Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Sassy on April 28, 2016, 09:33:48 AM
-
Luke 1:35.
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
John 17:3King James Version (KJV)
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
The first commandment summing up the whole of the law and teachings of the Prophets is:-
You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart.
Jesus clearly states that if you love him you will keep his commandments.
He clearly states that God is to be first and foremost in our hearts when it comes to loving.
By declaring Jesus to be God we are disobeying God.
In Luke the Angel tells Mary that Jesus is a Holy thing... that he is to be called the Son of God.
It isn't difficult seeing the words of Christ himself and even the words of Peter and Stephen.
Acts 10:38King James Version (KJV)
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
To understand how Christ went from being called the Son of God (as God commanded him to be known and a Holy Thing) to be called God.
The truth is that God gave Jesus the Words he spoke as he said Deuteronomy 18:15-21.
And like Moses the people were to adhere to his words as if God speaking.
Does the truth really matter?
It does because we see people who believe in Jesus, who preach and work miracles still told that Jesus never knew them.
In Christianity it is love for God and others which is the most important part of the faith.
We see the world as it is, but one day an end will come to this world as we know it.
Then shall come the things God intended for all of us.
Revelation 21:4King James Version (KJV)
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Sometimes fear makes people believe the wrong things.
Jesus said it is about living in Spirit and truth and true believers do.
In not obeying God and Christ, we see people lead to misunderstand the truth being taught.
God must be obeyed and both Stephen and Peter understood that Christ was the Son of God and that God annointed him with power and the Holy Spirit and so he was able to do what he did, because God was with Jesus Christ.
God isn't Going to ask who told you what you believe. He is going to ask " Why you never obeyed him or what he taught through Jesus Christ."
Eternal life is knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom the only true God sent.
-
Sassy,
Luke 1:35.
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
John 17:3King James Version (KJV)
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. etc
Or, to put it another way, because a book you choose to think is accurate says so.
-
You first have to prove the existence of "God" before you can start talking about Jesus being his son. Your book of fables is not proof.
-
Luke 1:35.
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
John 17:3King James Version (KJV)
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
The first commandment summing up the whole of the law and teachings of the Prophets is:-
You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart.
Jesus clearly states that if you love him you will keep his commandments.
He clearly states that God is to be first and foremost in our hearts when it comes to loving.
By declaring Jesus to be God we are disobeying God.
In Luke the Angel tells Mary that Jesus is a Holy thing... that he is to be called the Son of God.
It isn't difficult seeing the words of Christ himself and even the words of Peter and Stephen.
Acts 10:38King James Version (KJV)
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
To understand how Christ went from being called the Son of God (as God commanded him to be known and a Holy Thing) to be called God.
The truth is that God gave Jesus the Words he spoke as he said Deuteronomy 18:15-21.
And like Moses the people were to adhere to his words as if God speaking.
Does the truth really matter?
It does because we see people who believe in Jesus, who preach and work miracles still told that Jesus never knew them.
In Christianity it is love for God and others which is the most important part of the faith.
We see the world as it is, but one day an end will come to this world as we know it.
Then shall come the things God intended for all of us.
Revelation 21:4King James Version (KJV)
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Sometimes fear makes people believe the wrong things.
Jesus said it is about living in Spirit and truth and true believers do.
In not obeying God and Christ, we see people lead to misunderstand the truth being taught.
God must be obeyed and both Stephen and Peter understood that Christ was the Son of God and that God annointed him with power and the Holy Spirit and so he was able to do what he did, because God was with Jesus Christ.
God isn't Going to ask who told you what you believe. He is going to ask " Why you never obeyed him or what he taught through Jesus Christ."
Eternal life is knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom the only true God sent.
More assertions no factual evidence. ::)
-
Sassy,
Or, to put it another way, because a book you choose to think is accurate says so.
I guess I believe what God says despite all I see changing in the world.
What is it you believe to be 'not accurate' about Christ being the Son of God?
-
Sass, how do you know what is quoted in the Bible has anything to do with a deity. Supposing it does, it would bring into question the mental health of god.
-
More assertions no factual evidence. ::)
What? You are saying the Bible does not state that? That it is not a fact and therefore evidence that it states that Christ is the Son of God?
You comment has no place on this thread if you are not stating that.
-
I guess I believe what God says despite all I see changing in the world.
What is it you believe to be 'not accurate' about Christ being the Son of God?
You have yet to provide any reason to think that there is a god, and that, if there is, then the bible has anything to do with it....
-
You first have to prove the existence of "God" before you can start talking about Jesus being his son. Your book of fables is not proof.
Not so! Because this thread is about WHY Christ is the Son of God.
You need no belief in God to be able to understand why the bible makes this a truth.
-
You have yet to provide any reason to think that there is a god, and that, if there is, then the bible has anything to do with it....
What the bible says about Christ is proof of the bible relating that which was to come and did.
However given you are trying to make this about God, it shows lack of ability to really see why Christ is the Son of God according to the bible. It lacks the ability to separate your own unbeliefs from the reasoning of the actual belief Christ is the Son of God.
-
Not so! Because this thread is about WHY Christ is the Son of God.
You need no belief in God to be able to understand why the bible makes this a truth.
No belief in God to be able to understand why Jesus is the son of something you don't believe exists?
Try very, very hard to think about what's wrong with this.
-
What? You are saying the Bible does not state that? That it is not a fact and therefore evidence that it states that Christ is the Son of God?
You comment has no place on this thread if you are not stating that.
I thought you weren't replying to my posts? ;D
I am saying just because something is in the Bible doesn't mean it has any credibility. I have a perfect right to challenge your baseless assertions.
-
What the bible says about Christ is proof of the bible relating that which was to come and did.
However given you are trying to make this about God, it shows lack of ability to really see why Christ is the Son of God according to the bible. It lacks the ability to separate your own unbeliefs from the reasoning of the actual belief Christ is the Son of God.
You entitled the thread "Why Christ is the Son of God" - not "Why the bible says Christ is the Son of God".
-
We see the world as it is, but one day an end will come to this world as we know it.
Then shall come the things God intended for all of us.
Revelation 21:4King James Version (KJV)
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
So why bother with the former things at all? Why not just go straight to what God intended for us?
-
Not so! Because this thread is about WHY Christ is the Son of God.
You need no belief in God to be able to understand why the bible makes this a truth.
Don't be silly, Sass. If a person doesn't believe in "God", how on earth can they believe he had a son?
The Bible can't make anything a truth ... it's just a book written by men under the illusion that some power was guiding them.
-
Sassy,
I guess I believe what God says despite all I see changing in the world.
No, what you believe is what a book claims that "God" says, which is a very different thing.
What is it you believe to be 'not accurate' about Christ being the Son of God?
Well, everything but that's not the issue. You called this thread "Why Christ is the Son of God" - and then just posted some bits from a book. Presumably therefore you think you've answered the question you asked by doing so. The question that precedes that though is why you think this book to be accurate or truthful.
Only when you have a cogent and persuasive reply to that question can your answer be worth consideration.
-
What's the difference between your sky pixie and a plank of wood?
Try this simple prayer test.....
Pray to your imaginary sky pixie for something specific to happen.
There are three possible outcomes:
That specific thing happens...Sky pixie says "Yes"
That specific thing doesn't happens...Sky pixie says "No"
It might happen later - Sky pixie says "Wait and see".
=======================================
Now, pray to a plank of wood for the same specific thing to happen.
There are three possible outcomes:
That specific thing happens...Plank of wood says "Yes"
That specific thing doesn't happens...Plank of wood says "No"
It might happen later - Plank of wood says "Wait and see".
===========================================
There you have it. Proof positive that you can't tell the difference between your deity of choice and a plank of wood.
-
Khatru,
There you have it. Proof positive that you can't tell the difference between your deity of choice and a plank of wood.
To an extent, but a statistical sample of one in each case is fairly worthless: the theist would just respond to the effect that his God intervened or not as "He" chose in case one, whereas nothing happened in case two.
The trick is to increase the sample - say to 1,000 events in each case - and then to compare the results. And when they turn out to be the same (as they do) you have a probabilistic argument to the effect either that God chooses to produce results the same as those for the plank of wood (in which case why bother with the praying at all?) or that there's no God in the first place.
Double blind trials on the effect of prayer on hospital patients have been carried out by the way, with the predictable result that there was no difference in outcomes when the patients did not know when they were prayed for. When they did know their outcomes were actually slightly worse - presumably because they thought "blimey, this is more serious than I thought" and responded accordingly!
-
Prayer is praised when the outcome is positive, but the excuse that god knows best is often trotted out when the outcome is negative. ::)
-
No belief in God to be able to understand why Jesus is the son of something you don't believe exists?
Try very, very hard to think about what's wrong with this.
Your ignorance or blind refusal of the fact Christ foretold in the bible including what he did is your denial of the facts.
Worse is your ignorance that man knew God from the very beginning.
You can say what you want but you will still and always will be---WRONG.
I guess shakes your indisgressions are showing.
-
Luke 1:35.
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Happens all the time.... you see these crazy sort of stories all over the internet.
John 17:3King James Version (KJV)
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Awww Naw... Not "John" again, somebody would think, that you think, that everything you read written by "John" is true.
I suppose that is a sign of a good story-teller.
Acts 10:38 King James Version (KJV)
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
Another lesson in good story-telling. The fact that Acts was probably written between 80-130 C.E. seems to allude you, can you guess why this is significant?
Acts 7: 55
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
The Author of this tract is claiming that "Stephen" (a good Greek name BTW) saw the "Son of Man" standing beside God, who he thinks may be Jesus, but never having met Jesus may have been mistaken.
Also, this whole chapter throws up an interesting paradox.
If a Sanhedrin had the power to stone a blasphemer in this instance, why did they not just stone Jesus?
Deuteronomy 18:15-22.
Yup you have a point, this does apply to Jesus:
18 I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto My words which he shall speak in My name, I will require it of him.
20 But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.'
21 And if thou say in thy heart: 'How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?'
22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken; the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Revelation 21:4 King James Version (KJV)
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
I suppose it better than his usual answer. Flood, death, destruction and start again... Oh hang on!!
-
Look Sass, have a word with Hope, he recons he has the evidence you need to establish that your manual is in fact accuratly representing the truth, he might share this elusive evidence he says he has with you, only he wont share it with anyone else, think about it Sass you could become his chosen one.
ippy
-
Happens all the time.... you see these crazy sort of stories all over the internet.
1.What happens all the time? This did not originate from the internet. Denial I see.
One thing I know is there is no wardrobe big enough for you to fit in so you can reach Narnia.
So evasion rather than denial.
Why not answer the simpliest of answers. God told us Jesus is to be called the Son of God.
Awww Naw... Not "John" again, somebody would think, that you think, that everything you read written by "John" is true.
I suppose that is a sign of a good story-teller.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Or in this case whether you know both God and Christ by believing in him.
Did you ever try? Not a good story teller then but the understanding of the reader to see what is before them.
Have you ever had something right under your nose and got it so wrong?
Another lesson in good story-telling. The fact that Acts was probably written between 80-130 C.E. seems to allude you, can you guess why this is significant?
How long is it, since Charles Dickens wrote his works? How long since the Magna Carta written. When Peter said these things
is not the issue. It is a fact that what people say can be long remembered after their death. Take Winston Churchill for
instance. You think on...
The Author of this tract is claiming that "Stephen" (a good Greek name BTW) saw the "Son of Man" standing beside God, who he thinks may be Jesus, but never having met Jesus may have been mistaken.
Also, this whole chapter throws up an interesting paradox.
If a Sanhedrin had the power to stone a blasphemer in this instance, why did they not just stone Jesus?
The answer is that he was full of the Holy Ghost so knew automatically whom Christ and God were.
As for Christ, they could do him no harm till the time appointed. He had done no wrong.
Yup you have a point, this does apply to Jesus:
18 I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto My words which he shall speak in My name, I will require it of him.
20 But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.'
21 And if thou say in thy heart: 'How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?'
22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken; the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Of course it applies to Jesus. He did all the things the Messiah was meant to do.
Understanding Gods words has never been one of the plus points for the Jews when it came to the Messiah.
But Jesus did all the things like opening the eyes of the blind and ears of the deaf.
I suppose it better than his usual answer. Flood, death, destruction and start again... Oh hang on!!
It is about life, life in all it's fullness with hope and truth at the centre.
The final outcome a world without suffering. Nothing wrong with that, is there?
But not something you want to be part of? Some people are so hurt and damaged here they do not realise even that can
be healed in Christ.
-
Your ignorance or blind refusal of the fact Christ foretold in the bible including what he did is your denial of the facts.
Worse is your ignorance that man knew God from the very beginning.
You can say what you want but you will still and always will be---WRONG.
I guess shakes your indisgressions are showing.
I am of the opinion the story of Jesus was created by the gospel writers to fit in with so called prophesies. Funny that very few recognised him as a messiah.
-
I am of the opinion the story of Jesus was created by the gospel writers to fit in with so called prophesies. Funny that very few recognised him as a messiah.
Either that Floo or they knew there would always be a number of gullible people about so they threw a few contrived/invented prophesies to keep the likes of Sass and the Alan B's of this world happy.
Come back Sparky.
ippy
-
Just to save me wading through all that green ink, did Sassy's explanation for why Jesus was the son of God ever amount to anything more than, "because a book says so"?
Ta.
-
Your ignorance or blind refusal of the fact Christ foretold in the bible including what he did is your denial of the facts.
Worse is your ignorance that man knew God from the very beginning.
You can say what you want but you will still and always will be---WRONG.
I guess shakes your indisgressions are showing.
I'm on my mobile and was wondering what indiscretions shaker had got up too.
::)
Must be time I got some new glasses, or a bigger phone
-
Just to save me wading through all that green ink, did Sassy's explanation for why Jesus was the son of God ever amount to anything more than, "because a books says so"?
Ta.
What poverty of spirit to let your whole life be dictated to you from a collections of stories written by deluded people of thousands of years ago.
I know it's difficult, but we should be extending our sympathy to Sass. :(
-
What poverty of spirit to let one's whole life be identified by what one does with one's Hector.......don't you agree?
We should not let our lives be controlled by anything except a moral code which says love your fellow man and care for the environment.
-
We should not let our lives be controlled by anything except a moral code which says love your fellow man and care for the environment.
I tend to agree but think the odd fig tree ''fair game''.
-
I tend to agree but think the odd fig tree ''fair game''.
:) :) :) :) :) :)
Destroying living things in a fit of temper, is hardly "fair game".
-
Your ignorance or blind refusal of the fact Christ foretold in the bible including what he did is your denial of the facts.
All the bits of the Bible that mention Christ were written after his death. That's not foretelling.
[/quote]
-
1.What happens all the time? This did not originate from the internet. Denial I see.
One thing I know is there is no wardrobe big enough for you to fit in so you can reach Narnia.
So evasion rather than denial.
Ahh OK Let's stick to the ancient tales of miraculous birth:
Hinduism.
In the story of Krishna the deity is the agent of conception and also the offspring. Because of his sympathy for the earth, the divine Vishnu himself descended into the womb of Devaki and was born as her son, Vaasudeva (i.e., Krishna). The Hindu Vishnu Purana relates: "Devaki bore in her womb the lotus-eyed deity...before the birth of Krishna, no one “could bear to gaze upon Devaki, from the light that invested her, and those who contemplated her radiance felt their minds disturbed.” This reference to light is reminiscent of the Vedic hymn "To an Unknown God," which refers to a Golden Child.
Buddha - Conception and birth.
The stories of Buddha’s unusual birth developed through the centuries. Two accounts cited by Boslooper tell of the descent of the future Bodhisattva from the "Tusita Body" into the mother’s womb, the appearance of the Buddha in the mother as a shining gem, and the accompanying wonders in the natural world. These are the Majjhima-Nikāya, 123 Acchariyabbhutadhammasuta III. 119-124; (I. B. Horner, 1959, pp. 164–169); and Māhapadānasutta, Dīgha ii. 12. In the Mahapadana-sutra, Digha ii. 12, is the description of the incarnation of the Vipassī Buddha.
"Now Vipassi, brethren, when, as Bodhisat, he ceased to belong to the hosts of the heaven of Delight, descended into his mother’s womb mindful and self-possessed."
Zoroaster.
Zoroaster’s name has been adopted from the Greek and Latin Zoroastres. The ancient form of his name in the Avesta is Zarathustra. His native country was probably Media in Western Iran, (possibly in modern Azerbaijan), but his ministry took place in eastern Iran, especially in the region of Bactria, about 1200 BC. Zoroaster was originally a Magian priest, and under the reforms he instituted, Mithra became one of the Yazatas (Worshipful Ones), the angels or lesser divine beings.
"It was said that (Zoroaster's) birth was foretold from the beginning of time, and that the moment he was born, he burst out laughing and the whole universe rejoiced with him." After his birth evil demons tried to destroy him, but with Ahura Mazda's protection, he survived all attempts on his life.
The Zoroastrian tradition differs from the Christian one because the divine only assists in the preservation of Zoroaster’s seed. "The central scripture, the Avesta and also the Pahlavi texts include the tradition that the 'kingly glory' is handed onward from ruler to ruler and from saint to saint for the purpose of illuminating ultimately the soul of the Zarathushtra." Also the scriptures clearly allude to conjugal relations between his parents, during which evil spirits try to prevent his conception.
But according to later tradition, Zoroaster's mother, Dughdova, was a virgin when she conceived Zoroaster by a shaft of light.
There is absolutely nothing new in the miraculous birth stories contained in the gospel.. they are just a rehash of old myths that were doing the rounds in the area...
Why not answer the simpliest of answers. God told us Jesus is to be called the Son of God.
.
Noooo. The writers of the Gospels try to tell us this, not God... I'm sure a God would have announced it in a more impressive way, that all of us couldn't possibly deny.
Why is this fact so unattainable to you?
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Or in this case whether you know both God and Christ by believing in him.
When was the last time this "God" came down to "prove" anything?
Did you ever try? Not a good story teller then but the understanding of the reader to see what is before them.
Have you ever had something right under your nose and got it so wrong?
Oh I can tell some stories, and mine would be much more believable than the ones contained in the NT.
How long is it, since Charles Dickens wrote his works? How long since the Magna Carta written. When Peter said these things
is not the issue. It is a fact that what people say can be long remembered after their death. Take Winston Churchill for
instance. You think on...
Works.. aren't the gospels referred to as "Works".. You do know that Dickens was a story-teller, not a very good one, but had a plethora of "works" as did good old Willie Shakespeare.
The Magna Carta - we know quite a lot about the Magna Carta :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta. Not so much about who wrote the gospels.. in fact most of them are anonymous and constructed decades if not generations after the fact by people who never met the apostles, let alone Jesus so are bound to be a bit more than flawed!!
Churchill... walked on water did he?
The answer is that he was full of the Holy Ghost so knew automatically whom Christ and God were.
As for Christ, they could do him no harm till the time appointed. He had done no wrong.
Churchill believed this?
Wow, what the fuck was in his cigars?
Of course it applies to Jesus. He did all the things the Messiah was meant to do.
Understanding Gods words has never been one of the plus points for the Jews when it came to the Messiah.
But Jesus did all the things like opening the eyes of the blind and ears of the deaf.
Worth reiterating:
Yup you have a point, this does apply to Jesus:
18 I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto My words which he shall speak in My name, I will require it of him.
20 But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.'
21 And if thou say in thy heart: 'How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?'
22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken; the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him.
God certainly did indeed warn his followers about Jesus.
-
What about those Christians who say Jesus IS God despite this initial quote ????
Nick
-
:) :) :) :) :) :)
Destroying living things in a fit of temper, is hardly "fair game".
No one would object to tearing up a sapling in order to give a new atheist a richly deserved thrashing though.
-
No one would object to tearing up a sapling in order to give a new atheist a richly deserved thrashing though.
What a splendid, forward looking mindset!
-
No one would object to tearing up a sapling in order to give a new atheist a richly deserved thrashing though.
Ok, that's a bit weird.
-
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Eternal life is knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom the only true God sent.
The quickest way to see the mistake in the Jehovah's Witness interpretation of John 17:3 is in Eph 4:4-6. ("there is one God and one Lord") If "One God" excludes Jesus from God, then "One Lord" excludes God from being Lord.
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-john17-3.htm
-
I don't understand why you have quoted the above, Spud. Unless you think another poster is a Jehovah's Witness because they call Jesus, ''Son of God'' but not, ''God'', and want to draw our attention to it. Were that the case, it wouldn't matter in the slightest, however JWs are not the only group of people who believe Jesus is the son of God but not God.
-
I don't understand why you have quoted the above, Spud. Unless you think another poster is a Jehovah's Witness because they call Jesus, ''Son of God'' but not, ''God'', and want to draw our attention to it. Were that the case, it wouldn't matter in the slightest, however JWs are not the only group of people who believe Jesus is the son of God but not God.
He's quoted it because that is Sassy's position. It's the point she is making in the OP
-
He's quoted it because that is Sassy's position. It's the point she is making in the OP
Sassy a JW?
-
News to me too floo, in fact I'm pretty sure she isn't, not that it matters. What Sassy quoted and said are what she has always believed (sorry Sass, as you are here today you can say it for yourself), but Spud seems to have quoted something about Jehovah's witnesses who believe the same on that particular issue. They also solely use the KJV. I have no idea why or how it is relevant. It is surely what Sass says that is the point of this thread, not which other body of believers agree.
(I posted that something Spud said a couple of weeks ago was in line with what JWs believe and he may have been a bit put out by that, though didn't appear to be. I didn't quote from any site in support of it, 'twas just a passing thought. )
-
Harry Potter is the Half-Blood Prince... It says so in a popular Book!!
Or does it?
-
Jon Snow has just been resurrected..
Is he Jesus?
-
The quickest way to see the mistake in the Jehovah's Witness interpretation of John 17:3 is in Eph 4:4-6. ("there is one God and one Lord") If "One God" excludes Jesus from God, then "One Lord" excludes God from being Lord.
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-john17-3.htm
NO JEHOVAHS WITNESS HERE. NO MISTAKE IN CHRIST WHAT HE SAID...
As BAAL means Lord then by your own stupidity and the use of others texts then that would make baal part of God too, wouldn't it. God warns you about getting the creation confused with the creator.
Christ is the created...made man. He is Gods son because he does as God does. As we see when Christ tells the descendants of Abraham when they claim him to be their Father. " If Abraham was your Father you would do as he did."
The truth is you deceitfully drop lies like it is a Jehovahs witness teaching when in truth the words of Christ are completely plain.
Paul is clear on his teaching that when God has put all things under Christ then Christ shall return all things including himself back under God.
King James Bible
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Berean Literal Bible
Now when all things shall have been put in subjection to Him, then also the Son Himself will be put in subjection to the One having put in subjection all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.
What I find irritating the most, is the struggle to try and twist everything to a false teaching that the Roman Catholic Church started to try and keep the Jews from taking their rightful place and the Gentiles being grafted in.
Truth is that without these teachings of men most people would have no beliefs because they do not get their own oil so cannot come to know the truth. They leave the pathway of the one way in Jesus Christ to manmade teachings they then proceed to wave like a rod/baton to judge the people who belong to God in Christ.
What is most sad is they do not understand the meaning of what Christ teaches...
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
There is two commandments...
Love God
Love your neighbour.
In truth there is one way and that way is Jesus Christ. He has fulfilled all that was written about the Messiah.
You lot are like the Pharisees. You think that you can earn your way into heaven.
But Spirit and Truth are the only way that way is Jesus Christ.
Jesus has shown you how to love and that in itself reveals how you live.
It HAS nothing to do with what man twists things too. The OT does not support the teachings of man which they twist out of the NT. If it isn't in the old then it isn't in the new.
Jesus is called the Son of God because God ordained it...
-
Jon Snow has just been resurrected..
Is he Jesus?
He didn't look to well on the channel four news the other day.
Isn't Game of Thrones a euphemism for Irritable Bowel Syndrome?
-
He's quoted it because that is Sassy's position. It's the point she is making in the OP
No it isn't. The point I am making is that Christ makes that point.
The same could be said about Christians and the Jewish Scripture when the Jews say the Christians have got it wrong.
Given the teaching that the son of perdition would make himself out to be God, then the real danger becomes the Christians have a false religion if they believe Christ is God and not as God commanded the Son of God.
Luke 1`31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Is that referring to the reign over the house of Jacob? Is it for the Jews only the house of Jacob?
Clearly the Angel tells Mary....
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Christ a Holy Thing... things which belong to God were called Holy. Christ was and is to be called the Son of God.
Why do you think God makes that stipulation?
King James Bible
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
Being called Holy or a Holy People of God does not make us God. But interesting how those in Christ has the right to be called the Children of God.
King James Bible
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
John 1:12
But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God--
Romans 8:14
For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
It is clear that because The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
We can see the truth why Jesus is the Son of God and why as believers we become the sons/children of God.
We also see why their is no male/female or Jew/Gentile because it is by Gods power through the truth and presence of Gods Spirit within us that we are made the children of God.
-
News to me too floo, in fact I'm pretty sure she isn't, not that it matters. What Sassy quoted and said are what she has always believed (sorry Sass, as you are here today you can say it for yourself), but Spud seems to have quoted something about Jehovah's witnesses who believe the same on that particular issue. They also solely use the KJV. I have no idea why or how it is relevant. It is surely what Sass says that is the point of this thread, not which other body of believers agree.
(I posted that something Spud said a couple of weeks ago was in line with what JWs believe and he may have been a bit put out by that, though didn't appear to be. I didn't quote from any site in support of it, 'twas just a passing thought. )
It was the KJV which I first came to understand and learn about Moses and God.
In Gods teachings we see that the first important teachings from God come through Moses.
We see the history and truth about God and man. What I feel most do not learn in earliest lessons is that God and man have a destiny which nothing can be changed for mankind. All the arguments about whom God is and what has happened does not change what will happen. You can hurl insults and complain discriminately but we know all will come to pass and if people had any sense they would heed what is to pass instead of complaining about it.
I am not a JW the JW's and Mormons believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God does that make them Anglicans and even Roman Catholics because they believe that too... Or do they... Do the Anglicans believe what God has told them that Jesus is the Son of God or do they go beyond the teachings and say that Jesus is God.
The truth is God was with him and he had power and the Holy Spirit with him.
That in Christ we are all one in God by the power of Gods Spirit making us all one.
In truth most people just believe any teachings they are given. But Peter and his teachings show the gospel message is to believe in Christ as the Son of God sent to save us. The Messiah, is the Prophet sent from God to give us the final truth and show us the way forward for Gods people.
We can see how everyone believes the things they were warned would come those false Prophets who would teach things Christ never taught.
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Gods way not mans... I am who I am in Christ and what God sent him to do.
As Paul taught. " I am the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus" we do not have righteousness of our own because all sinned and were sinners.
-
This has made me recall a formulation of Gerald Priestlands which has God saying of Jesus, "this is what I am like......in fact I am so like this, as far as you are concerned I am this.
-
NO JEHOVAHS WITNESS HERE. NO MISTAKE IN CHRIST WHAT HE SAID...
As BAAL means Lord then by your own stupidity and the use of others texts then that would make baal part of God too, wouldn't it. God warns you about getting the creation confused with the creator.
Christ is the created...made man. He is Gods son because he does as God does. As we see when Christ tells the descendants of Abraham when they claim him to be their Father. " If Abraham was your Father you would do as he did."
If Jesus was not called God in several verses of the NT you would have a point. When he mentions God in John 17:3 it is because he is distinguishing God from idols, and does not preclude his own deity.
-
Jesus has become an idol too !!!! ;) ::)
-
Jesus has become an idol too !!!! ;) ::)
Yes he has. No one can prove that anything the gospel writers wrote about the guy have any credence.
-
I'm reliably informed he always speaks highly of you floo. ;)
-
Just out of interest, did anyone manage to support the assertion in the OP with something more sensible than, "because a book says so"?
-
Just out of interest, did anyone manage to support the assertion in the OP with something more sensible than, "because a book says so"?
Of course not.
-
If Jesus was not called God in several verses of the NT you would have a point. When he mentions God in John 17:3 it is because he is distinguishing God from idols, and does not preclude his own deity.
You miss the point Spud... Son of God is to equal himself with God not become God or replace God.
Jesus was the Son of God because he did what his Father does.
He did not sin. He was not a liar and not false.
The NT is not and never has been used by any of the Prophets, Jesus or the disciples because it never existed when they were here. In fact the only scripture any refer to is the OT. The truth is that Paul relates to everyone the truth that anything written or said by anyone is to be judged by the OT. You are to ignore him and any other speaker where the words cannot be justified by the Old Testament.
Jesus is spoken about in the OT and according to Christ...
King James Bible
Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
Jesus is the Son of God. Like Moses he represented God and made him known to us.
King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
King James Bible
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
King James Bible
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
At no time did Christ call himself God. By calling himself the Son of God he then became equal in that he was like God.
The Sons of Gods the Angels are also without sin but they are not God.
It is the Spirit who reveals things to mankind. Christ clearly stated. " My words are spirit and they are life." Like all flesh they receive the word from God by the Power of Gods Holy Spirit.
We know that the power of God for the believer is in the Spirit and the Spirit teaches the believer.
In Christ we are saved and in Gods anointing of the baptism receiving the Spirit we have Gods mark on us to live as he has ordained. John is telling and warning people that Christ came in the flesh to fulfill the prophecy from God.
Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. It clearly shows what Peter believed about Jesus.
He believed the same things as I believe. God anointed Jesus (greater is he who anoints) with the Holy Ghost and with Power; who went about doing good, and healing all who were oppressed by the devil; FOR GOD WAS WITH HIM.
When the truth comes down to it... The OT does not confirm that Jesus was anything but a Prophet and the Son of God.
That God was with him.
-
MMM?!?!?!
Try & convince the Jews of this then as it's THEM Jesus came for initially, no ?!?!?
Nick
-
Floo,
Of course not.
Shame that - given the promise of the OP's title, there was me think that Sassy would finally make and argument rather than just quotes chunks from a book with no attempt to demonstrate first it's truthfulness or accuracy. I had the family pack of Cheesy Wotsits and a large bottle of ginger beer all ready too :(
-
Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. It clearly shows what Peter believed about Jesus.
He believed the same things as I believe. God anointed Jesus (greater is he who anoints) with the Holy Ghost and with Power; who went about doing good, and healing all who were oppressed by the devil; FOR GOD WAS WITH HIM.
When the truth comes down to it... The OT does not confirm that Jesus was anything but a Prophet and the Son of God.
That God was with him.
Thanks for your reply, Sassy. I can't comment on all of it at the moment, but just to clarify, I do agree that Jesus is the Son of God. Also I noticed in this verse that we see the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit mentioned together. By the way you have read the verse, Jesus is distinct from God. However, if you read it this way then you also have to say that the Holy Spirit is distinct from God.
-
Floo,
Shame that - given the promise of the OP's title, there was me think that Sassy would finally make and argument rather than just quotes chunks from a book with no attempt to demonstrate first it's truthfulness or accuracy. I had the family pack of Cheesy Wotsits and a large bottle of ginger beer all ready too :(
All in vain of course, LOL!
-
You miss the point Spud... Son of God is to equal himself with God not become God or replace God.
Jesus was the Son of God because he did what his Father does.
So he was just a 1st century Jew then.
The NT is not and never has been used by any of the Prophets, Jesus or the disciples because it never existed when they were here.
**Sits up and stares at his screen intensely - this is the 1st sensible thing the Sass has ever written... **
In fact, the only scripture any refer to is the OT.
**.. bated breath**
The truth is that Paul relates to everyone the truth that anything written or said by anyone is to be judged by the OT.
**Where is she going with this??**
You are to ignore him and any other speaker where the words cannot be justified by the Old Testament.
**.. holds his breath**
Jesus is spoken about in the OT and according to Christ...
And there it is.. the disappointment! The shift from Jesus to the "Christ".
King James Bible
Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
All this talk about the OT and yet "quotes" the NT..
Jesus is the Son of God. Like Moses he represented God and made him known to us.
But Moses is not seen as "The Son of God", but then again Jesus could have been seen as a representative of his God during his "ministry", so I guess there is a smidgeon of "truth" in this statement.
King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
King James Bible
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
King James Bible
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Aww - I was hoping for some OT quotes here...
At no time did Christ call himself God. By calling himself the Son of God he then became equal in that he was like God.
The Sons of Gods the Angels are also without sin but they are not God.
So by following this logic, neither was Jesus a God....
It is the Spirit who reveals things to mankind. Christ clearly stated. " My words are spirit and they are life." Like all flesh they receive the word from God by the Power of Gods Holy Spirit.
Oooooo the Holy Ghost.. The holy ghost was my favourite at primary school. I called him "Casper", although like the "christ" it never became "flesh" for me!!
We know that the power of God for the believer is in the Spirit and the Spirit teaches the believer.
True, Spirits certainly taught me a few things... Spirits are good. Can I get this Spirit you speak of in Asda?
In Christ we are saved and in Gods anointing of the baptism receiving the Spirit, we have Gods mark on us to live as he has ordained. John is telling and warning people that Christ came in the flesh to fulfil the prophecy from God.
Emmmm I thought baptism was to cleanse this spirit/soul.. where exactly did God "ordain" this practice?
Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.[/b] It clearly shows what Peter believed about Jesus.
Hang on - you were chatting about John, why quote "Acts"?
He believed the same things as I believe. God anointed Jesus (greater is he who anoints) with the Holy Ghost and with Power; who went about doing good, and healing all who were oppressed by the devil; FOR GOD WAS WITH HIM.
You quoted Acts, not John. Are you a bit confused? The writers had diametrically opposed Christologies!!
When the truth comes down to it... The OT does not confirm that Jesus was anything but a Prophet and the Son of God.
That God was with him.
Hang on.. As a 1st century Jew Jesus was already a Son of God.. and being a disciple of the Baptist was an apocalyptic prophet. **check**
Are you now claiming that there is nothing in the OT that relates to him being a "Christ" - Halleluiah - The blind do at last see!!
-
MMM?!?!?!
Try & convince the Jews of this then as it's THEM Jesus came for initially, no ?!?!?
Nick
Trippy, either make a statement with evidence or bow out. It is obviously outside your area of expertise and knowledge.
Your answer does show that to be the case.
-
Thanks for your reply, Sassy. I can't comment on all of it at the moment, but just to clarify, I do agree that Jesus is the Son of God. Also I noticed in this verse that we see the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit mentioned together. By the way you have read the verse, Jesus is distinct from God. However, if you read it this way then you also have to say that the Holy Spirit is distinct from God.
Doesn't the Holy Spirit become distinct from Both Christ and God the Father when Christ says:
King James Bible
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Even Christ makes a distinction when it comes to the Holy Spirit and Blasphemy. You can be forgiven all manner of sin and blasphemy except that which is against the Holy Spirit.
Which shows you are not thinking correctly when it comes to the persons which you refer to.
What you cannot do is make them One outside the teachings of Christ how God makes us all one in him and Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Need more time to think, Spud?
-
Thrud:
Sassy: Jesus is spoken about in the OT and according to Christ...
And there it is.. the disappointment! The shift from Jesus to the "Christ".
Well which is it? Is the Messiah Spoken about in the OT? Doesn't Christ quote the OT as confirmation
as to whom he is?
What does he say to Johns disciples when they ask if he is the one or if their is still one to come?
King James Bible
Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see,
the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed,
the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.
Isaiah 35:5. (4-6)
King James Bible
Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.
So sometimes I give you too much credit... See how you have not really studied the connections of what Christ does and did.
How the OT tells of him doing what he did. Proof of who he is through the Prophets.
Thrud...
But Moses is not seen as "The Son of God", but then again Jesus could have been seen as a representative of his God during his
"ministry",
so I guess there is a smidgeon of "truth" in this statement.
More than a smidgeon...
King James Bible
And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
Look carefully at that verse... Then read Dueteronomy 18:15-21.
Christ reveals God to us by being like God is. We see God in Jesus, his love, his compassion and his truth.
It is really all about being able to put the NT into the OLD without the OT knowledge then those needing to search cannot find.
But the new way of Christ the New Covenant read Jeremiah 31:31-34. See the difference and understanding it brings to Christ as
saviour.
Quote:Thrud
Aww - I was hoping for some OT quotes here...
But you can't see my face, because no one may see me and live."
It is something that is not clearly understood. You can be in the presence of God and not see his face.
If the bible is true that God is omnipresent in all places at all times it means that there is a difference between seeing Gods
face and seeing his presence.
So by following this logic, neither was Jesus a God....
King James Bible
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
What does it mean to be a god?
We can all do as Christ did, and he made known God the creator and Father of mankind.
We can all do as he did by the power of GOD. So in fact being Children of God we become one with God.
Individuals whose lives are transformed but who remain who we are in Christ.
We both know that even with the power to cast mountains into the sea we will never be the Most high God.
Note why Jesus is called the Son of God.
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest
shall overshadow thee:
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
We should not confuse being god-like with being the most high God.
Oooooo the Holy Ghost.. The holy ghost was my favourite at primary school. I called him "Casper",
although like the "christ" it never became "flesh" for me!!
Again as a spirit why would it become flesh?
It is with our Spirit we know God and that is what causes the change in our flesh.
How can you understand something you have no really knowledge about?
I have missed chunks of your post because we both know how silly you were being.
Ask straightforward questions and omit the mockary. You might learn something..
-
Sass, with each post you just drop yourself in the mire over and over again, it is so sad you just can't see that for yourself.
-
Just out of interest, did anyone manage to support the assertion in the OP with something more sensible than, "because a book says so"?
So Daniel Dennett says so trumps that does it.
Books say many things I've found to be true.....Why have you got it in for books these days?
-
Just out of interest, did anyone manage to support the assertion in the OP with something more sensible than, "because a book says so"?
[inane comment]
Books say many things I've found to be true.....Why have you got it in for books these days?
You really don't have the first clue about logic, do you?
-
[inane comment]
Books say many things I've found to be true.....Why have you got it in for books these days?
You really don't have the first clue about logic, do you?
You have to find that God is true. What you quaintly refer to as logic doesn't conjur God up.
But come on hotshot, Use logic to demonstrate philosophical naturalism.
-
Some,
You really don't have the first clue about logic, do you?
Not a clue. Welcome to the mendaciously disordered mind of Trollboy. He's "found" things in books to be true, though presumably he found that not just because the book said so - which is precisely Sassy's problem when her only answer to the OP is endlessly to quote chunks from a book.
-
You have to find that God is true.
No, I don't.
What you quaintly refer to as logic doesn't conjur God up.
Soooo, your god cannot be found with logic. Okay.
None of which has anything to do with the absurd inference in the post to which I was responding.
-
Some,
It's up to you to respond or not to Trollboy, but just by way of a head up he's invented his own meaning for "philosophical naturalism" too and it's that version rather then the real one he's asking you to demonstrate. The basic plan is that you get so frustrated watching him duck and dive to arrive at a coherent definition of the term that you fail to notice the has no method of any kind to demonstrate his "god".
-
Some,
Not a clue. Welcome to the mendaciously disordered mind of Trollboy. He's "found" things in books to be true, though presumably he found that not just because the book said so - which is precisely Sassy's problem when her only answer to the OP is endlessly to quote chunks from a book.
Yes Hillside things in books like definitions for instance. They are in books and yet you have a record of disregarding them and coming up with your own definitions.
Run your definition of scientism and philosophical materialism past us again.
-
Not a clue. Welcome to the mendaciously disordered mind of Trollboy. He's "found" things in books to be true, though presumably he found that not just because the book said so - which is precisely Sassy's problem when her only answer to the OP is endlessly to quote chunks from a book.
Exactly: he seems to have tried to answer the argument:
Because a book says so is not sufficient grounds to regard something as true.
With
There are some true things in books.
I can't imagine the mental contortions necessary to actually think that was an answer....
-
Some,
Soooo, your god cannot be found with logic. Okay.
It's an odd position isn't it: "I've been visited by a god. I know this because I have a really strong opinion on the matter, but I have no interest in eliminating any of the alternative but non-divine explanations for the episode. Nor can I make a logically sound argument for the existence of this god. You have not been visited by this god, but you must take my assertion on the matter as meaning that "He" is real for you too".
When you cut through the endless lies, evasions and avoidances that - literally - is all he has the locker.
-
But come on hotshot, Use logic to demonstrate philosophical naturalism.
Why?
-
Why?
Because I say so.
-
Some,
You really don't have the first clue about logic, do you?
Just to confirm the point for you, he's unwittingly just crashed into a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy over on the Searching for God thread. This is all getting a bit like shooting ducks in a barrel now I think.
-
Because I say so.
Not good enough.
-
You have to find that God is true.
We've been over this in depth before. We agreed that if you really really try you might come to believe that God is objectively real. However, as you have admitted this doesn't get you one stepper closer to showing that god is objectively real.
What you quaintly refer to as logic doesn't conjur God up.
So how did you decide that your experience of God was an experience of an objectively true God?
-
Some,
Just to confirm the point for you, he's unwittingly just crashed into a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy over on the Searching for God thread. This is all getting a bit like shooting ducks in a barrel now I think.
Would you care to run your definitions of Scientism and philosophical naturalism past us again?
-
Stephen,
So how did you decide that your experience of God was an experience of an objectively true God?
He liked the feeling. Really liked it.
Also...
...oh no, sorry. That was it.
The scam he's attempting here by the way is to re-define "philosophical naturalism" to mean, "the natural is all there is or can be" rather than its actual meaning (ie, that the natural is all we can reliably access, test, model and predict pending any evidence to the contrary). Then he labels the rest of us with his own personal definition, and demands that we justify it.
He's also entirely oblivious to the fact that - even if he could ever find someone who did accept his personal definition - all that would leave him with would be an "anything could be". It would say nothing about the probability of his or any other god, and if he really wanted to use it as a back door to let in his god then he'd have no choice but to let in to any other "just popped into my head-ism" too, leprechauns included. After all, "anything might be" (with which no-one disagrees) just means, well, that anything might be.
-
We've been over this in depth before. We agreed that if you really really try you might come to believe that God is objectively real. However, as you have admitted this doesn't get you one stepper closer to showing that god is objectively real.
So how did you decide that your experience of God was an experience of an objectively true God?
Did we agree that an encounter with God is somehow made real by trying?
There are many reluctant encounters with God and some famous ones at that.
If one encounters a rock one doesn't have to try to make it real ......and one recognises it because it fits a linguistic descriptive framework.
There is only an issue with the above if firstly one is a philosophical materialist and secondly if you believe a linguistic descriptive framework is a complete description of the thing itself.
-
Stephen,
He liked the feeling. Really liked it
That isn't how I have reported my own experience or how others describe theirs including some well known examples......but then why let a fact get in the way of a good story eh.
Conviction of ones current status by the Holy Spirit is often not a bed of Roses.In fact the sheerness of it can make one draw back.
Any chance of your definition of scientism and philosophical naturalism again?
-
Did we agree that an encounter with God is somehow made real by trying?
Well you suggested it earlier on this thread by saying that you have to find God.
There are many reluctant encounters with God and some famous ones at that.
If one encounters a rock one doesn't have to try to make it real ......and one recognises it because it fits a linguistic descriptive framework.
There is only an issue with the above if firstly one is a philosophical materialist and secondly if you believe a linguistic descriptive framework is a complete description of the thing itself.
All you seem to be saying here is that your description seems to fit the description of an encounter with God. But since we don't know of anyone who has definitely met God we don't have a description of what such an experience would be like.
-
Well you suggested it earlier on this thread by saying that you have to find God.
All you seem to be saying here is that your description seems to fit the description of an encounter with God. But since we don't know of anyone who has definitely met God we don't have a description of what such an experience would be like.
No what I'm saying is that the linguistic framework which fits the encounter happens to be that of Christianity. The linguistic framework that fits a stone, or Dennetts theory of the self is different and does not cover the experience. That is all.
-
No what I'm saying is that the linguistic framework which fits the encounter happens to be that of Christianity.
And? That demonstrates it to be objectively true how exactly?
-
No what I'm saying is that the linguistic framework which fits the encounter happens to be that of Christianity.
It may seem that way to Christians: but it only seems that way since, no doubt, adherents of other religions would say the same (linguistically speaking of course) of their 'encounters'.
-
Stephen,
And? That demonstrates it to be objectively true how exactly?
Worth noting too that the language that just happened to describe encounters with the Roman gods described those gods, with the Sumerian gods described those gods, with the Aztec gods described...etc
Funny that. A rationalist might just conclude that - whatever causal agencies happened to be responsible for those and for the Christian god "encounters" too - the subjects merely reached for the language that was most familiar to them to describe the cause.
Trollboy is in other words attempting a quite spectacular piece of ass-backwards reasoning, even by his standards.
-
What you quaintly refer to as logic doesn't conjur God up.
So you reject the traditional arguments for the existence of God then. WLC has got it all wrong?
Ironically that also includes the ontological argument and we all know that you can't beat a bit of ontology of a Sunday teatime ;)
-
Oh, for fuck's sake don't start him on ontology, we'll be here all bleeding night.
-
And? That demonstrates it to be objectively true how exactly?
Let me lay my cards on the table.I am not bound by terms which are philosophically naturalistic....and neither are you.........got that? Good so now we may proceed. The key word is encounter. That a thing is establishes its ontology. Not that it can be reasoned into existence.
When one encounters God one is neither encountering a stone or an intellectual theory, rather God is disturbing you. A stone disturbs, theory may disturb but it is not the disturbance but what causes the disturbance.
Given that there are now fewer alternatives to counter the reality of God. Bluehillside knows this and makes frequent recourse to it.............The counter argument is that the encounter is due to brain abérration. At which point we know the kind of thing he is alluding to ....and it doesn't fit the bill.
Hillside is condemned to shoehorning stuff.
-
Stephen,
Worth noting too that the language that just happened to des
cribe encounters with the Roman gods described those gods, with the Sumerian gods described those gods, with the Aztec gods described...etc
Funny that. A rationalist might just conclude that - whatever causal agencies happened to be responsible for those and for the Christian god "encounters" too - the subjects merely reached for the language that was most familiar to them to describe the cause.
A rationalist might also more likely conclude that anyone does this on encountering the new and some people shoehorn their experience into a framework in order to contain it unreasonably eg into a philosophical naturalist secularist framework they were born into.....rather than looking further afield and accepting there are no words for some of their experience........You would have to find a rationalist.I don't think you'll find one on this forum.
-
When one encounters God ...
By what means would one know?
-
A rationalist might also more likely conclude that anyone does this on encountering the new and some people shoehorn their experience into a framework in order to contain it unreasonably eg into a philosophical naturalist secularist framework they were born into.....rather than looking further afield and accepting there are no words for some of their experience........You would have to find a rationalist.I don't think you'll find one on this forum.
I don't know about anybody else but I can't cope with all these -ists ...
-
By what means would one know?
It's a matter of faith, not knowledge. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Mostly to themselves.
-
Trippy, either make a statement with evidence or bow out. It is obviously outside your area of expertise and knowledge.
Your answer does show that to be the case.
You don't need me to do this so either answer my point or run off & hide, shouting abuse as you get thrown about again - AS USUAL !!!
-
It's a matter of faith,
What do YOU mean by that?
-
When one encounters God one is neither encountering a stone or an intellectual theory, rather God is disturbing you. A stone disturbs, theory may disturb but it is not the disturbance but what causes the disturbance.
That certainly does sound disturbing, Vlad - an infinite regress of disturbances: disturbances all the way down (which makes a change from turtles I suppose).
Don't let it disturb you too much though.
-
That certainly does sound disturbing, Vlad - an infinite regress of disturbances: disturbances all the way down (which makes a change from turtles I suppose).
Don't let it disturb you too much though.
Ah, just the man....You argue that resurrection never happens.......what about the Conservatives in Scotland?
-
What do YOU mean by that?
In terms of what we are discussing here, it means a confidence in something you experience and believe to be real, rather than know to be real.
Faith isn't a bad word, Vlad. I have faith in all kinds of things. Without faith there would be no relationships, no trust, no friendships, no love. It's actually quite lovely. I don't get why you want to shoehorn knowledge in where it isn't necessary.
-
Ah, just the man....You argue that resurrection never happens.......what about the Conservatives in Scotland?
Now that is disturbing.
-
In terms of what we are discussing here, it means a confidence in something you experience and believe to be real, rather than know to be real.
Faith isn't a bad word, Vlad. I have faith in all kinds of things. Without faith there would be no relationships, no trust, no friendships, no love. It's actually quite lovely. I don't get why you want to shoehorn knowledge in where it isn't necessary.
Fine, and of course my next question................................ what do YOU mean by knowledge?
-
Now that is disturbing.
Will you be blaming Burke and Hare this time?
-
Fine, and of course my next question................................ what do YOU mean by knowledge?
Vlad, I've been on your side of the fence. I have experienced how real it feels to the point where it feels as real as the earth beneath your feet. But 'God' isn't demonstrable or proveable. To have knowledge of God it has to be verifiable and testable and stand up to scrutiny. Otherwise what you have is faith.
-
Will you be blaming Burke and Hare this time?
Please don't dig them up :)
-
Please don't dig them up :)
It's a grave situation.
-
Vlad, I've been on your side of the fence. I have experienced how real it feels to the point where it feels as real as the earth beneath your feet. But 'God' isn't demonstrable or proveable. To have knowledge of God it has to be verifiable and testable and stand up to scrutiny. Otherwise what you have is faith.
What do you mean by demonstrable?
-
It means that it can be demonstrated, Vlad.
Feel free to demonstrate God for me.
-
It means that it can be demonstrated, Vlad.
So demonstrated means demonstrated then?..........Is that even a proper answer?You don't seem to be able to explain this socratically.
-
So demonstrated means demonstrated then?..........Is that even a proper answer?You don't seem to be able to explain this socratically.
That wasn't what you asked, was it?
-
This isn't the plainest English I have ever encountered so you'll have to excuse me if I have got the wrong end of the stick.
Let me lay my cards on the table.I am not bound by terms which are philosophically naturalistic....and neither are you.........got that?
No has said that we are have they? However, just because we say that anything might be possible it doesn't mean everything becomes fair game. Things have to be ruled in not the other way around. So just by saying that anything might be possible moves you not an iota of a nanometer closer to demonstrating God.
Good so now we may proceed. The key word is encounter. That a thing is establishes its ontology. Not that it can be reasoned into existence.
I think what you are saying here is that something either exists or it doesn't independent of our ability to show it does by reasoning.
If that is what you meant then obviously it is true. However, again so what?
What we need then is a way of determining whether these things exist or not.
When one encounters God one is neither encountering a stone or an intellectual theory, rather God is disturbing you. A stone disturbs, theory may disturb but it is not the disturbance but what causes the disturbance.
There are multiple ways of checking a claim that you have encountered a rock, there are zero ways of checking a claim that you have encountered God.
Given that there are now fewer alternatives to counter the reality of God. Bluehillside knows this and makes frequent recourse to it.............The counter argument is that the encounter is due to brain abérration. At which point we know the kind of thing he is alluding to ....and it doesn't fit the bill.
Hillside is condemned to shoehorning stuff.
All I think is being said is how do you know that you have correctly attributed the cause of your experience of God to an actual encounter with God.
You are saying that you have an experience. (you told us about it on another thread).
That this experience fits the Christian Narrative (a few posts back).
Therefore, your experience of God is caused by an encounter with the Christian God.
The elephant in the room thought is that there is no reason to believe that the Christian narrative is correct. We can't point to a single verifiable encounter with an actual God. In order for you reasoning to have even anything approaching explanatory power you first have to assume that the Cristian God exists and can be experienced.
-
Let me lay my cards on the table.I am not bound by terms which are philosophically naturalistic....and neither are you.........got that? Good so now we may proceed. The key word is encounter. That a thing is establishes its ontology. Not that it can be reasoned into existence.
When one encounters God one is neither encountering a stone or an intellectual theory, rather God is disturbing you. A stone disturbs, theory may disturb but it is not the disturbance but what causes the disturbance.
Given that there are now fewer alternatives to counter the reality of God. Bluehillside knows this and makes frequent recourse to it.............The counter argument is that the encounter is due to brain abérration. At which point we know the kind of thing he is alluding to ....and it doesn't fit the bill.
The trouble (well part of the trouble) with that is that the there is an abondance of people in the world claiming that they have encountered something or other. Not only a vast menagerie of different gods but angels, devils, demons, ghosts, aliens and so on.
So, in effect, you are asking us the believe that you, and the other devotees of whatever species of Christian god you think correct, are the only ones who've got it right and ... what? Everybody else has not had a genuine experience? They have misinterpreted it? They have have had a "brain aberration"?
While "aberration" is not a term I would use for a profound experience that might be interpreted as religious; how do you know that an "aberration" doesn't "fit the bill"? Have you experienced every sort of possible "aberration"?
All that before we get on the absurdity of an omnipotent god (is your species of Christian god omnipotent?) attempting to communicate important messages only though unverifiable personal experiences that get lost amongst all the noise of other experiences and/or are often misinterpreted.
Hillside is condemned to shoehorning stuff.
I suggest you are in need of a far bigger shoehorn than blue.
-
That wasn't what you asked, was it?
Ok since your definition of knowledge seems to be impervious to socratic dialogue and in need of defence, at the moment. Let's explore using mine.
Let's start with the thesis that knowledge is what each one of us knows, first hand.
What does that then exclude as knowledge?
That which is acquired at second hand.
Where does that leave scientific knowledge?
Only those things within science that we know ourselves at first hand.
How much of science do we know first hand?
Not a lot.
Inference, we believe most of science and trust scientist and other scientists trust other scientist and what is termed as scientific Knowledge is not in fact knowledge but trusting.
Are results obtained by scientific instrumentation ''Knowledge''.
We do not experience neutrino penetration, for instance, so this comes to us second hand.
Inference. actual knowledge is received from equipment is questionable as knowledge. Rather we trust our equipment.
general inference. The only real scientific knowledge we can claim is what we gain empirically ourselves rather than second hand and instrumentally.
General inference. It may be only empirical knowledge experienced ourselves that can be claimed as knowledge.
General Inference. The only corporate knowledge that can be classed as knowledge as holdable is that which is agreed on by all.
General inference. We still have the issue that this only established
by individual experience, in other words, second hand knowledge is unacceptable.
General issue. Not everyone is competent to carry out or interpret all experimentation.
General inference. Scientific knowledge as stands depends on individual experience, agreed experience and trust.
General observation. Religion depends on individual experience, agreed experience and trust.
Final word. These points have of course been made by scientists who also write about religious experience and Polkinghorne, I would say is the go to author on this.
-
This isn't the plainest English I have ever encountered so you'll have to excuse me if I have got the wrong end of the stick.
No has said that we are have they? However, just because we say that anything might be possible it doesn't mean everything becomes fair game. Things have to be ruled in not the other way around. So just by saying that anything might be possible moves you not an iota of a nanometer closer to demonstrating God.
I think what you are saying here is that something either exists or it doesn't independent of our ability to show it does by reasoning.
If that is what you meant then obviously it is true. However, again so what?
What we need then is a way of determining whether these things exist or not.
There are multiple ways of checking a claim that you have encountered a rock, there are zero ways of checking a claim that you have encountered God.
All I think is being said is how do you know that you have correctly attributed the cause of your experience of God to an actual encounter with God.
You are saying that you have an experience. (you told us about it on another thread).
That this experience fits the Christian Narrative (a few posts back).
Therefore, your experience of God is caused by an encounter with the Christian God.
The elephant in the room thought is that there is no reason to believe that the Christian narrative is correct. We can't point to a single verifiable encounter with an actual God. In order for you reasoning to have even anything approaching explanatory power you first have to assume that the Cristian God exists and can be experienced.
Put simply Stephen, living in a secular society blessed with people like Dawkins, Hitchins and the four horseman and my own experience as a non believer. I have the foreland and hinterland of ideas and theories to challenge my interpretation and none of them have so far dented my interpretation of what I experience spiritually and what and who I am in spiritual terms.
To what then do I put the failure of the neh sayers down to?
Basically all I feel I am getting is ''we don't know what it is you have but we know it isn't God'' which is not a good argument I think you will agree.
Secondly it is a defence of ignorance.
For your final question. You seem to be saying you have to be able to explain and comprehensively understand something before you can experience and that is as they say,seriously ''arse about face''.
-
Basically all I feel I am getting is ''we don't know what it is you have but we know it isn't God'' which is not a good argument I think you will agree.
Seems a perfectly sound argument to me not to draft in as a pseudo-explanatory principle something without cogent definition whose acolytes can't even offer a methodology for being made aware of its existence. "Don't know - let's keep investigating" demonstrates intellectual humility; "it just happens to be my preferred interpretation of just one of the thousands of gods on offer" is the opposite of that.
-
The trouble (well part of the trouble) with that is that the there is an abondance of people in the world claiming that they have encountered something or other. Not only a vast menagerie of different gods but angels, devils, demons, ghosts, aliens and so on.
So, in effect, you are asking us the believe that you, and the other devotees of whatever species of Christian god you think correct, are the only ones who've got it right and ... what? Everybody else has not had a genuine experience? They have misinterpreted it? They have have had a "brain aberration"?
While "aberration" is not a term I would use for a profound experience that might be interpreted as religious; how do you know that an "aberration" doesn't "fit the bill"? Have you experienced every sort of possible "aberration"?
All that before we get on the absurdity of an omnipotent god (is your species of Christian god omnipotent?) attempting to communicate important messages only though unverifiable personal experiences that get lost amongst all the noise of other experiences and/or are often misinterpreted.
I suggest you are in need of a far bigger shoehorn than blue.
Let me gather up your ideas and answer the gathering as it were.
You talk of a world experiencing that which doesn't seem to be covered by the uniformity of science. Do you now go down the line of empiricism?
How then can a whole world be an aberration? Isn't it statistically more correct to say that it is non experience which is the aberration?
Or we could take the epidemiological approach and say these experiences are an infestation, a pandemic in which there are only a few immune? If you go down this line then what warrant do you have for doing so?
-
What do you mean by demonstrable?
Just to remind you that this was what you actually asked, Vlad.
-
Seems a perfectly sound argument to me not to draft in as a pseudo-explanatory principle something without cogent definition whose acolytes can't even offer a methodology for being made aware of its existence. "Don't know - let's keep investigating" demonstrates intellectual humility; "it just happens to be my preferred interpretation of just one of the thousands of gods on offer" is the opposite of that.
Look, I've spent a lot of time painstakingly and sensitively handling peoples posts and answering them in what is hopefully a sensitive and respectful manner so do you think you can just fuck off thank you?
-
Just to remind you that this was what you actually asked, Vlad.
OK have you read my response yet it is the long one in response to your post?
-
OK have you read my response yet it is the long one in response to your post?
Yes, I have. It falls apart with 'knowledge is what we know first hand' and vanishes completely with a mention of Polkinghorne - who I have read, btw.
But then I've just seen you throwing your toys out of the pram in response to a reasonable post from Shaker so I'm not sure how much point remains in discussing this with you. Never mind.
-
Seems a perfectly sound argument to me not to draft in as a pseudo-explanatory principle something without cogent definition whose acolytes can't even offer a methodology for being made aware of its existence. "Don't know - let's keep investigating" demonstrates intellectual humility; "it just happens to be my preferred interpretation of just one of the thousands of gods on offer" is the opposite of that.
All right Shaker, I apologise for my previous bit of fun where I asked you to F off while I was trying to be sensitive.
It is not sound to say we don't know, supposedly investigate but dogmatically stick to a method which from the outset isn't possibly going to be able to say anything about the question.
In other words Shaker you just end up defending ignorance.
Now...can you just fuck off?
-
Yes, I have. It falls apart with 'knowledge is what we know first hand' and vanishes completely with a mention of Polkinghorne - who I have read, btw.
But then I've just seen you throwing your toys out of the pram in response to a reasonable post from Shaker so I'm not sure how much point remains in discussing this with you. Never mind.
I'm afraid you obviously lack ironical humour.
I have answered Shaker seriously in another post.
-
Oh, right, the old 'can't you take a joke?' shit.
-
It is not sound to say we don't know, supposedly investigate but dogmatically stick to a method which from the outset isn't possibly going to be able to say anything about the question.
Nothing dogmatic about it, Vlad.
You either have a method that's accurate, reliable and consistent, or you don't. It's that simple.
-
Put simply Stephen, living in a secular society blessed with people like Dawkins, Hitchins and the four horseman and my own experience as a non believer. I have the foreland and hinterland of ideas and theories to challenge my interpretation and none of them have so far dented my interpretation of what I experience spiritually and what and who I am in spiritual terms.
I have never doubted the sincerity of your belief. But effectively it boils down to, I am personally convinced.
To what then do I put the failure of the neh sayers down to?
Basically all I feel I am getting is ''we don't know what it is you have but we know it isn't God'' which is not a good argument I think you will agree.
No. You make a claim and you have been unable to show us why we should take you claim to have correctly ascribed the cause to an objective God. That's all it is.
Secondly it is a defence of ignorance.
No it's an approach to avoiding believing to be true things which have not been demonstrated to be so.
For your final question. You seem to be saying you have to be able to explain and comprehensively understand something before you can experience and that is as they say,seriously ''arse about face''.
No that's not what I said.
In ascribing the Christian God as the cause of your experience you are assuming the Christian narrative is correct.
That people throughout history have also claimed to experience God in the same way that you have is no evidence as to the existence of that God.
-
Nothing dogmatic about it, Vlad.
You either have a method that's accurate, reliable and consistent, or you don't. It's that simple.
Yes, I'm wondering if you have read what I have written this morning paralleling science with religion.
Religion is not science, but like science experience and I guess from that experiment is important and the individual is, as scientific instrumentation, instrumental in religion.
I wonder whether consistency, reliability and accuracy and are as clear cut in science as you would like to make
Accuracy in instrumentation is questionable but agreement helps establish it......
That said experience, accuracy in interpretation of experience, reliability and consistency(religions have lasted millennia after all even nuclear scientists have approached religious experts to discuss piggybacking warnings about nuclear waste on religion)
are a feature of religion.
-
Jesus is called the Son of God because God ordained it...
Was it also ordained that Jesus was right-handed? Or was that left-handed? Maybe the divine ordination was to make Jesus ambidextrous?
What DNA did your god ordain for Jesus? He would had to have selected a specific DNA rather than just shuffling the cards and dealing a random hand.
I take it you know that plenty of people have a genetic predisposition to what you would think of as "sins". Tell me, did the supreme cosmic mega being take care to include all those conditions in Jesus' DNA so that he could be tempted in everything?
Did he also ordain that Jesus have a tendency towards alcoholism? Just think, in that way he could be tempted in the same way that humans with that inclination are. After all, if you take cross-section through society at large you'll find people engaged in deep struggles with problems at all sorts of different levels. Did Jesus have a high sex drive? Perhaps he enjoyed gambling? Was he prone to beating up women?
If Jesus was to truly experience all that humans did then surely the supreme cosmic mega being would have ordained that all of the above and probably more would have to go into Jesus' genetic make-up. Did the Lord ordain that Jesus have homosexual tendencies?
At what level was it ordained that Jesus' metabolic rate should be set at? If he was to experience hunger then that would warrant special consideration. What about a pain threshold? Then there's the IQ level - where did your god ordain that at? Couldn't be too high if the supreme cosmic mega-being wanted Jesus to interact with humans on their level.
It's safe to say that humans are far more admirable and noble than your Jesus ever was. We humans are the ones who have no choice other than to deal with the DNA we get.
Now that's a real triumph compared to some imaginary being whose DNA and genetic make-up was divinely ordained.
-
It may seem that way to Christians: but it only seems that way since, no doubt, adherents of other religions would say the same (linguistically speaking of course) of their 'encounters'.
Can you give me historical events like Christ coming the Messiah as told from other religions.
You see I can see the message of Gods son clearly throughout history since he came.
But I see nothing in relation to these other religions. Do you not admit there has been no notable encounters for people of other religions throughout history? There has been no significant world changes than that through Christ from 2,000 years or so ago.
So what does it take Gordon for you to sit up and notice that something about Jesus Christ was different. What changed all those people and brought a worldwide change to many thousands and millions?
Do you deceive yourself Gordon? Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the chosen Messiah told by men throughout history.
Is it a coincidence or is he the Son of God who has died to bring mankind back to God before the end of the world?
You need to make a choice and you need to ask what if in accepting Christ you know the truth. How would you tell others what you have found to be true?
-
Jesus is a storybook character. What is attributed to him has no more credence than the stories surrounding Harry Potter and his chums.
-
By what means would one know?
The same way Saul/Paul did. Because the truth is that if you wanted to know if Christ is the Son of God and the Messiah who died to save the world. Then you could always ask God to take your spiritual blindness away and show you that Jesus is his Son.
Do you know why most men will die? Because of their pride. You cannot ask God because you will not humble yourself to the notion that Christ is Lord of all things on earth. You deny yourself the one truth which benefits all mankind and especially yourself.
The means are clear. You only have to seek and Ask but you will do neither because you are afraid of what that would mean.
Becoming the one on the other side. But eventually all sides will cease and only those left will be the ones who chose the truth and sought the way.
Jesus is the Son of God and not one man in all the time since he came has been able to remove that truth.
I pray one day you seek for yourself and find Christ in your heart and not the disbelief of your head.
-
It's a matter of faith, not knowledge. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Mostly to themselves.
Would that include yourself. The one who said she only needs the material and then claims to be a pagan?
It is a matter of opinion and your past post shows your opinion is not sustainable given your double minded thinking and claims.
Show Christ is a liar... You do what he did. Heal the sick, cure the lame, make the blind see. Prove God did not send him.
You see where you fall down. Many people witnessed the miracles of Christ. Many still healed in his name.
You think you can show all those Prophets, disciples and followers to be liars?
Your comment carries no weight and furthermore is has no truth. It is denial and fear because you have nothing to sustain your belief.
-
You don't need me to do this so either answer my point or run off & hide, shouting abuse as you get thrown about again - AS USUAL !!!
I see you are running away and relying on false accusations.
Nothing new there Trippy.
Your motto, " If at first I don't succeed, I will make false accusations to hide my epic failure"
Trippy, I have no interest in playground antics. Either put up or shut up.
We all can see your slip.
-
It means that it can be demonstrated, Vlad.
Feel free to demonstrate God for me.
You demonstrate your paganism, first.
Oh! you can't you already admitted they are myths.
Ever thought the problem is your own train of thought and the way you think.
You love what is false how can you ever find the gravity of that which is true?
-
The same way Saul/Paul did. Because the truth is that if you wanted to know if Christ is the Son of God and the Messiah who died to save the world. Then you could always ask God to take your spiritual blindness away and show you that Jesus is his Son.
That would entail merely assuming to be true the very thing that stands in need of demonstration, which is nonsense.
Do you know why most men will die?
Everybody's going to die, and degradation of telomeres over time has a large part to play in this.
Because of their pride. You cannot ask God because you will not humble yourself to the notion that Christ is Lord of all things on earth.
I've always found humility to be the preserve of those with plenty to be humble about.
You deny yourself the one truth which benefits all mankind and especially yourself.
It doesn't benefit me to believe nonsense.
The means are clear. You only have to seek and Ask but you will do neither because you are afraid of what that would mean.
See first response above.
Jesus is the Son of God and not one man in all the time since he came has been able to remove that truth.
It isn't the truth, or at least is so only subjectively, which makes it a belief or an opinion.
Negative proof fallacy duly noted while we're at it.
I pray one day you seek for yourself and find Christ in your heart and not the disbelief of your head.
Your prayers will meet with the same level of success as all others. See Alan Burns's thread about his friend Becky on the PTA board for further details.
-
Can you give me historical events like Christ coming the Messiah as told from other religions.
Why should I do that? Claims about messiahs of any sort aren't mine to make, so the burden of proof is on those who make messiah claims: such as yourself.
You see I can see the message of Gods son clearly throughout history since he came.
So you say: but you could be wrong.
But I see nothing in relation to these other religions.
That would be due to your confirmation bias, with an added dash of special pleading.
Do you not admit there has been no notable encounters for people of other religions throughout history?
They may claim this, or claim it of others, but that doesn't confirm that they encountered a specific 'something': people get stuff wrong, people make stuff up while other people can be highly credulous - so you'd need to have a method to address these risks.
There has been no significant world changes than that through Christ from 2,000 years or so ago.
Plain wrong.
So what does it take Gordon for you to sit up and notice that something about Jesus Christ was different.
Some convincing evidence that is underpinned by an appropriate methodology would be needed - to date no has been offered one, so the risks of mistakes and lies remain unaddressed.
What changed all those people and brought a worldwide change to many thousands and millions?
You can choose any permutation of fallacies you like to explain this, since in the absence of a suitable method there are no compelling arguments for 'god' that aren't fallacious in one way or another.
Do you deceive yourself Gordon?
On the issue of 'god' I don't think so as things stand, given the absence of a method to demonstrate the divine that is inherently fallacious - should such a method be offered then that may change my position.
Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the chosen Messiah told by men throughout history.
Which seems like a fallacious statement on several counts.
Is it a coincidence or is he the Son of God who has died to bring mankind back to God before the end of the world?
Which seems like another fallacious statement.
You need to make a choice and you need to ask what if in accepting Christ you know the truth. How would you tell others what you have found to be true?
I have: I've rejected Christianity (and theism in general) as being fallacious, and in rejecting the truth claims of others I'm not making a truth claim myself.
-
Let me gather up your ideas and answer the gathering as it were.
Except you totally fail to actually provide an answer to any of my questions...
You talk of a world experiencing that which doesn't seem to be covered by the uniformity of science. Do you now go down the line of empiricism?
How then can a whole world be an aberration? Isn't it statistically more correct to say that it is non experience which is the aberration?
Or we could take the epidemiological approach and say these experiences are an infestation, a pandemic in which there are only a few immune? If you go down this line then what warrant do you have for doing so?
Remember that it is you who labelled these experiences as "aberrations". I suspect that people have experiences that they tend to interpret according to their religious culture or other predispositions.
You ask if the whole world can an "aberration" but you seem to think that the whole world except for those claiming an experience of your sub-species of Christian god would be an "aberration". Otherwise, you cannot claim to have the correct interpretation yourself.
The fact is that these interpretations of experiences cannot all be true; whatever we conclude, we are left with most people being mistaken.
Which brings us back to how can we decide which, if any, are true?
Then, to repeat the bit you completely ignored:
All that before we get on the absurdity of an omnipotent god (is your species of Christian god omnipotent?) attempting to communicate important messages only though unverifiable personal experiences that get lost amongst all the noise of other experiences and/or are often misinterpreted.
-
Yes, I have. It falls apart with 'knowledge is what we know first hand' and vanishes completely with a mention of Polkinghorne - who I have read, btw.
But then I've just seen you throwing your toys out of the pram in response to a reasonable post from Shaker so I'm not sure how much point remains in discussing this with you. Never mind.
Yes, Vlad's long post about knowledge is vitiated by its starting premise that knowledge is first-hand. This is a re-definition really, which presumably helps Vlad to describe science in terms of trust.
One common definition of science is public knowledge, but this doesn't mean that everyone has personally experienced a particular scientific experiment or observation. These are repeatable, this is why they are termed 'public'.
If I discover a certain particle X, I will publish my results, and methods, and then other teams of scientists will attempt to replicate them. They don't just say, ah, Wigginhall is a good chap, so we will trust his stuff.
Well, if you set up a premise like this, you can get to any result you want. Yawn.
-
Yes, Vlad's long post about knowledge is vitiated by its starting premise that knowledge is first-hand. This is a re-definition really, which presumably helps Vlad to describe science in terms of trust.
One common definition of science is public knowledge, but this doesn't mean that everyone has personally experienced a particular scientific experiment or observation. These are repeatable, this is why they are termed 'public'.
If I discover a certain particle X, I will publish my results, and methods, and then other teams of scientists will attempt to replicate them. They don't just say, ah, Wigginhall is a good chap, so we will trust his stuff.
Well, if you set up a premise like this, you can get to any result you want. Yawn.
No,
I analysed your position. You have two logical directions in which to go from what you are saying
1. Empiricism. In which everything else is meaningless including criticism of religion
2. Religion is an aberration and non religion is how people should be.
You cannot have 1 and 2 but such a contradiction is where your position leads you.
-
No,
I analysed your position. You have two logical directions in which to go from what you are saying
1. Empiricism. In which everything else is meaningless including criticism of religion
2. Religion is an aberration and non religion is how people should be.
You cannot have 1 and 2 but such a contradiction is where your position leads you.
That's false. Describing science as public knowledge, and describing observations and experiments as repeatable, does not lead to the conclusion that everything else is meaningless. You have stuck that bit in yourself.
Again, you bring up the term 'aberration', not me. I don't think that everything outside science is wrong, or false, or stupid.
You seem to be swerving from your claim that knowledge is first-hand.
-
That's false. Describing science as public knowledge, and describing observations and experiments as repeatable, does not lead to the conclusion that everything else is meaningless. You have stuck that bit in yourself.
Again, you bring up the term 'aberration', not me. I don't think that everything outside science is wrong, or false, or stupid.
You seem to be swerving from your claim that knowledge is first-hand.
Many apologies Wigginhall.
I have inadvertently replied to someone else but on your post by mistake.
-
Yes, Vlad's long post about knowledge is vitiated by its starting premise that knowledge is first-hand. This is a re-definition really, which presumably helps Vlad to describe science in terms of trust.
One common definition of science is public knowledge, but this doesn't mean that everyone has personally experienced a particular scientific experiment or observation. These are repeatable, this is why they are termed 'public'.
If I discover a certain particle X, I will publish my results, and methods, and then other teams of scientists will attempt to replicate them. They don't just say, ah, Wigginhall is a good chap, so we will trust his stuff.
No, but the vast majority cannot or will not attempt to replicate them and actually will take it on trust
Public knowledge? What the hell is that? and what has it to do with my observation that we take most scientific knowledge on trust and don't actually know it ourselves.
Your post addresses nothing IMHO.
-
Why should I do that? Claims about messiahs of any sort aren't mine to make, so the burden of proof is on those who make messiah claims: such as yourself.
So you say: but you could be wrong.
That would be due to your confirmation bias, with an added dash of special pleading.
They may claim this, or claim it of others, but that doesn't confirm that they encountered a specific 'something': people get stuff wrong, people make stuff up while other people can be highly credulous - so you'd need to have a method to address these risks.
Plain wrong.
Some convincing evidence that is underpinned by an appropriate methodology would be needed - to date no has been offered one, so the risks of mistakes and lies remain unaddressed.
You can choose any permutation of fallacies you like to explain this, since in the absence of a suitable method there are no compelling arguments for 'god' that aren't fallacious in one way or another.
On the issue of 'god' I don't think so as things stand, given the absence of a method to demonstrate the divine that is inherently fallacious - should such a method be offered then that may change my position.
Which seems like a fallacious statement on several counts.
Which seems like another fallacious statement.
I have: I've rejected Christianity (and theism in general) as being fallacious, and in rejecting the truth claims of others I'm not making a truth claim myself.
I can vouch that you don't make truth claims.
-
No, but the vast majority cannot or will not attempt to replicate them and actually will take it on trust
Not entirely, no. There is a process in place to check scientific results; other scientists can and do check and double check results. In addition, we can tell that the process generally works because we do test the results of the process of science; some of them on a daily basis. For example, every time you use a device containing semiconductors you are testing quantum mechanics - use a GPS device and you are testing relativity too. If you are unfortunate to get ill, you may well test some aspect of medical science.
In contrast, at least most people who have religious experiences and who interpret them as encounters with something objectively real, are definitely wrong. Whichever god(s) you believe in, most people think you are wrong. There is no consensus and no way to test the results. If one group is right, then everybody else is wrong.
How about you address the basis of your own claims? Why should we believe your interpretation of your experience, rather than all the others or none at all?
-
No, but the vast majority cannot or will not attempt to replicate them and actually will take it on trust
Public knowledge? What the hell is that? and what has it to do with my observation that we take most scientific knowledge on trust and don't actually know it ourselves.
Your post addresses nothing IMHO.
Well, I think that you are evading scrutiny of religious claims, by talking about science. I can't see the point really.
-
Well, I think that you are evading scrutiny of religious claims, by talking about science. I can't see the point really.
That's funny because I thought I was responding to Shaker who was comparing science to religion by saying science was marked by accuracy, reliability and consistency.
I discussed how far scientific knowledge was all these three and stated that they were also important and found in religion.
-
Not entirely, no. There is a process in place to check scientific results; other scientists can and do check and double check results. In addition, we can tell that the process generally works because we do test the results of the process of science; some of them on a daily basis. For example, every time you use a device containing semiconductors you are testing quantum mechanics - use a GPS device and you are testing relativity too. If you are unfortunate to get ill, you may well test some aspect of medical science.
In contrast, at least most people who have religious experiences and who interpret them as encounters with something objectively real, are definitely wrong. Whichever god(s) you believe in, most people think you are wrong. There is no consensus and no way to test the results. If one group is right, then everybody else is wrong.
How about you address the basis of your own claims? Why should we believe your interpretation of your experience, rather than all the others or none at all?
All you are saying is that science checks itself...but then religions check themselves as well.
Non believers have checked out religion and found it to be true.
Those that do not find anything at all in it can I think put the failure down to approaching it as though what it represents is a scientific, materialistic truth.
-
All you are saying is that science checks itself...but then religions check themselves as well.
That will be why all religion is in agreement, then.... ::)
Where are the results of this checking of which you speak?
Non believers have checked out religion and found it to be true.
What non-believers and which religion did they find to be true...?
Those that do not find anything at all in it can I think put the failure down to approaching it as though what it represents is a scientific, materialistic truth.
How should we approach it in order to discover which of the many mutually contradictory claims are true? This is a point you continue to ignore: even if one religion is right, most are wrong.
-
Why should I do that? Claims about messiahs of any sort aren't mine to make, so the burden of proof is on those who make messiah claims: such as yourself.
So you say: but you could be wrong.
That would be due to your confirmation bias, with an added dash of special pleading.
They may claim this, or claim it of others, but that doesn't confirm that they encountered a specific 'something': people get stuff wrong, people make stuff up while other people can be highly credulous - so you'd need to have a method to address these risks.
Plain wrong.
Some convincing evidence that is underpinned by an appropriate methodology would be needed - to date no has been offered one, so the risks of mistakes and lies remain unaddressed.
You can choose any permutation of fallacies you like to explain this, since in the absence of a suitable method there are no compelling arguments for 'god' that aren't fallacious in one way or another.
On the issue of 'god' I don't think so as things stand, given the absence of a method to demonstrate the divine that is inherently fallacious - should such a method be offered then that may change my position.
Which seems like a fallacious statement on several counts.
Which seems like another fallacious statement.
I have: I've rejected Christianity (and theism in general) as being fallacious, and in rejecting the truth claims of others I'm not making a truth claim myself.
All that huff and puff nonsense and it all adds up to you having no proof.
IT IS TRUE.. You cannot base your disbelief on any actual evidence.
As I said it is your pride... you cannot risk being wrong can you? But you cannot prove yourself right.
Christianity and knowing God and Christ is a personal relationship which requires no validation outside the people in the relationship.
Sooner you realise that the believer under no obligation to prove anything because we all know if you truly were interested in the truth and knowing God you would take a step back and actually follow the WAY Christ taught. The disciples did not hang around those who refused to believe in Christ. Once the number there were added to believers they moved on to the next place.
You do realise that you are not going to convince anyone you made an informed decision, don't you.
All that waffle and it meant absolutely nothing...
-
No, but the vast majority cannot or will not attempt to replicate them and actually will take it on trust
Well that shows just how much you know about science then.
For the most part science proceeds on the basis of baby steps. Every field has a hard edge where out knowledge runs out.
If you had ever done any scientific research you would know that it starts with a literature review. i.e. what people have currently reported.
Normally the next step is to define the next steps/hypothesis based on this prior research. This may or may not include direct replication of methods and previous results in my case, and most of the ones I am aware of, it normally does. If the next stage of research contradicts the previous ones then the either I have gone wrong or the previous conclusion are in need of revision. This is the beauty of the method, we hold knowledge that is provisional and if the weight of future data weighs against it then the current state of the art will be revised.
Contrast this with a religious claim often made about prayer.
You ask for something and the answer can be:
Yes
No
Not yet
There is absolutely no way to falsify this claim.
Take our recent discussion about design in the natural world. It is not possible to know whether or not that the design is sub-optimal or that what we think are flaws are really the perfect design viewed form the perspective of a tri-Omni God.
Take the recent claim of Hope that I challenged about God not being able to sin. Well it was clear he commanded what we would describe as genocide. However, if he exists, maybe he has a justifiable reason that is not obvious to us. How could we know? Again it's a claim that can't be revised or demonstrated true. It is the absolute opposite of the scientific method.
-
That will be why all religion is in agreement, then.... ::)
Where are the results of this checking of which you speak?
But not all scientists are in agreement, indeed there are some basic disputes about whether multiverse theories are science or whether things which there can be no tests for are science. whether there should be falsifiability in science, or essentialism in science.
Religions have checking in the sense of consistency of experience and tradition.
-
Oh come on, Vlad. Transubstationalism. Penal substitution. Women priests. Purgatory and limbo. Indulgences. Papal infallibility. Gay marriage. Celibacy. Fornication, adultery, divorce and marriage/remarriage. Salvation through works. Salvation through grace.
Consistency? Really?
-
But not all scientists are in agreement, indeed there are some basic disputes about whether multiverse theories are science or whether things which there can be no tests for are science. whether there should be falsifiability in science, or essentialism in science.
This is nothing but an obvious distraction tactic. We have a huge body of tested scientific theories; many of which underpin the technology that we are using.
Religion has no objective tests at all and it is totally fragmented in to the different religions, sects, cults and denominations.
Religions have checking in the sense of consistency of experience and tradition.
Really? Odd how people tend to have experiences that are consistent with whatever religion they are most familiar with, isn't it?
It is noted that you keep on ignoring the logical necessity that most religions are wrong. I'll also ask again: how should we approach religious claims in order to discover which of the many mutually contradictory claims are true?
-
But not all scientists are in agreement, indeed there are some basic disputes about whether multiverse theories are science or whether things which there can be no tests for are science. whether there should be falsifiability in science, or essentialism in science.
And in such cases (I have been involved in two prominent ones in my scientific area) experiments can be designed to decide which one is the closest to reality ( one win, one draw so far). The draw was due to either hypothesis being valid under different circumstances.
-
This is nothing but an obvious distraction tactic. We have a huge body of tested scientific theories; many of which underpin the technology that we are using.
Religion has no objective tests at all and it is totally fragmented in to the different religions, sects, cults and denominations.
Really? Odd how people tend to have experiences that are consistent with whatever religion they are most familiar with, isn't it?
It is noted that you keep on ignoring the logical necessity that most religions are wrong. I'll also ask again: how should we approach religious claims in order to discover which of the many mutually contradictory claims are true?
A distraction tactic about what? You have science I have science, You have science versus religion, I have something a bit more sensible than that.
Religion has no common denominators?, Religion totally fragmented?
I think that is hyperbolic nonsense from someone who thinks science is all..but doesn't apparently live out an authentic empiricists existence.
The truth is that you don't really know what you are arguing for or against.
-
All that huff and puff nonsense and it all adds up to you having no proof.
I tend to be wary of the notion of 'proof': so should you.
IT IS TRUE.. You cannot base your disbelief on any actual evidence.
I'm also wary of invitations to commit the negative proof fallacy - so I'll decline to do so.
As I said it is your pride... you cannot risk being wrong can you?
Being wrong is always a risk, which is why it pays to avoid falling into obvious fallacies.
But you cannot prove yourself right.
Agreed, so it is just as well I'm not trying to.
Christianity and knowing God and Christ is a personal relationship which requires no validation outside the people in the relationship.
Which would be a fallacious claim.
Sooner you realise that the believer under no obligation to prove anything because we all know if you truly were interested in the truth and knowing God you would take a step back and actually follow the WAY Christ taught.
Not when the arguments offered by 'believers', such as yourself, are so obviously fallacious.
The disciples did not hang around those who refused to believe in Christ. Once the number there were added to believers they moved on to the next place.
Then why are you posting with the likes of me?
You do realise that you are not going to convince anyone you made an informed decision, don't you.
All that waffle and it meant absolutely nothing...
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything: I'm simply rejecting bad arguments offered by the credulous, such as yourself.
-
A distraction tactic about what? You have science I have science, You have science versus religion, I have something a bit more sensible than that.
I don't have science verses religion - it's you who started on about science. I was trying to ascertain how you would go about sifting mistaken religious experience and interpretation from true religious experience and interpretation (if there is any) and also questioning the notion that an omnipotent god would communicate in such an error-prone way. You brought in the science distraction in #115.
Please feel free to share this "something a bit more sensible". In your own time....
Religion has no common denominators?, Religion totally fragmented?
Oh FFS, do you live in the real world at all? What do you see? Is religion united on planet Vlad?
I think that is hyperbolic nonsense from someone who thinks science is all..but doesn't apparently live out an authentic empiricists existence.
Back to straw man construction, I see. I have never argued that "science is all".
The truth is that you don't really know what you are arguing for or against.
I'm engaged in the apparently futile task of trying to get you to address the problem of how anybody can test religious experiences and interpretations (that you claim are the reason to believe), so we can find the one that is true (if there is one) amongst all the others (necessarily the majority) that are mistaken...
-
You have science versus religion, I have something a bit more sensible than that.
Religion has no common denominators?, Religion totally fragmented?
I think that is hyperbolic nonsense from someone who thinks science is all..but doesn't apparently live out an authentic empiricists existence.
The truth is that you don't really know what you are arguing for or against.
This is complete BS. You are the one bringing science into this.
You make a claim. We ask how we can know it is true. It is that simple. Maybe you say that it can't be demonstrated by the scientific method. OK then how can we tell that the claim you make is true? It is as simple as that. No need to bring science into it, unless you think it can help.
I notice, no reply to the previous questions I asked.
-
This is complete BS. You are the one bringing science into this.
You make a claim. We ask how we can know it is true. It is that simple. Maybe you say that it can't be demonstrated by the scientific method. OK then how can we tell that the claim you make is true? It is as simple as that. No need to bring science into it, unless you think it can help.
I notice, no reply to the previous questions I asked.
What?.............This forum is replete with Religion versus science threads which I haven't even contributed to.
There are scientific instruments for science and we are the instruments for detecting God. You haven't got a detector, you are a God detector and the trained, skilful and gifted can observe your response.
-
What?.............This forum is replete with Religion versus science threads which I haven't even contributed to.
You continuously bring up the subject of science, along with other isms, when we are asking you to demonstrate God. Why?
There are scientific instruments for science and we are the instruments for detecting God. You haven't got a detector, you are a God detector and the trained, skilful and gifted can observe your response.
But we need to show that the scientific instruments are detecting what we think they are. Normally by calibration agasint known standards.
As far as I am aware Sigma-Aldrich don't sell a God standard. Yep I was right.
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search?&interface=All&N=0+9634086&mode=partialmax&lang=en®ion=GB&focus=product
How then do you know you are detecting what you claim you are?
-
What?.............This forum is replete with Religion versus science threads which I haven't even contributed to.
There seem to be various reasons why it gets mentioned.
Some religious claims flatly contradict scientific evidence: literal creationism, for example.
Then there are the rather silly theist arguments that start with "science can't explain....", as if that (even if true) was an argument for their god.
Also, science is an example of a system that has a way to check its results - in exactly the same way that religion hasn't. I imagine that many theists find that threatening. That certainly seems to be your problem, in this thread. Rather than answer the questions raised about how we might check religious claims, you have tried to undermine how science works (despite the fact that you are using a product of science to do so).
There are scientific instruments for science and we are the instruments for detecting God.
How do you know we are "instruments for detecting God"? If we are, we are clearly extremely badly designed for the task. Even if we accept that some people have successfully detected the true god(s), more people are wrong than right.
You haven't got a detector, you are a God detector and the trained, skilful and gifted can observe your response.
Just assertion.
-
Oh come on, Vlad. Transubstationalism. Penal substitution. Women priests. Purgatory and limbo. Indulgences. Papal infallibility. Gay marriage. Celibacy. Fornication, adultery, divorce and marriage/remarriage. Salvation through works. Salvation through grace.
Consistency? Really?
Jesus is the life, the truth and the way...
Simple, consistent and above all, the only way the true believer can know God.
Read John 4 you might learn something of that which you should have known as a believer.
-
I tend to be wary of the notion of 'proof': so should you.
I'm also wary of invitations to commit the negative proof fallacy - so I'll decline to do so.
Being wrong is always a risk, which is why it pays to avoid falling into obvious fallacies.
Agreed, so it is just as well I'm not trying to.
Which would be a fallacious claim.
Not when the arguments offered by 'believers', such as yourself, are so obviously fallacious.
Then why are you posting with the likes of me?
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything: I'm simply rejecting bad arguments offered by the credulous, such as yourself.
Reply as expected Gordon,
But with us the believers we can see why it is the truth and experience the things from God.
I find it sad you settle for disbelief with nothing to reassure you or confirm your doubts. :(
Maybe the way we perceive truth has a lot to do with it.
The believer expects and should receive the Promises of God.
-
Reply as expected Gordon,
But with us the believers we can see why it is the truth and experience the things from God.
I find it sad you settle for disbelief with nothing to reassure you or confirm your doubts. :(
Maybe the way we perceive truth has a lot to do with it.
The believer expects and should receive the Promises of God.
Why don't you/ show me real, tangible and irrefutable evidence that the god you have picked out to grovel to actually exists
Just think, if you did that, I would, more than likely, change my mind based on the evidence you provided. After all, evidence comes before a conclusion.
Well, it does for me anyway.
But not for you, eh?
In your case the conclusion comes first after which you filter out evidence that is at odds with your conclusion. Doesn't matter what evidence comes up you won't change your mind.
How dishonest is that?
-
Reply as expected Gordon,
But with us the believers we can see why it is the truth and experience the things from God.
I find it sad you settle for disbelief with nothing to reassure you or confirm your doubts. :(
Maybe the way we perceive truth has a lot to do with it.
The believer expects and should receive the Promises of God.
Couldn't it be that your perception of the 'truth', doesn't have any basis in reality, as you can't provide any evidence to support it?
-
Stephen,
You make a claim. We ask how we can know it is true. It is that simple. Maybe you say that it can't be demonstrated by the scientific method. OK then how can we tell that the claim you make is true? It is as simple as that. No need to bring science into it, unless you think it can help.
For what it's worth I chased Trollboy all over the old BBC boards and later on here too for an answer to that but he never felt like answering. I even resorted to asking him why he wouldn't answer, but he would answer that either.
His entire schtick is to construct straw men versions of what's actually said to him - including just re-defining words to suit his purpose by the way - and then attacking those straw men in the hope that no-one notices that he has no argument of any kind for his personal faith beliefs also being objectively true for the rest us.
It's deeply dishonest and entirely pointless but, as he takes the non-falsification of his straw men as succour for his position, I've stopped feeding him.
-
Reply as expected Gordon,
True - if you offer fallacies then I'm going to rebut them.
But with us the believers we can see why it is the truth and experience the things from God.
I'm sure you think that but I'd say you're thinking is fallacious.
I find it sad you settle for disbelief with nothing to reassure you or confirm your doubts. :(
I don't actively 'disbelieve' in Gods.
Maybe the way we perceive truth has a lot to do with it.
Well, what is actually perceived and what is actually true require more than just assertion - no matter how sincere the person making assertion is.
The believer expects and should receive the Promises of God.
No idea what this is supposed to mean, so it is at least a non sequitur.
-
Why don't you/ show me real, tangible and irrefutable evidence that the god you have picked out to grovel to actually exists
Do you have to grovel to your father?
So why would any child have to grovel to their Father in heaven?
I suppose that is why I am a child of God and you are not.
My Father does not make me grovel...
31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
God has made a way for us all. Strange you think children have to grovel to their Father.
We just return the love he gives to us.
Just think, if you did that, I would, more than likely, change my mind based on the evidence you provided. After all, evidence comes before a conclusion.
But you have already made up your mind. A mind which puts God in a bad light and one where you want to relish in hurling insult. How can you want anything better when you show clearly you want to hurt, insult and tear down.
Mocking does not do anyone any good, not even you who mock.
Well, it does for me anyway.
But not for you, eh?
You have evidence that God doesn't exist? You have evidence which allows you to believe that your insulting and and
mocking others is okay. I personally, would like you to produce that evidence so all who believe can know they are wrong.
The truth I believe about God and Jesus allows me to live my life in peace and knowing them.
Your disbelief and lack of evidence makes you want to attack anything that you do not believe.
You make proud statements and when it comes to backing them up you have nothing.
My beliefs are in God, Jesus Christ and the Word of God. I can show my proof for my beliefs. But you do not have anything yet want proof of mine. Read the bible and accept Christ as your saviour. If you do these things you will have ALL the evidence you require. It won't make you bitter either.
In your case the conclusion comes first after which you filter out evidence that is at odds with your conclusion. Doesn't matter what evidence comes up you won't change your mind.
How dishonest is that?
All that from the person who just made the statement:
Why don't you/ show me real, tangible and irrefutable evidence that the god you have picked out to grovel to actually exists
Just think, if you did that, I would, more than likely, change my mind based on the evidence you provided. After all, evidence comes before a conclusion.
Then follows the above with....
Well, it does for me anyway.
But not for you, eh?
I think not because if asked to produce evidence God does not exist for his own beliefs, he cannot.
I can show the way I became a believer and the God WHOSE Words I believe in simply by telling you to read the bible and obey Christ. If you believed Christ you would have your proof. But you won't even try...
-
Maybe people are sceptical because your behaviour on forums doesn't exactly tie in with your stated beliefs, Sass!
-
Maybe people are sceptical because your behaviour on forums doesn't exactly tie in with your stated beliefs, Sass!
Sass is very kind and all she wants you to do is look around your room and select something that made itself. :D
~TW~
-
...look around your room and select something that made itself. :D
Why? Is there some kind of point you are struggling to make here?
Whiffs a bit of the "you can't explain everything therefore the fairies did it my version of god" idiocy.
-
I can show the way I became a believer and the God WHOSE Words I believe in simply by telling you to read the bible and obey Christ. If you believed Christ you would have your proof. But you won't even try...
So does this apply to the Koran too? You read it and believe it? Or The Lord of the Rings?
By stating something you are not offering proof. You are just telling us that you read a book and believed it.
Now some books you can read and believe - like my old Haynes Car Manuals. But other books like my Asimov collection falls into another category where I have to suspend disbelief.
Now I'm not going to tell you which category I think the Bible falls into but its no bloody use for fixing cars that's for sure.
-
Why? Is there some kind of point you are struggling to make here?
Whiffs a bit of the "you can't explain everything therefore the fairies did it my version of god" idiocy.
So you found my point when you found nothing. :)
~TW~
-
So you found my point when you found nothing. :)
I'll take it I guessed correctly and your 'point' was the idiocy I referred to, then...
-
I'll take it I guessed correctly and your 'point' was the idiocy I referred to, then...
So you think you are an idiot,why are you so hard on yourself let me encourage and help you :(
~TW~
-
So you think you are an idiot,why are you so hard on yourself let me encourage and help you :(
~TW~
::) Still just inane insults and rants.
Do you have anything at all worth saying? You know, an argument or anything...?
-
::) Still just inane insults and rants.
Do you have anything at all worth saying? You know, an argument or anything...?
;D ;D ;D Never my replies may be a little tough for you but not rants.Like I said look around your room.Try logic. :)
~TW~
-
;D ;D ;D Never my replies may be a little tough for you but not rants.Like I said look around your room.Try logic. :)
::)
You have posted insults, rants and a silly phrase about things making themselves. You have made no arguments and used no logic.
Come on, the floor is yours, make your argument about stuff not making itself, or did you just copy the phrase from somewhere and have no idea how to follow the 'argument' through?
Hint: stuff not making itself isn't an argument for any god(s).
-
::)
You have posted insults, rants and a silly phrase about things making themselves. You have made no arguments and used no logic.
Come on, the floor is yours, make your argument about stuff not making itself, or did you just copy the phrase from somewhere and have no idea how to follow the 'argument' through?
Hint: stuff not making itself isn't an argument for any god(s).
Wrong things do not make themselves see if you can understand this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGz6nNv5pSc&list=PL24F584CBBCC676FD I hope this is not to complicated for you.
~TW~
-
TW,
Wrong things do not make themselves see if you can understand this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGz6nNv5pSc&list=PL24F584CBBCC676FD I hope this is not to complicated for you.
Wow. How on earth could someone so desperately ignorant of how evolution actually works not only find a stage but also an audience to listen to him? Astonishing. Essentially - wittingly or not - he started wth a strain man, then bolted on a god of the gaps to explain his misunderstanding of the science. Would've been nice if a proper evolutionary biologist had been given the right of reply to the same audience to blow this chump out of the water, but it seems that wasn't the deal.
Oh well. TW - if you've actually been taken in by this guff, then you've backed the wrong horse.
-
Wrong things do not make themselves...
I do wish you'd learn to write English. I'm assuming you are accusing me of being wrong and that things do not make themselves, as opposed to wrong things don't make themselves (but right things do)?
I didn't say that things made themselves.
Want another go?
see if you can understand this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGz6nNv5pSc&list=PL24F584CBBCC676FD I hope this is not to complicated for you.
A religiously indoctrinated fool using the "arises by chance" lie about evolution, so what?
Even if he was right, it still wouldn't be an argument for any god(s).
-
I do wish you'd learn to write English. I'm assuming you are accusing me of being wrong and that things do not make themselves, as opposed to wrong things don't make themselves (but right things do)?
I didn't say that things made themselves.
Want another go?
A religiously indoctrinated fool using the "arises by chance" lie about evolution, so what?
Even if he was right, it still wouldn't be an argument for any god(s).
You are a complete waste of space,so I bid you goodbye as I am very busy have you got a dolly you could play with.If not rerun the youtube.
~TW~
-
You are a complete waste of space,so I bid you goodbye as I am very busy have you got a dolly you could play with.If not rerun the youtube.
~TW~
If you are very busy why have you spent so long today spouting your unpleasant nonsense on this forum?
-
TW,
You are a complete waste of space,so I bid you goodbye as I am very busy have you got a dolly you could play with.If not rerun the youtube.
Ah, the sound of TW realising that he's hopelessly outgunned so throws his toys out of the cot and stomps off into the distance shouting "la la la la".
Game over then.
OK, diversion into fruit loop land over, does anyone have an answer to the OP other than "because a book says so"?
-
Doesn't the Holy Spirit become distinct from Both Christ and God the Father when Christ says:
Even Christ makes a distinction when it comes to the Holy Spirit and Blasphemy. You can be forgiven all manner of sin and blasphemy except that which is against the Holy Spirit.
Which shows you are not thinking correctly when it comes to the persons which you refer to.
What you cannot do is make them One outside the teachings of Christ how God makes us all one in him and Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Need more time to think, Spud?
As you say, the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father. But do you agree that the Spirit is, in a more general sense, God - or at least, part of what the NT calls the 'godhead'?
-
You are a complete waste of space,so I bid you goodbye as I am very busy have you got a dolly you could play with.If not rerun the youtube.
I'll take that as a total capitulation; back to rant and insult, your brief pretence at having an argument, over...
Ho hum.
-
TW,
Ah, the sound of TW realising that he's hopelessly outgunned so throws his toys out of the cot and stomps off into the distance shouting "la la la la".
Game over then.
OK, diversion into fruit loop land over, does anyone have an answer to the OP other than "because a book says so"?
You really have lost the plot,but it never happened today,no indeed not a long time ago,who knows.
~TW~