Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Man of Steel on September 17, 2015, 06:26:57 AM
-
http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheists-did-something-come-from-nothing-145015/ (http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheists-did-something-come-from-nothing-145015/)
It seems atheists would much rather believe that something came from nothing, than to believe that Someone has always existed. Of course both beliefs are a matter of faith.
So did the universe come from nothing, or from God? Is there a rational mind behind the mathematical precision of the universe, as well as human DNA, or did it all just happen by chance?
In his book, "The Grand Design," Professor Stephen Hawking writes, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."
But Hawking's premise is illogical. Without the cosmos, there would be no law of gravity. And if the law of gravity truly helped create the universe as Hawking suggests, then the universe was not created from nothing, but from something. In that case, how did the law of gravity originate, and how could it have been in existence prior to the creation of the universe? Impossible and irrational.
You mean to tell me that the man who is perhaps the world's most famous living scientist actually believes the mystical doctrine that something came from nothing? Yes indeed. Hawking's confession of faith is unequivocal. And a multitude of others in our world today have also chosen to place their faith in such imaginative science fiction. True science, on the other hand, recognizes that something cannot be created from nothing.
By the way, Hawking recently revealed his latest theory. He now believes that passing through a "black hole" could lead you to another universe. And his latest theory comes less than two years since Hawking made headlines with this bold statement: "There are no black holes."
But the man who believes the law of gravity helped create the universe has been digging a little deeper on the question of black holes. And he wants you to be prepared in case you ever find yourself inside one. Seriously.
Hawking now says that "if you feel you are in a black hole, don't give up. There's a way out." A way out? And Hawking knows this for a fact? Actually, it's just more science fiction from an intelligent physicist with a creative imagination.
Obviously, man is susceptible to embracing the myth that nothing created something. The Christian mind, on the other hand, has been delivered from such irrationality. Christians believe in a personal God who loved us enough to send His only Son to save us from our sin. Christians have been given "the mind of Christ." (1 Cor. 2:16) That is, we now see a number of things the way Christ sees them.
But how can that be?
Well, wisdom from God gets poured into a believer when he meets Christ through faith. Without this wisdom, how in the world could we possibly believe in a personal God? After all, we are not born into this world possessing "the mind of Christ." We only possess human reason. And those who reject God admittedly don't know where human reason originated.
Karl Popper delivered the first Darwin Lecture at Darwin College, in Cambridge, on Nov. 8, 1977. It was entitled, "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind." Popper stated, "I conjecture that life, and later also mind, have evolved or emerged in a universe that was, up to a certain time, lifeless and mindless. Life, or living matter, somehow emerged from nonliving matter; and it does not seem completely impossible that we shall one day know how this happened. Things look far more difficult with the emergence of mind. While we think we know some of the preconditions of life, and some of the substructures of primitive organisms, we do not have the slightest idea on which evolutionary level mind emerges."
That's simple. The rational mind of man was created by an intelligent and rational Creator. He is all-powerful and all-knowing, and so it was easy for God to create both the body as well as the mind of man.
Consider for a moment the mathematical precision of human DNA. Francis Collins is the director of the Human Genome Project. Collins stated, "I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan."
Perry Marshall noted, "Dr. Jean-Claude Perez started counting letters in DNA. He discovered that these ratios are highly mathematical and based on 'Phi,' the Golden Ratio 1.618. This is a very special number, sort of like Pi." Perez' discovery was published in the scientific journal Interdisciplinary Sciences / Computational Life Sciences in September 2010.
Since God's mind is obviously a million times more advanced than the human mind, it was a piece of cake for the Creator to place this mathematical perfection into the DNA of Adam and Eve. "Wait a minute! Who believes in that Adam and Eve stuff?" Well, Jesus for one. Christ said, "Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female.'" (Matthew 19:4)
And we have all descended from that first man and woman. It requires faith to believe that God is an eternal Being who created man at a special time and place. On the other end of the spectrum, it requires far greater faith (and a blind faith at that) to believe that something came from nothing.
Scriptures reveals the origin of the cosmos: "By Christ all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:15-17) God is not a thing, but a Person. Actually, three Persons in One God. And when you meet Christ through faith, you enter an eternal relationship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Francis Collins said, "I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that 'I know there is no God' emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, 'Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative.'"
So did the universe create itself out of nothing? And did the human mind come into existence without the work of a rational designer? Or has God always existed? You make the call.
But just remember. The Lord is going to reign in heaven forever, whether you want to be part of that eternal celebration or not.
-
Video of Scientist who became Christian explaining Genesis.
-
Video of Scientist who became Christian explaining Genesis.
I've seen Hugh Ross speak live at my church. I've watched many of his lectures and debates and own a couple of his books.
Got to meet him and his wife and also saw his contemporary Fuz Rana speak live.
Really interesting work they're doing for the Lord. I enjoy their stuff very much!
-
I will check out more of his videos. This was the first time I have watched him, he points out details that are easily missed by most.
-
I will check out more of his videos. This was the first time I have watched him, he points out details that are easily missed by most.
An interesting fact about Dr. Ross is that he suffers from Asperger's Syndrome. Given the degree of his syndrome he doesn't handle social situations very well and can't interpret peoples dispositions, sarcasm or body language easily.
For instance, while in debates if an opponent decides to insult or attack him he doesn't fully recognize the attack and it leaves him virtually unphased in the debate whereas others can be thrown off their game.
Watch his debate against Victor Stenger and you'll see evidence of this.....even his debate against the Kent Hovind he rarely (if ever) gets rattled.
I think God has annointed this man because of his condition to use his condition to bring glory to him and to win folks for the kingdom.
-
All comes from the Divine and is the Divine.
-
You cant prove your god theories and we atheists cant prove ours. Its a never ending argument. The end
-
The theory is that time did not exist back then. Humans made up time. So therefor something can just "happen" and nothing needs to happen before it....It's more backed up scientifically than jesus living, healing people and then coming back from the dead
-
The theory is that time did not exist back then. Humans made up time. So therefor something can just "happen" and nothing needs to happen before it....It's more backed up scientifically than jesus living, healing people and then coming back from the dead
I wonder if Jeebus smoked..or went bowling? Maybe he was bass guitar in a band?
-
I wonder if Jeebus smoked..or went bowling? Maybe he was bass guitar in a band?
This one time jesus went to the zoo with his mom and he was like "Damn nikka can i get a pet gorilla?" And his mom was like "Nah nikka" then jesus looked at his mother and saw that her eyes were red and then he looked down and he was a horse. It's in the bible.
-
This one time jesus went to the zoo with his mom and he was like "Damn nikka can i get a pet gorilla?" And his mom was like "Nah nikka" then jesus looked at his mother and saw that her eyes were red and then he looked down and he was a horse. It's in the bible.
Ooooooooo dat der bible amazes :o
-
The theory is that time did not exist back then. Humans made up time. So therefor something can just "happen" and nothing needs to happen before it....It's more backed up scientifically than jesus living, healing people and then coming back from the dead
So, you're suggesting that there's more scientific evidence for a scientific topic such as time versus a non scientific topic such as the life of Jesus?
In terms of time, when you state "The theory is that time did not exist back then. Humans made up time. So therefor something can just "happen" and nothing needs to happen before it....It's more backed up scientifically than jesus living, healing people and then coming back from the dead" you're referring to a timeless state prior to the "BC" era time standard, correct?
-
You cant prove your god theories and we atheists cant prove ours. Its a never ending argument. The end
We have historical proof of Jesus' life and ministry, archeological proof of biblical people and places, manuscript proof of biblical reliability via the field of textual criticism, multiple independent attestations that agree closely on the facts of Jesus Christ's life/death/resurrection, proof via logic (God as source of logic, TAG argument, Kalam Cosmological argument), extra-biblical accounts that validate the historicity of Jesus Christ's ministry/death/resurrection, the ministry and death of Jesus' apostles after his ascension, the fulfillment of biblical prophecy spanning hundreds of years between initial prophecy and fulfillment, the intelligent design of the universe, the utter improbability of the intricate structure of the universe without a designer and the testimonial evidence of millions and millions of Christ's followers today. This isn't an exhaustive list either.
The problem with evidence is that our presuppositions and subjectivity often determine our judgment of evidence even prior to reviewing said evidence (that is if it's ever reviewed). Further, people that want to understand and know God have a personal desire to actively pursue God....this is key!! Atheists don't pursue God according to his terms as outlined in scripture and generally have no desire to understand and know God at all. Atheists object to God based upon a lack of scientific evidence and testing (a logical fallacy referred to as a "category mistake") or they put forth demands that certain criteria must be met within the evidence that is simply unreasonable. That or they simply reject anything and everything "God" and refuse to explore and follow the evidence. Those that truly desire to know the reality of God pursue him.
-
Unreasonable?????? Theres no proof. Youre absolutely cultish in your beliefs. Scary as fuck.
-
Unreasonable?????? Theres no proof. Youre absolutely cultish in your beliefs. Scary as fuck.
That's the thing, you're replying to proof of God right now.
What you appear to claim is that you outright reject any and all things "God or religion" (please correct me if I'm wrong).
Is there any type of proof you would accept that would cause you to follow Christ?
-
That's the thing, you're replying to proof of God right now.
What you appear to claim is that you outright reject any and all things "God or religion" (please correct me if I'm wrong).
Is there any type of proof you would accept that would cause you to follow Christ?
Im gonna close this off now. You have stepped over the creepy cultish line. Theres something not right in your head. Not being mean..but dude..too much koolaid for you
-
Im gonna close this off now. You have stepped over the creepy cultish line. Theres something not right in your head. Not being mean..but dude..too much koolaid for you
It's perfectly fine if you'd rather not answer. I'm not going to attack or criticize you.
-
We have historical proof of Jesus' life and ministry, archeological proof of biblical people and places, manuscript proof of biblical reliability via the field of textual criticism, multiple independent attestations that agree closely on the facts of Jesus Christ's life/death/resurrection, proof via logic (God as source of logic, TAG argument, Kalam Cosmological argument), extra-biblical accounts that validate the historicity of Jesus Christ's ministry/death/resurrection, the ministry and death of Jesus' apostles after his ascension, the fulfillment of biblical prophecy spanning hundreds of years between initial prophecy and fulfillment, the intelligent design of the universe, the utter improbability of the intricate structure of the universe without a designer and the testimonial evidence of millions and millions of Christ's followers today. This isn't an exhaustive list either.
The problem with evidence is that our presuppositions and subjectivity often determine our judgment of evidence even prior to reviewing said evidence (that is if it's ever reviewed). Further, people that want to understand and know God have a personal desire to actively pursue God....this is key!! Atheists don't pursue God according to his terms as outlined in scripture and generally have no desire to understand and know God at all. Atheists object to God based upon a lack of scientific evidence and testing (a logical fallacy referred to as a "category mistake") or they put forth demands that certain criteria must be met within the evidence that is simply unreasonable. That or they simply reject anything and everything "God" and refuse to explore and follow the evidence. Those that truly desire to know the reality of God pursue him.
Your mind is an encyclopaedia of knowledge on Christian matters!
I actively pursue God, however not on the lines outlined in scripture, I do however find some passages of (Christian) scripture deeply moving and revealing.
If we want to see microbes we use the physical scientific instrumentation of the microscope we don't say show me the evidence that microbes exist without using a microscope. Similarly to see the Transcendent we need to use certain tools, we need to tread a certain path and focus our awareness a certain way, its equally silly when the spiritual is dismissed outright without any approach whatsoever.
-
Your mind is an encyclopaedia of knowledge on Christian matters!
I actively pursue God, however not on the lines outlined in scripture, I do however find some passages of (Christian) scripture deeply moving and revealing.
If we want to see microbes we use the physical scientific instrumentation of the microscope we don't say show me the evidence that microbes exist without using a microscope. Similarly to see the Transcendent we need to use certain tools, we need to tread a certain path and focus our awareness a certain way, its equally silly when the spiritual is dismissed outright without any approach whatsoever.
I'm a reader and researcher; plus my posts have allowed me to compile a lot of material. I listen to debate, discussion and ministry online constantly. Eventually some of it sticks LOL. :)
This is what I've tried to express to folks over and over and over.
As avxo has said, "Oh, so I have to believe first in order to know the proof of God......how convenient." [something to that effect]
God reveals himself to those that desire to know and pursue him in humility and surrender as outlined in scripture.
This whole notion of "no proof", "no evidence", yada yada is silly. So many simply approach the subject of God with a "hard and fast" attitude of "no God for me....and you're delusional for believing it". Fantastic.
People that desire to know God pursue God even if that pursuit is contrary to everything they grew up learning, believing or experiencing. Folks that want God may have to abandon their presuppositions, worldviews and pride first. That's why it's referred to as "conversion". Most folks can't do that and fall into the trap of having "all this God nonsense figured out" and simply being "too smart for God".
Of course the entirety of this post won't be understood at all by the vast majority of GB.
-
I'm a reader and researcher; plus my posts have allowed me to compile a lot of material. I listen to debate, discussion and ministry online constantly. Eventually some of it sticks LOL. :)
This is what I've tried to express to folks over and over and over.
As avxo has said, "Oh, so I have to believe first in order to know the proof of God......how convenient." [something to that effect]
God reveals himself to those that desire to know and pursue him in humility and surrender as outlined in scripture.
This whole notion of "no proof", "no evidence", yada yada is silly. So many simply approach the subject of God with a "hard and fast" attitude of "no God for me....and you're delusional for believing it". Fantastic.
People that desire to know God pursue God even if that pursuit is contrary to everything they grew up learning, believing or experiencing. Folks that want God may have to abandon their presuppositions, worldviews and pride first. That's why it's referred to as "conversion". Most folks can't do that and fall into the trap of having "all this God nonsense figured out" and simply being "too smart for God".
Of course the entirety of this post won't be understood at all by the vast majority of GB.
Do you even lift, though?
-
Do you even lift, though?
I've lifted a weight or two in my day.
-
We have historical proof of Jesus' life and ministry, archeological proof of biblical people and places, manuscript proof of biblical reliability via the field of textual criticism, multiple independent attestations that agree closely on the facts of Jesus Christ's life/death/resurrection, proof via logic (God as source of logic, TAG argument, Kalam Cosmological argument), extra-biblical accounts that validate the historicity of Jesus Christ's ministry/death/resurrection, the ministry and death of Jesus' apostles after his ascension, the fulfillment of biblical prophecy spanning hundreds of years between initial prophecy and fulfillment, the intelligent design of the universe, the utter improbability of the intricate structure of the universe without a designer and the testimonial evidence of millions and millions of Christ's followers today. This isn't an exhaustive list either.
The problem with evidence is that our presuppositions and subjectivity often determine our judgment of evidence even prior to reviewing said evidence (that is if it's ever reviewed). Further, people that want to understand and know God have a personal desire to actively pursue God....this is key!! Atheists don't pursue God according to his terms as outlined in scripture and generally have no desire to understand and know God at all. Atheists object to God based upon a lack of scientific evidence and testing (a logical fallacy referred to as a "category mistake") or they put forth demands that certain criteria must be met within the evidence that is simply unreasonable. That or they simply reject anything and everything "God" and refuse to explore and follow the evidence. Those that truly desire to know the reality of God pursue him.
Typical fundie circular logic.
-
How is his statement circular logic?
-
Typical fundie circular logic.
Typical atheist hit and run. ;D
-
Typical atheist hit and run. ;D
Typical Fundie attack
-
Typical Fundie attack
Typical atheist distraction tactic ;D
-
Typical atheist distraction tactic ;D
typical fundie circular logic fallacy :)
-
typical fundie circular logic fallacy :)
typical atheist hit and run ;D
-
typical atheist hit and run ;D
Typical Fundie personal attack on family
-
Typical Fundie personal attack on family
Typical atheist distraction when cornered ;D
-
Typical atheist distraction when cornered ;D
you're pretty good at this..
-
All comes from the Divine and is the Divine.
Lies, theft, and adultery? God did not create those!
Cancer cells, viruses, and pimples? These are not God!
God created the universe, and it was perfect, it is no longer perfect.. it is now filled with evil. But it has always been creation, it has never been Creator. God is Creator, creation is not. :)
-
Lies, theft, and adultery? God did not create those!
Cancer cells, viruses, and pimples? These are not God!
God created the universe, and it was perfect, it is no longer perfect.. it is now filled with evil. But it has always been creation, it has never been Creator. God is Creator, creation is not. :)
Isaiah must be wrong then. The bible (Isaiah) says there is NOTHING that exists that God didn't create. He even specifically says God created evil......
If you disagree, take it up with God
-
Isaiah must be wrong then. The bible (Isaiah) says there is NOTHING that exists that God didn't create. He even specifically says God created evil......
If you disagree, take it up with God
Here are previous responses to you about this exact point.....answers haven't changed and are still correct.
So does the book of Amos:
Amos 3:6
King James Version (KJV)
6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?
The KJV of the bible uses the term evil differently in different contexts....we don't speak like that today.
Modern readers don't use the word "evil" to describe "calamity and destruction" today and this is exactly how the term evil was used in the context of the verse you cite and I cite out of the KJV.
You also have to realize that the Hebrew language is quite small. One individual can memorize every word in the language so attempts at producing new translations from the same available manuscripts can produce slightly different translations in terms of OT material. Not all linguists agree on how words translate. Often times the differences are very slight, but occassionally they're significant.
For example, the word "yom" in Hebrew means day, but "yom" can be translated according to 5 or 6 correct definitions. In terms of the Genesis creation account some textual critics say "yom" means a literal 24-hour day and other textual critics say that same "yom" means an age or expanse of time. In this case the context is needed to help define, but (in this case) the context still has support for both young and old earth creationist perspectives.
Now the Greek language is more robust so the available NT manuscripts typically provide more consistent translation since there's an easier "1 for 1" link between english and greek terms.
It's tough to say which is the best translation, but again modern scholarship heavily replies upon the NASB, NIV, ESV and NLT. Some still ONLY utilize the KJV, but that translation contains antiquated english....hence the modern translations we have now.
If there is a passage of verses you really want to dig in on there are plenty of great online tools that will take each verse and compare it across every available translation.
Like the multiple definitions of the hebraic word "yom" for the english "day" we have multiple definitions of the hebraic word "ra' " that in english can be evil, wickedness, destruction, calamity, etc....the lexicons and theologians agree the context in these passages (Isaiah and Amos) translates"ra' " as destruction or calamity......not wickedness and sin. This harmonizes with other scripture which many will say, "you say it harmonizes because it sounds better to you." No, it harmonizes and is defined as such because it is correct.
-
Here are previous responses to you about this exact point.....answers haven't changed and are still correct.
Like the multiple definitions of the hebraic word "yom" for the english "day" we have multiple definitions of the hebraic word "ra' " that in english can be evil, wickedness, destruction, calamity, etc....the lexicons and theologians agree the context in these passages (Isaiah and Amos) translates"ra' " as destruction or calamity......not wickedness and sin. This harmonizes with other scripture which many will say, "you say it harmonizes because it sounds better to you." No, it harmonizes and is defined as such because it is correct.
So you're saying God... even with the help of the holy spirit, was unable to manage to guide translators to use the correct wording and allowed for 100's of years, his book to say he created evil, yet he really didn't... Ok... so you are arguing that 1. God is unable to properly translate his words, and 2. he DID admit to creating calamity and mayhem... not too sure I would put up that argument if I were you :)
-
So you're saying God... even with the help of the holy spirit, was unable to manage to guide translators to use the correct wording and allowed for 100's of years, his book to say he created evil, yet he really didn't... Ok... so you are arguing that 1. God is unable to properly translate his words, and 2. he DID admit to creating calamity and mayhem... not too sure I would put up that argument if I were you :)
No, I'm saying the simple, surface objection that "the KJV says 'God made evil' so that's it 'God made evil' " isn't a sufficient understanding of the text.
It's a great, coffee house objection for those opposed to Christianity to present because most Christians at the coffee house can't provide an answer to it.....most are just deer in headlights. That's why the objections are fun for some and regardless of answers and reconciliations of the objections many objectors persist with them because it's most probable they'll encounter far more ignorant Christians than informed Christians.
I can't speak to early readers of the KJV because I don't understand and use language like they did at that time in history. The use of "evil' in that context may have made perfect sense to them....doesn't to me and many others in the current era. So we have updated translations that account for shifts in language. Words can have multiple, correct meanings and I leave it to the expert linguists, textual critics and theologians to come to a consensus on such issues (and they have). These folks help guide the shifting language and harmonization of specific scriptural texts and surrounding context. Regardless, it says nothing about the inspiration of scripture.
-
So you're saying God... even with the help of the holy spirit, was unable to manage to guide translators to use the correct wording and allowed for 100's of years, his book to say he created evil, yet he really didn't... Ok... so you are arguing that 1. God is unable to properly translate his words, and 2. he DID admit to creating calamity and mayhem... not too sure I would put up that argument if I were you :)
languages change with time, and early languages are more complex and intricate than modem ones. If you look at the original language, then you get the best understanding, but if you translate it into modern language you may get the translation correctly yet in 50 years when the language has changed your translation may be wrong... Even though it used to be right. Does that make sense?
Long story short, God does create some forms of "evil". For example, God flooded the entire earth and killed everyone but Noah' family. But this is not evil, it is actually good, because it is good for the wicked to be punished. But God does not create actual EVIL... The kind that is not based in righteousness. Real evil originates when a creature fails to love God.
-
languages change with time, and early languages are more complex and intricate than modem ones. If you look at the original language, then you get the best understanding, but if you translate it into modern language you may get the translation correctly yet in 50 years when the language has changed your translation may be wrong... Even though it used to be right. Does that make sense?
Long story short, God does create some forms of "evil". For example, God flooded the entire earth and killed everyone but Noah' family. But this is not evil, it is actually good, because it is good for the wicked to be punished. But God does not create actual EVIL... The kind that is not based in righteousness. Real evil originates when a creature fails to love God.
Can you provide a rational and logically consistent definition of God that stands up to critical scrutiny and allows us to understand what the creature you refer to as "God" is and how it differs from, say, a figment of your imagination?
Unless you can, your entire post is drivel.
-
d
languages change with time, and early languages are more complex and intricate than modem ones. If you look at the original language, then you get the best understanding, but if you translate it into modern language you may get the translation correctly yet in 50 years when the language has changed your translation may be wrong... Even though it used to be right. Does that make sense?
Long story short, God does create some forms of "evil". For example, God flooded the entire earth and killed everyone but Noah' family. But this is not evil, it is actually good, because it is good for the wicked to be punished. But God does not create actual EVIL... The kind that is not based in righteousness. Real evil originates when a creature fails to love God.
There is a problem when humans are willing to accept ANY deed, no matter how atrocious it is.. as "good" simply because of who is doing the atrocious deed or deeds. when asked of Christians, "Is there ANYTHING God could ever do, that would be so cruel, so atrocious that you would be morally offended by it?" and the answer is always no... that is ridiculous
-
d
There is a problem when humans are willing to accept ANY deed, no matter how atrocious it is.. as "good" simply because of who is doing the atrocious deed or deeds. when asked of Christians, "Is there ANYTHING God could ever do, that would be so cruel, so atrocious that you would be morally offended by it?" and the answer is always no... that is ridiculous
And my question to unbelievers that challenge this point is "why do you favor the reprobate?"
God severely punished those whom he made a divine, righteous covenant with and those who were fully wicked, deceitful and full in their sin.
So, don't straw man the argument or create a hypothetical and then outright object to your "what if" scenario that hasn't happened and won't be happening.
So often terrible people do terrible things to good folks and immediately so many are ready to pounce and be critical of God saying, "Why doesn't God do something to those bad guys?!!"
If God pronounces judgment upon the terrible people the same folks say, "Can you believe an all-loving God would do something like that to those poor folks? So immoral!!"
Whichever way the anti-God breeze is blowing is the direction most unbelievers proceed in.
"Your so called 'God' should do something about those bad guys!"
"Can you believe their 'God' did something about those poor people!"
The reprobate are "bad guys" >:( in one breathe and "poor people" :'( in another.
Yes, all their wickedness vanishes when they're held accountable and that wickedness is then capriciously applied to God. "Gotta blame someone and it ain't gonna be me!"
-
Can you provide a rational and logically consistent definition of God that stands up to critical scrutiny and allows us to understand what the creature you refer to as "God" is and how it differs from, say, a figment of your imagination?
Unless you can, your entire post is drivel.
well, the first distinction I would make is that God is Creator, not creature.
;)
-
well, the first distinction I would make is that God is Creator, not creature.
;)
"Creator" tells us nothing. And it begs the question to boot, but let's skip that for now.
A composer is a creator - he creates a symphony. A novelist is a creator - she creates a story. So, unless you worship musicians and novelists, then clearly there must be a better definition of God than "Creator".
So again: provide a rational, internally consistent definition of the entity you perceive as God which allows anyone to unambiguously understand what the term means, what being or entity it refers to, and how the existence of this being or entity can be ascertained.
-
"Creator" tells us nothing. And it begs the question to boot, but let's skip that for now.
A composer is a creator - he creates a symphony. A novelist is a creator - she creates a story. So, unless you worship musicians and novelists, then clearly there must be a better definition of God than "Creator".
So again: provide a rational, internally consistent definition of the entity you perceive as God which allows anyone to unambiguously understand what the term means, what being or entity it refers to, and how the existence of this being or entity can be ascertained.
"Creator" tells you nothing, absolutely nothing at all?
-
"Creator" tells you nothing, absolutely nothing at all?
My advice....let it go.
I've done the dance and thoroughly answered.
He'll subtly attach qualifiers and criteria making any definition insufficient.
It's a game and I've personally played and watched the requirements stretch and stretch and stretch...he knows what he's doing LOL....it's a word game wrapped in the guise of "dialogue".
I have nothing against avxo personally but my recommendation is to spit out the bait....life choices have long since been made.
Only if you feel this will bear good fruit for others then pursue..that was my only previous motivation.
-
"Creator" tells you nothing, absolutely nothing at all?
There's all kind of creators - how can I distinguish them from yours? What other attributes can you provide?
-
http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheists-did-something-come-from-nothing-145015/ (http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheists-did-something-come-from-nothing-145015/)
It seems atheists would much rather believe that something came from nothing, than to believe that Someone has always existed. Of course both beliefs are a matter of faith.
So did the universe come from nothing, or from God? Is there a rational mind behind the mathematical precision of the universe, as well as human DNA, or did it all just happen by chance?
In his book, "The Grand Design," Professor Stephen Hawking writes, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."
But Hawking's premise is illogical. Without the cosmos, there would be no law of gravity. And if the law of gravity truly helped create the universe as Hawking suggests, then the universe was not created from nothing, but from something. In that case, how did the law of gravity originate, and how could it have been in existence prior to the creation of the universe? Impossible and irrational.
You mean to tell me that the man who is perhaps the world's most famous living scientist actually believes the mystical doctrine that something came from nothing? Yes indeed. Hawking's confession of faith is unequivocal. And a multitude of others in our world today have also chosen to place their faith in such imaginative science fiction. True science, on the other hand, recognizes that something cannot be created from nothing.
By the way, Hawking recently revealed his latest theory. He now believes that passing through a "black hole" could lead you to another universe. And his latest theory comes less than two years since Hawking made headlines with this bold statement: "There are no black holes."
But the man who believes the law of gravity helped create the universe has been digging a little deeper on the question of black holes. And he wants you to be prepared in case you ever find yourself inside one. Seriously.
Hawking now says that "if you feel you are in a black hole, don't give up. There's a way out." A way out? And Hawking knows this for a fact? Actually, it's just more science fiction from an intelligent physicist with a creative imagination.
Obviously, man is susceptible to embracing the myth that nothing created something. The Christian mind, on the other hand, has been delivered from such irrationality. Christians believe in a personal God who loved us enough to send His only Son to save us from our sin. Christians have been given "the mind of Christ." (1 Cor. 2:16) That is, we now see a number of things the way Christ sees them.
But how can that be?
Well, wisdom from God gets poured into a believer when he meets Christ through faith. Without this wisdom, how in the world could we possibly believe in a personal God? After all, we are not born into this world possessing "the mind of Christ." We only possess human reason. And those who reject God admittedly don't know where human reason originated.
Karl Popper delivered the first Darwin Lecture at Darwin College, in Cambridge, on Nov. 8, 1977. It was entitled, "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind." Popper stated, "I conjecture that life, and later also mind, have evolved or emerged in a universe that was, up to a certain time, lifeless and mindless. Life, or living matter, somehow emerged from nonliving matter; and it does not seem completely impossible that we shall one day know how this happened. Things look far more difficult with the emergence of mind. While we think we know some of the preconditions of life, and some of the substructures of primitive organisms, we do not have the slightest idea on which evolutionary level mind emerges."
That's simple. The rational mind of man was created by an intelligent and rational Creator. He is all-powerful and all-knowing, and so it was easy for God to create both the body as well as the mind of man.
Consider for a moment the mathematical precision of human DNA. Francis Collins is the director of the Human Genome Project. Collins stated, "I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan."
Perry Marshall noted, "Dr. Jean-Claude Perez started counting letters in DNA. He discovered that these ratios are highly mathematical and based on 'Phi,' the Golden Ratio 1.618. This is a very special number, sort of like Pi." Perez' discovery was published in the scientific journal Interdisciplinary Sciences / Computational Life Sciences in September 2010.
Since God's mind is obviously a million times more advanced than the human mind, it was a piece of cake for the Creator to place this mathematical perfection into the DNA of Adam and Eve. "Wait a minute! Who believes in that Adam and Eve stuff?" Well, Jesus for one. Christ said, "Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female.'" (Matthew 19:4)
And we have all descended from that first man and woman. It requires faith to believe that God is an eternal Being who created man at a special time and place. On the other end of the spectrum, it requires far greater faith (and a blind faith at that) to believe that something came from nothing.
Scriptures reveals the origin of the cosmos: "By Christ all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:15-17) God is not a thing, but a Person. Actually, three Persons in One God. And when you meet Christ through faith, you enter an eternal relationship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Francis Collins said, "I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that 'I know there is no God' emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, 'Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative.'"
So did the universe create itself out of nothing? And did the human mind come into existence without the work of a rational designer? Or has God always existed? You make the call.
But just remember. The Lord is going to reign in heaven forever, whether you want to be part of that eternal celebration or not.
I think you're misrepresenting the cosmological argument, Man. And I think you know that, as you follow the debate and seem to understand much of the physics as well.
They aren't saying "nothing"; they're hypothesizing a multiverse, which would solve the physics conundrum. Unfortunately, I'm unprepared to defend or even explain it, but I bet you understand it enough to at least know it ain't a nothing issue anymore. I think Krauss might be the go-to guy here.
-
And my question to unbelievers that challenge this point is "why do you favor the reprobate?"
God severely punished those whom he made a divine, righteous covenant with and those who were fully wicked, deceitful and full in their sin.
So, don't straw man the argument or create a hypothetical and then outright object to your "what if" scenario that hasn't happened and won't be happening.
So often terrible people do terrible things to good folks and immediately so many are ready to pounce and be critical of God saying, "Why doesn't God do something to those bad guys?!!"
If God pronounces judgment upon the terrible people the same folks say, "Can you believe an all-loving God would do something like that to those poor folks? So immoral!!"
Whichever way the anti-God breeze is blowing is the direction most unbelievers proceed in.
"Your so called 'God' should do something about those bad guys!"
"Can you believe their 'God' did something about those poor people!"
The reprobate are "bad guys" >:( in one breathe and "poor people" :'( in another.
Yes, all their wickedness vanishes when they're held accountable and that wickedness is then capriciously applied to God. "Gotta blame someone and it ain't gonna be me!"
That would be a beautiful argument if I didn't have access to the bible and know it says god killed an entire population except 8 people. There could not have been an entire population of reprobates to include children. He also commanded Moses to attack a tribe and moses killed all the captives, women and children, except the virgin women which he gave to his soldiers. Now if THAT is ethical in your book, you may have deeper issues than I thought.. in my book, that's atrocious, no matter who is behind it.
-
And my question to unbelievers that challenge this point is "why do you favor the reprobate?"
God severely punished those whom he made a divine, righteous covenant with and those who were fully wicked, deceitful and full in their sin.
So, don't straw man the argument or create a hypothetical and then outright object to your "what if" scenario that hasn't happened and won't be happening.
So often terrible people do terrible things to good folks and immediately so many are ready to pounce and be critical of God saying, "Why doesn't God do something to those bad guys?!!"
If God pronounces judgment upon the terrible people the same folks say, "Can you believe an all-loving God would do something like that to those poor folks? So immoral!!"
Whichever way the anti-God breeze is blowing is the direction most unbelievers proceed in.
"Your so called 'God' should do something about those bad guys!"
"Can you believe their 'God' did something about those poor people!"
The reprobate are "bad guys" >:( in one breathe and "poor people" :'( in another.
Yes, all their wickedness vanishes when they're held accountable and that wickedness is then capriciously applied to God. "Gotta blame someone and it ain't gonna be me!"
Man, is this really what we do? Just nitpick tiny, harmless discrepancies? Because I'm not feeling that at all.
Let's use the Flood:
For your point to make sense, we must first accept that 100% of creation (minus Team Noah) turned sour. So does the bible say everyone? Or most, or many, or some, or what? Because He killed every-fucking-one, which means LOTS of collateral. And this is a an all-powerful PERFECT being, remember, so no need to kill even a single innocent.
He could very well have killed ONLY the wicked. Just like with every other event or era in human history, just root out the bad. He could do it today. So, again, why does He handle business like an imperfect army when we're told He's anything and everything but?
I won't bring up the slaves here, because we know they were ALL wicked, every single one, and therefore deserved to be treated like insentient labor tools. Plus, slavery itself, eh, really not so bad.
-
So if some sky god does exist, what created IT?
More than likely, the universe and its essential building blocks has always existed.
But even if something actually did create us or other universe stuff, why do humans feel a need to worship it and label it a god? We create things, and despite our sophistication not yet being where it needs to be to create something as complex as us, we're not gods. And if we survive as a species long enough and do come to such sophistication, we still will not ever be gods.
Such weakness, fear, ego, and shortsightedness involved in the belief in a sky god.
-
So if some sky god does exist, what created IT?
More than likely, the universe and its essential building blocks has always existed.
But even if something actually did create us or other universe stuff, why do humans feel a need to worship it and label it a god? We create things, and despite our sophistication not yet being where it needs to be to create something as complex as us, we're not gods. And if we survive as a species long enough and do come to such sophistication, we still will not ever be gods.
Such weakness, fear, ego, and shortsightedness involved in the belief in a sky god.
On the same note, why does a creator crave/demand to be worshipped? seems that is a character flaw we would despise among us, why do some find that to be acceptable among a creator?
-
So if some sky god does exist, what created IT?
More than likely, the universe and its essential building blocks has always existed.
But even if something actually did create us or other universe stuff, why do humans feel a need to worship it and label it a god? We create things, and despite our sophistication not yet being where it needs to be to create something as complex as us, we're not gods. And if we survive as a species long enough and do come to such sophistication, we still will not ever be gods.
Such weakness, fear, ego, and shortsightedness involved in the belief in a sky god.
Simple: The West (especially America) got stuck with one who demands it. ENTIRELY cultural - we inherit our parents' God and never consider an alternative.
Not a whole lotta independent thinking going on in this area.
-
On the same note, why does a creator crave/demand to be worshipped? seems that is a character flaw we would despise among us, why do some find that to be acceptable among a creator?
Seriously, who wants some insecure pansy God that requires constant validation? Stuart fucking Smalley up there, grovelling for reassurance that His holy dick measures up.
We hold Him to such an embarrassingly low standard, and we prove it with our much improved secular laws. Just look how many of His commandments we dismiss (613, by the way, not ten) for the sake of common sense and MORALITY.
Truth is, despite what that silly Facebook post says, man is 10x more moral than God.
-
Seriously, who wants some insecure pansy God that requires constant validation? Stuart fucking Smalley up there, grovelling for reassurance that His holy dick measures up.
We hold Him to such an embarrassingly low standard, and we prove it with our much improved secular laws. Just look how many of His commandments we dismiss (613, by the way, not ten) for the sake of common sense and MORALITY.
Truth is, despite what that silly Facebook post says, man is 10x more moral than God.
Way more moral than the biblical god.. but not the real god......
-
Way more moral than the biblical god.. but not the real god......
And who/what/which is this?
-
And who/what/which is this?
Obviously the one I believe in... isn't that how this works? Only the god I happen to believe in is the one true god?
-
Seriously, who wants some insecure pansy God that requires constant validation? Stuart fucking Smalley up there, grovelling for reassurance that His holy dick measures up.
We hold Him to such an embarrassingly low standard, and we prove it with our much improved secular laws. Just look how many of His commandments we dismiss (613, by the way, not ten) for the sake of common sense and MORALITY.
Truth is, despite what that silly Facebook post says, man is 10x more moral than God.
God wants you to worship Him because that is when you will find real joy and fulfilment.
-
Didn't bother with a bunch of post quoting, just addressing the idea of worship via a cut and paste from my previous posts which I've posted repeatedly:
What is worship though?
Simply put, God is the essence of righteousness….the bar…..the creator…..the standard…..the law. He is the greatest possible being there is, was and ever will be.
God created us in his divine image (a generous act on his part) and defined for us two important roles within his creation: one, a kingly role in which we govern over his creation; two, a priest type role in which we walk in faithful service with God and surrender to his will for our lives so that others may draw close to him as well. The goodness of God flows to his creation and thereby becomes an extension of his church…..we are equipped with his attributes.
To worship God means to be included in his existence and to acknowledge his position in the order of all things and to also understand our role within his creation. We are creatures that literally overflow with worship for things we love and admire and cherish most……worship and praise pours out of us. God doesn’t need our worship though….his existence is not contingent upon it, but he created us so that we may enter into fellowship with him and engage in praise in worship for which is absolutely worthy. As part of the created order we give praise for those things we value the most in life. Believers enjoy the very presence of God and he enjoys ours as well….it’s a relationship. Given his exalted status when we are given his approval it elicits our praise and worship….we almost can’t help it at times LOL.
As C.S. Lewis notes in reference to praise and worship:
“But the most obvious fact about praise – whether of God or anything – strangely escaped me. I thought of it in terms of compliment, approval, or the giving of honour. I had never noticed that all enjoyment spontaneously overflows into praise unless . . . shyness or the fear of boring others is deliberately brought in to check it. The world rings with praise – lovers praising their mistresses [Romeo praising Juliet and vice versa], readers their favourite poet, walkers praising the countryside, players praising their favourite game – praise of weather, wines, dishes, actors, motors, horses, colleges, countries, historical personages, children, flowers, mountains, rare stamps, rare beetles, even sometimes politicians or scholars. . . . Except where intolerably adverse circumstances interfere, praise almost seems to be inner health made audible. . . . I had not noticed either that just as men spontaneously praise whatever they value, so they spontaneously urge us to join them in praising it: 'Isn't she lovely? Wasn't it glorious? Don't you think that magnificent?' The Psalmists in telling everyone to praise God are doing what all men do when they speak of what they care about. My whole, more general, difficulty about the praise of God depended on my absurdly denying to us, as regards the supremely Valuable, what we delight to do, what indeed we can't help doing, about everything else we value.”
tbombz is also correct, we delight and draw tremendous pleasure from celebrating (worshipping) those things we love and cherish most.
I'm in and out of the board these days so I won't be doing extensive back and forth....especially if we've "done the dance" previously. If I can easily copy and paste something I've previously written I might do that, but otherwise my post history is available. I can also be PM'd provided you aren't on my blocked list. I'm just no longer interested in rehashing or reading a bunch of repeat stuff with the same folks over and over that I've addressed more times than I have fingers and toes to count. Not trying to be offensive or difficult just coming to a new phase in how I approach discussions.
-
God wants you to worship Him because that is when you will find real joy and fulfilment.
And yet, my life is full of joy and I am quite fulfilled without your deity. I could believe your claim that I'm wrong, but what evidence do you have to present that supports your contention?
It doesn't help that your religion is all about "believe, then wait until you die so you can then be happy." Frankly, I'd rather be happy now, instead of hoping that a life after death exists.
P.S.: can you provide that consistent, rational definition of your God that I asked you for two pages ago?
-
Of course humans can be happy without God. Humans find extreme delight in all manner of self-centered And/or self-righteous behavior.
What I'm talking about is a kind of joy that only comes from worshipping God. This kind of Joy can be experienced in this life.
Christianity is not about sacrificing pleasure now in order to feel pleasure later. Christianity is about reconnecting with God so that we can start feeling the ultimate pleasure now and for the rest of eternity.
-
Of course humans can be happy without God.
So, God isn't a prerequisite for happiness. Glad we established that.
Humans find extreme delight in all manner of self-centered And/or self-righteous behavior.
People can find joy without being self-centered or self-righteous. One person finds immeasurable joy in tickling their child and hearing him or her laugh. Another finds it simply hanging out with good friends. Still another finds joy by volunteering to help orphans or the elderly.
What I'm talking about is a kind of joy that only comes from worshipping God. This kind of Joy can be experienced in this life.
So, you're not talking about joy as we know it. You're talking about some other kind of joy... got it... ::)
Christianity is not about sacrificing pleasure now in order to feel pleasure later. Christianity is about reconnecting with God so that we can start feeling the ultimate pleasure now and for the rest of eternity.
Christianity is all about doing something now (believing Jesus is the son of God) in order to get a reward later (going to Heaven after you die).
-
You talk about Christianity as if you have some experience with it. If you know what Christianity is all about, how do you know that? Was there ever a point in your adult life where you truly believed the Bible? You speak about happiness and imply that your happiness is no different than the joy experienced in God.. how do you know? Have you ever experienced the joy found in God?
For a science-minded guy, dont you think you are stepping outside the boundaries of empirical knowledge when you start to speak on subjects which you have no experience with?
Do you consider you personal experience and knowledge to encompass everything in the entire universe?
Are you able to admit that there are some things in the universe that you are unaware of?
-
You talk about Christianity as if you have some experience with it. If you know what Christianity is all about, how do you know that? Was there ever a point in your adult life where you truly believed the Bible? You speak about happiness and imply that your happiness is no different than the joy experienced in God.. how do you know? Have you ever experienced the joy found in God?
For a science-minded guy, dont you think you are stepping outside the boundaries of empirical knowledge when you start to speak on subjects which you have no experience with?
Do you consider you personal experience and knowledge to encompass everything in the entire universe?
Are you able to admit that there are some things in the universe that you are unaware of?
I was Christian until I was 35, so in your mind that qualifies me and I believe he is hitting the nail on the head
-
You talk about Christianity as if you have some experience with it. If you know what Christianity is all about, how do you know that? Was there ever a point in your adult life where you truly believed the Bible? You speak about happiness and imply that your happiness is no different than the joy experienced in God.. how do you know? Have you ever experienced the joy found in God?
I talk about Christianity as someone who has read the Bible multiple times and knows it better than most Christians. Shouldn't the word of God be enough?
For a science-minded guy, dont you think you are stepping outside the boundaries of empirical knowledge when you start to speak on subjects which you have no experience with?
You're the one stepping outside the boundaries of empirical knowledge when you assert that an ancient book and your "feels" conclusively and irrefutably prove an entity that you cannot even provide a consistent, rational definition for.
Do you consider you personal experience and knowledge to encompass everything in the entire universe?
The answer to that should be obvious, so why ask it?
Are you able to admit that there are some things in the universe that you are unaware of?
Of course. The difference between you and I is that I don't think those things which I don't know at this time are unknowable or that our Universe is fundamentally unknowable because it's ruled by supernatural fiat.
-
I talk about Christianity as someone who has read the Bible multiple times and knows it better than most Christians. Shouldn't the word of God be enough?
You're the one stepping outside the boundaries of empirical knowledge when you assert that an ancient book and your "feels" conclusively and irrefutably prove an entity that you cannot even provide a consistent, rational definition for.
The answer to that should be obvious, so why ask it?
Of course. The difference between you and I is that I don't think those things which I don't know at this time are unknowable or that our Universe is fundamentally unknowable because it's ruled by supernatural fiat.
My "feels" about God motivate me 1000% in my faithful walk with Christ.....unashamed and unapologetic about that too.
-
My "feels" about God motivate me 1000% in my faithful walk with Christ.....unashamed and unapologetic about that too.
Right - and that's perfectly fine for you. If it's all down to your feelings well then why are yours better than the Buddhist a couple of offices down from me? He feels his religions is right too and motivates him in his faith.
-
Right - and that's perfectly fine for you. If it's all down to your feelings well then why are yours better than the Buddhist a couple of offices down from me? He feels his religions is right too and motivates him in his faith.
Yes, same with the Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Mithraic follower, etc... Some of these folks are equally or even more devout than I am. I don't challenge their individual sincerity or motivation...I know they're genuine. Yet, Buddha, Allah, Shiva, Vishnu and Mithra didn't die and rise and continue to reveal themselves to believers via the Holy Spirit like Jesus Christ. All others religions have similarity in their works-based nature and all stand in opposition to Jesus Christ who calls for folks to seek him and him alone for salvation and righteousness. It's no coincidence this world is full of religious competition and great promises provided you work to achieve and validate yourself. These religions are demonically sourced despite the devout, sincere, highly motivated followers who many of which are probably very nice people. What underlies all of them is direct opposition to Jesus Christ whether they realize it or not.
-
Yes, same with the Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Mithraic follower, etc... Some of these folks are equally or even more devout than I am. I don't challenge their individual sincerity or motivation...I know they're genuine. Yet, Buddha, Allah, Shiva, Vishnu and Mithra didn't die and rise and continue to reveal himself to believers via the Holy Spirit like Jesus Christ. All others religions have similarity in their works-based nature and all stand in opposition to Jesus Christ who calls for folks to seek him and him alone for salvation and righteousness. It's no coincidence this world is full of religious competition and great promises provided you work to achieve and validate yourself. These religions are demonically sourced despite the devout, sincere, highly motivated followers who many of which are probably very nice people. What underlies all of them is direct opposition to Jesus Christ whether they realize it or not.
Why is it important for a religion to be true, to have a character die and rise again? Couldn't a God exist that didn't require the need to fix his faulty creation with a sacrifice?
-
Why is it important for a religion to be true, to have a character die and rise again? Couldn't a God exist that didn't require the need to fix his faulty creation with a sacrifice?
Because when given the option to reject or accept God there are many people that opt to reject him. To exist in a world of choices means there's potential for all sorts of choices. If a person exists in this condition in which they can choose to live however and live only for themselves and acknowledge only their desires or the desires of their intimate clan yet opt to choose the will of their creator and forsake unrighteousness they've engaged in the purest opportunity to align with God. When you deny a myriad number of potential choices of pleasure, pain and whathever else can be conceived and opt for God that's purity of free choice. These are the folks that God is gathering to form his church.
The creation itself wasn't faulty, but the beings within it were given ability to disrupt it as they see fit.
God deemed that life is found in the blood and that ultimately by the shedding of the purest, most righteous blood could all be saved and aligned with him. Why did he choose that vehicle? Don't know. Suppose he could've used chocolate milk, toasters, basketballs or something we can't conceive of.
Yet, his collected church will become part of his creation in which sin is removed because we've chosen this existence and to align with God.
-
Because when given the option to reject or accept God there are many people that opt to reject him. To exist in a world of choices means there's potential for all sorts of choices. If a person exists in this condition in which they can choose to live however and live only for themselves and acknowledge only their desires or the desires of their intimate clan yet opt to choose the will of their creator and forsake unrighteousness they've engaged in the purest opportunity to align with God. When you deny a myriad number of potential choices of pleasure, pain and whathever else can be conceived and opt for God that's purity of free choice. These are the folks that God is gathering to form his church.
The creation itself wasn't faulty, but the beings within it were given ability to disrupt it as they see fit.
God deemed that life is found in the blood and that ultimately by the shedding of the purest, most righteous blood could all be saved and aligned with him. Why did he choose that vehicle? Don't know. Suppose he could've used chocolate milk, toasters, basketballs or something we can't conceive of.
Yet, his collected church will become part of his creation in which sin is removed because we've chosen this existence and to align with God.
all that didn't really answer the question. Why is the measuring stick, the criteria for a religion to be true, a god/human that sacrifices themselves in a symbol of some barbaric ritual? Why is that mandatory and couldn't there possibly be a God that DOESN'T have such a requirement exist just as easily as that one?
-
It's kind of like saying "All music must have a guitar" because you happen to love music with guitars in it. In fact, you've never heard music without guitars. When the prospect is brought up that music could exist without guitars, you can't possibly comprehend it because you have always been taught that music has guitars. Every song you were exposed to had guitars, every band you ever saw had guitars.. so you have concluded all music has guitars. That died and rose thingy is your guitar..
-
Yet, Buddha, Allah, Shiva, Vishnu and Mithra didn't die and rise and continue to reveal themselves to believers via the Holy Spirit like Jesus Christ.
You claim that your God died and those rose again and continued to reveal himself to believers. Until you can prove that claim, there's little difference from Buddha, Allah, Shiva, Vishnu and Mithra.
All others religions have similarity in their works-based nature and all stand in opposition to Jesus Christ who calls for folks to seek him and him alone for salvation and righteousness.
Forget, for a second, the fact that your claim - that out of all other religions only yours features a savior that calls people to him for salvation and righteousness - which is laughable. Even if that claim were true, I could trivially falsify it by starting a religion right now that claims the very same thing.
What's more important is that the claim you make isn't even universally accepted by all Christians. Take Roman Catholicism: while believing in Jesus Christ is required to achieve salvation, Catholics must purify their sins (either before or after death) to go to Heaven. Or Eastern Orthodox Christianity, where accepting Christ is only one part of an elaborate process that must be completed correctly in order to attain salvation.
So yeah, sure, your belief is that accepting Jesus Christ as your savior and lord is sufficient. But so what? It's only your belief. Other Christians believe differently and it's unclear which belief, if any, is better. Can you logically and conclusively prove that they're wrong and you're right?
It's no coincidence this world is full of religious competition and great promises provided you work to achieve and validate yourself. These religions are demonically sourced despite the devout, sincere, highly motivated followers who many of which are probably very nice people. What underlies all of them is direct opposition to Jesus Christ whether they realize it or not.
Yes, of course. All religions except, conveniently, the one you happen to believe in are wrong and demonically sourced... ::)
-
all that didn't really answer the question. Why is the measuring stick, the criteria for a religion to be true, a god/human that sacrifices themselves in a symbol of some barbaric ritual? Why is that mandatory and couldn't there possibly be a God that DOESN'T have such a requirement exist just as easily as that one?
You've moved the goalposts a bit, but in short there is no greater act of love or sacrifice than laying down one's life for another.
-
You claim that your God died and those rose again and continued to reveal himself to believers. Until you can prove that claim, there's little difference from Buddha, Allah, Shiva, Vishnu and Mithra.
Forget, for a second, the fact that your claim - that out of all other religions only yours features a savior that calls people to him for salvation and righteousness - which is laughable. Even if that claim were true, I could trivially falsify it by starting a religion right now that claims the very same thing.
What's more important is that the claim you make isn't even universally accepted by all Christians. Take Roman Catholicism: while believing in Jesus Christ is required to achieve salvation, Catholics must purify their sins (either before or after death) to go to Heaven. Or Eastern Orthodox Christianity, where accepting Christ is only one part of an elaborate process that must be completed correctly in order to attain salvation.
So yeah, sure, your belief is that accepting Jesus Christ as your savior and lord is sufficient. But so what? It's only your belief. Other Christians believe differently and it's unclear which belief, if any, is better. Can you logically and conclusively prove that they're wrong and you're right?
Yes, of course. All religions except, conveniently, the one you happen to believe in are wrong and demonically sourced... ::)
If you desire to know the risen God, Lord and savior Jesus Christ then you'll find your proof.
Despite your ability to falsify a religion you can't replicate the special revelation of the Holy Spirit in believers.
Catholics aren't Christians and Christians aren't Catholics. Catholicism is a works-based faith and Christianity is not works-based......even if you find the notion of salvation and righteousness through Christ alone laughable....have a hearty chuckle.
-
If you desire to know the risen God, Lord and savior Jesus Christ then you'll find your proof.
How convenient - if I believe in faith then I'll get proof. But then, what good is the proof?
Despite your ability to falsify a religion you can't replicate the special revelation of the Holy Spirit in believers.
No. You claim my religion can't replicate special revelation of the Holy Spirit. But I can produce a believer of my religion who received a special revelation from my religion's equivalent to the Holy Spirit.
Catholics aren't Christians and Christians aren't Catholics. Catholicism is a works-based faith and Christianity is not works-based......even if you find the notion of salvation and righteousness through Christ alone laughable....have a hearty chuckle.
Of course - anyone who doesn't believe exactly what you believe isn't a Christian. Your particular interpretation - and only yours - is correct. Everything else is demonic, right?
It's a good thing those others don't claim the very same thing or else we might have a conundr... oh... :-\
-
If you desire to know the risen God, Lord and savior Jesus Christ then you'll find your proof.
Despite your ability to falsify a religion you can't replicate the special revelation of the Holy Spirit in believers.
Catholics aren't Christians and Christians aren't Catholics. Catholicism is a works-based faith and Christianity is not works-based......even if you find the notion of salvation and righteousness through Christ alone laughable....have a hearty chuckle.
What would say, then, about the many who did desire, did open their hearts/surrender, and did believe/pray faithfully (or continue to, even), yet still never had any kind of personal revelation or Holy Spirit-type encounter?
Not sincere? Not trying hard enough? Lying?
-
How convenient - if I believe in faith then I'll get proof. But then, what good is the proof?
No. You claim my religion can't replicate special revelation of the Holy Spirit. But I can produce a believer of my religion who received a special revelation from my religion's equivalent to the Holy Spirit.
Of course - anyone who doesn't believe exactly what you believe isn't a Christian. Your particular interpretation - and only yours - is correct. Everything else is demonic, right?
It's a good things those others don't claim the very same thing or else we might have a conundr... oh... :-\
If you desire to know God you will. If you don't you won't.
When it comes to the Holy Spirit you're out of your depth. Lying isn't replicating...it's just lying.
If it's anti-Christ it's demonically motivated whether participants realize it or not.
-
What would say, then, about the many who did desire, did open their hearts/surrender, and did believe/pray faithfully (or continue to, even), yet still never had any kind of personal revelation or Holy Spirit-type encounter?
Not sincere? Not trying hard enough? Lying?
In all honesty I don't know any believers that have whole heartedly sought the Lord and got nothing by way of the Holy Spirit.
I suppose I would explain the gospel again to help clarify, continue to encourage and uplift and pray with them.
I would try to better understand their motivation as I'm able and they allow.
-
If you desire to know God you will. If you don't you won't.
When it comes to the Holy Spirit you're out of your depth. Lying isn't replicating...it's just lying.
If it's anti-Christ it's demonically motivated.
Literally?
Real, active, gargoyle-type demons, you mean, like Pazuzu and such? Or metaphorical?
Also, are "non-Christian" and "anti-Christian" synonymous here? In other words, would secularism itself be considered demonic?
-
Literally?
Real, active, gargoyle-type demons, you mean, like Pazuzu and such? Or metaphorical?
Also, are "non-Christian" and "anti-Christian" synonymous here? In other words, would secularism itself be considered demonic?
Demonic activity is part of spiritual warfare. Strategy is employed. Yet there is one goal - turning people from Christ. The vast, vast majority of religions are works-based in that they preach that it's about what the individual does not what Christ has done for them that's important. Take the focus completely off Christ and put the attention on the person and their works...anti-Christ and motivated by the enemies of God.
I've never seen a demon but I've felt them and been attacked and oppressed by them. Very real and frightening. You don't have to see angels or demons to clearly understand their reality. I've felt way more than I care to share. Still Christ is my shield and his name alone is powerful. I have also experienced God's angelic host. I believe I've also had a face to face encounter with an angel. Certainly experienced their unseen presence many times.
No non-Christian is not always anti-Christian. Sometimes it is but certainly not always. Many aspects of the secular world do not stand opposed to Christ even though they aren't aligned with him either.
-
In all honesty I don't know any believers that have whole heartedly sought the Lord and got nothing by way of the Holy Spirit.
I suppose I would explain the gospel again to help clarify, continue to encourage and uplift and pray with them.
I would try to better understand their motivation as I'm able and they allow.
You don't know of them, either?
Dude.
They either don't exist, then, or each fell short of "whole heartedly." Rigged game, brother, but thanks for the time.
-
Within a half-hour, I get a text from my bro reminding me how great Sarah Palin is; then his wife wants my Facebook "Amen" for prayer in school.
Fuck it, maybe I'll osmosis my way in the Gates.
-
If you desire to know God you will. If you don't you won't.
If God existed and wanted me to know him, he'd make himself known. He hasn't, so either he doesn't exist or he doesn't want me to know him. Either way... why should I care?
When it comes to the Holy Spirit you're out of your depth. Lying isn't replicating...it's just lying.
How can you tell they're lying? They genuinely believe what they believe. And how can they know you aren't lying? Can you prove the existence of this "Holy Spirit" to them? It goes against their beliefs and the truth that has been supernaturally revealed to them.
If it's anti-Christ it's demonically motivated whether participants realize it or not.
It's demonically motivated according to your beliefs. But your beliefs are meaningless to everyone else and have no bearing on reality.
-
You don't knowcommittedof[/i] them, either?
Dude.
They either don't exist, then, or each fell short of "whole heartedly." Rigged game, brother, but thanks for the time.
I know believers that have never had powerful spiritual experiences like I have yet are fully committed to the Lord. They've experienced the Holy Spirit but not in overtly powerful ways. My mother is such a person.
I don't really know of them either.
I spoken to folks that say things like I was a Christian for decades and gave it up. What I uncover is that these folks simply associated with a Christian organization and then identified as Christian, or said they like Jesus the teacher but not Jesus God, or grew up in a Christian home and as an adult abandoned God because they realized they didn't believe or folks that claim to be generally spiritual blending all sorts of faiths including Christianity. All claim some form of Christianity but don't understand the gospel and have no concept of the Holy Spirit.
-
If God existed and wanted me to know him, he'd make himself known. He hasn't, so either he doesn't exist or he doesn't want me to know him. Either way... why should I care?
How can you tell they're lying? They genuinely believe what they believe. And how can they know you aren't lying? Can you prove the existence of this "Holy Spirit" to them? It goes against their beliefs and the truth that has been supernaturally revealed to them.
It's demonically motivated according to your beliefs. But your beliefs are meaningless to everyone else and have no bearing on reality.
That's the book of avxo. It has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. I don't hate it but it isn't of God.
You should care if you desire to know God and want to live for him.
For someone that doesn't care you devote a lot of time to discussion about that which you don't care and know is insane and completely false. People that truly don't care don't bother.
Those that know the Holy Spirit don't have to ask those questions.
The vast majority of people past and present engage in some form of religion be it Christian or non-Christian. It's safe to say it's very much a part of our reality and has definite meaning for countless folks.
And despite your steadfast objection to my meaningless, irrational, insane view of reality here you are day after day. I find that interesting. When I encounter insanity I distance myself.
-
I know believers that have never had powerful spiritual experiences like I have yet are fully committed to the Lord. They've experienced the Holy Spirit but not in overtly powerful ways. My mother is such a person.
I don't really know of them either.
I spoken to folks that say things like I was a Christian for decades and gave it up. What I uncover is that these folks simply associated with a Christian organization and then identified as Christian, or said they like Jesus the teacher but not Jesus God, or grew up in a Christian home and as an adult abandoned God because they realized they didn't believe or folks that claim to be generally spiritual blending all sorts of faiths including Christianity. All claim some form of Christianity but don't understand the gospel and have no concept of the Holy Spirit.
No, I'm talking about hardcore believers - pastors, even, who lost their faith, but still preach in order to pay the bills. There are support groups for these guys.
Many prominents came about their disbelief honestly, in efforts to strengthen faith. Reverse Strobels, I've no reason to doubt them. You're familiar with Ehrman, what about Dan Barker or Matt Dillahunty? Very similar stories.
-
That's the book of avxo. It has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. I don't hate it but it isn't of God.
Seeing how we haven't established a definition for God, much less proven than he exists, I'll go with my book. If your God wants to save me from himself, it's easy. He doesn't even need to send him son again. A telegram will do.
You should care if you desire to know God and want to live for him.
I don't desire to live for anyone else - I simply desire to live, in the here and now.
For someone that doesn't care you devote a lot of time to discussion about that which you don't care and know is insane and completely false. People that truly don't care don't bother.
If your assumption is correct and I do care, your God must not care enough to save me, since he won't reveal himself to me. Of course, it's more likely that your assumption is, simply, not correct.
Those that know the Holy Spirit don't have to ask those questions.
Look at this from my point of view for just a second: you're claiming to be in touch with a spirit that communicates with you in a supernatural way. If I made such a claim, would you not ask me for proof? Would you not even consider the possibility that I'm hearing voices instead of actually communicating supernaturally with some kind of invisible apparition?
The vast majority of people past and present engage in some form of religion be it Christian or non-Christian.
And? If many people do it it must be right?
It's safe to say it's very much a part of our reality and has definite meaning for countless folks.
So if the vast majority of people believed that the earth was flat, then the reality would shift and the earth would transform from an oblate spheroid to a flat plane? And as to having definite meaning, if that's really the case, why can't a single person articulate this meaning with sufficient precision so that every rational person can be convinced?
TAnd despite your steadfast objection to my meaningless, irrational, insane view of reality here you are day after day. I find that interesting. When I encounter insanity I distance myself.
There's different kinds of crazy. I don't think you're dangerous or insane. I don't share your beliefs and assert that you cannot rationally prove them - something which I think you agree with. That doesn't mean we can't engage in discussion or debate. It's how we all learn and neither of us loses something by trying to convince the other.
In fact, I would argue that I stand to gain something: getting someone to throw off the shackles of superstition and the chains of faith. I gain a person who looks at the world rationally, objectively. Not as a place that's full of unanswerable questions and ruled by supernatural whim, but one that is full of questions and wonders to be examined and understood.
-
Seeing how we haven't established a definition for God, much less proven than he exists, I'll go with my book. If your God wants to save me from himself, it's easy. He doesn't even need to send him son again. A telegram will do.
I don't desire to live for anyone else - I simply desire to live, in the here and now.
If your assumption is correct and I do care, your God must not care enough to save me, since he won't reveal himself to me. Or, it's also likely that your assumption is not correct.
Look at this from my point of you for just a second: you're claiming to be in touch with a spirit that communicates with you in a supernatural way. If I made such a claim, would you not ask me for proof and think me crazy?
And? If many people do it it must be right?
So if the vast majority of people believed that the earth was flat, then the reality would shift and the earth would transform from an oblate spheroid to a flat plane? And as to having definite meaning, if that's really the case, why can't a single person articulate this meaning with sufficient precision so that every rational person can be convinced?
There's different kinds of crazy. I don't think you're dangerous or insane. I don't share your beliefs and assert that you cannot rationally prove them - something which I think you agree with. That doesn't mean we can't engage in discussion or debate. It's how we all learn and neither of us loses something by trying to convince the other.
In fact, I would argue that I stand to gain something: getting someone to throw off the shackles of superstition and the chains of faith. I gain a person who looks at the world rationally, objectively. Not as a place that's full of unanswerable questions and ruled by supernatural whim, but one that is full of questions and wonders to be examined and understood.
Didn't read, not doing the line by line quote thing with you.....sorry.
-
Didn't read, not doing the line by line quote thing with you.....sorry.
::)
-
I know believers that have never had powerful spiritual experiences like I have yet are fully committed to the Lord. They've experienced the Holy Spirit but not in overtly powerful ways. My mother is such a person.
I don't really know of them either.
I spoken to folks that say things like I was a Christian for decades and gave it up. What I uncover is that these folks simply associated with a Christian organization and then identified as Christian, or said they like Jesus the teacher but not Jesus God, or grew up in a Christian home and as an adult abandoned God because they realized they didn't believe or folks that claim to be generally spiritual blending all sorts of faiths including Christianity. All claim some form of Christianity but don't understand the gospel and have no concept of the Holy Spirit.
probably because you haven't really bothered to look or listen. I AM that guy... you now have met one
-
Didn't read, not doing the line by line quote thing with you.....sorry.
childish...
-
childish...
Well, if that's your conclusion then so be it.
Despite the fact I've had the same repeat discussions since about 2011 with avxo doing the tit for tat, line by line, phrase by phrase, quote for quote discussion he prefers. I don't hate the guy....I don't even dislike the guy. Thing is I like avxo and if he needed my help he'd get it. He isn't blocked on my PMs. I don't ignore him. Further, I respect his opinions and read what he has to say on other topics on the board.
I've just already done all of the back and forth on the vast majority of these topics.....repeatedly. I have enough experience and know that despite his intelligence he likes to have the last word and respond to anything and everything....fine, last word is his. I've even previously and purposefully responded in the "quote for quote" fashion with a response of nothing or a "." to see if he would reply to even that and he did just because I responded. Even with literally no words or images to discuss he still had a written reply.
I just decided enough is enough for me and I'm called "childish" for it. Ok.
Further, as I've also noted if someone is generally interested in pursuing God beyond "board debate" I'm available via PM.....door's open.
-
Seeing how we haven't established a definition for God, much less proven than he exists, I'll go with my book. If your God wants to save me from himself, it's easy. He doesn't even need to send him son again. A telegram will do.
I don't desire to live for anyone else - I simply desire to live, in the here and now.
If your assumption is correct and I do care, your God must not care enough to save me, since he won't reveal himself to me. Of course, it's more likely that your assumption is, simply, not correct.
Look at this from my point of view for just a second: you're claiming to be in touch with a spirit that communicates with you in a supernatural way. If I made such a claim, would you not ask me for proof? Would you not even consider the possibility that I'm hearing voices instead of actually communicating supernaturally with some kind of invisible apparition?
And? If many people do it it must be right?
So if the vast majority of people believed that the earth was flat, then the reality would shift and the earth would transform from an oblate spheroid to a flat plane? And as to having definite meaning, if that's really the case, why can't a single person articulate this meaning with sufficient precision so that every rational person can be convinced?
There's different kinds of crazy. I don't think you're dangerous or insane. I don't share your beliefs and assert that you cannot rationally prove them - something which I think you agree with. That doesn't mean we can't engage in discussion or debate. It's how we all learn and neither of us loses something by trying to convince the other.
In fact, I would argue that I stand to gain something: getting someone to throw off the shackles of superstition and the chains of faith. I gain a person who looks at the world rationally, objectively. Not as a place that's full of unanswerable questions and ruled by supernatural whim, but one that is full of questions and wonders to be examined and understood.
Didn't want to be "childish" as agnostic said I was being so I responded again with the same stuff I've same repeatedly:
A definition has been clearly established long ago. You just reject all definitions put forth. First the requirement was it must be "cogent" according to your subjective opinion and when that was put forth then the goalposts were moved and the requirement of "it must universally accepted and understood" was applied.
You can choose to live for yourself and whoever else you want until your final breathe. I encourage you to choose God.
God left the door open for you to come to him. He wants you to choose to seek him. We discussed this many times.
Sure, I'd listen to all you have to say about the topic. If you were only person to experience this and had nothing else to offer I'd be skeptical.
Rationality is subjective and shaped by our presuppositions and worldviews.....basically grounded in individual opinions. If you refuse to meet God on his terms as outlined in scripture and listen to and follow the testimonies of others (follow the evidence basically....of which I am apart) I'm helpless to assist you. No desire to know God, then no God.
I don't think you're crazy or insane either. I desired to know God and listened to the testimonies of others and decided to humbly surrender to him. I didn't place and invent prerequisites and requirements on God or his body of believers. I decided to trust in his word and the words of those who's lives had clearly been changed by him.
Exactly, you see a relationship with God as being shackled and imprisoned and forsaking all rationality and objectivity. I've experienced the ultimate freedom that comes with a relationship with God and the clarity of purpose and understanding it brings. I have objectivity grounded in a foundation of God. You have no God so you're grounded in subjectivity of self. Why should I value your opinion over God's ultimate authority?
-
probably because you haven't really bothered to look or listen. I AM that guy... you now have met one
I knew you were a former believer and that you lost your faith and are now a soft atheist. I was aware of that. I did not know the specifics of your personal situation in regards to the current topic of the Holy Spirit.
"probably because you haven't really bothered to look or listen"
You do realize that in the last 3 years I've probably answered your same questions 20 different times, right? I even respond to answers with quotes from the previous instance in which you've asked the question and I've answered. Seeing a touch of irony here?
Further, do you know how often my questions to atheists and agnostics go unanswered or dodged completely? Almost 100% of the time....with the exception of maybe 3 folks (yourself included in that 3).
-
Well, if that's your conclusion then so be it.
Despite the fact I've had the same repeat discussions since about 2011 with avxo doing the tit for tat, line by line, phrase by phrase, quote for quote discussion he prefers. I don't hate the guy....I don't even dislike the guy. Thing is I like avxo and if he needed my help he'd get it. He isn't blocked on my PMs. I don't ignore him. Further, I respect his opinions and read what he has to say on other topics on the board.
I've just already done all of the back and forth on the vast majority of these topics.....repeatedly. I have enough experience and know that despite his intelligence he likes to have the last word and respond to anything and everything....fine, last word is his. I've even previously and purposefully responded in the "quote for quote" fashion with a response of nothing or a "." to see if he would reply to even that and he did just because I responded. Even with literally no words or images to discuss he still had a written reply.
I just decided enough is enough for me and I'm called "childish" for it. Ok.
Further, as I've also noted if someone is generally interested in pursuing God beyond "board debate" I'm available via PM.....door's open.
too lengthy, didn't read it
-
I knew you were a former believer and that you lost your faith and are now a soft atheist. I was aware of that. I did not know the specifics of your personal situation in regards to the current topic of the Holy Spirit.
"probably because you haven't really bothered to look or listen"
You do realize that in the last 3 years I've probably answered your same questions 20 different times, right? I even respond to answers with quotes from the previous instance in which you've asked the question and I've answered. Seeing a touch of irony here?
Further, do you know how often my questions to atheists and agnostics go unanswered or dodged completely? Almost 100% of the time....with the exception of maybe 3 folks (yourself included in that 3).
That's a pretty high percentage. You literally get no answers from atheists and agnostics when you ask questions.... :o
-
too lengthy, didn't read it
big shocker there
-
That's a pretty high percentage. You literally get no answers from atheists and agnostics when you ask questions.... :o
Almost 100% of the time I get nothing in return. Oh I answer almost all of their questions (sometimes multiple times), but when the table is turned they either run for the hills, switch to mockery, tell me they're "too busy right now", tell me it "isn't worth their time" or give me one last "hit and run".
-
Almost 100% of the time I get nothing in return. Oh I answer almost all of their questions (sometimes multiple times), but when the table is turned they either run for the hills, switch to mockery, tell me they're "too busy right now" or give me one last "hit and run".
Can you give me a couple examples?
-
Can you give me a couple examples?
Here's a few over the course of the last few months:
Asked deadz a follow-up question after I answered his questions….no response:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=585872.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=585872.0)
Asked Josh follow-ups and he wouldn’t answer. He then PM’d me to criticize me privately and I responded and told me never to PM him again LOL....that I’m the only board member that actually scares him LOL.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=580431.msg8240594#msg8240594 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=580431.msg8240594#msg8240594)
In this thread I ask paradoxno1 some follow-up questions….no response…hit and run:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=582732.msg8239413#msg8239413 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=582732.msg8239413#msg8239413)
In this thread phreak comes into an attack and I respond with a question….no response….hit and run:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=580186.100 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=580186.100)
In this thread I respond to TA’s comments and ask a question….no response:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=578383.50 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=578383.50)
In this thread I respond to fortress’ comment with a simple question….no response:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=578383.50 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=578383.50)
In this thread I respond to Bigro (not an atheist but not Christian) and ask questions….he responds with a dodge and no answers:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=578270.50 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=578270.50)
In this thread I give a thorough reply to Darren Avey’s questions and although I don’t ask any questions there’s no response:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=576418.100 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=576418.100)
I used to do a lot of 5-on-1 or even 8-on-1 back and forths with folks in years past and got no answers to questions.
Folks just don't go after me like that anymore.
-
first example, you asked "what are sins?" and then added some more comments. He had already answered your original question, so it wasn't about not wanting to respond to questions. I think your follow up question really didn't warrant a response. It would be like asking "What are apples"? Everyone pretty much understands what apples are.
2nd example it appears he actually did respond, as you said he contacted you via PM about it
In your Fortress example (#6), he answers with
It promotes people into a type of gradual brainwashing that leads to delusion and eventual chronic mental illness.
That's just a random sampling.. the Avery example you said you didn't ask a question, he just didn't respond to your post, we can't count that in your percentage estimate.
I have to say, I think you have selective memory when trying to recall the responses you get just based on a couple of your own examples.
-
Despite the fact I've had the same repeat discussions since about 2011 with avxo doing the tit for tat, line by line, phrase by phrase, quote for quote discussion he prefers. I don't hate the guy....I don't even dislike the guy. Thing is I like avxo and if he needed my help he'd get it. He isn't blocked on my PMs. I don't ignore him. Further, I respect his opinions and read what he has to say on other topics on the board.
Thanks - I appreciate that. Although we do disagree on many things, I think you're a good guy whose beliefs are honest and genuine.
I've just already done all of the back and forth on the vast majority of these topics.....repeatedly. I have enough experience and know that despite his intelligence he likes to have the last word and respond to anything and everything....fine, last word is his. I've even previously and purposefully responded in the "quote for quote" fashion with a response of nothing or a "." to see if he would reply to even that and he did just because I responded. Even with literally no words or images to discuss he still had a written reply.
Come now... I doubt I responded to an empty message.
A definition has been clearly established long ago. You just reject all definitions put forth. First the requirement was it must be "cogent" according to your subjective opinion and when that was put forth then the goalposts were moved and the requirement of "it must universally accepted and understood" was applied.
You can choose to live for yourself and whoever else you want until your final breathe. I encourage you to choose God.
God left the door open for you to come to him. He wants you to choose to seek him. We discussed this many times.
The problem is that the definition, in order to be useful, must be internally consistent and allow us to unambigiously distinguish the thing being defined from something else. I don't think the definition meets that standard and have explained why, giving you examples of how it fails.
I'm happy to seek God, but before I can do so, I need to know what I'm seeking and how I'll know when I found it. Let me give you an example: I want to recommend a great pizza place to you.
- I can tell you: "There's a great pizza place 123 Main Place. You need to try their 'House Special' pizza! It's the best pizza around!" and then you can go and try. Easy! or;
- I can tell you "There's a restaurant, that makes a great round cooked dough circle with stuff on top. The dough is very light and fluffy and they put a sauce made with San Marzano tomatoes. You'll know you have the right place because the carpet is green and there's a picture of the owner's Father behind the counter - he started the shop 49 years ago. Last time I was there, I had their salad."
Sure, I'd listen to all you have to say about the topic. If you were only person to experience this and had nothing else to offer I'd be skeptical.
I listen to you as well and I am skeptical too. That many people shares your beliefs doesn't really help. After all, many people also believe other things, which often contradict your beliefs.
Rationality is subjective and shaped by our presuppositions and worldviews.....basically grounded in individual opinions. If you refuse to meet God on his terms as outlined in scripture and listen to and follow the testimonies of others (follow the evidence basically....of which I am apart) I'm helpless to assist you. No desire to know God, then no God.
I don't think that rationality is subjective. This is about objectivity.
Exactly, you see a relationship with God as being shackled and imprisoned and forsaking all rationality and objectivity. I've experienced the ultimate freedom that comes with a relationship with God and the clarity of purpose and understanding it brings. I have objectivity grounded in a foundation of God. You have no God so you're grounded in subjectivity of self. Why should I value your opinion over God's ultimate authority?
Your value judgements must, of course, be made based on your values and your beliefs should inform them. I'm not asking you to value my opinion, although I hope that you'd at least think about what I have to say. So, questions about my objectivity aside, I have one question: You think that being born "tainted" with Original Sin and essentially condemned to eternal punishment lest you seek out a savior isn't being shackled and imprisoned?
-
first example, you asked "what are sins?" and then added some more comments. He had already answered your original question, so it wasn't about not wanting to respond to questions. I think your follow up question really didn't warrant a response. It would be like asking "What are apples"? Everyone pretty much understands what apples are.
2nd example it appears he actually did respond, as you said he contacted you via PM about it
In your Fortress example (#6), he answers with
That's just a random sampling.. the Avery example you said you didn't ask a question, he just didn't respond to your post, we can't count that in your percentage estimate.
I have to say, I think you have selective memory when trying to recall the responses you get just based on a couple of your own examples.
Remember this is stuff I pulled out quickly from the last couple of months in which I haven't been as active. I have years of stuff prior to.
-
childish...
Agnostic, I replied to avxo and he replied back (see below). Again, nothing against the man, but we've had these exact discussions repeatedly. If I were to respond to this series of comments I will have responded to some of the same things 5+ times in the same way.
Thanks - I appreciate that. Although we do disagree on many things, I think you're a good guy whose beliefs are honest and genuine.
Come now... I doubt I responded to an empty message.
The problem is that the definition, in order to be useful, must be internally consistent and allow us to unambigiously distinguish the thing being defined from something else. I don't think the definition meets that standard and have explained why, giving you examples of how it fails.
I'm happy to seek God, but before I can do so, I need to know what I'm seeking and how I'll know when I found it. Let me give you an example: I want to recommend a great pizza place to you.
- I can tell you: "There's a great pizza place 123 Main Place. You need to try their 'House Special' pizza! It's the best pizza around!" and then you can go and try. Easy! or;
- I can tell you "There's a restaurant, that makes a great round cooked dough circle with stuff on top. The dough is very light and fluffy and they put a sauce made with San Marzano tomatoes. You'll know you have the right place because the carpet is green and there's a picture of the owner's Father behind the counter - he started the shop 49 years ago. Last time I was there, I had their salad."
I listen to you as well and I am skeptical too. That many people shares your beliefs doesn't really help. After all, many people also believe other things, which often contradict your beliefs.
I don't think that rationality is subjective. This is about objectivity.
Your value judgements must, of course, be made based on your values and your beliefs should inform them. I'm not asking you to value my opinion, although I hope that you'd at least think about what I have to say. So, questions about my objectivity aside, I have one question: You think that being born "tainted" with Original Sin and essentially condemned to eternal punishment lest you seek out a savior isn't being shackled and imprisoned?
Should I reply again or would not responding for the 6th or 7th time about the exact same stuff be childish? When is it ok to just stop with the repetition?
No offense intended towards avxo.
-
Agnostic, I replied to avxo and he replied back (see below). Again, nothing against the man, but we've had these exact discussions repeatedly. If I were to respond to this series of comments I will have responded to some of the same things 5+ times in the same way.
Should I reply again or would not responding for the 6th or 7th time about the exact same stuff be childish? When is it ok to just stop with the repetition?
No offense intended towards avxo.
I don't take offense easily. My well-developed musculature protects me! Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go blast my quads!