Total posts: 2,082
Posted in:
-->
@WisdomofAges
I'm not sure why this is @ me. PLEASE keep your trademarked UNHINGED and almost always IRRELEVANT AND SENSELESS screeds about GODS and COMIC BOOKS off my topics. OTHERWISE you run the risk of DERAILING what has POTENTIAL to be good CONVERSATION, and you will NEVER be taken SERIOUSLY BY ANYONE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And wouldn't it also be presumption that some pair of people are gay unless you actually see them having gay sex? If two women come into your store and ask for a cake that says "Congratulations on your wedding, Pat and Chris" would you be within your religious right to say "Nope, clearly gays!"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Do you figure that might be because it's way easier to say "This person is black" than it is to say "this person is gay"? I get that discrimination isn't illegal except on some bases, I'm just confused as to what the objection against protecting the minority group is if they're gay. And more to the point, how does a religious person get to claim religious expression ONLY if they're discriminating against gays, and not against people who are divorced, who eat shrimp, who have pre marital straight sex, who work on Sundays, etc etc etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
So as long as they're not asking for "extra cheese" or something, then he must make whatever's on the menu? Where do you draw THAT line? Can you order a hamburger no bun if you're not black, but if you're black, you have to have the bun?totally different scenario, he's making what is on the menu, they are not asking for anything above and beyond that, nothing custom or unique to their situation.Let's say someone asked for a dish but wanted it gluten free, can he refuse or must he make it at gun point?Do you always have to give a reason for refusal? is there a law that says so?
Where does the idea of 'at gunpoint' ever enter what I'm saying? Gluten refusal is not analogous as often this is not a choosable option. He can refuse for any reason, but if he continually refuses gays and they infer "It's because we're two men here at a two top on Valentine's day," over and over and over, then he's discriminating. I think maybe the issue is that opening a business to the public would imply an agreement with said public to offer services in equal measure. Being unable to accomodate a gluten free request because you don't know how to make gluten free pasta or do not offer it in some way isn't the same as making a wedding cake for one member of the public because you approve of their private life, and not making the same wedding cake for another because you DON'T approve of their private life.
Where do you stand on the question of making the same wedding cake for people who've had pre-marital sex?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If I'm an artist or artisan who does custom work or work to order then I can pick and choose which jobs I will accept and I don't have to give any reason for refusal.
What if you were in the culinary arts (a chef), you owned a restaurant, and decided to start kicking out people based on what you think is their sexual orientation?
I wonder if the cake guy asked the people getting married whom he DID make cakes for, if they'd had premarital sex, or were living together. Wouldn't he HAVE to? In order to be consistent with the biblical objections, I mean, which is basically the crux of his argument. To be clear, I'd prefer to see the invisible hand of the free market euthanize businesses like these, I'm not entirely sure I want to make a law saying anyone has to serve whatever they do to everyone (for example, I shouldn't have to make a cake in the shape of a swastika, but that is a position not based in an ancient myth, it's based on nazis are bad), I'm just wondering how we draw the line. I think because it can't easily be drawn, then we must have laws in place that say you can't discriminate if you're a public business.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Then if a group of his local neighbors were disgusted by him, and decided to express this peaceably by demonstrating in front of his store every single day for discriminating against a fellow citizen, you would say he does not have the right to ask the government to intervene on his behalf? This is also persecution, but it is within the law. You seem to have skipped the part clarifying what you think in this situation.
Again, what if he decided "NO BLACKS" was his policy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Persecuted or prosecuted? Two different things.
If he is accepting publically available tax breaks in exchange for having a business open to the public, then he must abide by the laws of the land, as far as I can see it, that means no discrimination. If he wants to run his business without any sort of governmental assistance, I guess he could find a way to do that and then he can discriminate all he wants. But that's not my point:
What if he were forced to put up a sign in his window that said "NO BLACKS, CURSE OF HAM" in his window? Or a sign that says "NO GAYS", would it then be okay for a mass of people to protest in front of his store every single day?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
This was primarily meant to dissuade the kinds of @$$holes who decided to pick on the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop to force them out of business on account of the owner's religious beliefs that they didn't like.
I don't think I understand what you're saying here: it's okay for the religious people to decide not to provide services based on their religion...okay, but then is it NOT okay for the people who discover this information to make sure it's published loudly as a spot that discriminates? It kind of sounds like you are saying they should be protected from the fallout of their discrimination by the government somehow. Like it's okay for them to discriminate against the LGTBQ community because that's what their religion says, but it's somehow got to be protected from the LGTBQ community's ability to organize and publicize that said business discriminated against them? Doesn't that violate several constitutional rights (first amendment, right to organize and protest, etc)? I think I must be missing something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
No, I am always willing to examine new evidence. But it has to be EVIDENCE. Not someone's story or dream. It has to be something I can demonstrate, or they can demonstrate. I'm not sure still how nature is involved. THere's tons of natural explanations for basically every phenomena we observe.
This place did a 30 page topic on going from A god to a specific God. Not a single believer even tried, in earnest, over the course of the 30 pages. My point is even if I said "Okay, there's a creator behind this," there is still no way to connect that thing to any specific version of a myth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Careful what you're getting into there, dude, this guy's first language is jibberish. His username should be No True Scotsman.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Which god? Obviously I've wondered if god(s) exist(ed), and obviously I have yet to see any demonstration that it / they do / does or did. Given all the conflicting accounts of these characters and the dearth of evidence for all of them, then, the only sensible conclusion is to say it or they seem really unlikely, and if I had to bet I'd bet on no.
Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
It's magnanimous of you. So I guess you don't believe in hell, or at the very least you think heaven is for everyone no matter what they believe or did? You've changed, Rod! :-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Clearly, because there are so many vastly different versions of the character, he is either unwilling or unable to do so definitively, or he's simply incompetent at the task. Otherwise why would so many people NOT believe in him?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Ok, so religion is basically the same significance overall as following a sports team. In other words, then, there is no right or wrong religion, and you feel that religion is merely some combination of personal preference and geographical location, and there's really no "reason" to be a fan of one team over another that's demonstrably right or wrong. I agree with that. You seem to be saying no religion is correct, then, as it's just a matter of preference. I'm not going to pretend I don't know you're a Christian, so this seems a rather weak defense of the faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Then being a Christian (or any other faith) is totally meaningless and arbitrary?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
First, do you believe it reasonable to believe Jesus wrote about in the NT was a historical person?
If you're talking about someone named Jesus who was a rabbi around the time of Roman occupation, it's reasonable. If you're talking about miracle working Jesus as described in the bible, unreasonable. There is no evidence for miracle working Jesus. I only answer this so you can't say I don't answer your questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Again, it was a teaching of the Mosaic Covenant and it was used by God to teach ancient Israel (who lived in a different culture and times) some important truths that God is holy and they should be true in their relationship to Him. He demonstrates sin has consequences.
So then the moral code prescribed in the bible is NOT unchanging. It applies differently across time. TOday, for example, it's not okay to stone someone. Back then, you think it was okay. Or at least you'd have said it was moral.
Why was a woman stoned to death? It was for unfaithfulness and sexual promiscuity.
But the penalty WAS okay then. Not okay now. Right? Again, this is a change in the moral code: we see it as immoral today to stone a woman who sleeps with someone out of wedlock to death today. Are you saying WE'RE IN THE WRONG NOW and these women should be stoned?
The penalty of sin is death by whatever means decreed. We all die physically. Israel was a theocracy. They lived under God's rules that He purposed for the culture they lived in. They are also an example and instruction to us regarding His holiness and presence.
Yes or no: is it ever okay to kill another person according to the ten commandments. "For the culture they lived in" once AGAIN undermines your contention that the biblical moral code is good for all time, all people, all culture.
They are both sinful but taking God's name in vain, IMO, is showing much more disrespect for your Maker since the first command is to worship God and serve only Him. Loving God and following His commands (in a perfect world) would not result in rape or any other sin.
You really think raping someone is a morally superior act to saying "god damn you" to the person who raped you?? Raping an ACTUAL PERSON? I want to give you a chance to retract this inanity. PLEASE rethink your stance here. It's ludicrous.
Not in God's sight. Again, you misunderstand ANE culture and the biblical standard. What Israel did and what God commanded are not always the same.
Have you read the book of NUmbers? 31:18: "Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves." How about Exodus 21:17? "And if a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as the menservants do."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Intentionality is only possible with conscious being. The biblical God is revealed as such a Being. A rock lacks intention. It can't plan or purpose anything. It has no agency to do so. With evolution, there is no intent for anything to survive. It just happens. We deem those who do survive and pass on their genes the strong and fit yet it is not the purpose of evolution for this to happen. The Big Bang did not have the intent to bring the universe into existence. With a materialistic worldview, the universe just happened. There is no intent to sustain itself. It just happens. Go figure?
This is not any attempt to demonstrate intent. Saying a rock lacks intention is something I agree with you on, then describing your take on evolution and the big bang is just dodging the question. Can you or can you not DEMONSTRATE INTENT in the universe as it is? If the answer is no, just say no. Demonstrating intent would look like "I know the universe is built specifically to accomplish [THIS PURPOSE], because [EVIDENCE]." If the answer is you don't know what it's built to accomplish, then I have to wonder how you come by INTENT honestly. I've asked this of you before and you never answered: what is the INTENT of crashing the Andromeda Galaxy in the Milky Way in hundreds of millions of years? It's going to happen, mathematically. We won't be here to see it happen (I mean humans). What's the intent of the design then? What makes more sense: that it was designed to happen, to rip two galaxies consisting of hundreds of billions of stars and planets to shreds by smashing them together, when no human will ever be around to see it...or that it's just going to happen regardless because that's how gravity, momentum and a bunch of other invisible equations work?
"Laws" generally speaking, have a lawgiver yet it is assumed (and presupposed) by most materialists and naturalists that there is no lawgiver behind these natural laws.What does it actually demonstrate regarding how these laws came to be? It is presupposed then the naturalistic worldview builds its premises to fit. The abnomities as pushed aside.Why would a mindless process be sustainable and why do we have this uniformity in nature? Make sense of why mindless processes sustain anything. Again, you assume they can.
I'm not going to explain what presupposition is, again. Your ridiculous 'et tu quoque" aside, starting at a neutral position is NOT the same as presupposing a magic being. I don't know why the universe's laws sustain as they do. I just know they do, otherwise we woudln't be here. You have not 'made sense' of their sustaining, either. I still don't know what "make sense of" means, and I think you don't either. You're not making sense of it. You're assigning an unseen, undemonstrable cause. I've even asked you to demonstrate what you think 'making sense' of it means. You don't.
I look at the unlikelihood of the contrary (many would say the impossibility of the contrary, but I'm watering it down so you don't flip out).
Ladies and gentlemen, I present the classic argument from personal incredulity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Harikrish
So only people of color can revile racism? Besides being a racist, you're also someone who ruins boards. I'm sure your buddy at the other spot misses you, head back over there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
My version? I point to the biblical revelation. If you can prove I misrepresent that text then you win your case.
So you're saying that in order to DISbelieve in something, it's incumbent upon the person to DISprove whatever that something is? If so, how did you disprove any single other god besides the one in the bible in order to choose to believe in him? Do you really not understand why this is not how truth works? If you are making a claim ("THIS ONE GOD EXISTS" in this case), it's incumbent on you to provide the evidence supporting it. You've never done so. Maybe this time you will?
No, I ask how you derive existence from an unintentional and purposeless happenstance and how you make sense of it. If you choose a god of some kind I ask you to explain that god and if it makes sense.
I gave you the example of the classical pantheon. Your response was basically "But they're not real like my god is, so it's not real." I've explained why it makes more sense than your god, too. You also said "Yeah but Jesus isn't in your story, so that's a problem." I await your detailed and evidence based refutation. Let me guess, the bible says the bible's true. In this case, I say the pantheon is real, therefore it's on you to prove it isn't, and my saying it's real is evidence that it's real.
How do you make sense of the universe if there is no purpose to it?
This question makes no sense to me. I don't understand what "make sense of the universe" means. I look forward to you explaining how you "make sense of" it, in some future post I'm sure, so I can compare what you're saying with this question and then try to answer to it. I also do not understand "purpose" in this context. Please clarify.
Is there a cause to the universe? If so, what is that cause? (Please answer these three questions before we continue)
I've answered these multiple times now. Don't know, don't know. So in order, don't understand your question, don't know, don't know.
We find life coming from a living and necessary personal Being.
Defining something as necessary is not demonstrating it as such. You've also said life can only come from life, so I'm curious where the life in this being would have come from (I'll save you the time: it came from the font of Special Pleading). Oddly though, 900 responses later, you are STILL MISSING THE POINT OF THIS THREAD. The thread grants the above condition. The challenge is to get from here, which is deism, to your Jesus. Your lack of attempt here is telling.
We have a source to base morality on that is not changing and relative, based on shifting human standards.
So is it okay to stone someone for wearing clothes of mixed fabric? Was it ever? Should a woman who turns out not to be a virgin be stoned in front of her dad's house? It was clearly okay in the bible, is it okay now? Was it ever? Is it ever okay to kill another person according to the ten commandments? What's more important: not taking the lord's name in vain, or not raping someone? Is it ever okay to rape the women of a conquered army? Is it ever okay to sell a daughter into sex slavery? Was it ever okay?
We have intentionality that is necessary for sustaining life and the universe. With blind indifferent chance happenstance, why do we see consistency and uniformity in nature (i.e., unchanging universal laws that govern the universe)?
Please demonstrate the intentionality and give your best guess as to the AIM of this intention. My answer to your question is "that's how the laws of physics work." THis is demonstrable. Please demonstrate how you came up with intent.
THEN DEMONSTRATE IT WAS JESUS. Good grief man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I suggest you try explaining existence without God and see where you get in making sense of anything.
Can you please explain existence making sense only if your version of God is in it? I think you just say "because God's there" in essence, which literally explains nothing. I think you're confusing purpose (which I'd say is 'making sense' in this case) with cause (god's magic). And you've said the prophecy makes no difference to your belief in god, so why bother using that as a reason to convince anyone else? If it makes no difference to you and you believe, how on earth could it sway anyone who DOESN'T already believe?
Created:
This has been on my local morning news channel for several weeks now, and you can google "measles outbreak 2019 NYC" to read the details if you feel it necessary, but the long and short of it is as follows.
The Orthodox Jewish community in areas of NYC are claiming a religious exemption, and religious discrimination, as it comes to the requirement to vaccinate your children against MMR. I saw a woman on the news this morning saying the it's between her and her creator, that god created perfect children, and vaccinating them is against her religion. Unfortunately, measles is now rising in that area, meaning that unvaccinated children are carrying it and communicating it (it is NOTORIOUSLY communicable) to others.
On the one hand, I respect their right to not vaccinate their children. Forcing them to do so does seem to be an infringement on their exercise of their religion. On the other hand, they are creating a public health menace, and if that's what they want to do, then they seem to me to be putting themselves into an 'apartheid' state: their children shouldn't be allowed in public schools, public parks, etc., because now you're imposing your own religious views / ignorance on others (by exposing others to this disease).
Which takes precedence in your mind? Protecting the larger community means segregating this population, at best, and mandating a medical treatment, at worst, for the good of a larger number of people. Deferring to religious freedom and saying that disallowing these children in public spaces like everyone else puts more kids in danger. It's an interesting thought exercise, but in the end, kids are getting sick that really don't need to.
Created:
As with all things modern, there's a wide range of religious opinion dealing with the science of genetics. Where do you stand? Does genetic repair, like discovering that this gene is the gene for Alzheimer's and then editing it to elimniate the disease, get int eh way of God's plan? Does it allow us to do what you think is more 'god's work'? If we discover a genetic way to eliminate birth defects, from a religious standpoint, SHOULD we do that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
So are you going to TRY to argue that, or just say that's what you WOULD argue? Because your two posts are again at odds. Either you think you can use logic to arrive at a conclusion that the biblical god is real and the book is a factual account thereof, or you think you cannot use logic because he's beyond observation. You have a pretty big argument with yourself ahead of you, it sounds like. Once you get it sorted out, let me know, I'm glad to engage whichever conclusion you reach.
Are you a native English speaker? I only ask because I don't want to be too critical of the language you're using if you're not. It might help explain why I read each post of yours as contradicting the post you made prior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
So then it is impossible to logically figure out (a) if there's a god and (b) which god that would be, right? SincE
Our logic is undone when we cannot perceive God or the ideal of what is beyond our observation.
Agree :).
There are new rules that our current logic may not apply to.
Like what, do you figure?
Rationality cannot touch the unknown
Epistemological limit, I believe this is called.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
That's a large misunderstanding of what i just posted. Also it is evidence as it is backed by scripture. I wouldn't say animals were abused, simply sacrificed to roll back the sin for a year. God is not controlled by wrath, but justice demands that something pay for sin. Since God has mercy on his own creation, he was willing to kill sinless animals until the time of Christ where death and hell's ownership would be transferred to Jesus Christ.
I'm sorry, but none of this makes sense to me. Who controls or defines justice? If justice demands something, can god not change the definition of justice? Does god have to listen to the demand? Why set up a system wherein something sinless is killed for the act of something sinful? How on earth is that justice? Look at it this way: let's say you own a grocery store. That grocery store is robbed and the robber is caught. In order for you to forgive the robber, do you require him to go home, find his dog, slit the dog's throat and burn the dog's corpse in his driveway? Does the dead dog somehow play into your ability to forgive? Or, has justice been done, since the guy sacrificed his dog?
Wait, Jesus owns hell? WTF brand of Christianity is this??
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
So the answer to my question, does wrath control God or does God control wrath, seems to be the former, which makes God less than all powerful. Now you're telling me he needed to have people abuse animals to make himself feel better about setting up a system that he knew would backfire and make him angry all the time, that's not exactly a great look,
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
I can see I was, unsurprisingly, wrong, you did not clarify what you wrote at all. You wrote both of these. How does:
Yes, fred would go to Gehenna for his willful disobedience.
jive with this:
God knew fred would choose to go to hell and he would be merciful to fred regardless of how evil or disobedient fred was.
If he ended up in hell, how was god merciful and forgiving, exactly?
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
God knew fred would choose to go to hell and he would be merciful to fred regardless of how evil or disobedient fred was.
Does Fred end up in hell or not? That'd clear up what otherwise seems a pretty contradictory post: either he knew he'd end up in hell and he ends up in hell (omniscient god, preordaining things including the destiny of people) or he knew he'd choose to be in hell and forgave him anyway (inconsistent with Christian doctrine, you yourself call anyone who doesn't choose god, including babies in remote deserts of Australia who never heard of Jesus, "enemies of god") OR he didn't know if Fred would end up in hell despite what he thought was going to happen when he created Fred (making it possible for god to be wrong about things).
It's a complicate system you have going there!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
because the wrath of God needed to be appeased. Justice cannot just be swept under the rug...
Is God incapable of appeasing his wrath in some other way? Is he incapable of making exceptions? If not, then the wrath is more powerful than God, as it compels him to behavior that you yourself say "wasn't just." If justice can't be swept under the rug, then how does committing an unjust act appease it? And if he is all powerful and can do literally anything, why can't he just say "eh, forget about it"?
you have to understand what sin is to God. he hates it. I mean really hates it.
Do you think when he created sin, he knew he'd hate it so much? I mean he did set up all the rules, according to Christian doctrine, right, so he defined sin in the first place. Either he created sin knowing he'd hate it (probably comports with the idea of an unjust god, creating a system he knew would work to send billions and billions of people to their eternal torture, knowing they'd be powerless against that system), or he didn't create sin and he hates it as a result. Except that makes him not omniscient (he's surprised by sin's existence and really hates it) and not omnipotent (because he didn't create it and therefore can't change its existence or any rules around it, now it's something over which he has no power?).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
True indeed, even if the prophesy were 1000% accurate, the argument then seems to be "so then God is real." There's a lot of real estate between the two.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It seems a false equivalence, too: math is independently verifiable without the use of numbers. The bible is not independently verifiable, at all. Even the use of this prophesy requires someone else to add some level of conversion chart to it wherein in weeks means years. There's tons of holy texts, there's literally only one result for 2 +2 and anyone who disputes the result is provably wrong. The bible is the claim, I'm not sure why it's so difficult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Okay, thread police. I think it's pretty easy to see that as it's in the religion forum, the intended connection of the post to the Christian doctrine is pretty obvious. Making that connection leads to the question of divine command, which is where the poster, I figure, was headed. The obvious answer to the initial question is no, it isn't moral...which would then lead to "Then how is God's decision to punish all mankind forever and ever a moral decision?" My question on divine command is a question, not a straw man argument. Someone woke up with a bug up his ass today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
So nothing is beyond the power of god except deciding to just "get over it," he needed a sacrifice? That always seemed strange to me, he makes the rules, he could have just changed them without all the torturing. Again, if it ever happened. I'm fascinated though, this is the first time I've ever heard a Christian (I'm presuming!) say that the sacrifice of Jesus was, in fact, an unjust act by what most consider to be the arbiter of perfect justice.
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
Do people have a choice to NOT go wherever this pre-ordained destiny makes them go? I'm confused by your post.
If you can choose to do or not do something, isn't it by definition not pre-ordained? If your predestination is to go to hell, what difference would choosing to love god make? If the answer is you then don't go to hell, you're not pre-ordained.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I'll show you: if all life comes from life, where did Adam come from?Creating by the eternal LIVING God --> life from the living.So where did the life in the LIVING god come from?Again, I am speaking of all life that had a beginning. God, being without beginning nor end is excluded from such a definition. I asked you, "How can an eternal Being have a beginning to His life?"
Yeah, that's exactly special pleading. I have no reason to believe anything is eternal, I mean can you show me eternal anything?
Again, it is your PRESUPPOSITION that He does not exist, not mine.
Would you say that you have a "presupposition" that leprechauns don't exist, and that in order to disbelieve in them, YOU have to go conclusively prove they don't? The correct way to do this, not to mention the best way to reduce your chances of getting fleeced by con men the world over, is to start with the neutral position and examine the demonstration and evidence. Otherwise you're going to buy a lot of snake oil. Please prove that lightning bolts don't come from Zeus.
Therefore, your worldview is reductionistic. It can't make sense of these issues, which I have been claiming all along. It reduces existence to only a materialistic understanding which lacks what is necessary to make sense of your existence.
You aren't making sense of your existence either, and I'm not sure why, even if whatever my worldview being reductionistic means is true, that means it's wrong somehow. I'll give you this, at least you're consistent: every one of these arguments you're making is argument from incredulity, argument from authority and argument from special pleading / special knowledge.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
You have not definitively proven it false. You have skirted the issue in your own interpretation where you take the word "weeks" as a literal period of weeks instead of years. Thus, our discussion is over since you will not proceed further.
"Weeks" = weeks. "Years" = years. If it meant years, it'd say years.
How do you think the Jews of the first century thought about Daniel's prophecy?Do you think they were looking for a Messiah around this 1st-century period?
Don't know. I'd bet the jews of the first century had spent a lot of time looking for a messiah, so maybe, and what the jews of the first century thought about something that didn't happen as prophesied to them, I can't say. Nor can you. And nor does the bible.
As it is, your prophecy, "Rome will destroy Jerusalem in 490 AD," does not in any way appear in the bible.
The "Concept of judgement" is not the same as "Rome will destroy Jerusalem in 490 AD." It's a concept, not a prophesy. A concept that did not require the bible at all.
Please show me the biblical passage that says "Verily, o yea, the LORD thy God will undermine the very essence of the great Roman Eagle, the ECONOMY! A pair of messiahs will arrive on this day and say "Told thee so!" and then all of my children will move into heaven with Me." I presume that's in the bible somewhere, and not in a footnote, and I presume it's specific, like McIlroy's dad.Please list the passage you are referencing.
You're the bible guy, I'm asking YOU to show me that passage, Is there a passage that says that, or anything like that?
First, George Springer was with the Astros in 2014 and a promising player. Although he was on the cover where did it prophesy he was to be the MVP? Second, the team was in a rebuilding in which they foresaw themselves as contenders in three years time. Where does the article say they would win 5-1
The AStros didn't write the article about themselves. And you're holding the AStros to a standard far above your JEsus. But this is exactly the reaction I suspected: if it's not your specific prophesy, regardless of any other aspect, it's not a real prophesy (you did the same thing with the McIlroy one, in fact invoking the very criticism Keith has about your own prophesy: that there would be a driving force TRYING to make the prophesy happen, this is what people say about retrofitting history to fit non-specific non-actionable prophesies). THe bottom line is that the article predicted something that had never happened before, years in the past, with such specificity that you could have bet on it. Why isn't it as impressive? Because it doesn't contain.,,well, what exactly? It contains exactly the same amount of Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
I like how this person's in another thread, at least one more actually, complaining that atheists here don't want debate, but this is the sum total of her musings and debating. Namecalling and persecution complex.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
So then the only place you can prove that your god is the one who created the universe is in the document that claims he created the universe. This makes the document more important than the being: without the document there's no way to know the being. It also only puts your god on equal footing with any one that appears in any holy text or any text at all (unless you can provide a discernment between 'holy text' and 'run of the mill mythological fiction). It's less than a compelling position from a neutral perspective. More than one religion claims their texts or founding tenets are holy, and this position also doesn't address why a religion without holy texts, like a native American religion, must be incorrect,or is at least inferior to those with writings.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I honestly don't know what questions I've left open. All I've said is you can't use your claim (the bible) as evidence of itself, and you can't say something is in the bible if it isn't (footnotes) because then you're not talking about biblical prophesy. As it is, your prophecy, "Rome will destroy Jerusalem in 490 AD," does not in any way appear in the bible. The passage deals with a far shorter amount of time, and it draws on interpretation of an account of someone's dream which had a statue that had clay feet. The more I think about, the key factor in prophesy would seem to be that it's something you clearly can take advance action on. If you can only figure out it was a prophesy after whatever prophesied happened, and even then only with some real twisting and turning, then it isn't much good at all. I'll give you an example you'll appreciate: Rory McIlroy's dad prophesied in 2004 that he'd win the 2014 British Open. He bet something like 400 pounds on it, and ended up winning 171K when McIlroy DID win the 2014 British. That's pretty impressive prophesying, right? Still not the example I have in mind, but it's actionable and provable and specific. All things your prophesy isn't. In any case, restate your question that you feel I've left open and I'll gladly answer.
If you think my theology is wrong then challenge my understanding of it. Let us see who has the more reasonable and logical position. That is all I'm asking. Instead, with most atheists, it becomes a game of avoiding the subject.
This is akin to asking if you think my understanding of the cinematic universe of Star Wars is wrong, then challenge my understanding of it. It's a ridiculous question because you don't think that Star Wars is real, so it doesn't really matter if I understand it differently than you do. The more important question is why do the majority of CHristians think you're wrong? You're all in the same club supposedly. But more importantly, you've done this a couple of times: you shift the goalposts. I'm asking what's DEMONSTRABLE. You're saying your position is REASONABLE, LOGICAL, but neither of those are demonstrable. Is a black hole logical? Is the gravitational force exerted on light and the resulting time dilation LOGICAL? No, but they are indeed both demonstrable. The problem I have is that you say that no matter what, you're not going to think you might be wrong. Even if this prophesy is DEFINITIVELY proven false, it doesn't shake your faith enough to say "Wait a minute, maybe the god in this book isn't correct." You admit that you'd just go back and find another way to make it so: "I don't understand Jesus correctly" allows you to maintain your presupposition of Jesus in the first place.
You misunderstand the scope and weightiness of the prophecy. It was the complete collapse of a system of worship and relationship practiced for over one thousand years. It was the culmination of all OT unfulfilled prophecy being fulfilled, including the first and second coming of the Messiah, the judgment, and resurrection into a new and everlasting kingdom for believers. You misunderstand the myriad of references by all these prophets and teachers sent by God all being fulfilled in the lifetime of that generation that received Jesus.
So zombie Hebrews rose from the graves and walked the streets at some point? Again, the vast, vast, vast majority of Christians, your own faith, do not believe any of this, why not, if it's so obvious? Please show me the biblical passage that says "Verily, o yea, the LORD thy God will undermine the very essence of the great Roman Eagle, the ECONOMY! A pair of messiahs will arrive on this day and say "Told thee so!" and then all of my children will move into heaven with Me." I presume that's in the bible somewhere, and not in a footnote, and I presume it's specific, like McIlroy's dad.
Or the example I described, which you can see here: https://www.mlb.com/cut4/sports-illustrated-s-prediction-of-the-astros-winning-the-2017-world-series-prov
Again to review: never happened before, unlike Roman gentrification, which had happened thousands of times. Was specific in every way, naming not only a team (by name, not by description of a uniform or in vague terms like "a group of southern stars shall band together," it just says the Astros) but the EXACT MONTH in which the prediction would occur (it does not say 174 groups of seven or 36 groups of 30 plus a little margin, the World Series happens in the last two weeks of October every year). The prediction cover even accidentally picked the player who would win the WS MVP (george Springer is the player on the cover in 2014, and is the WS MVP in 2017). Is this not an impressive prophesy? It's so accurate that the only possible explanation is the involvement of Xenu. Right?
Let me guess, it doesn't meet some condition you require but have heretofore been unable to specify? And now you'll explain why it's not as good as your prophesy, after the fact, even though it is exactly as I described.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Your off topic again.
I'll shorten for clarity. I am not the one who claims to 'make sense' of any of the following questions. YOU are. I invited you to make sense of just one of them, and your answer literally made zero sense. I said "make sense of the universe" and you said "god loves us." This is a non-sequitur and makes no sense of the question. Similarly, I think that it's the same answer for your litany of other 'big questions.' Your making sense of it is basically because Jesus, which does not in any way make sense of anything, it just adds a layer of mystery which you've repeatedly been unable to demonstrate is required. The other thread's at 28 pages and all you have done is say 'The bible says it so it's true!"
No, it reminds me of how we got to where we are. It reminds me that you would not have done any better than Adam did having been given that choice. It reminds me why there is so much inhumanity in this world - that humanity decided to do what they saw fit, not what God commanded was good.
...and therefore it's just that some mother's suffering the loss of her child, neither of whom had nothing to do with any of that.
I see the heartache of those who lose children and I see God's promises that those who trust in Him will never be put to shame, that God has promised a better life for those who believe than for those that do not trust Him
Wow, tough luck for those muslims and jews, then.
There are beliefs in gods. These tribes worship idols. They understand that wrongful action deserves punishment.
But they don't have Jesus as a mediator. So they burn in hell, because all of the knowledge that was presented to them had nothing to do with Jesus or God, or the bible or anything else, so according to your doctrine, they are eternally punished. Because the stuff about what "some people suggest" and what you "believe based on some scripture", that's all NOT scripture. Why does this make you so uncomfortable that you have to read anything into it? It's the perfect justice! Isn't it?
I truly believe any innocent life, such as an infant, will be with God in heaven for the reason that Jesus said,
Please cite the scritural support that shows you can get into heaven without believing in Jesus. Not your interpretation, I want the verse that says "verily I say unto thee on this day, all people who are good, especially the tiny children even if they're born in Australia which I've never spoken about or you've never heard of, but trust me it's a place and children die there before they will ever hear of me, and I don't want them to be in trouble over it forever." Or something along those lines.
I have offered to show you the justification and evidence yet you continue to avoid going there.You have continued to assert and believe what you believe without justification in any way. This is a two-way street. You are examining my worldview, but I am also examining yours. When I continue to ask you to make sense of your statements you ignore my requests. Where is the give and take?
You continue to point to your claim as your evidence. We've been through this, the two are independent of each other. And I'm willing to answer any questions, but start a topic specific to them. But this was in response to my quetion DO YOU KNOW WHAT SPECIAL PLEADING IS? And you then answered with the above then immediately demonstarted that you don't understand it. Watch:
I'll show you: if all life comes from life, where did Adam come from?Creating by the eternal LIVING God --> life from the living.
So where did the life in the LIVING god come from?
Is it reasonable to believe that God - an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, unchanging Being; the greatest possible Being - is the source of life?
Demonstrate the existence of this being, because stuff that doesn't exist doesn't cause anything else to exist, right? Then, demonstrate this being is the character in the bible. Then we can have a basis of discussion. But 700 responses in the other thread, not one step toward doing so.
You plead God is not the reasonable answer without alternative justifiable reasons. You dismiss the reasoning without hearing it.
This is not special pleading in any way. You seem confused. There's no need for me to offer you an alternative justifiable reason (though I have, with the greco-roman Pantheon and you've not refuted it yet). You're offering a supernatural, undemonstrated explanation, and I'm just saying I have no reason to believe that unless you can show me otherwise. I have no idea why you think I'm not answering whatever questions you are asking. I have no idea where life came from, how it started, why the universe is here, or if there's a why at all. That's my answer. I guess at least we're off the prophecy kick now that you've said it's not key to or even part of your belief process. Progress!
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
The understanding of the prophecy came after I believed in Jesus, not before. What I am saying is that there were good reasons for believing in Jesus before I understood the prophetic message. The prophetic message is just one aspect and course of defence of the faith and the one I prefer to use because I have not found a reasonable answer to it with the evidence available to us.
If this prophecy was proven false to your satisfaction, would you then stop believing in Jesus? I think the answer is no. It sounds like from the above, the answer would be no. If I'm right, then why do you continue to talk about this prophecy as if anyone else should care about it, or stake their faith on it? It just seems strange. It doesn't mean much to you, if your faith doesn't hinge on it. Why should anyone else care?
Tell me what would make my prophecy impressive enough to perhaps allow that your god isn't the only god. I will, again, describe this prophecy and you can tell me which part of my description is LESS impressive than yours"Show me another "god" who can predict over and over again the end of things from the beginning and give good reason to doing so repeatedly.
Show me your god doing it and we can compare, but you're missing the point: if I could show you unquestionable evidence of a prediction and a result, predicted years prior, to the month, with no reason or inkling to make it likely, would you think that would be evidence of whatever god I'd ascribe it to?
My event without precedent means IT NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. Your biblical prophesy hinges on something happening that had happened hundreds if not thousands of times before, and was totally unremarkable: Romans gentrifying an unrurly populace by destroying cultural touchstones. They did it for a thousand years. Mine? Never happened, and hasn't happened since. Would you say it was harder to predict something that NEVER happened before, or something that had happened thousands of times before in very similar situations?
Daniel 9:24 predicts something into a year depending on where you start and how you work your extra-biblical multiplication in. Mine? Was predicted with unquestionable accuracy. It says "IN X YEAR THIS WILL HAPPEN." Which is more impressive prophesy, using clear language and an exact event and year, or vague poetry with some scholar figuring it out eventually, after the fact?
My prophesy has photographic evidence. Yours does not. Which one is more impressive?
So you believe then if I can provide you this prophesy and the prophet says Xenu told him, you'd say "You're right, I'll give Xenu credit?"
Created:
Posted in:
Except unlike what priests say, you can actually take what a scientist says and try to do it yourself. If you can replicate results, then there's no need for faith in what they say, is there? Priests seem more like they're happy to let you think they have some different grasp on a mystery that you can't, because you haven't been to divinity school and they have. You can't take what they say and check it. If a scientist says "Gravitational effect of mass in space is X and therefore, light bends according to gravity, which means that time is affected by gravity," there's a follow up that says "and you can check it for yourself by using these tools, this formula, that experiment, right in your own house."
Your statement seems a bit of a false equivalency.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm putting this here for clarity sake. For the sake of THIS TOPIC, I'm granting that indeed a necessary being is not only possible, but it is what created the universe. The challenge is to connect 'necessary being' to the character bolded without either asserting it or pointing to a holy text, because that's a claim, not evidence, and every faith with holy texts will make the same claim with the same level of certainty. NEcessary being, agree. Particular being, please demonstrate.I would argue on the impossibility of the contrary. I don't understand how a universe without a necessary Being is possible.You keep stepping in this.Then explain how it is possible and how it makes sense. I want to see the logic of your position once you jettison God as to how it is possible or makes sense.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
And it wasn't even described as painful or begrudging :)! First time for everything. I don't expect it will continue for very long beyond that post I'm afraid, but I look forward to the discourse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Luke 23:43 Jesus said unto him,Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.What then?
When you put it this way, I can only picture a holy high five and Jesus saying "I told you playa, what is UUUUUUPPPPP! Welcome to paradise homes!"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
@Outplayz
Whenever I read discussions between you guys, I can't help but imagine theremins playing in the background. I say it with love :).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I definitely would not have bet on what I got, that's for sure. It doesn't contain any of the PW bingo words, like bigot, tard, muffin, or fuck. I feel like it's an honest concern, like when she's banned for two weeks or whatever, does she get like all antsy around day 11 and plans to come back here telling everyone she can find to fuck off as soon as she can? It's senseless, I don't get why you'd do something that seems to bring such specific misery to your every day.
Created:
Posted in:
@PolytehistWitch
Sincere question, do you ever have like a moment of clarity where you look in the mirror and think "Why do I bother going to this website? What am I getting out of it? What am I putting into it? Am I really interested in the basic principle of this place, or am I using it as some sort of weird outlet for stuff that's entirely unrelated to religion in any way?" I really wonder. I mean you've got 1400 posts, roughly. By your own metric, what percentage of those would be quality contributions to discussion? I assume you know stuff like "Fuck you" and "You're stupid" are not quality contributions.
Created: