elites, and the new elites. No one knows where Mike stands. Virt appears to be ready to back the new elites if he should have to wage war.
Everything now hinges precariously on the backs of a few newly inducted young elites who have not made their positions clear. So the political wooing to get elites on one side or other is happening right now.
The ultimate result might rest on a few kingmakers. The unofficial subforum Kings.
Greyparrot - Politics Board King
This kingship is being challenged by History buff, but it looks as if he doesn't have the numbers to unseat GP.
Ethan - Religion Board King
Ethan just pulled off stunning win over 3 challengers and is, for the time being uncontested.
Mharman - Sports Board King
Mharman is being challenged by Supadudz, but with Supa's attention being divided by his mod and game duties, the wise Money is on Mharman.
Lunatic - Game Board King
Here too Lunatic was being challenged by Supa, but Lunatic is solid with the old school elites and Supa doesn't have the numbers.
RationalMadman - King without Portfolio
The only challenge to RM was from Wylted and Bench. Wylted imploded and Bench surrendered after the Bsh1 debacle.
If the new elites should come out victorious, expect a few changes in the upper mod team.
If the old elites are triumphant, expect a few changes in the lower mod team.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I like it. The more information the members have, the better and more user friendly the experience will be.
The debate lectern is a classy logo, though I wish we could keep something that ties in with our nickname Dart. I think it makes a more interesting logo.
Thanks for all the work.
Created:
Posted in:
And compulsions and obsessions. Seek out a skilled professionals who specialize in detecting delusions like that.
They are called psychiatrists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Good game.Good game.
Try to stay on topic. The OP said, "I'm a theistic evolutionist" not, "I'm a basketball player." Try to keep up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
...those whose efforts have made significant intellectual discoveries
What intellectual discoveries have you made cube? Is that gidderish in your OP one of them?
...in geometric mathematics or other.
At least we know the "other" can't be English.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
At least the don't clog their posts with nonsense symbols.This is typical of most of the brain dead struggle to get out more than a one syllable word, or grunt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Created:
Posted in:
Ever wonder why Jesus had to come by a virgin birth? There is a concrete reason.
The virgin birth is unique in that it is the only miracle concerning Jesus' earthly ministry that was without witnesses.
In fact, neither Jesus or anyone else during His life time is recorded as mentioning or knowing He was virgin born.
Do be able to do what He was sent to do, Jesus HAD to be virgin born.
The bible says Adam sinned and became spiritually dead. Thus, according to the rule set up during creation, "Everything after its kind", Adam could only have spiritually dead offspring. (Forget original sin, it is unbiblical)
To save mankind, Jesus not only had to redeem us from our past and future sins, but from our spiritually dead state.
The bible calls Jesus the "new man" and contrasts Him with Adam whom it calls the old man. Our line of ancestry went back to Adam, who was spiritually dead.
Jesus had to break that line, and start a new line, spiritually alive, and then somehow hook us into that lineage.
So Jesus became God's first born of the new line, and all who believe on Him, He will kill, (be crucified with Him), recreate, (be born again) and resurrect (on the last day)
Had Jesus had an earthly mother and father, he would Himself have been in Adam's line. For a new line, Jesus could not be a genetic descendant of Adam.
That is why Jesus birth had to be of the Holy Spirit. It was not just a miracle for the sake of a miracle.
It had to be in order for the salvation plan God designed to work. So for born again Christians today, our line of ancestry terminates in Jesus, not Adam.
That is why the bible says we already have eternal life, because anyone born in Jesus' line is like Jesus. Eternal. And the bible calls us Saints, because saints are what the line of Jesus produces.
It is a great, wonderful and selfless thing Jesus did for us. So we adore Him, and we thank Him, and we praise Him. Because while we were yet sinners, dead in sin, He loved us and died for us.
He made the first move, when we didn't deserve it, and came down into a world we had polluted into a hellhole, to save us
Created:
Posted in:
I'll ask you a version of a question I had in probably a different thread. Which one of the below is NOT in the bible?
*And you have respect to him that wears the gay clothing, and say to him, Sit here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand there, or sit here under my footstool
*You should not give preferential treatment to people in gay clothing.
Taken from the Book: How to make points by innuendo instead of argumentation.
From the chapter: Judging the bible by what it does NOT say, instead of what it DOES say.
Publisher: Obtuse Press
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Shhh! Don't tell atheists that.Actually nothing the evolutionists do or say makes me uncomfortable in the slightest.
Pretending that science makes theists "uncomfortable" is one of the few things that make them happy. And its such a small price to pay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
All of the above coincide with my discovery....
I bet you're gob-smacked that the world doesn't rise up at the publishing of your fantastic discovery and sing your hosannas.
What these boards have shown me is that there is no depth too deep for delusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I think it is stronger for defenseless, innocent" children.
You made a case that adults are criminals. Now you're saying children are bigger criminals?
If "innocent" is synonymous with "criminal" to you, yes.
A woman seeking an abortion clearly doesn't feel the strength of this connection the way that you do.
The connection exists, and it is not just how she feels. She brought that baby into existence by her behavior. Calling the baby a "trespasser" or a "stranger" is ... I have to say it, ....heartlessly stupid.
Try and tell the government that you feel no "connection" to your child and see if they will waive child support.
And the analogy has to do with forcing other people to save lives at great personal expense to themselves.
Your analogy fails because you pretend context doesn't matter. Prison forces people to save lives at great personal expense to themselves, so does the military. In each case, a crime and a legal commitment respectively, obligates the person. Only the dishonest want us to free criminals from the prison that limits their freedom without considering their crime.
Your argument pretends that the woman (and the man) have no responsibility in the baby being there. That is both untrue and absurd.
Depending on what you do, society will expect you to save lives at great personal expense to yourself. The couple knew this before they hooked up.
I would argue any point before the unborn feels pain. If curious: https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html
There are 2 things wrong with this. First, it assumes wrongly, that killing is OK if the victim feels no pain. The possible pain of the victim has no baring on whether murder is wrong or right. It's a red herring.
Second, "feeling pain" is just an adhock standard you dreamed up. Another person could put it at, "when the baby develops fingers", or "before a baby can hear". But all of them are subjective, ad hoc standards set up for when you can kill a person. The baby is in no way culpable for the decisions of the parents, especially those decisions made before it was conceived that lead to its creation.
You have the choice to help people or to not. It's fantastic of you if you do, but I personally would not want the government to force it upon you in any significant way.
This is disingenuous. The government forces it upon me when they mandate restitution for a prior crime, or child support for a child conceived. In each of those kinds of cases, it would be folly not to consider the defendants prior behavior.
Why should it be different for women and their babies? A persons right to self autonomy doesn't trump everything, and persons themselves can do things that require them to limit the right for a time. None of this is new or illogical.
(granted I would too for late term pregnancies, as I do believe in protecting beings whom feel pain)
What about a person who does not believe protection should be based on pain perception? Is such a person also moral when he advocates for late term abortions?
..nor do I have a clue how you're comparing women making the personal choice to not get pregnant to that.
I'm not. You've said nothing about NOT getting pregnant. We are talking abortion, and every point you've brought up so far has been rebutted.
*Equating an unwanted baby with an "intruder". Rebutted
*Claiming "no connection" to the fetus. Rebutted
*Woman's right to privacy and self-autonomy. Rebutted
*killing OK before the child can feel pain, Rebutted
*Woman being stripped of her rights. Rebutted
Do you have any other arguments? Any I have not addressed?
Since you're spiraling into even more toxicity, that's all I have to say to you
Your choice. But I have a suspicion your leaving is really because your argument is spiraling down the drain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
That is ebuc's exact response to everyone who disagrees with him.
..........only exposes your ignorance aka clueless. Sad :--(
Please share when you have any rational, logical common sense.
He is a little, shall we say, challenged?
Also, if you disagree with him, he claims you're immoral. And for him, liberalism equals morality. And nothing brings him out of his little cosmic fantasy world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Read my 2 last posts again. Slowly this time and with your intellect crippling bias off. You'll be surprised at what you missed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
The distinction being made is that the theory of evolution in "On the origin of species"...
Nice try dusty, but that was Seth, who was Disgusted, and he knows nothing about science. He said,
The Origin of Species is not "Darwin's theory of evolution". Perhaps you might be good enough to supply me with "Darwin's theory of evolution", I'm unaware of it.
So, the distinction being made by Seth (the only one so far making the distinction) was that the theory of evolution is NOT in "On the origin of species".
...has long since been iterated and improved upon into the current modern theory of evolution (by other contributors apart from Darwin). While they refer to the same subject matter, they are not equivalent or "the same".
I did not say they were the same. I asked if they were different, because Seth asked,
Are you discussing The Theory of Evolution or are you discussing Darwin's On Origin of Species ?
I said atheists often post a wall-O-jargon so it seems like there is a mountain of scientific fact in their favor. There isn't.
Created:
Posted in:
How so? I think it is stronger forFor the adults your argument holds up, but for the "defenseless, innocent" children it does not.
defenseless, innocent" children.
They "could live if given residence in the homes of citizens at the expense and against the wishes of said citizens."
But there is no connection between those citizens and the illegal. But in the case of the woman, she voluntarily engaged in sex that could result in pregnancy.
The embryo is at least 50% genetically the same as the mother. There is no such connection between the citizen and the illegal. Further, unlike the illegal and the citizens home, the baby has never been outside the mother. Your analogy is false on several levels.
I am only talking about unwanted pregnancies.
This is the weakest part of your argument. For what does "unwanted" mean? The woman wanted to dress provocatively, wanted to go out to a place where men seek hook-ups, wanted to accept a proposal to go home with some man, wanted to have sex with him, and suddenly now that she doesn't want a baby, all her previous other decisions showing she did want a baby should be ignored? At what point along the chain of voluntary decisions that lead to a baby can a woman say she doesn't want a baby?
In any case, you currently have zero obligations to any of the groups.
Untrue. I always have moral obligations to other people, but because I am limited, my obligations to people more closely related to me get met first.
I even pointed out what I thought any pro-lifer would take to be a major benefit: "and likely make less women want abortions"
But at what cost? Aborting female children will also have the "major benefit" of likely making fewer women want abortions. Is that acceptable to you? The ends do not always justify the means.
I don't think it would be completely fair but IMO it would be more fair than forcing her to go through with a pregnancy she doesn't want,
Technically true, but conservatives know human nature better than liberals. We know that if you protect people from the consequences of stupid voluntary decisions, they continue voluntarily making stupid decisions.
The public paying for abortions on demand will only make couples more sexually reckless, and the end result will be an increase in abortions.
...only to slap her with crippling debt at the conclusion. I'm talking about making birth less unaffordable, thus disincentivizing abortion.
I don't think making the lady who was sensible and chaste pay for the floozy makes birth less unaffordable. It makes the floozy's giving birth less unaffordable to her, yes, because it makes all of us pay for her skanky behavior.
If you are healthy and don't want lung cancer, don't smoke.
I am not in favor of paying for the healthcare of smokers.
If you are drunk and don't want an accident, don't drive.
I am not in favor of paying for the damage caused by drunks.
If you are fertile and don't want a baby, don't have sex.
I am not in favor of paying for the abortions of sluts.
No one owes you anything if you smoke and get cancer, drive drunk and injure someone, or have sex and get pregnant. That kind of thinking is highly illogical.
I want everyone to be more responsible for their own behavior. I don't think its good for society to have it pay for the stupid, voluntary, reckless behavior of some, by charging the prudent and careful.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you not see how silly it is for you to ask me to show you what you have admitted you cannot see?Please provide a specific example of either a figurative "truth" or metaphorical "truth".
This is like a colorblind person asking to be shown the color green. You can't see it Brut!
You have become so invested in your dogmatic materialism, you are incapable of appreciating any of the higher functions of language or art.
For you, the great works of literature of the world that have enchanted millions and imparted sublime truths about life, are all just collections of words. As I said, I feel sorry for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Yeah I reckon that would do the trick too.
Actually, like the other, it wouldn't do the trick either.
There are millions of things that might potentially convince someone that god exists, you can't expect me to list out each and every one of them.
I only expected one or two logical ones. You listed none.
Would a debate titled "It is not possible to convince atheists that god exists" interest you?
No, because I have seen atheists become convinced that God exists. I was one.
If you really are as confident in that assertion as you act like you are then you should consider that an easy win.
I have not argued that atheists cannot be convinced that God exists, I argued that God coming down for a "chat" with an atheist would not convince the atheist.
God coming down for a chat is an impossible thing, and an impossible thing cannot be used as proof for an actual thing.
But atheists become Christians everyday, I see, and have seen it happen often.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
...you failed that reading comprehension test
Ok reading teacher. Can you please give me the link for the reading comprehension website? I must be here by accident.
But on the subject, God coming down for a chat is not a refutation of the claim that nothing would convince anyone that God exists. It's tautology. You might as well have said, "becoming God would convince someone that God exists". Same stilted illogic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Each of your arguments has a built-in false assumption that impedes discussion until it has been dealt with.
1. Slapping labels like "strangers" on babies is a semantics ploy. And no one is equally obligated to help everyone. The assumption that I am equally obligated to help a person trying to break the law and illegally enter the country, as I am to a defenseless, innocent baby who did not ask to be conceived is ludicrous.
2. Universal health care is a good concept, but is not necessarily good in practise. There are some formulations of UHC that would not be beneficial to the country overall even given the health benefits. Conservatives are against the liberal's methods of implementation of UHC, not the concept itself.
But your position makes it seem like all pregnant women got that way by rape or some other coercive way. That insults the intelligence of conservatives. Most women who become pregnant get pregnant through voluntary sex that they were aware could result in pregnancy. To later call the embryo a "stranger" and then expect others to pay for her healthcare is completely unfair.
If you are healthy and don't want lung cancer, don't smoke.
If you are drunk and don't want an accident, don't drive.
If you are fertile and don't want a baby, don't have sex.
No one owes you anything if you smoke and get cancer, drive drunk and injure someone, or have sex and get pregnant. That kind of thinking is highly illogical.
3. Every argument has at least 2 sides. Conservatives want to be sure that gun legislation doesn't go too far. On the whole, conservatives are not against background checks, but we know that the ultimate aim of liberals is to take away ALL access to ALL guns for ALL people. We don't think that would be a safer situation than the status quo. Roughly the same number of people would die, only in your scenario, it will be only the innocent dying as only criminals will have guns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Was I saying that god should come down because he wants us to know he exist...
And I asked you, "Of what value to God is your knowing He exists?"
Instead of answering, you dodged the question. Who told you God wants you to know He exists?
You may have been trying to refute some claim, but I didn't see where you did. Claiming an impossibility is a refutation doesn't make logical sense....or was I refuting the claim that it was impossible for anything to convince a person that god exists?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If a God came down for a chat, why would it want people to worship?
I didn't say God wanted people to worship Him.
Why would God come down for a chat? If a cockroach wanted me to come down and chat, I wouldn't. And the difference between me and a cockroach is dwarfed by the difference between you and God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
How come the atheists here are so unrepresentative of your contention?
Created:
Posted in:
Consider this verse from the King James Bible.
Jas 2:3 - And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
I have never known an atheist to claim that this verse, taken at face value, means the man was dressed like a homosexual.
The meaning of "gay" has changed. But the militant, desperate to condemn God, will roll out his obtuse bus only for the word "slave".
I'm surprised they don't also insist that Kunta Kente was a Jewish name!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT
Not really, but if it keeps your demons at bay, more power to you.
I see I've beaten you away from singing groups to scripture deciphering / translating. Lol. Funny.
Do you think you are currently in the, ☆☆☆ TOP 1000 ☆☆☆ at scripture deciphering / translating.
I didn't even know there was a ranking. Do you think you're in the ☆☆☆ TOP 1000 ☆☆☆ of people obsessed with Christianity?
I'd say deb thinks he/she is in the, ☆☆☆ TOP 100 ☆☆☆
BULL ?
Top 100 ?
Lol! Why do I always feel like I just took candy from a baby after posts to this yokel?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
No, it wouldn't. First, it is not God's aim that you only get to believe He exists. Of what value is that to God?I reckon god himself coming down and having a chat face to face would do the trick for most.
God wants to save you from death, simply knowing He exists will not do that. And no telling how many atheists I've heard say that even if God cane down for face to face chat they still would not worship Him.
And God DID come down for a chat 2,000 years ago. We killed Him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The only atheists they can question would be vocal atheists that are often activists,...
And academics. And then they run with lop-sided comparison. The college professor atheist knows more than Joe blow the Christian.
But a quick look at history at all the great men and women who were Christian and scientist, doctors, leaders, engineers, and noble prize winners tells you it is just spin, swallowed whole by average IQ atheist desperately wanting it to be true.
And this is why atheist activists often resent Christian apologetics.
That is why an atheist would park himself on a board dedicated to what he claims is imaginary, yelling to all and sundry, over and over, that there is no God.
They are as dedicated as Jehovah Witnesses!
Hi Rod! Glad you're well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Inalienable - Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
With the right to life, the above refers to the right, not the life. Even someone's life is taken, their right to life remains intact. That is what makes taking their life immoral, the violation of their right to that life.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I feel sorry for you because its obvious that your life is lacking. If you cannot see truth in figurative and metaphorical works, imagine how many wonderful literary works of art fly by you.
Not all truth is logically necessary. Not every truth is empirically verifiable. You're like the little kid insisting you cannot subtract 9 from 4 because that is the extent of his knowlege, and is unable to see that a whole world exists past his meager perception.
You fight for your little view as if you'd die if I didn't believe it. I don't. You cling to materialism like a frightened puppy. Materialism is self contradictory.
Figurative does not necessarily mean false. And literal does not necessarily mean true. And no amount of convoluted rationalization will change that.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Lol!!
OK Brut.
Aaah, that was funny.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Figurative does not necessarily mean false. And literal does not necessarily mean true.
You want it to be so that you find emotional release by calling the bible untrue. It is irrational.
And "illogical" in my comment refers to the claim, not the bible. There is nothing about the truth or falsehood about the bible in my comment. You just see it everywhere because you are consumed with it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Sometimes we want to discuss things other than is the bible/god true? If you can't discuss other things than that, get out of the way and let people with broader interests talk.
You're the one who brought it up. [POST#4]
Untrue. Post #4 says nothing about the veracity of the bible. It only says that the claim that it must be taken as completely figurative or as completely literal is illogical.
As always, you brought up the truth of the bible, and are compulsively continuing to do so now even after being told of your obsession.
Now, can we put that one to rest?
Created:
Who do you personally believe is the most reliable "authority" on the subject of "interpreting the word of god",
The Bible itself.
2Pe 1:20 - Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:16 - For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Pe 1:21 - For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Everything in the bible attributed to God is true, and cannot be otherwise. And any insistence that the bible, or any other work of literature, must be taken as either wholly figurative or wholly literal is abject nonsense.
I know you don't believe the bible. You've told me. I disagree with you. I believe it. Telling me over and over makes me think you suffer some personality disorder. Plus, I don't care that you disbelieve.
Now, can we put that one to rest?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I haven't group sung for almost a year now.
Wow. You must be even more confused than usual.
If i knew, if i was told 20years ago that not believing in god ment no more group sing song. I may have tried a little harder to believe.
Don't worry about it. God will survive your disbelief.
But yeah, You sure know where to hit me Epongs...
Hit you? I like you deb.
It's almost like you think being or becoming a atheists comes at no cost.We had to make sacrifices to.
You poor dear.
I lay / lye in bed some Sunday mornings just knowing you guys would currently be in full voice as i lay. And yeah , i get a little jealous.
Well, I can't relate, because I hardly ever think of you guys. Why are you so consumed with us? Is it the great singing groups?
But don't you ever think i want to be a part atheist for some kind of fun or something.
I won't. I just wish you weren't so unhappy.
Created: