PDA

View Full Version : ARCHIVE: I believe religion to be obsolete



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

prodigal
November 10th, 2004, 04:28 PM
The last time I started a thread on this site I was pretty much picking a fight in that I asked anyone and everyone to sell me christianity, or religion in general. You all failed and I was very disappointed. But I'm back, my faith in all of you is restored and I'm ready to pick another fight.

Ima cut right to the chase. I don't much about anything, but I do know what I see with my own eyes, and what I see is a bunch of folks arguing over the validity of book that was written thousands of years ago. And what of the original copy of this book? I don't think there is one. And what of the original authors? Wheless I believe wrote that the book of Luke was actually written by Mark and that Nazareth didn't actually exist until after Jesus was dead. Not that I have much of an appreciation for Wheless, I think he was just as pompous, bombastic and long winded as the folks who wrote the bible, but I'm mostly saying that to enflame the intolerant souls of those who claim to be "saved".

Saved from what may I ask? An eternal hell? A place of fire and brimstone where "sinners" burn for eons because they chose not God but themselves? It's a convenient device. Believe or go to hell. Nice. And how do we know hell exists? Because a 2,000 year old book said so! Nice again! It's so silly it's mind boggling. It's easy to understand how people buy into it. People need answers. They're scared of death, they enjoy being slaves to a system because they're too weak to believe that the world really is what you make of it. So scare them with hell and Satan, keep them on their toes, keep them examining themselves and they'll never examine anything else. It works. Bravo. As soon as I'm done typing, all of you christians get a golfer's clap.

I really did clap too.

So y'all believe in an ancient book. Fairly primitive guys. 2,000 years and none of your scholars agree on anything. 2,000 years and how many different sects have arisen? How many churches live in hostility towards one another? How many churches would refuse to sit down and eat your sacrements together because they disagree on some insignificant point in your highly convoluted practice of god worship? 2,000 years and how many inquisitions, witch burnings, alienations and atrocities? 2,000 years and y'all still don't agree, y'all still don't have it right, y'all just don't know what you're talking about. My question is: how much longer will it take for christianity to finally get it right? I mean, the bible says something like (I'm paraphrasing, don't get all ticked off or nothin') the number of believers will be as the sands of the shore, something like that right? Well in that case I guess christianity can take as long as it wants, which is almost as convenient as hell and satan.

I guess my overall point is, christianity is obsolete, the bible is good for nothing more than moral truths that even non-christians can get right, and y'all need to move on. I believe in God, but I think it's a much bigger thing than christianity can encompass. Christianity is empty, rote, antiquated and useless, unless of course you want to control people, in which case I've seen it work flawlessly. It's a darned book, an old one at that. You don't have an original, you can't prove that it was written by who you said it was written by, you can't prove that what it says is true, you can't prove hell, you can't prove satan, you can't prove heaven, yet you tell everyone not to believe what they can demonstrate with their five senses and to follow blindly the rantings of a book that you weren't even there to see get written.

It's foolishness, it's madness, and I think it's sick, twisted and is propagated by no one else but the sick of mind, control freaks, and weakling masses who crave answers and are provided them by those who are on power trips.

Forgive my venom.

The fight has been picked.

I can't wait.

logos_x
November 11th, 2004, 12:21 AM
You are absolutely right. Religion is obsolete.
Now...move on.
God never liked religion.

The Berean
November 11th, 2004, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by prodigal

The last time I started a thread on this site I was pretty much picking a fight in that I asked anyone and everyone to sell me christianity, or religion in general. You all failed and I was very disappointed. But I'm back, my faith in all of you is restored and I'm ready to pick another fight.

Ima cut right to the chase. I don't much about anything, but I do know what I see with my own eyes, and what I see is a bunch of folks arguing over the validity of book that was written thousands of years ago. And what of the original copy of this book? I don't think there is one. And what of the original authors? Wheless I believe wrote that the book of Luke was actually written by Mark and that Nazareth didn't actually exist until after Jesus was dead. Not that I have much of an appreciation for Wheless, I think he was just as pompous, bombastic and long winded as the folks who wrote the bible, but I'm mostly saying that to enflame the intolerant souls of those who claim to be "saved".

Saved from what may I ask? An eternal hell? A place of fire and brimstone where "sinners" burn for eons because they chose not God but themselves? It's a convenient device. Believe or go to hell. Nice. And how do we know hell exists? Because a 2,000 year old book said so! Nice again! It's so silly it's mind boggling. It's easy to understand how people buy into it. People need answers. They're scared of death, they enjoy being slaves to a system because they're too weak to believe that the world really is what you make of it. So scare them with hell and Satan, keep them on their toes, keep them examining themselves and they'll never examine anything else. It works. Bravo. As soon as I'm done typing, all of you christians get a golfer's clap.

I really did clap too.

So y'all believe in an ancient book. Fairly primitive guys. 2,000 years and none of your scholars agree on anything. 2,000 years and how many different sects have arisen? How many churches live in hostility towards one another? How many churches would refuse to sit down and eat your sacrements together because they disagree on some insignificant point in your highly convoluted practice of god worship? 2,000 years and how many inquisitions, witch burnings, alienations and atrocities? 2,000 years and y'all still don't agree, y'all still don't have it right, y'all just don't know what you're talking about. My question is: how much longer will it take for christianity to finally get it right? I mean, the bible says something like (I'm paraphrasing, don't get all ticked off or nothin') the number of believers will be as the sands of the shore, something like that right? Well in that case I guess christianity can take as long as it wants, which is almost as convenient as hell and satan.

I guess my overall point is, christianity is obsolete, the bible is good for nothing more than moral truths that even non-christians can get right, and y'all need to move on. I believe in God, but I think it's a much bigger thing than christianity can encompass. Christianity is empty, rote, antiquated and useless, unless of course you want to control people, in which case I've seen it work flawlessly. It's a darned book, an old one at that. You don't have an original, you can't prove that it was written by who you said it was written by, you can't prove that what it says is true, you can't prove hell, you can't prove satan, you can't prove heaven, yet you tell everyone not to believe what they can demonstrate with their five senses and to follow blindly the rantings of a book that you weren't even there to see get written.

It's foolishness, it's madness, and I think it's sick, twisted and is propagated by no one else but the sick of mind, control freaks, and weakling masses who crave answers and are provided them by those who are on power trips.

Forgive my venom.

The fight has been picked.

I can't wait.

Then why are you here at TOL? :rolleyes:

Lighthouse
November 11th, 2004, 04:23 AM
prodigal-
logos_x is right. Now, forgiveness is yours. Salvation is not salvation from hell. It is salvation from sin. It is complete freedom. It is to be dead to sin. I don't believe what I beleive, because I'm scared of death. In fact, I'm not scared of death. I'm not a slave to a system, either. I don't adhere to rules and regulations. I let Christ live in me. And that is all.

Aimiel
November 11th, 2004, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by prodigal

It's foolishness, it's madness, and I think it's sick, twisted and is propagated by no one else but the sick of mind, control freaks, and weakling masses who crave answers and are provided them by those who are on power trips. The Word of God is Truth. That's the reason that you can't stand it. You can't handle The Truth.

Granite
November 11th, 2004, 07:22 AM
Prodigal: good stuff, agree with a lot of what you throw out there.

For everyone baffled by why he's here...don't ANY of you appreciate the pleasures of picking a fight?:D

Aimiel
November 11th, 2004, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by logos_x

You are absolutely right. Religion is obsolete.
Now...move on.
God never liked religion. This is true. Men try to 'achieve' Heaven with religion. Jesus came to earth to find men who were lost, and show us the way to Heaven, which is by faith in Him. :thumb:

prodigal
November 11th, 2004, 12:57 PM
(prodigal-
logos_x is right. Now, forgiveness is yours. Salvation is not salvation from hell. It is salvation from sin. It is complete freedom. It is to be dead to sin. I don't believe what I beleive, because I'm scared of death. In fact, I'm not scared of death. I'm not a slave to a system, either. I don't adhere to rules and regulations. I let Christ live in me. And that is all.)

So you don't believe in hell? Saved from sin? Sin like what? Don't you sin anyway, despite christ "living" inside of you? christians still sin, and non-christians can still be wonderful people. Your point is as irrelevant as it is inane.

(The Word of God is Truth. That's the reason that you can't stand it. You can't handle The Truth.)

Prove it. That's my response to that utter poppycock. You claim that the bible is truth, yet you can't prove it. Don't you think there's something wrong with claiming something which you cannot prove to be the truth to be the truth? If you can't prove something exists than that's as good as proving that it doesn't. See my point? The only proof you have that the bible is true is that the bible exists. But so does the Chronicles of Narnia. Doesn't make them true, no matter how many people believe it. You believe it's true without proof. You cast off your own perception of reality for that which cannot be demonstrated. It's absurd.

Is that the best y'all've got?

(Then why are you here at TOL?)

Because I am both an observer and an agitator. When I observe something that baffles and disturbs me, I agitate. That's my thing, that's what I do.

prodigal
November 11th, 2004, 12:59 PM
oh, Granite1010, you my dog.

Granite
November 11th, 2004, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by prodigal

oh, Granite1010, you my dog.

Word, yo.:cool:

Aimiel
November 11th, 2004, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by prodigal

You claim that the bible is truth, yet you can't prove it. Don't you think there's something wrong with claiming something which you cannot prove to be the truth to be the truth?The Spirit of The Lord gives believers assurance that His Word is Truth. We don't have any proof (at all) that you have a brain, but we believe that there is one (however small it might be). Please keep in mind that those who are perishing (currently on their way to hell) find the preaching of The Cross to be foolishness. The god of this world (Satan) has blinded your mind, to prevent you from coming to a knowledge of The Truth. There are many factors in your life that assist his work, and even promote it.

satalien
November 11th, 2004, 03:26 PM
proof of his brain would be pretty easy to acquire with the right amount of time and money.

Aimiel
November 11th, 2004, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by satalien

proof of his brain would be pretty easy to acquire with the right amount of time and money. I know people who would bring it to you in a box for $50.00.

Lighthouse
November 12th, 2004, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by prodigal

(prodigal-
logos_x is right. Now, forgiveness is yours. Salvation is not salvation from hell. It is salvation from sin. It is complete freedom. It is to be dead to sin. I don't believe what I beleive, because I'm scared of death. In fact, I'm not scared of death. I'm not a slave to a system, either. I don't adhere to rules and regulations. I let Christ live in me. And that is all.)

So you don't believe in hell? Saved from sin? Sin like what? Don't you sin anyway, despite christ "living" inside of you? christians still sin, and non-christians can still be wonderful people. Your point is as irrelevant as it is inane.
Yes, I believe in hell. And it is seperation from God. But that is not what we are saved from. We are saved from ourselves. We are set free to be in Christ. We are made dead to sin. And it seems you have met some people who don't know the meaning of sin. Sin is transgression of the law, and apart form the law there is no transgression. And those who are in Christ are not under the law. They are under grace. So those things that were formerly counted as sin against them, are no longer counted against them as such. Because they are free from sin. They are free from its power and sting. And they are free from its strength, which is the law. We are made righteous by Christ, and only by Christ. Nothing else can make us righteous. And it is only by being righteous that we can enter into Christ. Being good is not good enough. There is nothing we can do to be good enough, because none of us are righteous, without Him. And when one knows the truth it makes them free. I used to struggle with pornography. It was my biggest vice. And I couldn't stop myself. I didn't know why. And it was because I was relying on myself to stop. But when I learned the truth that Christ has forgiven all my sin, and made me dead to sin, not only did I stop looking at pornography, I quit desiring to look at it. I don't want it anymore. All because of Christ. And you can be free too.

Rolf Ernst
November 12th, 2004, 11:07 AM
Prodigal--A man "can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven."

Sooo--you think that the resurrection of a man who said in advance that He would be raised up is foolishness, huh? That is what you are up against. Christ's resurrection proves that you are the one who is foolish. Not only did he raise Lazarus who had been dead four days, but He said that the hour was coming in which all who were in the graves would hear His voice and come forth.

That includes you and, by the way, He is the one who has been appointed to be your judge. Scoff while you can! The triumphing of the wicked is short!!

dotcom
November 13th, 2004, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by prodigal


I believe in God, but I think it's a much bigger thing than christianity can encompass.

That would be a good place to start prodigal. Which God do you believe in?


Christianity is empty, rote, antiquated and useless, unless of course you want to control people, in which case I've seen it work flawlessly.

You could have started by telling us what is NOT empty, what is not rote, what is not useless before you vent your anger to Christians. Would you mind? It just makes it easier to address the myriad of accusations you have made against Christians.

prodigal
November 15th, 2004, 11:23 AM
(The Spirit of The Lord gives believers assurance that His Word is Truth. We don't have any proof (at all) that you have a brain, but we believe that there is one (however small it might be). Please keep in mind that those who are perishing (currently on their way to hell) find the preaching of The Cross to be foolishness. The god of this world (Satan) has blinded your mind, to prevent you from coming to a knowledge of The Truth. There are many factors in your life that assist his work, and even promote it. )

The proof that I have a brain is that I'm alive and well. And why do you have to be so hostile, Aimiel? Why did you have to call my brain small? Because I vehemently disagree with you? You're right, I do think that the preaching of the cross is foolishness. I don't think there's anything wrong with being a christian, I just don't think it's necessary. And elevating satan to the place of a god is great. It tickles me pink that in order for the death of christ to have any validity, satan, hell and sin all must become just as powerful. Without sin, without hell, without satan your god of the world, Jesus has no power. Oh and once again Aimiel, you can't prove anything that you said before. Not a word of it. The only proof you have that the bible or anything you say is true is because you believe it. You can't prove that it is true, yet you ask that I cast off my perception of reality to believe in that which cannot be proven, like your god of the earth, satan. You can't prove anything you believe, not a word of it. My point isn't to try and make you stop believing, but to be a little bit more reasonable about it. You can't ask people to believe in that which cannot be proven to exist, especially in the face of evidence that says it doesn't, and then insult them by saying they're tools of the earth god satan.

(That would be a good place to start prodigal. Which God do you believe in?)

I don't subscribe to religion of any sort. The only reason I believe god exists is because evolution makes little to no sense. God is the only reasonable explanation for any of this. Other than that, I'm an empiricist who believes that all religion, while kind of cool sometimes, is empty, rote and useless. I think it's a waste of time. I don't believe there's anything in some old book that can teach me about god that I can't figure out on my own. If it floats your boat, more power to you, but don't go passing it off as indisputable truth, please. Don't insult the intelligence of those who don't agree with you. Aimiel is most guilty of that so far. I was a christian my whole life, but it ceased to be good enough for me when I stepped back and looked at it from the outside. I kept an open mind, I guess that's what Aimiel would refer to as the work of satan. I remained objective though, and I realized that religion was good for nothing but a discipline to live your life by. It's an option. I don't believe in salvation from anything, not from sin, not from hell, not from satan, not from anything. I'm not calling people who disagree with me fools and tools of an evil earth god, I'm simply saying that christians must remain objective if they want to effectively communicate with those who disagree.

Ecumenicist
November 15th, 2004, 11:33 AM
Religion is the human response to God.

If its expressed in gratitude, its a good thing.

If its expressed in self righteousness, its a bad thing.

Its all about attitude...

djm

Granite
November 15th, 2004, 11:41 AM
Aimiel and others have to be hostile because it's the basis of their faith. Christianity is founded on fear: fear of sin, fear of God, fear of the devil, fear of hell.

Aimiel
November 15th, 2004, 11:44 AM
The fear of The Lord is only the beginning of wisdom, which people who don't have it profess themselves to be wise, and so, have become fools.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Granite
November 15th, 2004, 11:47 AM
Ummm...nobody here is denying the existence of God.

Ecumenicist
November 15th, 2004, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Aimiel and others have to be hostile because it's the basis of their faith. Christianity is founded on fear: fear of sin, fear of God, fear of the devil, fear of hell.

Wrong, Chrisitanity is founded on hope, the hope of
resurrection.

As far as Aimiel goes, sometimes he's reasonable, sometimes
not (unlike myself, for example, always reasonable ;) )

Granite
November 15th, 2004, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

Wrong, Chrisitanity is founded on hope, the hope of
resurrection.

As far as Aimiel goes, sometimes he's reasonable, sometimes
not (unlike myself, for example, always reasonable ;) )

...a resurrection required to save you from getting tortured for eternity by a loving, merciful deity. Yes, I remember.

Aimiel
November 15th, 2004, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Ummm...nobody here is denying the existence of God. Yes, you do, when you decide that you'll not do what He said, you're denying His Preminence and that is denial of Him, hence, foolishness.

prodigal
November 15th, 2004, 11:52 AM
I didn't address two people, Rolf Ernst and Lighthouse. Sorry, I'll getcha right now.

(Rolf Ernst
Prodigal--A man "can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven."

Sooo--you think that the resurrection of a man who said in advance that He would be raised up is foolishness, huh? That is what you are up against. Christ's resurrection proves that you are the one who is foolish. Not only did he raise Lazarus who had been dead four days, but He said that the hour was coming in which all who were in the graves would hear His voice and come forth.

That includes you and, by the way, He is the one who has been appointed to be your judge. Scoff while you can! The triumphing of the wicked is short!!)

Okay, Rolf, you can't prove a word of what you just said. An old book says that it's true. Old books also say that storks deliver babies to their waiting mothers and that there are pots of gold at the ends of rainbows. You can't go through life acting as though unprovable stories are true, and you can't go through life insulting everyone who doesn't believe them by saying a god that you can't prove to exist is going to judge me for sin that I don't believe in. The story of Jesus is a great, inspirational story at best, but to pass it off as truth is foolishness. An old book says that Jesus raised the dead after four days and he himself came back to life after three. An old book. To speak of it as though it were indisputable truth is just madness, Rolf. Until you can prove that anything in that book happened, stop quoting it as though all of these fantastical stories happened.

One more way to look at it:

I can prove that people cannot come back from the dead.

You can't prove that Jesus or Lazarus did.

The only source for your story of zombies is a book, an amalgamation of different books collected over the past two millenia, put together by people you don't know, under the instruction of a holy spirit you can't see, feel, hear, taste, or touch.

You pass off that which cannot be proven to have happened as fact.

That is wrong, and it's a common flaw among people of your religion. Don't get me wrong Rolf, you can believe whatever you want, just don't expect everyone else to believe it. Rolf, what you believe is far fetched, impossible and non-sensical. Pardon me for not believing it just because a 2,000 year old book says it's true.

You're also very rude. You and Aimiel both.

Lighthouse

(Yes, I believe in hell. And it is seperation from God. But that is not what we are saved from. We are saved from ourselves)

That's a disgustingly low opinion of yourself, and frankly I think we're pretty darned seperated from god as it is. You might be able to trick yourself into thinking he's spoken to you, and your mind can make you see things if you really want to, but I would say you're already living in your definition of hell.

(We are made dead to sin)

Your definition of sin is 2,000 years old, probably a lot older than that actually... get with the times. The age of Pisces (the fish/Jesus) is over. The age of aquarius has begun. I don't believe things unless they can be demonstrated to me, and astrology is far more demonstrable than christian folklore.

(And it seems you have met some people who don't know the meaning of sin. Sin is transgression of the law, and apart form the law there is no transgression. And those who are in Christ are not under the law. They are under grace.)

Now you're knocking my friends? Is that it? The law? Your law is 2,000 years old. Things are slightly different now than when the bible was written. Things change, christians hate to admit it, and it might eventually be their downfall, but your system of religion is just too old to conceivably sustain itself for too much longer.

(Being good is not good enough.)

How do you argue with someone like this? Oh yeah, don't tell me, let me guess Aimiel, there is no arguing with it because it's the truth and I can't handle it?

(There is nothing we can do to be good enough, because none of us are righteous, without Him. And when one knows the truth it makes them free.)

Your definition of righteousness is also 2,000 years old. Mine is my own and it's quite current. I don't have a book to base it on, just my own perception of reality. I have seen the truth, when I stepped back from religion to look at it from the outside. I feel more born again now without it than when I had it. Oh and again, what's with your lack of self-confidence? Maybe you're a weak person, Lighthouse, maybe you're just plain old weak. Your little story about your porn addiction makes perfect sense. You couldn't stop yourself. If you're weak enough to stare at naked ladies for hours on end than maybe you're weak enough to be taken for a ride by a religion that has succesfully perpetuated itself for 2,000 years. There is defintely something to religion, like I said, I believe in god, and quite some time ago there probably was the need for religion. Just not anymore. The human race has grown past it. If I have than so can anyone else. Lighthouse, you're probably just a really weak person who needs answers. Religion can give answers, so it satiates an inherent desire in humans. You need religion. Not necessarily god, just a system to enslave yourself to because you're too weak to make it on your own.

I'm not that weak. If I want to look at naked ladies, I just do it. Shrug. I don't blame you for needing to be a christian, just like I don't blame you for looking at porn. You're a guy, naked ladies can be kinda cool. Don't beat yourself up because you follow your natural instincts, don't cut yourself off from everything that makes you human and then call it dirty sin. It's both degrading and insulting to myself and others that disagree.

Listen, all I want is for Aimiel to admit that he can't prove what he believes and though he is free to believe it, he's not free to pass it off as truth without proof. Lighthouse, I like reading your posts.

Granite
November 15th, 2004, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Aimiel

Yes, you do, when you decide that you'll not do what He said, you're denying His Preminence and that is denial of Him, hence, foolishness.

Oh gimme a break, Aimiel. Not happening to agree with whatever cobbled, cut and paste, man-made concept of God that you happen to rubberstamp does not mean I deny the existence of a Supreme Being. Great Spirit, God, master clockmaker, puppet master, whatever, I think SOMETHING is out there greater than ourselves. So quit telling me what I happen to believe. Get a clue. This arrogance of Christians who somehow know exactly what non-Christians believe is extremely annoying.

Ecumenicist
November 15th, 2004, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

...a resurrection required to save you from getting tortured for eternity by a loving, merciful deity. Yes, I remember.

That's not everyone's take on it, and its not scripturally
consistant. To hold that view requires ignoring alot of Scripture,
not to mention ignoring the Holy Spirit...

Aimiel
November 15th, 2004, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

This arrogance of Christians who somehow know exactly what non-Christians believe is extremely annoying. Did you ever stop to think that it might come from knowledge, this (perceived) arrogance? Someone who experiences God, rather than just learns 'about' Him would never walk away from Him.

Granite
November 15th, 2004, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

That's not everyone's take on it, and its not scripturally
consistant. To hold that view requires ignoring alot of Scripture,
not to mention ignoring the Holy Spirit...

Sure. This is another thing Christians can't seem to agree on, even with the Holy Spirit talking to all of them. What a freakin' joke: all the splinter groups and sects within the church all listen to the Holy Spirit, all right. And he tells them all to march to the beat of a different drummer. Hilarious.

Granite
November 15th, 2004, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Aimiel

Did you ever stop to think that it might come from knowledge, this (perceived) arrogance? Someone who experiences God, rather than just learns 'about' Him would never walk away from Him.

People do all the time.

Ecumenicist
November 15th, 2004, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Sure. This is another thing Christians can't seem to agree on, even with the Holy Spirit talking to all of them. What a freakin' joke: all the splinter groups and sects within the church all listen to the Holy Spirit, all right. And he tells them all to march to the beat of a different drummer. Hilarious.

Know a tree by the fruit it bears. The good fruits are peace,
kindness, love patience...

Christ made it pretty clear. Its pretty easy to discern what
comes from the HS vs what comes from elsewhere based on
this.

No joke...

Granite
November 15th, 2004, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

Know a tree by the fruit it bears. The good fruits are peace,
kindness, love patience...

Christ made it pretty clear. Its pretty easy to discern what
comes from the HS vs what comes from elsewhere based on
this.

No joke...

The fruits are rotten and grotesque throughout much of the church's history. Believe me, this passage reaffirms a lot of why I left the faith to begin with. The fruit was pretty scary.

Aimiel
November 15th, 2004, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

People do all the time. No, they simply find that organized religion has nothing more to offer them than the world. Those who meet The Lord go into His Presence, and carry It with them.

Granite
November 15th, 2004, 12:07 PM
Bunch of doublethink. You people should really listen to yourselves talk once in a while.

The longer I look at it the more I'm convinced Christianity and other religions at large really are just self-inflicted delusions.

Zakath
November 15th, 2004, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by granite1010
...The longer I look at it the more I'm convinced Christianity and other religions at large really are just self-inflicted delusions. :thumb:

Aimiel
November 15th, 2004, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Bunch of doublethink.If that were the case, God would want nothing to do with us.
The longer I look at it the more I'm convinced Christianity and other religions at large really are just self-inflicted delusions. God is not a delusion, but many have deluded themselves into believing that He is on their side when they don't actually have a single clue. That is why we are supposed to submit to authority, and to examine ourselves.

Ecumenicist
November 15th, 2004, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

The fruits are rotten and grotesque throughout much of the church's history. Believe me, this passage reaffirms a lot of why I left the faith to begin with. The fruit was pretty scary.

I know. And I don't blame you.

I've dedicated my life to sharing the message that God loves
us unconditionally, and invites us into a real relationship so
that we may know this, and in this find real and lasting peace.

Dave

Lovejoy
November 15th, 2004, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

The fruits are rotten and grotesque throughout much of the church's history. Believe me, this passage reaffirms a lot of why I left the faith to begin with. The fruit was pretty scary.


"Scary Fruit" would be a great name for a band.

Granite
November 15th, 2004, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Lovejoy

"Scary Fruit" would be a great name for a band.

Dibs!

Granite
November 15th, 2004, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel

If that were the case, God would want nothing to do with us.God is not a delusion, but many have deluded themselves into believing that He is on their side when they don't actually have a single clue. That is why we are supposed to submit to authority, and to examine ourselves.

Ah yes. Self-flaggelation and submission to authority...

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Aimiel
November 15th, 2004, 12:28 PM
:shocked: :flamer:

Granite
November 15th, 2004, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel

:shocked: :flamer:

Hey man, that's your faith, not mine.

Clete
November 15th, 2004, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by prodigal
I guess my overall point is, christianity is obsolete, the bible is good for nothing more than moral truths that even non-christians can get right,...
If the Bible itself is obsolete so are the moral truths which it teaches. The moral truth in the Bible is the whole point of the Bible. You can't take one and leave the other. Without the Bible you have nothing upon which to base any moral truth at all.



I believe in God, but I think it's a much bigger thing than christianity can encompass.
Upon what do you base your belief in God if not the Bible?


...you tell everyone not to believe what they can demonstrate with their five senses and to follow blindly the rantings of a book...
This is not so. On the contrary, it is you who have a blind faith. Again I ask you, upon what do you base your belief in God if not the Bible? Your 5 senses, is that it? In your opening paragraph you said, "I do know what I see with my own eyes." Do you see this God of yours with your own eyes? If not then you contradict yourself and again I ask you, upon what do you base your belief in God? Nothing, I'd wager.


It's foolishness, it's madness, and I think it's sick, twisted and is propagated by no one else but the sick of mind, control freaks, and weakling masses who crave answers and are provided them by those who are on power trips.

Forgive my venom.
Your venom only serves to poison your own position! You use terms like 'foolishness', 'madness', 'sick', and 'twisted' terms that speak about soundness of mind, intelligence and the ability to think clearly. Things which you cannot account for outside a Biblical worldview.

Resting in Him,
Clete

prodigal
November 15th, 2004, 12:57 PM
It's amazing how quickly people respond to this stuff.

Aimiel, your religion has been founded on inquisitions, witch burnings and alienations. It is founded upon the premise that we are worms, nasty little creatures in dire need for saving from eternal punishment, and ourselves by a divine being that never shows itself to us. You live your life according to an outdated book that cannot be proven to speak truth, and you scoff at me for living my life based on what I can demonstrate.

You are a madman.

As Granite said, it's self inflicted. You don't need god, you need answers, you need a system, you need to be self-righteous. Christianity is nothing more than an excuse for you to feel better than the rest of us worms. You disregard what you can prove for yourself, you substitute your perception of reality for a fairy tale and call those who do not believe fools. You don't need god, you need religion, you need a system that caters to your apparent and inherent need to be both self-righteous and holier than all of us "thou's". Like I said before, the only time I felt born again was when I became objective and stepped back from the whole thing to view it as a whole, and in the light of other religions. Again, as Granite said, the "holy spirit" apparently speaks to all christians, but is telling them all something completely different, hence the numerous sects and denominations. Looking in from the outside while taking into account the myriad denominations and the claim that the HS speaks to all christians leads me to believe that christianity does not exist but is a figment of a collectively weak mass imagination. You can't agree that the HS speaks to all christians and then have all christians disagree with each other. It doesn't make sense.

Logic. Logic. Logic.

The holy spirit speaks to all christians of all denominations, but the denominations do not agree on the interpretation of the scriptures of other denominations, hence the holy spirit is either playing all sides, or the people aren't hearing it correctly, or it's not speaking at all.

If the holy spirit is playing all sides than it's probably not as great as it's cracked up to be. If christians aren't hearing it correctly than it's probably because they've been blinded by sin, in which case the work of the HS is negated because christians are still slaves to sin and they haven't been saved by anything. The most plausible explanation is that there is no HS and nothing has been said.

Christianity has had 2,000 years to get it right. It hasn't. I'm not saying that christianity isn't true, or there isn't truth to be found in it, but please don't insult my intelligence. I refuse to fear some supposedly "supreme being" when it won't manifest itself and it's followers are ignorant, insulting, unobjective (not sure if that's a real word, but y'all know what I mean), stubborn and arrogant.

Aimiel, step back from christianity, look at it from the outside, consider other religions, consider their claims to validity, study the world, see what's out there. Don't close your mind before you study all of the facts. Facts are facts because they can be proven and demonstrated. They're worth paying attention to.

Granite
November 15th, 2004, 12:57 PM
"If the Bible itself is obsolete so are the moral truths which it teaches. The moral truth in the Bible is the whole point of the Bible. You can't take one and leave the other. Without the Bible you have nothing upon which to base any moral truth at all."

Billions around the world who aren't Christians would disagree.

Clete
November 15th, 2004, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

"If the Bible itself is obsolete so are the moral truths which it teaches. The moral truth in the Bible is the whole point of the Bible. You can't take one and leave the other. Without the Bible you have nothing upon which to base any moral truth at all."

Billions around the world who aren't Christians would disagree.
Perhaps, but they would be wrong.
Billions around the world would agree with me also, so your point is moot in any case.

Outside a Biblical worldview, upon what would you base any moral code?

Resting in Him,
Clete

prodigal
November 15th, 2004, 01:08 PM
clete, I already said a coupla posts ago that I believe god exists because evolution doesn't make sense. God, no matter how far fetched isn't as far fetched as evolution, therefore is the obvious choice between the two. Frankly, I don't really care, but for the sake of finding any common ground I will admit that I believe in god. If that contradicts my empiricism, I will agree. It's kinda confusing.

(If the Bible itself is obsolete so are the moral truths which it teaches. The moral truth in the Bible is the whole point of the Bible. You can't take one and leave the other. Without the Bible you have nothing upon which to base any moral truth at all.)

I have my own instincts. I don't need a book to teach me what is right and what is wrong. I can figure that out on my own. You act as though people are genuinely lost without the bible. I know exactly what I'm doing and why I do it.

(Your venom only serves to poison your own position! You use terms like 'foolishness', 'madness', 'sick', and 'twisted' terms that speak about soundness of mind, intelligence and the ability to think clearly. Things which you cannot account for outside a Biblical worldview.)

Again, a biblical worldview can be nice, but it's wholly unnecessary. You don't have to be a christian to be a good person, and even christians sin. I don't really understand this last point you made, but I think that soundness of mind, intelligence and the ability to think clearly are not dependant upon your outdated religion. Your outdated religion discourages independant thinking, it does not foster soundness of mind or intelligence. It does foster dependance on church authority and it does foster blind faith. Again, my belief in god does somewhat contradict my empiricism, I'm quite confused at times, but god as an explanation just makes more sense than evolution, so it really does fit in with my over all philosophy. I just disagree with your description of god.

Oh, and you worship zombies and demons.

Granite
November 15th, 2004, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Perhaps, but they would be wrong.
Billions around the world would agree with me also, so your point is moot in any case.

Outside a Biblical worldview, upon what would you base any moral code?

Resting in Him,
Clete

You're out numbered, in time and history past and present. That was my point. Mankind has figured out how to devise law codes and morality for millenia without the help of the Christian Bible.

Aimiel
November 15th, 2004, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by prodigal

It's amazing how quickly people respond to this stuff.It's amazing how quickly one can respond when the faith and knowledge of The Lord reside with you.
Aimiel, your religion has been founded on inquisitions, witch burnings and alienations.No, that's been the result of demonic reaction to The Presence of The Lord. Those with 'religious authority' who knew not God, reacting to those who knew Him, or to their own imagined enemies.
It is founded upon the premise that we are worms, nasty little creatures in dire need for saving from eternal punishment, and ourselves by a divine being that never shows itself to us.When He reveals Himself, you'll be exposed, and naked; and those of us who are properly dressed won't be able to give you the clothing that we're offering you now: The Righteousness of The Lord.
You live your life according to an outdated book that cannot be proven to speak truth, and you scoff at me for living my life based on what I can demonstrate. As I said, the things that Christians do are foolishness to those who are perishing.
You are a madman.Thank you.
You don't need god, you need religion, you need a system that caters to your apparent and inherent need to be both self-righteous and holier than all of us "thou's".I'm no better than you, but God decided to grant grace (His forgiveness) to those who follow His Son. I'm no better because of that, the only difference is the way that God looks at me. I don't think of myself as 'holier-than-thou.' Do you feel 'un-holier-than-me,' is that why you're accusing me of this type of thinking?
Like I said before, the only time I felt born again was when I became objective and stepped back from the whole thing to view it as a whole, and in the light of other religions.At that point your 'flesh' was 'born-again' into pre-eminence in your life. You elevated yourself back to the throne of your life.
Aimiel, step back from christianity, look at it from the outside, consider other religions, consider their claims to validity, study the world, see what's out there.Been there, done that, and all I got was a 'T' shirt, which now has holes. I'd much rather have everlasting garments, that moths don't eat.
Don't close your mind before you study all of the facts.The wisest man who ever lived (Solomon) has studied all the facts. He came to the same conclusion that I do: "The Lord is God, and I will serve Him."

Granite
November 15th, 2004, 01:37 PM
Ah, yes. Solomon. He of the irrepressible libido. Not as wise as people might think...:rolleyes:

Turbo
November 15th, 2004, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by prodigal

The last time I started a thread on this site I was pretty much picking a fight in that I asked anyone and everyone to sell me christianity, or religion in general. I remember that day. That was the day my strong suspicions that you were not a Christian were confirmed, granite1010. I'm glad you've dropped the facade since then.

:troll:

Granite
November 15th, 2004, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

I remember that day. That was the day my strong suspicions that you were not a Christian were confirmed, granite1010. I'm glad you've dropped the facade since then.

:troll:

Hey, you devilish wolverine state genius! Before making snippy and judgmental comments you might want to get a few names right.

Burninating the country side...

Clete
November 15th, 2004, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

You're out numbered, in time and history past and present. That was my point. Mankind has figured out how to devise law codes and morality for millenia without the help of the Christian Bible.

You are wrong. Morality has always been derived from what we now call a Biblical worldview. If God does not exist at all then morality makes no sense. If God is not moral Himself then one cannot logically account for the existence of morality. Everyone, including non-believers tacitly borrow from a Biblical worldview when they admit the existence of morality.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Granite
November 15th, 2004, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

You are wrong. Morality has always been derived from what we now call a Biblical worldview. If God does not exist at all then morality makes no sense. If God is not moral Himself then one cannot logically account for the existence of morality. Everyone, including non-believers tacitly borrow from a Biblical worldview when they admit the existence of morality.

Resting in Him,
Clete

One could look at, say, Jungian psychology to make this point: that the subconscious minds of men all draw from the same archtypes. Murder's wrong, for example. A pretty universal law among mankind. This is not uniquely "biblical." Christian morality happens to be called "biblical" because that's where Christians, naturally, draw their law code. Same stuff, just different clothes.

Lovejoy
November 15th, 2004, 02:39 PM
This is interesting. It was not directed at me, but I would like an opportunity to respond, as it refers to "Christians" as a group.


As Granite said, it's self inflicted. You don't need god, you need answers, you need a system, you need to be self-righteous. Christianity is nothing more than an excuse for you to feel better than the rest of us worms.

Are sure you are not just referring to yourself? To espouse the "needs" of others is to assign both motive and identity. That is a lot for one guy to pull off.


You disregard what you can prove for yourself, you substitute your perception of reality for a fairy tale and call those who do not believe fools.

The word "fool" gets tossed around a lot, by both sides. I don't know why.

Even if you have every bit of empirical data at your finger tips, you still have to handle people using your "perceptions." No one uses logic in human relations, at least not consistently. As such, empirical data versus fairy tales is only relevant if they directly impact your perceptions, and in a fashion that corresponds with how you handle people. My beliefs tell my to reach out in love, and try to be both forgiving and humble with how I handle people. Most people here will agree that I try very hard, and often succeed.


You don't need god, you need religion, you need a system that caters to your apparent and inherent need to be both self-righteous and holier than all of us "thou's". Like I said before, the only time I felt born again was when I became objective and stepped back from the whole thing to view it as a whole, and in the light of other religions. Again, as Granite said, the "holy spirit" apparently speaks to all christians, but is telling them all something completely different, hence the numerous sects and denominations. Looking in from the outside while taking into account the myriad denominations and the claim that the HS speaks to all christians leads me to believe that christianity does not exist but is a figment of a collectively weak mass imagination. You can't agree that the HS speaks to all christians and then have all christians disagree with each other. It doesn't make sense.

And, in this case, why is your testimony more (or less) valid than someone that claims differently? The only time you "felt" born again? That is not logic, it is purely experiential. Which means that all testimony on that level is valid. You are incapable of stepping back and objectively viewing beliefs as a whole, because they are not objective, and cannot be viewed from the outside. Each one is a personal relationship. All you can do is emotionally distance yourself from something until it is easy to pass judgement on it, mostly by evaluating with your own perceptions.

And, just because your experience does not line up with that of others, why is it a "weak" imagining? Your language, while occasionally trying to be friendly, comes across with quite an air of superiority and can be very provocative at times. Why is this? What are you trying to prove? Do you claim (as some do) that there is an inherent danger to people holding Christian beliefs? Are you going to attack every group that holds a different set of beliefs or values? This is what so many attack Christians over, and yet no one seems above it.

And please, attacking a supernatural belief system with the evidence of nature my seem like a good idea, but it will get you nowhere. Particularly when you don't seem to have the background to do it well.

wickwoman
November 15th, 2004, 02:42 PM
Dear prodigal:

I'm with you. Let's look at it this way. The proof of a mindset's benefits to me can be found in the lives of those who claim to hold a particular mindset. Such benefits cannot be found. I look to my former bro's and sis's in Christ and find the same alcoholism, drug addiction, adultery, disatisfaction, sickness and death I find in everyone's life. Therefore, there seems to be no real measurable benefit to being a Christian other than the idea that you can lord your "betterness" and "savedness" over the rest of mankind. This is a shallow satisfaction. I know, I've experienced it myself.

True satisfaction is to be found in inclusion, not exclusion. Separation from our brothers and sisters brings grief. To know you're going to Heaven is to know your sister is going to Hell. So, if you're selfish enough, this will be enough to keep you hanging on. But, it's the beginning of the end when you think to yourself, "Hey, I want my sister with me in Heaven. What about God, he/she should love my sister at least as much as I do."

Christianity is nothing more than a special club which only certain initiates will be invited to join. Sure, the selling point is that everyone is included. The fine print is, "except the gays, except the Hindus, except the Buddhists." God is bigger than any religion. And traditional Christianity is a lame attempt to nail him/her down.

Now, I will give my caveat that certain Christians can be excluded from my diatribe. Dave Miller is one, Chileice is one as well. There are others whom I know personally. But, they could just as easily be Buddhists. It starts with the person, not the religion.

So, anyway, I'll make the remark I think I once made to Granite, you sound like you need to read Ecclesiastes (again?). It sums up alot of the searching for meaning where meaning can't be found arguments. And, if you are looking for meaning in religion, it will be difficult to find it there.

"When you ride in a boat and watch the shore, you might assume that the shore is moving. But when you keep your eyes closely on the boat, you can see that the boat moves. Similarly, if you examine myriad things with a confused body and mind you might suppose that your mind and nature are permanent. When you practice intimately and return to where you are, it will be clear that nothing at all has unchanging self."

-"Actualizing the Fundamental Point" by Zen Master Dogen

prodigal
November 15th, 2004, 04:29 PM
Lovejoy
(No one uses logic in human relations, at least not consistently

Clete
November 15th, 2004, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

One could look at, say, Jungian psychology to make this point: that the subconscious minds of men all draw from the same archtypes. Murder's wrong, for example. A pretty universal law among mankind. This is not uniquely "biblical." Christian morality happens to be called "biblical" because that's where Christians, naturally, draw their law code. Same stuff, just different clothes.

You are missing the point. You can't even account for the existence of psychology of any kind without borrowing from a Christian worldview. You can't account for the fact that human being can think about abstract ideas like logic for example. You can't account for the existence of language, or even intelligence without tacitly borrowing from a Christian (Biblical) worldview. You can't explain why it is wrong to murder without logical incoherence. You cannot do it. If you don't believe me, try it. You will fail.

Resting in Him,
Clete

prodigal
November 15th, 2004, 04:55 PM
Lovejoy
(No one uses logic in human relations, at least not consistently)

Speak for yourself, LJ.

(empirical data versus fairy tales is only relevant if they directly impact your perceptions, and in a fashion that corresponds with how you handle people.)

This is how empirical data works for me in regards to perceptions:

If I can't feel it, hear it, see it, taste it or touch it, it doesn't exist. If you can't demonstrate something to me, it isn't there. I can't perceive something that cannot be proven to exist, therefore how I handle people, how people handle themselves and whether or not it is in a fashion that corresponds is irrelevant.

Christians have an argument that they cannot prove (i.e. you can't prove the existence of supernatural forces, you can't prove the existence of heaven or hell, you don't have an original copy of the bible, etc.)

I can prove that there are no demons, there are no angels, there is no hell, simply because there is no evidence to support that there are. Like I said before, y'all can believe whatever you want, my problem is when Christians pass off unprovable beliefs as truth. It's like they're selling something they don't have. It's like playing poker against someone who constantly claims the plot but won't show their cards.

(why is your testimony more (or less) valid than someone that claims differently? The only time you "felt" born again? That is not logic, it is purely experiential. Which means that all testimony on that level is valid)

No, it means that I felt something that requires no more proof than to just look at things and demonstrate them for myself. Christians can't do anything like that, therefore their experiences aren't valid. You can't prove that god talks to anyone. You can't take an experience for which there are no demonstrable systems for proving it's validty and pass it off as truth. You can take what exists (empirical data), examine it, do some research and have a better look at the whole of the idea you're scrutinizing. That's empirical versus the fairy tale. I can do research and demonstrate it to someone else and then tell them to make up their own minds. Christians don't, and can't do that.

(You are incapable of stepping back and objectively viewing beliefs as a whole, because they are not objective, and cannot be viewed from the outside. Each one is a personal relationship. All you can do is emotionally distance yourself from something until it is easy to pass judgement on it, mostly by evaluating with your own perceptions)

Exactly, but no exactly. The first part, beliefs are not objective I agree, but I have ben viewing them from the outside. Each one is a personal relationship I suppose, but I'm challenging the existence of a relationship at all. And yes, when you want an objective opinion you do have to distance yourself emotionally so you don't become biased. I've read the bible and much christian literature. I've also read much literature challenging the bible and christian apologists. Then I evaluated it with my own perceptions. I took arguments from both sides, and without emotion, I evaluated what I had learned.

But if you're christian I doubt you'd understand this process.

(Your language, while occasionally trying to be friendly, comes across with quite an air of superiority and can be very provocative at times. Why is this? What are you trying to prove?)

No kidding sherlock. Like I ALREADY SAID BEFORE: I am both an observer and an agitator. When I observe something that bothers me, I agitate. That's my thing, that's what I do. I don't have to prove anything. Christians do a fine job disproving themselves through the absense of evidence, so my work is done for me. Like I said, I'm an observer. I'm an empiricist. If you can't prove it, it don't exist. Talking to god does not mean it listens. Believing in heaven doesn't mean it's there. Having a book that says there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow doesn't mean it's there, and pardon me if I find something wrong with people passing off the unprovable as indisputable.

(And please, attacking a supernatural belief system with the evidence of nature my seem like a good idea, but it will get you nowhere. Particularly when you don't seem to have the background to do it well.)

I'll be the judge of that. Oh, and what kind of background do I have to have in order to possess a valid opinion?

(Do you claim (as some do) that there is an inherent danger to people holding Christian beliefs? Are you going to attack every group that holds a different set of beliefs or values?)

As I ALREADY SAID: I don't have a problem with christianity when taken as a discipline to live YOUR life by, but as a standard by which to judge those who aren't convinced? Poppycock. When it's shoved in my face by Aimiel as though it's rock solid and I'm going to go to hell, yeah, I attack. Granted, I picked the fight, but he didn't have to take the bait. Christians love a challenge, and after twenty years of christianity, I love challenges also. Christianity is where I got my hostility, my intolerance and my love of a fight.

As for forgiveness, I'm glad you've got some Lovejoy, 'cuz I'm plain plum outta the stuff.

And Wickwoman....

right on.

Lovejoy
November 15th, 2004, 05:47 PM
I was just testing the waters, prodigal. It is tough to see the logical technique in your interpersonal relations when you show up with, and frankly admit to, a predisposed hostility to a group of people. Be that as it may, I would rather have peace. And as I am already having this (almost) exact conversation on another site, and am even having a much more reasonably toned version of it on this site (with PureX), I will leave you with those that have already engaged you on the topic. Good luck, and God bless.

Clete
November 15th, 2004, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by prodigal
This is how empirical data works for me in regards to perceptions:

If I can't feel it, hear it, see it, taste it or touch it, it doesn't exist. If you can't demonstrate something to me, it isn't there. I can't perceive something that cannot be proven to exist, therefore how I handle people, how people handle themselves and whether or not it is in a fashion that corresponds is irrelevant.

Christians have an argument that they cannot prove
It is you who have the logically incoherent position.
You like to use logic (although quite poorly) but cannot account for the fact that you even know what logic is, and are completely incapable of proving that logic is real in the first place (without resorting to a Biblical worldview that is).
You say if you can't perceive it, it doesn't exist. By what logic did you arrive at that conclusion? By what means do you account for the fact that you can feel, hear, see, taste or touch in the first place? And by what means did your ability to analyze and process those senses come about?
And I'm still waiting for an answer to the questions I posed above. Primarily, what do you base you belief in God on? Can you feel, hear, see, taste or touch him? If not, then you contradict yourself and demonstrate your complete lack of any ability whatsoever to explain even the most basic aspects of the human experience (language, self awareness, introspection, the ability grasp abstract concepts like logic and right and wrong, etc.) Your beliefs are based on nothing, the very charge you make toward the Christian. You are the very epitome of hypocrisy.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Granite
November 15th, 2004, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

You are missing the point. You can't even account for the existence of psychology of any kind without borrowing from a Christian worldview. You can't account for the fact that human being can think about abstract ideas like logic for example. You can't account for the existence of language, or even intelligence without tacitly borrowing from a Christian (Biblical) worldview. You can't explain why it is wrong to murder without logical incoherence. You cannot do it. If you don't believe me, try it. You will fail.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Logic and Christianity aren't exactly bedfellows, but I guess that's a digression. The fact that men can reason and think isn't a Christian idea: it's, at best, a very strained acknowledgment that a creator of some kind may or may not exist.

I don't see how language or the intelligence of man is somehow inherently and completely a Christian idea, either. Considering the track record the church has had in suppressing the written word this strikes me as a bid ironic.

Clete
November 15th, 2004, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Logic and Christianity aren't exactly bedfellows, but I guess that's a digression. The fact that men can reason and think isn't a Christian idea: it's, at best, a very strained acknowledgment that a creator of some kind may or may not exist.

I don't see how language or the intelligence of man is somehow inherently and completely a Christian idea, either. Considering the track record the church has had in suppressing the written word this strikes me as a bid ironic.

You are still missing the point. I'm not saying that logic, intelligence, language, reason, introspection etc. are Christian ideas, I'm saying that outside a Biblical worldview, the existence of such things cannot be explained in a logically coherent manner. Outside a Biblical worldview you and prodigal are both unable to even explain how it is possible that you can read this post!

Resting in Him,
Clete

Granite
November 15th, 2004, 08:31 PM
If by a "biblical worldview" you mean thinking as a Christian, I don't think you're on the mark.

Maybe you should define.

As succinctly as possible, what is a "biblical worldview"?

Clete
November 15th, 2004, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

If by a "biblical worldview" you mean thinking as a Christian, I don't think you're on the mark.

Maybe you should define.

As succinctly as possible, what is a "biblical worldview"?

Not necessary. You started this thread not me! (Or at least your buddy did.)
You are here attempting to appeal to logic to say that the Bible is obsolete without realizing that without a Christian worldview, you have no way of accounting for the existence of logic in the first place.
I can easily account for such things as right and wrong, logic, the ability to examine one's self etc because and only because of a Biblical worldview. You on the other hand cannot even make sense of the fact that anything exists at all much less such abstract concepts as morality and logic.
Your worldview is completely inadequate and logically incoherent and yet you attempt to make such a charge against Christianity. You are a hypocrite and what's worse, you know that you are and don't care! Wouldn't it just be easier for you to admit that you don't have a fat clue how to account for the very things that you attempt to use (logic and reason etc) against Christianity which is the very thing that makes those things intelligible in the first place! Admit that you've cut your nose off to spite your face and that you don't really have any reason at all to believe what you do except that you hate Jesus Christ and must find something, anything, anything at all, to discredit His Word.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Balder
November 15th, 2004, 10:48 PM
Clete


You are still missing the point. I'm not saying that logic, intelligence, language, reason, introspection etc. are Christian ideas, I'm saying that outside a Biblical worldview, the existence of such things cannot be explained in a logically coherent manner. Outside a Biblical worldview you and prodigal are both unable to even explain how it is possible that you can read this post!

I'm sorry to see that Hilston is leading you astray with this pretentious bit of non-sense!

Peace,
B.

Lighthouse
November 15th, 2004, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Aimiel and others have to be hostile because it's the basis of their faith. Christianity is founded on fear: fear of sin, fear of God, fear of the devil, fear of hell.
I'm not afraid of hell. I'm not afraid of the devil [i.e. Accuser and adversary]. And I'm not afraid of sin, either. Why be afraid of something I'm free from and dead to?:confused: And why would I be afraid of someone who has no power in my life? And why would I be afraid of someplace I'll never go? And I'm not afraid of God, either. I fear Him, but not with a fear that means afraid. It is a holy fear. It is awe. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

Lighthouse
November 16th, 2004, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by prodigal

Lighthouse

(Yes, I believe in hell. And it is seperation from God. But that is not what we are saved from. We are saved from ourselves)

That's a disgustingly low opinion of yourself, and frankly I think we're pretty darned seperated from god as it is. You might be able to trick yourself into thinking he's spoken to you, and your mind can make you see things if you really want to, but I would say you're already living in your definition of hell.
:rolleyes:

Is it a low opinion of myself? Yes. But it's the truth. I was not in Christ, for I was unrighteous...born into it. And nothing I could ever do would make me righteous. And I always catered to my unrighteousness, by committing acts that were symptoms of that. Christ saved me from that. He made me righteous. And now I am in Him. I am no longer seperated from Him. I am forgiven, and I know that. And I live it.


(We are made dead to sin)

Your definition of sin is 2,000 years old, probably a lot older than that actually... get with the times. The age of Pisces (the fish/Jesus) is over. The age of aquarius has begun. I don't believe things unless they can be demonstrated to me, and astrology is far more demonstrable than christian folklore.
What's my definition of sin? You don't know, so how can you make a judgment on it? You are being judgmental. Sin is transgression of the law. I am dead to the law, as well as dead to sin. That is the work of Christ.

You'd rather trust the stars [who have no sentience] than the One who created them?!:doh: That's far more stupid than...a lot of things.


(And it seems you have met some people who don't know the meaning of sin. Sin is transgression of the law, and apart form the law there is no transgression. And those who are in Christ are not under the law. They are under grace.)

Now you're knocking my friends? Is that it? The law? Your law is 2,000 years old. Things are slightly different now than when the bible was written. Things change, christians hate to admit it, and it might eventually be their downfall, but your system of religion is just too old to conceivably sustain itself for too much longer.
Actually, the law I'm referring to is way older than 2000 years. And how did I knock your friends. I said they were mistaken in their definition of sin. That's all I said. And Christianity has been sustained for almost 2000 years. Judaism for a lot longer than that. And they adhere to the law that Christians are free from. So what makes you so sure that Christianity won't be sustained? What makes you think it sustains itself, at all?


(Being good is not good enough.)

How do you argue with someone like this? Oh yeah, don't tell me, let me guess Aimiel, there is no arguing with it because it's the truth and I can't handle it?
It is the truth. I'm not sure why you refuse to explore it. I don't think you have no hope of handling it. I just don't know why you won't.


(There is nothing we can do to be good enough, because none of us are righteous, without Him. And when one knows the truth it makes them free.)

Your definition of righteousness is also 2,000 years old. Mine is my own and it's quite current. I don't have a book to base it on, just my own perception of reality. I have seen the truth, when I stepped back from religion to look at it from the outside. I feel more born again now without it than when I had it.
No. Righteousness is older than the foundations of the Earth. I used to believe that I could work my way to Heaven. I believed salvation was a free gift, but that I had to always ask for forgiveness any time I failed to be perfect, because I thought it would cost me my salvation. But when I realized that I was forgiven for all, that all my sin was nailed to the cross, and that Christ had cleansed me of all unrighteousness, I knew what it meant to be born again. Apparently, you don't. I have seen the truth. You have fallen for one of the greatest lies.


Oh and again, what's with your lack of self-confidence? Maybe you're a weak person, Lighthouse, maybe you're just plain old weak.
We all are. But Christ makes the weak strong. And He has done that for me. I have more confidence in Him than I have in myself, because I always failed and let myself down. He never has.


Your little story about your porn addiction makes perfect sense. You couldn't stop yourself. If you're weak enough to stare at naked ladies for hours on end than maybe you're weak enough to be taken for a ride by a religion that has succesfully perpetuated itself for 2,000 years.
You just don't get it, do you? I am weak. Christ has made me strong. I no longer stare at naked women. I have no desire to. It holds no anticipation for me. I couldn't care less, because I don't care at all. But I would like to know if you think that all men who look at porn are weak. Because there are a lot of men, and women, who look at porn...and go to strip clubs...and other things along those lines. And they are not all affiliated with a religion.


There is defintely something to religion, like I said, I believe in god, and quite some time ago there probably was the need for religion. Just not anymore. The human race has grown past it. If I have than so can anyone else.
I've grown past it. Did you forget that I agreed with you that religion is obsolete? A relationship is the only thing that matters, and it makes religion completely useless.


Lighthouse, you're probably just a really weak person who needs answers. Religion can give answers, so it satiates an inherent desire in humans. You need religion. Not necessarily god, just a system to enslave yourself to because you're too weak to make it on your own.
No. I need God. And I have Him. I don't need religion, and I don't want religion. It did nothing for me, but keep me a slave to that for which Christ died to free me from. Screw systems! They're nothing more than prisons.


I'm not that weak. If I want to look at naked ladies, I just do it. Shrug. I don't blame you for needing to be a christian, just like I don't blame you for looking at porn. You're a guy, naked ladies can be kinda cool. Don't beat yourself up because you follow your natural instincts, don't cut yourself off from everything that makes you human and then call it dirty sin. It's both degrading and insulting to myself and others that disagree.
:nono:
I'm not weak, either. I don't desire to look at naked ladies. It does nothing for me. Not anymore. I just don't care. I used to beat myself up over it. And that kept me in bondage. When I realized that I was already forgiven, because Christ died once, for all...and all my sins were nailed to that cross with Him, as well as the law, then I quit beating myself up over my failings. And I failed less and less. In fact, I've quit failing in many areas that were once vices for me. Why? Because Christ keeps me. He has freed me. I am dead to sin, because of Him!


Listen, all I want is for Aimiel to admit that he can't prove what he believes and though he is free to believe it, he's not free to pass it off as truth without proof. Lighthouse, I like reading your posts.
You're right. Aimiel can't prove it. And it's not up to him to prove it. God has already proven Himself. If you're still denying it, that's your problem.

Lighthouse
November 16th, 2004, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Logic and Christianity aren't exactly bedfellows,..
:dunce::duh:

Dave Miller-
FYI, the fruit of the Spirit is not a reference to queers.

Granite
November 16th, 2004, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Not necessary. You started this thread not me! (Or at least your buddy did.)
You are here attempting to appeal to logic to say that the Bible is obsolete without realizing that without a Christian worldview, you have no way of accounting for the existence of logic in the first place.
I can easily account for such things as right and wrong, logic, the ability to examine one's self etc because and only because of a Biblical worldview. You on the other hand cannot even make sense of the fact that anything exists at all much less such abstract concepts as morality and logic.
Your worldview is completely inadequate and logically incoherent and yet you attempt to make such a charge against Christianity. You are a hypocrite and what's worse, you know that you are and don't care! Wouldn't it just be easier for you to admit that you don't have a fat clue how to account for the very things that you attempt to use (logic and reason etc) against Christianity which is the very thing that makes those things intelligible in the first place! Admit that you've cut your nose off to spite your face and that you don't really have any reason at all to believe what you do except that you hate Jesus Christ and must find something, anything, anything at all, to discredit His Word.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Case you didn't notice this is a virtual world, Clete, so prodigal's not exactly a buddy. A partner in crime, perhaps...:D

You keep saying that logic, reason, and other faculties of the human mind are impossible to understand without a Christian worldview, but that's just it: you keep repeating it without any substantiation. I asked you to describe in your own words what you mean by "biblical worldview." You can't even do that. Instead you just respond with a temper tantrum.

Can you explain what a biblical worldview is, Clete? Or are you just gonna repeat yourself? "It's the way it is. That's all there is to it."

If you can't explain to someone with a keyboard what you believe, I think you need to grow up or look at what your faith really is.

Granite
November 16th, 2004, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

I'm not afraid of hell. I'm not afraid of the devil [i.e. Accuser and adversary]. And I'm not afraid of sin, either. Why be afraid of something I'm free from and dead to?:confused: And why would I be afraid of someone who has no power in my life? And why would I be afraid of someplace I'll never go? And I'm not afraid of God, either. I fear Him, but not with a fear that means afraid. It is a holy fear. It is awe. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

You're afraid enough of hell not to walk from the Christian faith. You have a gun to your head, Lighthouse.

On Fire
November 16th, 2004, 07:33 AM
Fool.

Clete
November 16th, 2004, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Case you didn't notice this is a virtual world, Clete, so prodigal's not exactly a buddy. A partner in crime, perhaps...:D
Yeah, right.


You keep saying that logic, reason, and other faculties of the human mind are impossible to understand without a Christian worldview, but that's just it: you keep repeating it without any substantiation.
You are the one claiming that Christianity is obsolete not me. It is you who has the burden of proof, not me. You just don't like being on the defensive. But unfortunately for you, I intended to push you to justify your dismissal of a Biblical worldview, which you will not be able to do.


I asked you to describe in your own words what you mean by "biblical worldview." You can't even do that. Instead you just respond with a temper tantrum.
I did not respond with any sort of tantrum. :kookoo:
And yes of course I can do it, I'm just not stupid enough to let you flip this over on me. You're the one making claims of obsolesence, not me. If you can't account for smoe really basic stuff that is at the very core of being alive then you are the one with the problem.


Can you explain what a biblical worldview is, Clete? Or are you just gonna repeat yourself? "It's the way it is. That's all there is to it."
I've never said anything remotely like, "It's the way it is. That's all there is to it." And yes I can explain what a Biblical worldview is, I just refuse to do so until you at least make some attempt to answer the questions I have already posed. Besides, you know already what a Biblical worldview is, you were a Christian (or at least called yourself that) for a long time and if you don't know then what are you saying is obsolete?


If you can't explain to someone with a keyboard what you believe, I think you need to grow up or look at what your faith really is.
You can't even account for how it is possible that a computer keyboard even exists in the first place, that's my whole point! You have totally thrown the baby out with the bath water. You say (or at least you agree) that your senses tell you what is true but you cannot account for the existence of those senses and cannot prove that they are even real without spinning so fast in logical circles that you throw up.

wickwoman
November 16th, 2004, 08:30 AM
I'm only guessing here because Clete has been sticking with the cloak and dagger bit, but I will say I know someone who believes that all knowledge and creativity stems from Christianity. Basically, such people believe that people in the east couldn't get out of bed every day if some westerners hadn't come over and showed them what to do. And, that before the "revelation of truth" to such places, they were reduced to savagery.

Let's just all speculate like this about what Clete means until he gets mad enough to actually verbalize it (if he can actually verbalize it). Heck. This might just be like on of those church billboards you see that have stupid meaningless sayings on them. No real meaning, just a waste of words.

Granite
November 16th, 2004, 08:45 AM
"You are the one claiming that Christianity is obsolete not me."

No, prodigal is. Can you keep your facts straight?

"It is you who has the burden of proof, not me."

Not really. I don't claim to serve a resurrected deity who made heaven and earth. I'd say you have a higher litmus test.

"You just don't like being on the defensive."

Clete, you're the one who can't even give a quick definition of what you believe a "biblical worldview" to be, so who's acting defensive?

"But unfortunately for you, I intended to push you to justify your dismissal of a Biblical worldview, which you will not be able to do."

I don't even know what I'm dismissing yet. Put it out there.

"And yes of course I can do it, I'm just not stupid enough to let you flip this over on me."

No offense, but this is just a crock. You either a) don't know what you mean by the duckspeak of "biblical worldview," b) you're not sure who you're borrowing it from, or c) you don't think it'll hold up. Either way you don't sound like you have a clue. Christians can throw out phrases like "biblical worldview" without thinking about the babble they're using. I'm asking you to think for yourself and give a definition. If you don't, it's just laziness or cowardice on your part.

"yes I can explain what a Biblical worldview is, I just refuse to do so until you at least make some attempt to answer the questions I have already posed."

Like what? You keep repeating yourself: "Logic and reason is impossible to understand with a biblical worldview. How is that possible?" So you're making an assumption based off a mysterious "worldview" you refuse to define. I'm asking for a definition so I at least understand where you're coming from. If you think all Christians have the same "worldview" just because they're Christians, you've got another thing coming. Or you're just naive. Christians can't agree on most anything.

Granite
November 16th, 2004, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by wickwoman

I'm only guessing here because Clete has been sticking with the cloak and dagger bit, but I will say I know someone who believes that all knowledge and creativity stems from Christianity. Basically, such people believe that people in the east couldn't get out of bed every day if some westerners hadn't come over and showed them what to do. And, that before the "revelation of truth" to such places, they were reduced to savagery.

Let's just all speculate like this about what Clete means until he gets mad enough to actually verbalize it (if he can actually verbalize it). Heck. This might just be like on of those church billboards you see that have stupid meaningless sayings on them. No real meaning, just a waste of words.

Here's a personal favorite from a local church in my area: "Forbidden fruit creates many jams."

wickwoman
November 16th, 2004, 09:08 AM
Great example. I love it. How about "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

Granite
November 16th, 2004, 09:14 AM
:rolleyes:

How very, very original...you'd think these guys would come up with a couple of their own.

prodigal
November 16th, 2004, 10:54 AM
Here we go:

(Clete
By what means do you account for the fact that you can feel, hear, see, taste or touch in the first place? And by what means did your ability to analyze and process those senses come about?)

First of all, my mother and father created me in the same fashion that every other person, including yourself, on this planet is created. Iím not about to go into the details of the birds and the bees, you should know this. But at any rate, my point is, I can account for my five senses because I can demonstrate them. I can smell roses, watch a movie, listen to Weather Report, I can touch a kitten, I can eat my motherís apple pie. To say that these are all products created by a divine being puts you in the exact same position you were in before, with the burden of proof. You see, I have nothing to prove. Youíre the one who makes the claims and has no evidence and proof to back up your claims. Youíre claiming (if Iíve heard you correctly) that the existence of logic is proof of god and the validity of christianity. Thatís utter nonsense. If I believed that leprechauns left pots of gold at the end of rainbows and used the existence of rainbows as the basis of my belief, it really wouldnít hold up that well. Once again, youíre claiming the pot without showing your cards.

(what do you base you belief in God on?)

shrug. The fact that any other alternative is even more foolish than a supreme creator. I donít really like the options, none of them really make sense, but weíre here now, so my question is, is it really that important? I think youíre making mountains out of mole hills. When presented with the options I have to take the one that makes the most sense, or the one that is least foolish. Unfortunately Iíve observed that god is the most likely source. We canít prove it of course, so I donít waste too much time thinking about it.

(the existence of such things cannot be explained in a logically coherent manner.)

Um, yeah they can. Keyboards are constructed in factories. My dad makes a living with his job and with the money he earns he provides my family with food. Cause and effect. I donít see the need to blame everything good in the world on god. Clete, I donít understand how a biblical worldview explains anything better, maybe you just havenít explained it well enough, frankly I donít think youíve explained it at all. Having a biblical worldview is just as arbitrary as having a hindu worldview, or a Buddhist worldview. My worldview is this: if you canít prove it, donít pass it off truth. If you can prove it, than itís a fact. You say god is the creator of all things, and thatís where stuff like logic or the ability to read or speak comes from, but you have no proof when you pass this perspective off as truth. At best itís just an idea, backed by nothing more than zealots and a really old book.

(It is you who has the burden of proof, not me)

Once again, youíre wrong. Iím not the one making fantastical claims about deities, the creation of the planet, spirits, zombie messiahs, an archfiend, ďsinĒ and eternal resting places. I deny the existence of many of those things because of the lack of proof. You claim their existence without proof. Once again, youíre selling something you donít have. Youíre claiming the pot without showing your cards. All I want is to see your cards, Clete. If you have proof to back up your claims and to change them from claims to facts, than please, enlighten me.

(Lighthouse
I was not in Christ, for I was unrighteous...born into it)

Your standard for righteousness comes from bible. Itís just an idea, thereís no proof to back up your claims, other than a vague sense of morality for which the bible, religion, even god is unnecessary. You donít have to have a personal relationship with god in order to be a good person. You donít have to be saved from yourself by some distant deity. Lighthouse, you had it in you the whole time to save yourself from your petty addictions and you sold yourself short.

(You'd rather trust the stars [who have no sentience] than the One who created them?! That's far more stupid than...a lot of things.)

More stupid than trusting an invisible god to save you from less than desirable habits? Like looking at pictures of naked ladies? Lighthouse, at least I can see the stars. You canít see god. What a friend you have in Jesus indeed.

(It is the truth. I'm not sure why you refuse to explore it.)

Once again, prove to me that it is the truth, give me something tangible, and Iíll agree with you. You canít say something is a fact without something to prove it. Newton could demonstrate something as simple as gravity, but you canít demonstrate something as huge as god. Funny.

(I have seen the truth. You have fallen for one of the greatest lies.)

Oh is that the lie told by the earth god Satan? And youíve actually seen the truth. All right, Iíll give your story credence for a moment or two. Letís say everything you say is true, youíve seen the light, Iíve been lied to and am buying it. Thanks god. Thanks for letting that happen to me. All right, Iím done pretending now. You worship an invisible sadist who will let me burn in hell out of spite but will take the time to ween you off of your porn addiction. Your godís mood swings are as frantic and random as my ex-girlfriendís.

(But I would like to know if you think that all men who look at porn are weak.)

I donít think looking at porn is a good litmus test for weakness. Letís say, all men who leave their wives for younger girlfriends and move out to LA are weak. Anyone who buys into a system of religion without tangible evidence of itís validity are weak. Anyone who says theyíve seen the truth, and because of that, I should believe as well is weak. Anyone who says Iíve been lied to, but canít prove that anything has ever been said to me at all, true or false, is weak and expects the same weakness out of me. You can only fool some of the people, some of the time. Iíve tried christianity, for twenty years I tried it. It doesnít work for me. The fact that it works for other people is fine, Iíve said it once, Iíll say it again, people are free to believe whatever they want. My quarrel is when the unprovable is passed off as indisputable.

(God has already proven Himself. If you're still denying it, that's your problem.)

Once again, god hasnít proven anything, and neither have you. I can prove that heaven doesnít exist simply by virtue of the fact that thereís nothing to prove that it does. An old book does not constitute proof, maybe thin evidence, but not proof. To deny the existence of something that cannot be proven to exist is not a problem Lighthouse. Itís logical. To say that god has proven himself is a problem when god doesnít speak out loud and when any evidence you have of anything you believe is subjective at best.

You guys must live on the internet or something because all of your posts are short and sweet, mine are always HUGE!

Granite
November 16th, 2004, 10:57 AM
"Lighthouse, you had it in you the whole time to save yourself from your petty addictions and you sold yourself short."

:thumb: Absolutely.

I also loved this:

"You worship an invisible sadist who will let me burn in hell out of spite but will take the time to ween you off of your porn addiction. Your godís mood swings are as frantic and random as my ex-girlfriendís."

:chuckle:

prodigal
November 16th, 2004, 11:43 AM
I'm glad my sense of humor isn't a complete waste.

Clete
November 16th, 2004, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by prodigal

Here we go:

(Clete
By what means do you account for the fact that you can feel, hear, see, taste or touch in the first place? And by what means did your ability to analyze and process those senses come about?)

First of all, my mother and father created me in the same fashion that every other person, including yourself, on this planet is created. Iím not about to go into the details of the birds and the bees, you should know this. But at any rate, my point is, I can account for my five senses because I can demonstrate them. I can smell roses, watch a movie, listen to Weather Report, I can touch a kitten, I can eat my motherís apple pie.
At best all you can demonstrate is that they do exist, and actually you can't even prove that without borrowing from a Biblical worldview, but leaving that aside for the moment, you've missed the point of the question, again. I didn't question whether they exist or not, I question your ability to account for their existence. How did they come to be? Did they just pop into existence out of nothing or what? My point is that you are utterly unable to answer this question without tacitly borrowing from a Biblical view of reality. You cannot do it because it cannot be done.


To say that these are all products created by a divine being puts you in the exact same position you were in before, with the burden of proof.
On the contrary! It is you who are calling the Biblical worldview into question, not me. All I'm doing is exposing how bankrupt your own worldview is in regards to answering even the most basic epistemological questions. The point being that the worldview that you have replaced the Biblical worldview with is displaying the very problems which you claim that Christianity has. With almost every word you speak, you argue against your own position! It's sort of funny actually. :chuckle:


You see, I have nothing to prove. Youíre the one who makes the claims and has no evidence and proof to back up your claims.
What?!!! You are the one who said that the Biblical worldview is "...foolishness, it's madness, and I think it's sick, twisted and is propagated by no one else but the sick of mind, control freaks, and weakling masses who crave answers and are provided them by those who are on power trips." Sure sounds like a claim to me! The problem for you is that with my Biblical worldview intact, I can explain the existence of my 5 senses and my ability to think and to reason and to use logic, all without vicious circularity in my logic. You, on the other hand, cannot and I do mean cannot. I'm not suggesting that you are simply ignorant of the argument, I'm saying that no such argument exist. Any attempt to explain the world and the universe it is in without a Biblical worldview inevitably ends up begging the question, every time.


Youíre claiming (if Iíve heard you correctly) that the existence of logic is proof of god and the validity of christianity.
In a nutshell yes. Christianity is true because of the impossibility of the contrary.


Thatís utter nonsense.
Prove me wrong then. Explain the existence of a human being ability to contemplate abstract concepts such as time, logic, mathematics, etc. I have no doubt that you are able to count, but can you account for the existence of mathematics, can you account for counting? No! You cannot.


If I believed that leprechauns left pots of gold at the end of rainbows and used the existence of rainbows as the basis of my belief, it really wouldnít hold up that well. Once again, youíre claiming the pot without showing your cards.
That's what you claim I am doing but in reality it is you who live a life of blind faith. You mention leprechauns, do they exists? No? How do you know this? How do you know that you exist? How do you know that you know anything? Perhaps you live in The Matrix and everything you think that you see, touch, taste, smell and hear are just dreams fed to you by the central computer. How do you know that this is not the way things really are?


(what do you base you belief in God on?)

shrug. The fact that any other alternative is even more foolish than a supreme creator. I donít really like the options, none of them really make sense, but weíre here now, so my question is, is it really that important?
:think: Hmm, let me see. Is the existence of God important? Good question!
If you're stupid!


I think youíre making mountains out of mole hills. When presented with the options I have to take the one that makes the most sense, or the one that is least foolish. Unfortunately Iíve observed that god is the most likely source. We canít prove it of course, so I donít waste too much time thinking about it.
Thank you for arguing my side of this debate!
You don't even understand how you've done that do you? :chuckle:


(the existence of such things cannot be explained in a logically coherent manner.)

Um, yeah they can. Keyboards are constructed in factories.
This is getting boring! Are you really this dense, or what?
Where do the factories come from?
People made the factories, right?
Where did the people come from?
Their mommy and daddy had a few birds and bees right?
Where did mommy and daddy come from?
Adam and Eve? Ah! No no no! You can't go there, can you? That would way too overtly Biblical.
How about evolution?
Okay! What did humans evolve from?
Apes.
Where did apes come from?
Monkeys.
Where did monkeys come from?
Bacteria (I know I skipped a few steps)
Where did bacteria come from?
Primordial goo.
Where'd the goo come from?
The Big Bang. (Yes, I keep skipping a lot of steps)
What caused the Big Bang?
I don't know (blind faith)
Nothing (stupid blind faith)
God (modified Biblical worldview)

Get it now? What other options would you propose?


My dad makes a living with his job and with the money he earns he provides my family with food. Cause and effect. I donít see the need to blame everything good in the world on god. Clete, I donít understand how a biblical worldview explains anything better, maybe you just havenít explained it well enough, frankly I donít think youíve explained it at all. Having a biblical worldview is just as arbitrary as having a hindu worldview, or a Buddhist worldview. My worldview is this: if you canít prove it, donít pass it off [as] truth. If you can prove it, than itís a fact. You say god is the creator of all things, and thatís where stuff like logic or the ability to read or speak comes from, but you have no proof when you pass this perspective off as truth. At best itís just an idea, backed by nothing more than zealots and a really old book.
You're begging the question. Explain how anything can be proven in the first place without resorting to a Biblical worldview. You are assuming that logical proofs can even be made outside a Biblical worldview and I'm telling you that they cannot. Go ahead and try it if you don't believe me. Every time you try you will beg the question, every time. Either that or you will intentionally go off into blatant irrationality, accepting self contradictory presuppositions. It's irrefutable. If reality is not the way the Bible depicts it, then it cannot exist at all. That which must be true cannot be false and vise versa and thus the Biblical worldview is true and yours is false.



(It is you who has the burden of proof, not me)

Once again, youíre wrong. Iím not the one making fantastical claims about deities,...
I've demonstrated that, in fact, that is precisely what you are doing; you just don't want to see it.


You claim their existence without proof.
I have made no such claim on this thread. All I've claimed is that you are unable to explain how you can even express the idea that the Biblical worldview is false, if the Biblical worldview is, in fact, false!


Once again, youíre selling something you donít have.
The only thing I'm attempting to sell on this thread is that you have not thought your own belief system through and that you cannot explain reality as we all experience it if the things you claim are false are, in fact, false.


Youíre claiming the pot without showing your cards.
No. All I'm doing is exposing the fact that you are holding less than a pair of deuces in your own hand. You don't even have an Ace in the whole, you are holding nothing at all.


All I want is to see your cards, Clete. If you have proof to back up your claims and to change them from claims to facts, than please, enlighten me.
I've given you more proof than you should need already, to go further would be premature at best. Beside, I'm not about to let you off the hook that easily. You are making claims as to the obsolescence of the Biblical worldview and are making it perfectly clear that you've replaced such a worldview with something that is full to the brim with the very problems that you are accusing Christianity of having.
It would help, by the way, if you actually knew something about what you are rejecting before rejecting it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Granite
November 16th, 2004, 02:07 PM
Clete, whatever you say is a smoke screen or a crock if you can't even explain what you mean by "biblical worldview." Two words. One of them compound. Define please. Otherwise quit blowing smoke.

prodigal
November 16th, 2004, 03:01 PM
I agree with Granite, Clete. As I've said several times, I was a christian for twenty years. It's not as though I was born yesterday or flipped through the bible indifferently. I have been submerged (in more ways than one) in christianity for quite some time. You can talk down to me all you like, but this biblical worldview of yours is tired and nothing more than window dressing. You can't prove that god created the universe or that the bible is divinely inspired, therefore your biblical worldview, whatever it is, is just as in question as everything else you believe. You've challened Granite and myself to refute your biblical worldview without defining what it is. Once again, you're claiming the pot without showing your cards.

I would be more than happy to refute whatever it is that you think you have, but you haven't given me anything to refute. You've already said you won't define it until we refute it. It's almost as ridiculous as John Kerry's "plan" to win the war on terror. He talked about it a lot, but he had no plan. So far, all you've demonstrated to me is the term "biblical worldview". I don't know what it is yet.

(No. All I'm doing is exposing the fact that you are holding less than a pair of deuces in your own hand. You don't even have an Ace in the whole, you are holding nothing at all.)

I'm holding five senses. You're holding a book full of fairy tales. You can argue about where the senses came from, where logic came from, where anything came from, but the fact of the matter is, no one can prove where anything came from, so you're back at square one. All you have is this smoke screen, this biblical worldview that's supposed to be powerful enough to refute my worldview, but you've shown nothing, you've insulted my intelligence and claimed victory before fighting the battle.

(Explain how anything can be proven in the first place without resorting to a Biblical worldview.)

Okay. Watch CSI and see how they prove things. Throw a friggin' apple in the air and watch it plummet to the ground. You don't need the bible to demonstrate gravity, you don't need a biblical worldview (whatever you think that might be) to demonstrate that breathing keeps us alive. You can argue that since god is the creator of all things than a biblical worldview is the only way to interpret the act of breathing to perpetuate life, but until you can prove that god did in fact create the universe, you're right back where you started. You're passing off the unprovable as indisputable.

(You are assuming that logical proofs can even be made outside a Biblical worldview and I'm telling you that they cannot.)

You see, Clete, you can TELL me that, but you can't demonstrate or prove a thing. As for the rest of that point you making, you didn't make a lick of sense. None of it did. I'm sure in your mind you're a genius, but something tells me you're just hiding behind an obscure chapter title in an otherwise obscure theology book that you didn't even bother to read, otherwise you would have honestly and fearlessly detailed your biblical worldview in the beginning, and only THEN would you have made your challenge. You say you have a secret weapon, you talk about it a lot, but you haven't shown us a thing.

(I've demonstrated that, in fact, that is precisely what you are doing; you just don't want to see it.)

What is so fantastical about what I have said?

( Hmm, let me see. Is the existence of God important? Good question!
If you're stupid!)

Thanks. It must be nice to have the luxury of labeling everyone who disagrees with you as just being plain old stupid. No, I don't think the question of whether god exists or not is important. That makes me stupid, eh? No, I think I've got a pretty good handle on god, and I've moved on. There are far more important questions like, how to cure cancer. How to cure AIDs. I don't see god helping, I don't see your biblical worldview helping, and I sure as heck don't see you helping.

(Any attempt to explain the world and the universe it is in without a Biblical worldview inevitably ends up begging the question, every time.)

Begging what question? Clete, the existence of logic doesn't prove anything for you, all it proves is that humans are intelligent and resourceful. I've never heard of god building cities, but there are plenty of stories about him destroying him. I've never heard about god curing cancer, I've never heard of him stopping wars, I've never heard of him preventing atrocities, inventing machines that have made our lives more convenient and comfortable, and he certainly doesn't feed, cloth or bath people. God has done absolutely nothing, and you can't prove that he has simply because you have an old book and a worldview based on an old book. Your worldview is as ancient as the texts it is based on. Because a book says god created the universe you believe it. You call me dense and stupid because I choose to make up my own mind about the world. You can't even think for yourself Clete. The idea of thinking for yourself is abhorrant to not only yourself, but everyone else who subscribes to the doctrines of an antiquated novel whose authorship is called into question every day on the world wide web. Who's being dense? I question the ancient writings of an individual book and suddenly I'm going to hell. You follow blindly with no proof the sayings of a fellow that one of the oldest religions on the planet (judaism) says was a fraud. If you want to play the age game, why don't you follow the code of Hammurabi? That predates christianity by quite a bit if memory serves (and it doesn't always). What about the story of Mythra, who was murdered and three days later was resurrected, who was depicted with a lamb, what about the dozens of other stories that predate christianity but are a mirror image to the story of your "savior"? There's too much out there for you to ignore, so it doesn't surprise me when you hide behind your "biblical worldview". You haven't defined, you can't define, you have already said that you WON'T define it, yet you ask everyone to try and refute it while claiming victory the whole while. Christians have doing this for millenia, all the while denouncing other faiths as false and satan induced and flaunting their beliefs as indisputable without proof.

I don't need an ace in the hole. All I need is what I can feel with my hands, see with my eyes, smell with my nose, hear with my ears and taste with my mouth. All of those senses had to come from somewhere, and yes, maybe they came from god.

I don't know, and neither do you.

Clete
November 16th, 2004, 03:52 PM
I'm tired of repeating myself. You are either to stupid to understand the form of the argument or are intentionally ignoring it.
For the last time, I do not want you to refute my Biblical worldview, I want you to defend your own nonbiblical worldview. Admit it, you cannot do it, can you? By your own admition, you are unable to do the very things that you ignorantly and hypocritically complain that Christianity is unable to do. In so doing you argue against youself and demonstrate that it isn't the truth that you are interested in at all, but rather accepting anything at all rather than the truth of the Bible.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Granite
November 16th, 2004, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

I'm tired of repeating myself. You are either to stupid to understand the form of the argument or are intentionally ignoring it.
For the last time, I do not want you to refute my Biblical worldview, I want you to defend your own nonbiblical worldview. Admit it, you cannot do it, can you? By your own admition, you are unable to do the very things that you ignorantly and hypocritically complain that Christianity is unable to do. In so doing you argue against youself and demonstrate that it isn't the truth that you are interested in at all, but rather accepting anything at all rather than the truth of the Bible.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete, grow up. You're refusing to even set standards for what you're supposedly defending, so I don't see why prodigal, me, or anyone else should be held to a higher standard. If we knew what you were talking about this discussion would be a lot easier.

If you're happy with your head in the sand, and are unable to even explain what a "biblical worldview" is, you can keep whatever faith you think you have. Man on the street asks what a biblical worldview is. You don't have an answer. Tough luck. Are we supposed to just take your word for it?

One Eyed Jack
November 16th, 2004, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

If by a "biblical worldview" you mean thinking as a Christian, I don't think you're on the mark.

On a subconscious level. Basically what Clete is saying is that you have to borrow concepts from our worldview to make any sense out of your own. The atheist has it even worse.

Have you ever heard the debate between Dr. Greg Bahnsen and Dr. Gordon Stein? Check it out -- it's a good debate. You can find it here (http://www.straitgate.com/bahnsen/) if you're interested.

Granite
November 16th, 2004, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

On a subconscious level. Basically what Clete is saying is that you have to borrow concepts from our worldview to make any sense out of your own. The atheist has it even worse.

Have you ever heard the debate between Dr. Greg Bahnsen and Dr. Gordon Stein? Check it out -- it's a good debate. You can find it here (http://www.straitgate.com/bahnsen/) if you're interested.

...and I would say the Christian worldview--whatever you mean by that phrase--isn't unique. It's a hodge podge. To say that millions of people who live in cultures without an explicitly Christian worldview are either wrong or "really" living in a borrowed Christian worldview (whether they know it or not) is incredibly arrogant.

I'll check out the late Dr. Bahnsen's debate.

Clete
November 16th, 2004, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Clete, grow up. You're refusing to even set standards for what you're supposedly defending,

I'm not defending anything. I'm only showing your inability to defend your own nonbeleif.

One Eyed Jack has it right. Read the info he linked too, maybe you'll learn something.

See ya! :wave2:

Resting in Him,
Clete

wickwoman
November 16th, 2004, 04:49 PM
Clete, word up, God didn't originate in the BIBLE. The concept existed long before it was written. And so, you may trace any scientific explanation to some orinator, if it pleases you, but there is absolutely no evidence that that orginator is Jehovah.

From now on, I shall make all my arguments based on my dispossessationalist worldview and tell everyone they must prove its nonexistence, however, I will tell nobody what dispossessationalist means. :D

Ecumenicist
November 16th, 2004, 04:53 PM
WW:

"From now on, I shall make all my arguments based on my dispossessationalist worldview and tell everyone they must prove its nonexistence, however, I will tell nobody what dispossessationalist means. "

Ouch, I think I just sprained something, in my head.

Lovejoy
November 16th, 2004, 05:17 PM
Hey, I think she made that word up!

Clete
November 16th, 2004, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman

Clete, word up, God didn't originate in the BIBLE. The concept existed long before it was written.
I never said otherwise.
I am not stupid. You on the other hand cannot even understadn the form of the argument and are a waste of time.


And so, you may trace any scientific explanation to some orinator, if it pleases you, but there is absolutely no evidence that that orginator is Jehovah.
See what I mean? (Probably not!)
"Scientific explanation"? Can you account for the existence of science? I bet you can't without borrowing from a Biblical worldview.


From now on, I shall make all my arguments based on my dispossessationalist worldview and tell everyone they must prove its nonexistence, however, I will tell nobody what dispossessationalist means. :D
Irrelevent. I don't care what it means. The fact remains that it (dispossessationalism) is and will always be logically incoherent; unable to account for the very presuppositions upon which it is based and thereby begging the question.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Granite
November 16th, 2004, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

I'm not defending anything. I'm only showing your inability to defend your own nonbeleif.

One Eyed Jack has it right. Read the info he linked too, maybe you'll learn something.

See ya! :wave2:

Resting in Him,
Clete

Inability to defend nonbelief. Can you lay off the double negatives?:D

Guess this mysterious, undefinable "Christian worldview" will remain a mystery inside a riddle inside an enigma...

Lighthouse
November 17th, 2004, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

You're afraid enough of hell not to walk from the Christian faith. You have a gun to your head, Lighthouse.
My reason for not walking away from Christ has nothing to do with a fear of hell, you moron. I know Christ. And I won't leve Him, not after what He's done for me.

Lighthouse
November 17th, 2004, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by prodigal

(Lighthouse
I was not in Christ, for I was unrighteous...born into it)

Your standard for righteousness comes from bible. Itís just an idea, thereís no proof to back up your claims, other than a vague sense of morality for which the bible, religion, even god is unnecessary. You donít have to have a personal relationship with god in order to be a good person. You donít have to be saved from yourself by some distant deity. Lighthouse, you had it in you the whole time to save yourself from your petty addictions and you sold yourself short.
What is your standard of rigtheousness? I never said I needed God to be a good person. I siad that He is the only one who could make me righteous and holy. Yes, Christ was in me, and I could have been free from my addiction at any time. But I was decieved. Then the truth was revealed to me. And all at once, in an instant, I was free from my addiction.


(You'd rather trust the stars [who have no sentience] than the One who created them?! That's far more stupid than...a lot of things.)

More stupid than trusting an invisible god to save you from less than desirable habits? Like looking at pictures of naked ladies? Lighthouse, at least I can see the stars. You canít see god. What a friend you have in Jesus indeed.
:rolleyes:
I know Christ. I know my Lord. Which of the stars are your friends?:kookoo:


(It is the truth. I'm not sure why you refuse to explore it.)

Once again, prove to me that it is the truth, give me something tangible, and Iíll agree with you. You canít say something is a fact without something to prove it. Newton could demonstrate something as simple as gravity, but you canít demonstrate something as huge as god. Funny.
And yet, gravity is still considered a theory. *shrugs shoulders*

Anyway, why do I need to prove it to you? Have you even tried to explore it for yourself? God has already proven Himself. If you refuse to see it, how is that my fault? Why should I be responsible to open your eyes, when you're the one keeping them closed?


(I have seen the truth. You have fallen for one of the greatest lies.)

Oh is that the lie told by the earth god Satan? And youíve actually seen the truth. All right, Iíll give your story credence for a moment or two. Letís say everything you say is true, youíve seen the light, Iíve been lied to and am buying it. Thanks god. Thanks for letting that happen to me. All right, Iím done pretending now. You worship an invisible sadist who will let me burn in hell out of spite but will take the time to ween you off of your porn addiction. Your godís mood swings are as frantic and random as my ex-girlfriendís.
Earth god?:darwinsm:

God didn't put you through anything. You chose to be where you are. Do you expect Him to force you into something? Are you interested in Calvinism or something?:liberals:

God doesn't send anyone to hell. And definitely not out of spite.:doh: And He didn't ween me off of anything. He set me free. It was sudden. As soon as I was open to the truth. God doesn't have mood swings. He is constant. He gave you a choice. And He's going to let you live with it. End of story.


(But I would like to know if you think that all men who look at porn are weak.)

I donít think looking at porn is a good litmus test for weakness. Letís say, all men who leave their wives for younger girlfriends and move out to LA are weak. Anyone who buys into a system of religion without tangible evidence of itís validity are weak. Anyone who says theyíve seen the truth, and because of that, I should believe as well is weak. Anyone who says Iíve been lied to, but canít prove that anything has ever been said to me at all, true or false, is weak and expects the same weakness out of me. You can only fool some of the people, some of the time. Iíve tried christianity, for twenty years I tried it. It doesnít work for me. The fact that it works for other people is fine, Iíve said it once, Iíll say it again, people are free to believe whatever they want. My quarrel is when the unprovable is passed off as indisputable.
When did I ever say that you should believe, because I do? I told you that I believe, because it has been proven to me. God has proven Himself. So I believe Him. I trust Him. And what makes me weak about knowing that you've been lied to? I can't prove it, because you're not going to listen. I know that I've found the truth, and I know you're spouting lies. I know it, and you know it. You just can't admit it to yourself.


(God has already proven Himself. If you're still denying it, that's your problem.)

Once again, god hasnít proven anything, and neither have you. I can prove that heaven doesnít exist simply by virtue of the fact that thereís nothing to prove that it does. An old book does not constitute proof, maybe thin evidence, but not proof. To deny the existence of something that cannot be proven to exist is not a problem Lighthouse. Itís logical. To say that god has proven himself is a problem when god doesnít speak out loud and when any evidence you have of anything you believe is subjective at best.
Lack of evidence isn't proof. And you are merely proving my point. God has proven Himself to me. That's all I need. No one else proved Him to me. No book proved Him to me. He proved Himself. You are a hypocrite, because you can't prove anything that you say, all the while accusing Christians of the inability to prove what they say. Yet, you don't even admit that you have no proof. You even go so far as to claim you do. At least I admit that I can't prove anything to you.


You guys must live on the internet or something because all of your posts are short and sweet, mine are always HUGE!
I see no point in making lengthy posts. Even my e-mails are short, and to the point. I don't ramble on in conversation either. You remind me of a scene in the recent movie version of The Cat in the Hat. The fish said something, and the little girl said, "The fish is talking." And the cat said, "But is he really saying anything?"

Granite
November 17th, 2004, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

My reason for not walking away from Christ has nothing to do with a fear of hell, you moron. I know Christ. And I won't leve Him, not after what He's done for me.

People change.

Hilston
November 17th, 2004, 10:00 AM
Prodigal writes:
But at any rate, my point is, I can account for my five senses because I can demonstrate them. I can smell roses, watch a movie, listen to Weather Report, I can touch a kitten, I can eat my motherís apple pie.Prodigal, I'm curious to know how you've calibrated your senses to align with reality. I mean, do you have some kind of a Standard-of-Weights-and-Measures-like standard against which you can check the accuracy of your senses and whether or not they do indeed properly collect auditory, olfactory, visual, savory and tactile data and input them to your brain?

prodigal
November 17th, 2004, 02:12 PM
Lighthouse is right, I need to start making these posts a lot smaller.

Clete,
What I believe is what I can demonstrate with my five senses. Not what a book tells me, but what I can physically sense. There's nothing I have to prove. You can't claim the whole pot by saying that everything I have to prove my case on is based upon a biblical worldview whether I believe it or not. Like I said before, you're claiming victory before you even fight the battle. I have nothing to prove, because everything I believe in manifests itself to me in a natural, physical, testable fashion. Your biblical worldview is still a mystery to me, I wish you would just give me a clear, concise definition.

Hilton,
Are you trying to discredit my five senses, or are you trying to plant seeds of doubt? If you're not trying to do either, what are you trying to do? I guess my senses are functioning properly, why wouldn't they be? I still feel pain and pleasure, I can still taste bitter and sweet, and so on and so forth, so everything is working just tip top, if that is in fact the answer you're looking for.

Lighthouse,
AS I ALREADY SAID I WAS A CHRISTIAN FOR TWENTY YEARS. I've said it half a dozen times on this thread and you're the one calling names. I do agree with you, god hasn't made me do anything, and I am responsible for where I'm at. You can't however tell me that god has proven himself to me when I know for a fact that he hasn't. I know for a fact because he hasn't spoken to me, otherwise I would have heard it, he hasn't shown himself to me because I would have seen it, and so on. Lighthouse, my question to you now is, what does god's voice sound like? What does he look like? You're such a good friend of his, give me a description or something.

If it's so darn true, why don't I believe it? If it's so much better than what I believe right now, why am I not convinced? If I don't believe in satan, how does he have power over me if he does in fact exist? If the tenets of christianity are so beautiful and undeniable in their truth, why do I deny it? No doubt any answers I will receive will be insulting in nature, but Ima big boy, I can take it.

prodigal
November 17th, 2004, 02:28 PM
I hate to post so soon again, but there's just a coupla things:

Clete,
My worldview is this: If I can sense it, it's there. If it can be proven to me with tangible, physical evidence, it's there. I know the wind is there because I feel it and I can see what it does (I think Jesus said something like that). I don't know that demons and angels exist because I can't see them or what they do, and there's no way to prove that they exist in the first place. If you have proof that they do exist, please, enlighten me.

Lighthouse,
The stars aren't my friends, but I can see them at least. And yes, gravity is still a theory, but you can test it to prove it's validity. You can't do that with god.

Hilston
November 17th, 2004, 02:48 PM
Prodigal,

Thanks for your reply. I've attempted to clarify my questions below. Let me know if anything isn't clear. I'm hoping to find out the reason why you trust your 5 senses.


Prodigal writes:
Are you trying to discredit my five senses, or are you trying to plant seeds of doubt?Neither. I just want to know how you can rationally say, "I can account for my five senses because I can demonstrate them." That's like saying I know the ruler is right because everytime I measure my pen with it, I get the same measure. I don't doubt your senses, I just want to know if you have a logically sound reason for why you trust them.


Prodigal writes:
If you're not trying to do either, what are you trying to do? I guess my senses are functioning properly, why wouldn't they be?That's not the question. Why do you trust that they're functioning properly? Do you know that they are? If not, do you just assume they are?


Prodigal writes:
I still feel pain and pleasure, I can still taste bitter and sweet, and so on and so forth, so everything is working just tip top, if that is in fact the answer you're looking for.Why do you trust that everything is working correctly? What if your tactile functions are giving you inaccurate information? How would you find out? What if your sensory function of taste has been neurologically hamstrung from birth and all your life you've been tasting things incorrectly? I'm not saying that's the case, but how would know?


Prodigal writes:
My worldview is this: If I can sense it, it's there. If it can be proven to me with tangible, physical evidence, it's there.Would you say then that you rely upon the scientific method to ascertain truth and existence?


Prodigal writes:
I know the wind is there because I feel it and I can see what it does.How do you know that your tactile faculties are feeling the effects of the wind and not something else that is invisible? How do you know that your eyes or your visual cortex are not malfunctioning when you claim to see the effect of the wind upon the external world?

prodigal
November 17th, 2004, 03:09 PM
Hilston,

(I just want to know how you can rationally say, "I can account for my five senses because I can demonstrate them.")

Well, the fact that I can use my five senses is a pretty good indication that they're there I think.

(Why do you trust that they're functioning properly? Do you know that they are? If not, do you just assume they are?)

Perhaps I just assume that when I open my eyes and see that the sky is blue that my eyes are seeing correctly. I can determine if what I'm smelling is roast beef if I ask my mother and father what they smell too, and if they say turkey than I guess my nose needs a bit of a tune up. I suppose they could be wrong too and smell roast beef when it's actually turkey, or suddenly everyone could say that the sky is in fact green, but it hasn't happened yet. If I ever have doubts I can go to someone else, multiple someones if I like, and get a standard by which to judge my own perceptions. Like I said though, everyone I guess could be wrong, but as long as we agree that we see the sky is blue, there's really no reason for me to doubt my eyes.

(What if your tactile functions are giving you inaccurate information? How would you find out? What if your sensory function of taste has been neurologically hamstrung from birth and all your life you've been tasting things incorrectly? I'm not saying that's the case, but how would know?)

Not sure how I would know. I suppose we could hypothesize all day long about it, but coffee tastes like coffee, roses smell like roses, and so on. I know because I've heard other people describes smells and tastes, so there's a general consensus out there for me to measure my own perceptions against.

(Would you say then that you rely upon the scientific method to ascertain truth and existence?)

Perhaps.... mostly just common sense though.

(How do you know that your tactile faculties are feeling the effects of the wind and not something else that is invisible? How do you know that your eyes or your visual cortex are not malfunctioning when you claim to see the effect of the wind upon the external world?)

Like I said, when the wind chills me to the bone, it's rather unmistakable, and frankly, what else could it be? That and I can see other people dressing for the weather, and I can tell that they're being effected by the exact same condition as I. I can use the vast majority of humanity and their similar experiences and perceptions to help me determine if mine are functioning properly. I can go to the doctor too. I can watch the news. If the weather man says a hurricane is tearing my home town apart, and I look out the window to see it for myself, I would know something were wrong if it were sunny out, and I'd probably be pretty confused. I have the weather man, Clete has an old book. I have the doctor, Clete has an old book. I have millions of other people who can look at the sky and say it's blue, Clete has millions of other people with millions of copies of the same book.

wickwoman
November 17th, 2004, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

I never said otherwise.
I am not stupid. You on the other hand cannot even understadn the form of the argument and are a waste of time.

Yes you did. You said we couldn't explain anything without resorting to your "Biblical worldview" and I just did, God. He/she existed BEFORE the Bible, therefore, OUTSIDE YOUR BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW, whatever that is.

Cute, Clete, I'm a waste of time in your opinion. And, apparently, lots of things are a waste of your time, for instance, using a spell checker before you post. Or, reading a book besides the Bible every now and then. So, I feel like I'm in good company. Maybe all the people/things that challenge your "in the box" thinking are a waste of your time. Well, guess what? You won't ever learn anything that way. Does your God think I'm a waste of time too?


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
See what I mean? (Probably not!)
"Scientific explanation"? Can you account for the existence of science? I bet you can't without borrowing from a Biblical worldview.

What for God's sake are you talking about? Can I account for the existence of science as a discipline? Did I have a science class in school or is there a mag lab about 20 miles from here? Or, did Galileo have his head removed from his body because his theories that happened to be true disagreed with your "Biblical worldview?"


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Irrelevent. I don't care what it means. The fact remains that it (dispossessationalism) is and will always be logically incoherent; unable to account for the very presuppositions upon which it is based and thereby begging the question.

Well, apparently sarcasm and a sense of humor are also a waste of your time. . . . Figures.

Granite
November 17th, 2004, 03:33 PM
Clete's dense, humorless, self-satisified brand of Christianity is what most ex's have a real problem with.

Them and a few other people...

Hilston
November 17th, 2004, 04:41 PM
Prodigal writes:
Well, the fact that I can use my five senses is a pretty good indication that they're there I think.Prodigal, I'm not talking about their existence. I'm talking about their reliability. Crazy people think their brains works just fine. No one is denying their brain doesn't exist. Why do you trust your senses?


Prodigal writes:
Perhaps I just assume that when I open my eyes and see that the sky is blue that my eyes are seeing correctly.Is that your answer? You don't know; you just assume that your eyes are trustworthy?


Prodigal writes:
I can determine if what I'm smelling is roast beef if I ask my mother and father what they smell too, and if they say turkey than I guess my nose needs a bit of a tune up. I suppose they could be wrong too and smell roast beef when it's actually turkey, or suddenly everyone could say that the sky is in fact green, but it hasn't happened yet. If I ever have doubts I can go to someone else, multiple someones if I like, and get a standard by which to judge my own perceptions. Like I said though, everyone I guess could be wrong, but as long as we agree that we see the sky is blue, there's really no reason for me to doubt my eyes.That's a logical fallacy, Prodigal; an ad populum argument. If concensus determined what is true, we would all still espouse a geocentric universe.

Hilston wrote:
What if your tactile functions are giving you inaccurate information? How would you find out? What if your sensory function of taste has been neurologically hamstrung from birth and all your life you've been tasting things incorrectly? I'm not saying that's the case, but how would know?


Prodigal writes:
Not sure how I would know. I suppose we could hypothesize all day long about it, but coffee tastes like coffee, roses smell like roses, and so on.And the inaccurate ruler will keep giving you inaccurate measurements no matter how many times you use it, no matter how many things you measure. How do you know coffee doesn't actually taste different, but since you've never tasted with someone else's taste buds and processed that data through someone else's brain, you have no way of knowing what you're missing. All you know is coffee doesn't taste the same as ice cream. If you could plug into someone else's brain and body, you might find out that some food you thought you hated is something you actually like, given a more accurate tasting ability. However, barring such a fanciful hypothetical scenario, you couldn't know this, could you?


Prodigal writes:
I know because I've heard other people describes smells and tastes, so there's a general consensus out there for me to measure my own perceptions against. It's the ad populum fallacy again. See above.

Hilston asked:
Would you say then that you rely upon the scientific method to ascertain truth and existence?


Prodigal writes:
Perhaps.... mostly just common sense though.Why do you trust your "common sense."

Hilston wrote:
How do you know that your tactile faculties are feeling the effects of the wind and not something else that is invisible? How do you know that your eyes or your visual cortex are not malfunctioning when you claim to see the effect of the wind upon the external world?


Prodigal writes:
Like I said, when the wind chills me to the bone, it's rather unmistakable, and frankly, what else could it be?Since you're merely assuming the verity of your senses, and since you fallaciously base your assessment of truth on consensus and "common sense," whatver that is, it seems to me that process of elimination isn't going to help you either. What else could it be? Maybe you're experiencing a blark.


Prodigal writes:
That and I can see other people dressing for the weather, and I can tell that they're being effected by the exact same condition as I. I can use the vast majority of humanity and their similar experiences and perceptions to help me determine if mine are functioning properly.So, just like the theory of geocentricity, you only have a guess about reality and the verity of your senses so far, right? Since you have nothing solid on which to base your judgments about reality, and since you merely assume that your senses are giving you accurate data concerning reality, it seems to me that you operate on blind faith and that you really can't know anything for sure. Can you deny that?

Lighthouse
November 17th, 2004, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

People change.
And God never does. He changes people, and He changed me.

Lighthouse
November 17th, 2004, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by prodigal

Lighthouse,
AS I ALREADY SAID I WAS A CHRISTIAN FOR TWENTY YEARS. I've said it half a dozen times on this thread and you're the one calling names. I do agree with you, god hasn't made me do anything, and I am responsible for where I'm at. You can't however tell me that god has proven himself to me when I know for a fact that he hasn't.
You don't know anything. You only deny, deny, deny.


I know for a fact because he hasn't spoken to me, otherwise I would have heard it, he hasn't shown himself to me because I would have seen it, and so on.
:rolleyes:


Lighthouse, my question to you now is, what does god's voice sound like? What does he look like? You're such a good friend of his, give me a description or something.
If I had seen, or heard Him, and described Him, you still wouldn't believe me. I don't know what His voice sounds like, as I do with the temporal voices of people I know. And I have enver seen Him, or I would not be here.


If it's so darn true, why don't I believe it? If it's so much better than what I believe right now, why am I not convinced? If I don't believe in satan, how does he have power over me if he does in fact exist? If the tenets of christianity are so beautiful and undeniable in their truth, why do I deny it? No doubt any answers I will receive will be insulting in nature, but Ima big boy, I can take it.
I don't know why you don't believe it. You're the one who doesn't beleive. Of course, I'm certain that what you believed before was mostly lies, anyway.


Lighthouse,
The stars aren't my friends, but I can see them at least. And yes, gravity is still a theory, but you can test it to prove it's validity. You can't do that with god.
But you still worship them?:confused:

You can test God. But if you don't know how to test Him, then you won't receive any answers. And if you do receive answers, you may not like them.

Lighthouse
November 17th, 2004, 06:56 PM
I have a question. If Clete's is so humorless, why does he make me laugh?

Clete
November 17th, 2004, 07:23 PM
Prodical et al,

Jim (Hilston) is making the exact same argument that I have been trying to make, only he's doing a far better job of it. Forget that I was here, I will defer to Jim. I have to do the bulk of my posting from work and I'm all the time being rushed to such a degree that my posts are too short and too quick to get to the point without laying the proper foundation for the argument. And they're full of spelling errors which drives me crazy, especially when I don't have time to do a spell check and then I invariably have to go through the agonizing process of having wichwoman calls me on every misspelled word while missing the whole point of the post. :hammer:
I'll be reading. So far it's a pretty interesting thread!

Resting in Him,
Clete

wickwoman
November 18th, 2004, 07:55 AM
Dear Clete:

I didn't "call you on every misspelled word." I merely responded with a small amount of irritation towards your very rude and angry post directed at me. As a matter of fact, I would be happy to ignore any of your spelling errors as I do most people who post here if you would just read your posts and apply what I would assume is your own standard WWJS (what would Jesus say).

Irritation is not caused by spelling errors, it is caused by your inability to afford others the simple dignity of believing what they believe without provoking animocity and aggressive behavior from you. It's not about you. Everyone has the right to be whatever religion they are, whether you disapprove or not.

wickwoman
November 18th, 2004, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

WW:

"From now on, I shall make all my arguments based on my dispossessationalist worldview and tell everyone they must prove its nonexistence, however, I will tell nobody what dispossessationalist means. "

Ouch, I think I just sprained something, in my head.

I'm not telling what it means. You'll have to prove that you can prove anything without comparing it to that standard, though. :jump: :chuckle:

Granite
November 18th, 2004, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

I have a question. If Clete's is so humorless, why does he make me laugh?

Peas in a pod, perhaps?:rolleyes:

dotcom
November 18th, 2004, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

I'm tired of repeating myself. You are either to stupid to understand the form of the argument or are intentionally ignoring it.
For the last time, I do not want you to refute my Biblical worldview, I want you to defend your own nonbiblical worldview. Admit it, you cannot do it, can you? By your own admition, you are unable to do the very things that you ignorantly and hypocritically complain that Christianity is unable to do. In so doing you argue against youself and demonstrate that it isn't the truth that you are interested in at all, but rather accepting anything at all rather than the truth of the Bible.

Resting in Him,
Clete

You are wasting your time Clete. Some people like prodigal would rather tell everyone else their side of the story but are not prepared to reason up. You could not reach this stage if he had paid attention to what I asked him.

This was my question to prodigal.


You could have started by telling us what is NOT empty, what is not rote, what is not useless before you vent your anger to Christians. Would you mind? It just makes it easier to address the myriad of accusations you have made against Christians.

Clete
November 18th, 2004, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by wickwoman

Dear Clete:

I didn't "call you on every misspelled word." I merely responded with a small amount of irritation towards your very rude and angry post directed at me. As a matter of fact, I would be happy to ignore any of your spelling errors as I do most people who post here if you would just read your posts and apply what I would assume is your own standard WWJS (what would Jesus say).
Jesus would say that you are condemned already and that if you don't repent He will crush you into powder.


Irritation is not caused by spelling errors,
Then why are you the only one who ever points them out?


...it is caused by your inability to afford others the simple dignity of believing what they believe without provoking animocity and aggressive behavior from you. It's not about you. Everyone has the right to be whatever religion they are, whether you disapprove or not.
I never suggested in any respect that it has anything to do with me. On the contrary, I am constantly reminding people that saying it doesn't make it so, my opinions included. And this web site isn't about debating what peoples rights are, it's about debate what the truth is. The simply fact is that you are incredibly evil, vile and disgusting. All the good deeds and acts of righteousness that you think you perform are all for naught. In the eyes of God they are but filth, excrement, dung, crap, pick whatever term you like, you are smack in the middle of one gigantic pile of it and will one day give an account for it before the only God who can save you and whom you have repeatedly insulted and rejected.
And by the way animocity is spelled with an Ďsí. :rolleyes:


Resting in Him,
:Clete:

Clete
November 18th, 2004, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by dotcom

You are wasting your time Clete.

I agree with you.

prodigal
November 18th, 2004, 11:31 AM
Hilston,
There are certain things in this world that make sense, like jumping into the air and falling back onto the ground. You can explain how an airplane functions and it makes sense. I guess if you want to call into doubt the perceptions of not only myself but every other human on this planet, fine, I guess that's a valid argument. But I disagree fully with you. The idea that coffee may not actually taste like coffee simply because I haven't tasted it with the taste buds of every other person on the planet is just a way to avoid the real point of what I'm trying to do here. Either that or it's a really lazy way of claiming victory without fighting the battle. I'm simply trying to get people like Clete and Aimiel to admit that passing off the unprovable as indisputable is wrong. I've always said that people are free to believe whatever they want, just don't pass it off as truth with nothing to base the case on. Maybe coffee doesn't taste like coffee to me, but at least I can still go to the store and buy a cup and drink it. You can't demonstrate god or the supernatural like that at all, not even remotely. I can buy and drink coffee regardless of how it tastes, Clete has to take the word of an old book.

Clete,
Listen, maybe a biblical worldview explains many things, but so do millions of other worldviews. A biblical worldview, whatever it really is, is A way of explaining it all, not THE way to explain it all. And you're going to let Hilston fight your battles for you now? What's more feasible, Clete, that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, or you're just not explaining yourself very well if at all?

Dotcom,
What isn't empty is the ability to think for yourself, to throw an apple in the air and see it come back down. What isn't empty is the progress of science (which MEN perpetuate, not god), going to work in the morning and earning your pay (god's never done that for me). I don't give god credit for anything, first of all because there's no way to prove that he/she/it actually created the world or exists in the first place. I have said that god is the least foolish answer for the origin of the universe as compared to evolution, but since we have no proof I don't rest anything too heavily on it. For right now, all I do is go to work, earn my money, eat my food, go to sleep and do it over again the next day, without giving thanks to a god who I'm not even sure exists and who hasn't helped me a day in my life. There's nothing empty or rote about going to work to build your life to the point where you can start a family and provide for them. That's what I do. If I have a religion, than it's the religion of myself, because no one else is going to help me but myself, so I might as well give thanks to no one but myself. Maybe my boss, maybe my mom and dad when they bail me out in hard times, but god has never done anything to help, so why worship him?

Hilston,
Your point is simply a way to skip around the point.

Clete,
You're not the only one with answers.

Dotcom,
I worship myself.

prodigal
November 18th, 2004, 11:36 AM
Wickwoman,

Clete knows all about insults and rejection, his entire religion is based on the degradation, offense and torment of those that disagree. Call them on the carpet about it and they will inevitably shift the blame to someone else. Ask them about the inquisitions, the crusades, the witch burnings, the setbacks to science, the book burnings, the alienations, etc. and they will undoubtedly shift the blame to someone else. Avoiding responsibility for the atrocities of the system they follow while blatantly insulting those who disagree is the trademark of christianity, Clete being a perfect example.

(The simply fact is that you are incredibly evil, vile and disgusting. All the good deeds and acts of righteousness that you think you perform are all for not. In the eyes of God they are but filth, excrement, dung, crap, pick whatever term you like, you are smack in the middle of one gigantic pile of it and will one day give an account for it before the only God who can save you and whom you have repeatedly insulted and rejected.)

That was Clete. Why would anyone want to be a part of such a pompous, hateful, spiteful venomous religion anyway? Can you believe that someone would say that to you, WW, just because you want him to be objective? You're filth, excrement, nothing but dung to their god, and he will send you to hell where you deserve to go unless you drop everything you're doing and believe in him. Wickwoman, am I mad, or is this the most insane, inane and hateful form of god worship mankind has ever been able to invent?

Your brother in disbelief,

Prodigal.

Lighthouse
November 18th, 2004, 11:44 AM
prodigal-
Do you have no response to what I have said?

Aimiel
November 18th, 2004, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by prodigal

Clete has to take the word of an old book.If that was all that we had, words, with no other confirmation or witness, I very seriously doubt that anyone would become Christian, much less stay that way. The Lord draws men unto Himself, and He confirms His Word. If we didn't have confirmation from Him, I believe that most of us would have given up on Him shortly after conversion, if, indeed, we had ever been converted; because without Him convicting me of my sin, I never would have desired salvation. He makes Himself known to us, and prepares a table before us, in the presence of our enemies. The fact that He can't be 'empirically' proven or dis-proven is just because He doesn't want anyone to come to Him because of His Existence, but because of His Love. We're going into battle against the toughest enemy ever, one that cannot be harmed by any weapon, except prayer. God has to be able to trust those that He lets into His Ranks. You don't do that by accepting just anyone. He chose to draw men unto Himself by The Love that He has displayed in His Son upon The Cross. We respond to His Love, and He reciprocates. :thumb:

Clete
November 18th, 2004, 12:00 PM
prodigal,

If you dislike me, wait till you meet God.

Resting in Him,
:Clete:

Granite
November 18th, 2004, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

prodigal,

If you dislike me, wait till you meet God.

Resting in Him,
:Clete:

That's about the stupidest, non-threatening, witless and empty comeback imaginable, thank you kindly.

prodigal
November 18th, 2004, 12:05 PM
Lighthouse,

(You don't know anything. You only deny, deny, deny.)

I deny anything that is passed off as indisputable when no proof is provided to back up

prodigal
November 18th, 2004, 12:15 PM
Lighthouse,

(You don't know anything. You only deny, deny, deny.)

I deny anything that is passed off as indisputable when no proof is provided to back up the claim. If this were a court case it would be thrown out. Gravity versus god. You can test gravity, you can't test god. So yes, I do do a lot of denying, but I will only deny outrageous claims that have no proof to verify their validity. Unless of course you do have proof of the validity of anything you believe. And remember, you are free to believe whatever you want. Just don't insult me, just don't act superior to anyone because you have nothing to show for yourself from your beliefs that you or anyone else could have accomplished on their own.

(If I had seen, or heard Him, and described Him, you still wouldn't believe me. I don't know what His voice sounds like, as I do with the temporal voices of people I know. And I have enver seen Him, or I would not be here.)

Come on, gimme a little credit here. Thanks for answering my questions at any rate. God has never spoken to you, god has never shown himself to you. Believe in him all you want, just don't tell me it's the truth.

(I don't know why you don't believe it. You're the one who doesn't beleive. Of course, I'm certain that what you believed before was mostly lies, anyway.)

I don't believe it because it can't be proven. I've been saying that all along. And of course, what I believed before was lies, I didn't prescribe to your particular set of beliefs! Duh! Come on Lighthouse, if an ex-christian calls his former religion on the carpet for anything the apologists always cover themselves by saying, "you were taught lies before!" Classic example of christian BS, I don't buy it for an instant.

(But you still worship them? You can test God. But if you don't know how to test Him, then you won't receive any answers. And if you do receive answers, you may not like them.)

First off, I never said I worship stars. A classic example of the super powers of a christian: the power to not only put words into the mouths of those that disagree, but the power also to read minds. It's incredible.

All right, how do you test god? If christianity is so important, if your particular system of god worship is so infallible and so right, than please tell me how to test god in order to have him prove himself to me so that I will be free from my sin just like you. But Ima go out on a limb here, you won't tell me. It's up to me to figure out, right? Either you have some sort of nut case plan for getting god to show his cards to me, or you're just going to completely avoid the challenge altogether and say that the responsibility rests on me.

You're either full of BS, or you're going to side step me all together. Can't wait to find out.

Lighthouse
November 18th, 2004, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

prodigal,

If you dislike me, wait till you meet God.

Resting in Him,
:Clete:

Lighthouse
November 18th, 2004, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by prodigal

Lighthouse,

(You don't know anything. You only deny, deny, deny.)

I deny anything that is passed off as indisputable when no proof is provided to back up the claim.
Did I say God was indisputable? You're disputing Him, aren't you?


If this were a court case it would be thrown out. Gravity versus god. You can test gravity, you can't test god.
Yes you can. You can test His word. You can test His promises. You can test His patience. In fact, you are testing Him with your postings.


So yes, I do do a lot of denying, but I will only deny outrageous claims that have no proof to verify their validity. Unless of course you do have proof of the validity of anything you believe. And remember, you are free to believe whatever you want. Just don't insult me, just don't act superior to anyone because you have nothing to show for yourself from your beliefs that you or anyone else could have accomplished on their own.
I have all the proof I need. The proof I have is not sufficient proof for you, because it is my proof. I can't prove my proof to you.


(If I had seen, or heard Him, and described Him, you still wouldn't believe me. I don't know what His voice sounds like, as I do with the temporal voices of people I know. And I have enver seen Him, or I would not be here.)

Come on, gimme a little credit here. Thanks for answering my questions at any rate. God has never spoken to you, god has never shown himself to you. Believe in him all you want, just don't tell me it's the truth.
He has proven Himself to me. Just because I did not physically see or hear Him, doesn't mean anything. He's not tangible, He's Spirit.:duh:


(I don't know why you don't believe it. You're the one who doesn't beleive. Of course, I'm certain that what you believed before was mostly lies, anyway.)

I don't believe it because it can't be proven. I've been saying that all along. And of course, what I believed before was lies, I didn't prescribe to your particular set of beliefs! Duh! Come on Lighthouse, if an ex-christian calls his former religion on the carpet for anything the apologists always cover themselves by saying, "you were taught lies before!" Classic example of christian BS, I don't buy it for an instant.
You have no clue what I believe. If you had had the truth, you wouldn't have left. I know that, because I have seen the proof of that, time after time. God can be proven, because He is true. In fact, He has already proven Himself. Of course, you can't prove that which isn't true. I've always held to that. So I suppose that most of your former beliefs can not be proven. But your former beleifs are not God.


(But you still worship them? You can test God. But if you don't know how to test Him, then you won't receive any answers. And if you do receive answers, you may not like them.)

First off, I never said I worship stars. A classic example of the super powers of a christian: the power to not only put words into the mouths of those that disagree, but the power also to read minds. It's incredible.
You said you trusted astrology. If that's not worshipping stars, what is it?


All right, how do you test god? If christianity is so important, if your particular system of god worship is so infallible and so right, than please tell me how to test god in order to have him prove himself to me so that I will be free from my sin just like you. But Ima go out on a limb here, you won't tell me. It's up to me to figure out, right? Either you have some sort of nut case plan for getting god to show his cards to me, or you're just going to completely avoid the challenge altogether and say that the responsibility rests on me.
Test his word. Test His promises. Look for the evidence that exists. Of course, you're probably not willing to do that.


You're either full of BS, or you're going to side step me all together. Can't wait to find out.
Classic case of transference and projection.:nono:

Granite
November 18th, 2004, 12:41 PM
Brandon's abrasive and obnoxious behavior is what happens when fundies decide to go off on their own and shoot from the hip. They just happen to justify their unpleasant lives and behavior by wrapping themselves in a Bible.

Sad, really.

prodigal
November 18th, 2004, 12:51 PM
Lighthouse,

(Yes you can. You can test His word. You can test His promises. You can test His patience. In fact, you are testing Him with your postings.)

I'm sure there are all sorts of tests you can perform with every other religion on the planet. It proves nothing.

(I have all the proof I need. The proof I have is not sufficient proof for you, because it is my proof. I can't prove my proof to you.)

Awesone, LH, we agree! My problem is when you call it the truth. You cannot call that which has only been, and can only be proven to you as truth for everyone.

(He has proven Himself to me. Just because I did not physically see or hear Him, doesn't mean anything)

It means that you believe what you want to believe whether or not it's true. Don't worry about it LH, that's how everyone else works. I choose to only believe in things that I can test, like hard work and gravity.

(God can be proven, because He is true. In fact, He has already proven Himself)

When, where, how and where's the proof? Please, what is the proof, and how may I demonstrate it so that I may agree with you?

(You said you trusted astrology. If that's not worshipping stars, what is it?)

It's called looking at the stars and seeing a tangible source of information that can be shown to be pertinent. You can't do that with god. I thought you could read minds, LH. I already told you that I worship myself.

(Test his word. Test His promises. Look for the evidence that exists. Of course, you're probably not willing to do that.)

LH, I love the challenge. Point me in the right direction and I promise you, I will give it a shot.

(So I suppose that most of your former beliefs can not be proven. But your former beleifs are not God.)

And if I followed your beliefs and then fell away, would that make them lies as well? You can't just shuffle around facts, facts that point to the inconsistencies of religion in general, not just christianity. If we were born in the middle east and were muslims than we would believe just as fervently in Ala and would hate christianity and claim complete and exclusive validity in our faith.

Religion makes no sense. We're past it.

Lighthouse
November 18th, 2004, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Brandon's abrasive and obnoxious behavior is what happens when fundies decide to go off on their own and shoot from the hip. They just happen to justify their unpleasant lives and behavior by wrapping themselves in a Bible.

Sad, really.
:rolleyes:

I don't find my life to be unpleasant. I am abrasive and confrontational, yes. But most people I know find it refreshing. Especially since I used to be such a pushover.

What makes you think I went off on my own?

Granite
November 18th, 2004, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

:rolleyes:

I don't find my life to be unpleasant. I am abrasive and confrontational, yes. But most people I know find it refreshing. Especially since I used to be such a pushover.

What makes you think I went off on my own?

Wantsdirection seems to be an exception to your new-found SOB attitude, from the sounds of it. Hope you're happy with the bang up job you did alienating a friend of yours.

Brandon, judging by your posts here, the last thing you are is happy. Bitter, paranoid, and judgmental maybe, but certainly not at peace. Trust me, I've been there. I have more peace of mind now out of the faith than I ever had in it.

wickwoman
November 18th, 2004, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Jesus would say that you are condemned already and that if you don't repent He will crush you into powder.


Sorry, that's your own personal fantasy, don't pin it on Jesus.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Then why are you the only one who ever points them out?

I pointed them out once that I recall, did I more than once? I apologize. I shouldn't have. You obviously bring out the worst in me.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I never suggested in any respect that it has anything to do with me. On the contrary, I am constantly reminding people that saying it doesn't make it so, my opinions included. And this web site isn't about debating what peoples rights are, it's about debate what the truth is. The simply fact is that you are incredibly evil, vile and disgusting. All the good deeds and acts of righteousness that you think you perform are all for not. In the eyes of God they are but filth, excrement, dung, crap, pick whatever term you like, you are smack in the middle of one gigantic pile of it and will one day give an account for it before the only God who can save you and whom you have repeatedly insulted and rejected.?

You personally behave aggressively towards me and others who do not share you and/or Bob Enyart's every opinion. The words are yours, not God's. Do you presume to speak on God's behalf? And, thank God what you say isn't so. Because you are so full of venom. I'm sorry that you are unhappy. I'm sorry that I make you unhappy. But, unfortunately, that's the way things are. You and I are the same. And if I end up on a big pile of crap, so will you. So we should work together to avoid such tragedies.

I don't recall expounding excessively on my good deeds. Do you have some evidence that I've done so? I do recall saying that everyone is deserving of God's love. Does this make you think I'm saying I'm better than you? Because I'm not.


Can you then perceive unworthiness in your brother and not perceive it in yourself? And can you perceive it in yourself and not perceive it in God? ACIM 11, pg. 208

On Fire
November 18th, 2004, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Wantsdirection seems to be an exception to your new-found SOB attitude, from the sounds of it. Hope you're happy with the bang up job you did alienating a friend of yours.

Brandon, judging by your posts here, the last thing you are is happy. Bitter, paranoid, and judgmental maybe, but certainly not at peace. Trust me, I've been there. I have more peace of mind now out of the faith than I ever had in it.

Of course - guilt-free sinning is fun! Knock yourself out. Stop arguing with the Christians. Go away. Have fun. Have a good life.

Lighthouse
November 18th, 2004, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by prodigal

Lighthouse,

(Yes you can. You can test His word. You can test His promises. You can test His patience. In fact, you are testing Him with your postings.)

I'm sure there are all sorts of tests you can perform with every other religion on the planet. It proves nothing.
Of course the ability to test things doesn't prove them!:doh: The proof comes from the evidence you find in testing them. His promises are true. If you test them, you will find them to be true.:duh:


(I have all the proof I need. The proof I have is not sufficient proof for you, because it is my proof. I can't prove my proof to you.)

Awesone, LH, we agree! My problem is when you call it the truth. You cannot call that which has only been, and can only be proven to you as truth for everyone.
That which proved the truth to me is not the truth I speak of. It was merely the proof. And I know many others to whom this truth has been proven to.


(He has proven Himself to me. Just because I did not physically see or hear Him, doesn't mean anything)

It means that you believe what you want to believe whether or not it's true. Don't worry about it LH, that's how everyone else works. I choose to only believe in things that I can test, like hard work and gravity.
No. It doesn't. Proof does not have to be tangible. It only has to be real.


(God can be proven, because He is true. In fact, He has already proven Himself)

When, where, how and where's the proof? Please, what is the proof, and how may I demonstrate it so that I may agree with you?
It's staring you in the face. Yet I can't point it out to you, because you refuse to see it. It would be like describing the color red to a man who had been born blind. He wouldn't be able to see it, and neither are you. The only difference is that you can open your eyes, you just refuse to do so.


(You said you trusted astrology. If that's not worshipping stars, what is it?)

It's called looking at the stars and seeing a tangible source of information that can be shown to be pertinent. You can't do that with god. I thought you could read minds, LH. I already told you that I worship myself.
If you had said you trusted in astronomy, then I would understand. Astronomy is science. And it doesn't misuse the stars in order to "predict" the future.

Pertinent to what?

You can do that with God. You just don't want to.

Who said I could read minds?

You are not a god.


(Test his word. Test His promises. Look for the evidence that exists. Of course, you're probably not willing to do that.)

LH, I love the challenge. Point me in the right direction and I promise you, I will give it a shot.
His word and promises are availale for you. If you don't know where to find them, then there's no hope fo you at all. Do I really need to tell you where to find God's word?


(So I suppose that most of your former beliefs can not be proven. But your former beleifs are not God.)

And if I followed your beliefs and then fell away, would that make them lies as well? You can't just shuffle around facts, facts that point to the inconsistencies of religion in general, not just christianity. If we were born in the middle east and were muslims than we would believe just as fervently in Ala and would hate christianity and claim complete and exclusive validity in our faith.
You wouldn't fall away. You might fall away form some of the beliefs I hold. I've fallen from beliefs I've held. And I can't say for certain that all the things I believe now are completley true. If God reveals to me that they are wrong, I will not merely fall away from them, I will walk away. As I said, I've done it before.

Did you know that Muslims convert to Christianity, simply because they read the New Testament. I don't know that this is true for all Muslims who read it, but it happens.


Religion makes no sense. We're past it.
:duh:

Granite
November 18th, 2004, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by On Fire

Of course - guilt-free sinning is fun! Knock yourself out. Stop arguing with the Christians. Go away. Have fun. Have a good life.

:rolleyes:

Leaving the church is not a license to whoop it up. It does, however, allow you to think for yourself.

Granite
November 18th, 2004, 01:14 PM
"Did you know that Muslims convert to Christianity, simply because they read the New Testament. I don't know that this is true for all Muslims who read it, but it happens."

So some do. No offense, but so what?

wickwoman
November 18th, 2004, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by prodigal
That was Clete. Why would anyone want to be a part of such a pompous, hateful, spiteful venomous religion anyway? Can you believe that someone would say that to you, WW, just because you want him to be objective? You're filth, excrement, nothing but dung to their god, and he will send you to hell where you deserve to go unless you drop everything you're doing and believe in him. Wickwoman, am I mad, or is this the most insane, inane and hateful form of god worship mankind has ever been able to invent?


Prodigal, it is hateful and you are not insane, at least no more insane than the rest of us. But, I think you are disillusioned. And this makes me sad. Because I believe you, at one point, had some expectations for God, but now you believe he/she didn't live up to them. Disappointment can sometimes be the spring board for learning new things. And, if God does exist, he/she won't be mad at you for taking some time to figure things out. So, go to work, pay your bills, do your laundry. And, every once in a while, take time out to enjoy a really great sunset. It might just occur to you that there is a Someone behind that beautiful scene and, if you see God there, tell him/her thanks. But, if you never do see proof of God, thatís O.K. too. If God does exist, I know he/she wonít be holding that against you.

This is what I hope you find:

"As a blind man feels when he finds a pearl in a dustbin, so am I amazed by the miracles of awakening rising in my consciousness. It is the nectar of immortality that delivers us from death, the treasure that lifts us from death, the treasure that lifts us above poverty into the wealth of giving to life, the tree that gives shade to us when we roam about scorched by life, the bridge that takes us across the stormy river of life, the cool moon of compassion that calms our mind when it is agitated, the fun that dispels darkness, the butter made from the milk of kindness by churning it with the dharma. It is a feast of joy to which all are invited."

-adapted from the Bodhicharyavatara by Shantideva

wickwoman
November 18th, 2004, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Brandon's abrasive and obnoxious behavior is what happens when fundies decide to go off on their own and shoot from the hip. They just happen to justify their unpleasant lives and behavior by wrapping themselves in a Bible.

Sad, really.

Yes, when they're cornered, they can get mean. Too bad, they blame their bad behavior on God.

Hilston
November 18th, 2004, 02:05 PM
Prodigal,


You wrote:
... I will only deny outrageous claims that have no proof to verify their validity.Where is your proof to verify the validity of your senses and your reasoning? From what you've written thus far, you have no such proof, only blind assumption and a specious appeal to "common sense " (whatever that is). Aren't you being quite hypocritical to demand of others what you cannot provide for yourself?


Prodigal earlier wrote:
Perhaps I just assume that when I open my eyes and see that the sky is blue that my eyes are seeing correctly.

Hilston then asked: Is that your answer? You don't know; you just assume that your eyes are trustworthy?

You skipped this earlier. Now would be a good time to answer this question.

I earlier asked: Why do you trust your "common sense."

Lest it be demonstrated that you have a self-refuting view of reality, now would be a good time to answer this question.

Hilston previously wrote: So, just like the theory of geocentricity, you only have a guess about reality and the verity of your senses so far, right? Since you have nothing solid on which to base your judgments about reality, and since you merely assume that your senses are giving you accurate data concerning reality, it seems to me that you operate on blind faith and that you really can't know anything for sure. Can you deny that?

I'm still interested in your reaction to that paragraph.


Prodigal writes:
... For right now, all I do is go to work, earn my money, eat my food, go to sleep and do it over again the next day, ...Everything you described assumes the verity of your senses, the laws of logic, and the uniformity of nature. If you blindly assume you can trust your senses, if you blindly trust logic as "common sense", and what you perceive as uniformity relies upon the preceding blind assumption and dubious appeal to "common sense", then why do you demand proof from others, when you yourself are no less blind and no less "religious" in your assumptions?


Prodigal writes:
Your point is simply a way to skip around the point.All I'm doing is asking questions, Prodigal. My point is to find out whether you have a solid foundation for why you trust your senses and reason, or if you trust them blindly.

You made reference to "facts", Prodigal. What is your criterion for something to qualify as a "fact"?

You made reference to "religion." Please define what you mean by this.

I look forward to your reply. Thanks for your time.
Hilston

prodigal
November 18th, 2004, 02:06 PM
Lighthouse,

(His promises are true. If you test them, you will find them to be true)

LH, I have tested them, for twenty years. I've said it so many times it's clear that you are incapable of understanding the concept of objectivity. I tried christianity for twenty years, twenty years of unanswered prayers and unfulfilled promises. If your god exists in the fashion you say he does, he is a sadist who let me believe for two decades before I walked away in disgust.

(No. It doesn't. Proof does not have to be tangible. It only has to be real)

You have no means of proving that what you believe is real. Proof can be the wind's movement, it can be the stars, it can be a myriad of things. Proof isn't belief in an invisible deity, a zombie messiah and demons. You still haven't defined what form of proof you ever received from god that verifies your claims. Your porn addiction story while touching... no pun intended... is not proof that god fulfilled any of his promises because people overcome addictions to all sorts of things all of the time with no one's help but their own. Like I said before, you had it in you the whole time to overcome your addiction, you blew it LH, you blew it.

(It's staring you in the face. Yet I can't point it out to you, because you refuse to see it. It would be like describing the color red to a man who had been born blind. He wouldn't be able to see it, and neither are you. The only difference is that you can open your eyes, you just refuse to do so.)

This is nothing more than a convenient way of not answering a question to which you cannot supply an answer in the first place. You've side stepped me, LH, and in a big way. If you haven't an answer you just call me blind. It's a cute trick, and as a former christian I can understand why you would use it, but let me tell you something: IT DOESN'T WORK!!!!!!

(You can do that with God. You just don't want to.)

LIKE I'VE ALREADY SAID BEFORE, LH, I TRIED FOR TWENTY YEARS. It didn't work. I stepped back knowing what I knew of christianity and began to look for different answers. I'm currently investigating both sides of the story, christianity, and everything else. You cannot do that, you refuse to do that. I have an open mind, I have seen christianity in comparison to other options and I've found christianity, or any form of god worship to be fundamentally flawed.

(Who said I could read minds?)

You do, whenever you presume to know the state of my non-existent soul. Whenever you call me blind, whenever you tell me that the truth is right in front of me and I can't see it. You either put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head.

(His word and promises are availale for you. If you don't know where to find them, then there's no hope fo you at all)

LIKE I SAID BEFORE.... screw it. You know what Ima say.

(I can't say for certain that all the things I believe now are completley true.)

Thank you for making my point.

(Did you know that Muslims convert to Christianity, simply because they read the New Testament)

Who cares?

Wickwoman,

I'm not disappointed in god. If I'm disappointed in anything it's myself for buying into the idea that god ever gave a care for me in the first place. I'm not going to thank god for anything, because it's never given me anything. And if it did create the universe, than god can kiss my butt because life is hard and it didn't have to put me through any of this crap. Anything I have, anything I get will always come from someone or something of this planet, and not from god.

Lighthouse
November 18th, 2004, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Leaving the church is not a license to whoop it up. It does, however, allow you to think for yourself.
Which is why I don't affiliate my self with a "church," but with Christ.

prodigal
November 18th, 2004, 02:28 PM
Hilston,

The only impression I get from you is that the only answer to challenges you have is more questions. By simply deluding the argument with questions to which no one has answers is not a defense, it's an avoidance. I owe you nothing. Your questions are pointless, meaningless, self-bloviated and an instrument for nothing more than to try to shuffle around the issue at hand:

Passing off the unprovable as indisputable.

Hilston, whenever I jump in the air, I don't believe I'm going to fall back to the ground, I know. The sky is blue, there's no doubt. You attempts to discredit my ideas might sound intelligent, but in the end they make no sense and you are simply trying to shuffle around the obvious truth that your faith is based on a book written by liars who want, and have controlled people for thousands of years for nothing more than their own personal gain. By attempting to call into question my own perceptions of reality is simply a means for you to call attention away from your own twisted religion and your own twisted, self replicating, hate filled blind faith. I know that when I go to work and work hard, I'll get paid for my efforts doubly, not just because I work on commision, but because that's the way the world works.

(So, just like the theory of geocentricity, you only have a guess about reality and the verity of your senses so far, right? Since you have nothing solid on which to base your judgments about reality, and since you merely assume that your senses are giving you accurate data concerning reality, it seems to me that you operate on blind faith and that you really can't know anything for sure. Can you deny that?)

No, but I can throw an apple into the air a million times and every time it will fall back to the ground. There's no guesswork or faith involved with knowing that the sky is blue. There's no blind faith when it comes to my work ethic or the way a buyer's agency contract works in my state. I make no guesses. Guesses are not necessary.

(Where is your proof to verify the validity of your senses and your reasoning? From what you've written thus far, you have no such proof, only blind assumption and a specious appeal to "common sense " (whatever that is). Aren't you being quite hypocritical to demand of others what you cannot provide for yourself?)

You don't have to prove that the sky is blue, Hilston. You can just look at it. I don't need to prove what is obvious enough for everyone to see. The sun is bright, dogs bark, what proof do you need? None.

(Hilston then asked: Is that your answer? You don't know; you just assume that your eyes are trustworthy?)

Like I said above, there's no guess work involved. If my eye sight gets blurry than I'll get glasses. So far nothing by 20/20. I can go to a doctor and have him examine my eyes and tell me if there's something wrong, unless you're refering to some deeper, undetectable ailment that so far hasn't been discovered by modern science. If there is such a thing you seem to be the only person who knows anything about it.

(Everything you described assumes the verity of your senses, the laws of logic, and the uniformity of nature. If you blindly assume you can trust your senses, if you blindly trust logic as "common sense", and what you perceive as uniformity relies upon the preceding blind assumption and dubious appeal to "common sense", then why do you demand proof from others, when you yourself are no less blind and no less "religious" in your assumptions?)

First of all, I'm not even sure if there was a point to that paragraph that anyone would understand other than yourself. And no, everything I described is testable, has been tested since the beginning of time and will continue to be tested for ever more. Like going to work and earning money. Like gravity. I don't assume these things work without proof, I know they will work because the proof speaks for itself. That's why you go to college to learn about things like logic, work, money, nature. We teach these things in our schools because the results are self-evident. If you go to work you will make money. That's a system that has proof but requires none to be valid.

(You made reference to "facts", Prodigal. What is your criterion for something to qualify as a "fact"?

You made reference to "religion." Please define what you mean by this.)

You can try to shuffle around the issue as much as you'd like by requesting definitions and criterion, but these are things that will not defend you, nor will they hurt me. You know what a fact is, I know what a fact is. You know what religion is, I know what religion is. Let's not kid ourselves with definitions when we both know exactly what we're talking about.

A fact is a true statement of reality, like when my parents taught me colors, they taught me that red was red because red is red and it cannot be anything else and never was anything else but red. I was taught that dogs bark, and dogs do indeed bark. I was taught that the sky is blue, and indeed, the sky is blue. No proof is needed. There's no doubt surrounding the existence of the moon, there's no proof needed either because, bam, there it is up there in the sky. You ask for proof where no proof is necessary. I'm asking for proof to back your faith up with and you have none. There's nothing to look to in religion, there's no one indisputable fact that ties christianity together, if there were everyone would be christians because you can't look at the sky and say it's red.

A religion is a group of maniacs following an invisible god towards no end except death which is the same end we all go to.

Granite
November 18th, 2004, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Which is why I don't affiliate my self with a "church," but with Christ.

Or to avoid the responsibility and accountability of attending a church.

Lighthouse
November 18th, 2004, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by prodigal

Lighthouse,

(His promises are true. If you test them, you will find them to be true)

LH, I have tested them, for twenty years. I've said it so many times it's clear that you are incapable of understanding the concept of objectivity. I tried christianity for twenty years, twenty years of unanswered prayers and unfulfilled promises. If your god exists in the fashion you say he does, he is a sadist who let me believe for two decades before I walked away in disgust.
Unanswered prayers, or were you just blind to the answers? Or maybe you prayed selfishly. God does not cater to selfishness. And whose promises? The promises in His word will be fulfilled, in the life of those for whom the promises are. If they weren't fulfilled in your life, then you weren't looking at the right promises.


(No. It doesn't. Proof does not have to be tangible. It only has to be real)

You have no means of proving that what you believe is real. Proof can be the wind's movement, it can be the stars, it can be a myriad of things. Proof isn't belief in an invisible deity, a zombie messiah and demons. You still haven't defined what form of proof you ever received from god that verifies your claims. Your porn addiction story while touching... no pun intended... is not proof that god fulfilled any of his promises because people overcome addictions to all sorts of things all of the time with no one's help but their own. Like I said before, you had it in you the whole time to overcome your addiction, you blew it LH, you blew it.
See? No matter what I provide, you deny, deny , deny. Nothing but denial. You have no proof that what you believe is real, either. You are a hypocrite. And I didn't just overcome an addiction to porn. It went away, instantly. My desire to view pornography, or go into a strip club, is gone. I don't desire to see naked women, in order to gain fulfillment. He is sufficient for all my needs. Pornography only provided a counterfeit.


(It's staring you in the face. Yet I can't point it out to you, because you refuse to see it. It would be like describing the color red to a man who had been born blind. He wouldn't be able to see it, and neither are you. The only difference is that you can open your eyes, you just refuse to do so.)

This is nothing more than a convenient way of not answering a question to which you cannot supply an answer in the first place. You've side stepped me, LH, and in a big way. If you haven't an answer you just call me blind. It's a cute trick, and as a former christian I can understand why you would use it, but let me tell you something: IT DOESN'T WORK!!!!!!
I didn't sidestep you. And I didn't call you blind, either. I said you refuse to see that which is in front of you.


(You can do that with God. You just don't want to.)

LIKE I'VE ALREADY SAID BEFORE, LH, I TRIED FOR TWENTY YEARS. It didn't work. I stepped back knowing what I knew of christianity and began to look for different answers. I'm currently investigating both sides of the story, christianity, and everything else. You cannot do that, you refuse to do that. I have an open mind, I have seen christianity in comparison to other options and I've found christianity, or any form of god worship to be fundamentally flawed.
I've been a Christian for a little over twenty years. And His word has not returned void once. You weren't testing His word. You were out to gain what you thought you deserved from God. And since He didn't bring you what you wanted on a silver platter, you folded your arms, stomped your feet and ran away pouting like a five year old.


(Who said I could read minds?)

You do, whenever you presume to know the state of my non-existent soul. Whenever you call me blind, whenever you tell me that the truth is right in front of me and I can't see it. You either put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head.
Alright, firechyld.:rolleyes:

Anyway...I have God's word, available to me. I know what it says about the state of men's souls. I presume nothing. And nothing I have said leads to the conclusion that I believe I can read minds. I know the proof is out there, because I see it. You say that you do not see the proof. You yourself are the one who has provided me with the information that you do not see the proof. If I told you that creation is proof of the existence of a Creator, you would deny it. Because you have already denied that. I don't need to be able to read minds to see that.


(His word and promises are available for you. If you don't know where to find them, then there's no hope fo you at all)

LIKE I SAID BEFORE.... screw it. You know what Ima say.
Yes, I know what you're going to say. Which is why I will not cater to your childish attention seeking immaturity.


(I can't say for certain that all the things I believe now are completley true.)

Thank you for making my point.
I didn't say that I couldn't be certain that some of them are. I am certain that God exists. I am certain the He loves me. I am certain that he sent His Son to die, for all the sins of men, for all time. I am certain that I was forgiven my sin before I even asked. And there are many more things I am certain of. Those first two I was certain of when I first came to TOL. The last two I disagreed with. But I was wrong. Now I am certain of the truth.


(Did you know that Muslims convert to Christianity, simply because they read the New Testament)

Who cares?
I just felt I should address Islam, since you brought it up. I didn't want to skip any of your points.

Lighthouse
November 18th, 2004, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman

Yes, when they're cornered, they can get mean. Too bad, they blame their bad behavior on God.
None of my bad behavior is God's fault.

prodigal
November 18th, 2004, 03:02 PM
Lighthouse,

(maybe you prayed selfishly. God does not cater to selfishness.)

Maybe I did, maybe I didn't.

(Unanswered prayers, or were you just blind to the answers?)

See what I mean? When it doesn't work for someone there's no possibility that you could be wrong, but it's the person's fault. I'm blind.

(You have no proof that what you believe is real, either. You are a hypocrite.)

I believe in myself, LH. I know that I'm real. You believe in god and you have no evidence to support your belief. You say that the proof for you will not work for anyone else, so is it really proof? I beg to differ.

(I didn't sidestep you. And I didn't call you blind, either. I said you refuse to see that which is in front of you.)

You compared to one who is blind, how was I supposed to take it, LH? And yes, you did side step me. You say the proof is there, but that I can't see it. That's an avoidance.

(You were out to gain what you thought you deserved from God)

You can read minds! Just not very well....

(If I told you that creation is proof of the existence of a Creator, you would deny it.)

Just because rainbows exist doesn't mean that pots of gold and leprechauns do. The existence of the creation simply means that at one point is was created, that's all it proves.

(I just felt I should address Islam, since you brought it up. I didn't want to skip any of your points.)

Islam makes the same claim of validity and exclusivity as christianity. No one religion can lay claim to the truth as though they had bragging rights to god.

If your faith were so true everyone would believe it. If it were so pure in it's indisputable, undeniability than everyone would believe it and there would be no discussion.

Turbo
November 18th, 2004, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Jesus would say that you are condemned already and that if you don't repent He will crush you into powder.

Originally posted by wickwoman

Sorry, that's your own personal fantasy, don't pin it on Jesus. I wonder where Clete gets these ideas that Jesus would say stuff like that. :think: What an imagination he has.

I mean, just because Jesus is quoted saying those things in the Bible, doesn't mean He ever actually said them, right Wick? We're lucky to have you around to inerrantly reveal to us which parts of the Bible are true and which are false based on how they sit with your sensibilities.

Lighthouse
November 18th, 2004, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by prodigal

Lighthouse,

(Unanswered prayers, or were you just blind to the answers?)

See what I mean? When it doesn't work for someone there's no possibility that you could be wrong, but it's the person's fault. I'm blind.
All I'm suggesting is that you might have gotten answers, but you didn't see them, because they weren't what you were looking for.


(You have no proof that what you believe is real, either. You are a hypocrite.)

I believe in myself, LH. I know that I'm real. You believe in god and you have no evidence to support your belief. You say that the proof for you will not work for anyone else, so is it really proof? I beg to differ.
You can't prove there is no God. You're a hypocrite. And I said the proof will not work for you. I didn't say it won't work for anyone else. But since others were not there, then how can it work as proof for them? All they can do is believe me, but they wouldn't have any proof.


(I didn't sidestep you. And I didn't call you blind, either. I said you refuse to see that which is in front of you.)

You compared to one who is blind, how was I supposed to take it, LH? And yes, you did side step me. You say the proof is there, but that I can't see it. That's an avoidance.
It's not an avoidance. The proof is there. You're the one who said you don't see it. All I said is that you refuse to see it. How is that avoiding?


(You were out to gain what you thought you deserved from God)

You can read minds! Just not very well....
I don't read minds. And I didn't read yours. You just come across as someone arrogant enough to be like that.


(If I told you that creation is proof of the existence of a Creator, you would deny it.)

Just because rainbows exist doesn't mean that pots of gold and leprechauns do. The existence of the creation simply means that at one point is was created, that's all it proves.
See? I was right. You denied it.


(I just felt I should address Islam, since you brought it up. I didn't want to skip any of your points.)

Islam makes the same claim of validity and exclusivity as christianity. No one religion can lay claim to the truth as though they had bragging rights to god.
And when Muslims are confronted with who the Bible says Christ is, they believe the Quran to be false. The Quran does not effect Christians in such a way to make them believe it, and deny the Bible.


If your faith were so true everyone would believe it. If it were so pure in it's indisputable, undeniability than everyone would believe it and there would be no discussion.
:darwinsm:

My faith [trust] is real. Faith is not belief, prodigal. And the validity of what I beleive in no way effects people's beliefs. I haven't always believed what I believe. And I definitely don't believe what you believe. So, based on your own logic, what you beleive isn't true, either. Which is it?

Granite
November 18th, 2004, 03:30 PM
"And when Muslims are confronted with who the Bible says Christ is, they believe the Quran to be false. The Quran does not effect Christians in such a way to make them believe it, and deny the Bible."

Oh yes. Every Muslim who is confronted with the New Testament converts to Christianity on the spot.

Brandon, get a clue.

Granite
November 18th, 2004, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

I wonder where Clete gets these ideas that Jesus would say stuff like that. :think: What an imagination he has.

I mean, just because Jesus is quoted saying those things in the Bible, doesn't mean He ever actually said them, right Wick? We're lucky to have you around to inerrently reveal to us which parts of the Bible are true and which are false based on how they sit with your sensibilities.

Oh, so Jesus said he would grind people into powder. Can I have chapter and verse with that please?

Also if you can demonstrate where Jesus himself ever said "It is more blessed to give than to receive"--note I say JESUS, not someone QUOTING him out of thin air--it'd be appreciated.

Hilston
November 18th, 2004, 03:32 PM
Prodigal writes:The only impression I get from you is that the only answer to challenges you have is more questions.You haven't challenged me with anything!


Prodigal writes:
By simply deluding [sic] the argument with questions to which no one has answers ...With this statement you admit that you can't validate your senses or your reason. I think you need to stop criticizing others about their lack of proof for their views. Lest you be labeled an irrational hypocrite, you need to cease and desist from claiming to "deny outrageous claims that have no proof to verify their validity." From where I'm sitting, you're guilty of the very thing you accuse of others.


Prodigal writes:
Hilston, whenever I jump in the air, I don't believe I'm going to fall back to the ground, I know.No you don't. You admitted this. You cannot validate your senses or reasoning faculties. If you cannot validate them, then you cannot be certain about anything. If you cannot validate the means by which you presume to know things (senses, reason), then you cannot know for anything for certain.


Prodigal writes:
The sky is blue, there's no doubt.Since you admit that you cannot answer questions concerning the validity of your senses and your reason, you have no certainty about anything, even the color of the sky. Where there is uncertainty, there is doubt.


Prodigal writes:
I know that when I go to work and work hard, I'll get paid for my efforts doubly, not just because I work on commision, but because that's the way the world works.In other words, you live according to blind faith assumptions. To say, "That's the way it works" when you can't even prove the verity of the faculties you employ to see "the way it works" is flatout blind faith.


Prodigal writes:
No, but I can throw an apple into the air a million times and every time it will fall back to the ground.How do you know? Have you thrown an apple in the air a million times? Would that be enough to be absolutely certain? Maybe the millionth-and-third toss will get a different result? You can't be certain, can you?


Prodigal writes:
There's no guesswork or faith involved with knowing that the sky is blue.Sure there is. Without the certainty that would come from validating your senses and reason, you're left with uncertainty, and that's called doubt.


Prodigal writes:
There's no blind faith when it comes to my work ethic or the way a buyer's agency contract works in my state. I make no guesses. Guesses are not necessary.Since you admit that you cannot answer questions concerning the validity of your senses and your reason, anything you say about "work ethic" is suspect. You don't even know if your brain works correctly and you want us to believe you have anything certain to say about "work ethic" is? How ridiculous!


Prodigal writes:
You don't have to prove that the sky is blue, Hilston. You can just look at it. I don't need to prove what is obvious enough for everyone to see. The sun is bright, dogs bark, what proof do you need? None.Since you admit that you cannot answer questions concerning the validity of your senses and your reason, the means by which you make predication about the sky, the sun, and dogs, then you don't have any certainty about what you "just look at." You continue with that ad populum fallacy and you should be embarrassed.

Hilston wrote: Everything you described assumes the verity of your senses, the laws of logic, and the uniformity of nature. If you blindly assume you can trust your senses, if you blindly trust logic as "common sense", and what you perceive as uniformity relies upon the preceding blind assumption and dubious appeal to "common sense", then why do you demand proof from others, when you yourself are no less blind and no less "religious" in your assumptions?


Prodigal writes:
First of all, I'm not even sure if there was a point to that paragraph that anyone would understand other than yourself.Maybe you can go ask a grown-up to help you?


Prodigal writes:
And no, everything I described is testable, has been tested since the beginning of time and will continue to be tested for ever more.By what means do you observe the results of tests? Answer: Your senses and your reason, which you admit that you cannot validate. You operate on blind faith, Prodigal, and so does everyone who thinks like you.


Prodigal writes:
I don't assume these things work without proof, I know they will work because the proof speaks for itself.Nothing speaks for itself, Prodigal. I'm embarrassed for you. If this were a formal debate, you'd be losing badly.


Prodigal writes:
You ask for proof where no proof is necessary.You couldn't be more wrong, Prodigal. If you're going come here make challenges about God and the Bible and origins and belief systems, all matters of an ultimate nature, then you'd better be prepared to answer questions where your own view of ultimate reality is concerned. How you know what you know is fair game. If you don't like these kinds of questions, you need to go somewhere else and play. If you want to run with the big dogs, then you need to get up off the porch and be willing to face the tough philosophical questions such as I have put to you. It is just silly for you to blithely dismiss these questions and to make all these fatuous claims about "no proof being necessary" and "you just look at it" when you yourself so boldly assert your denial of claims "that have no proof to verify their validity." You're irrational, Prodigal. You can't validate your answers for the most fundamental questions put to you. Why should anyone think anything else you say is valid? Yet you turn around a make these empty challenges. Your view loses badly, Prodigal. It's like you haven't even shown up to the debate.


Prodigal writes:
I'm asking for proof to back your faith up with and you have none.Since you admit that you cannot answer questions concerning the validity of your senses and your reason, you have no grounds to demand proof for anything. Even if I offered it to you, what will you use to evaluate my proof? Your senses, which you admit cannot be validated? Your reasoning, which you admit cannot be validated? And then you'll turn around and deny my claims because they "have no proof to verify their validity"? It's ridiculous!


Prodigal writes:
There's nothing to look to in religion, there's no one indisputable fact that ties christianity together, if there were everyone would be christians because you can't look at the sky and say it's red.You really need to catch up, Prodigal. How do you know the sky isn't red?


Prodigal writes:
A religion is a group of maniacs following an invisible god towards no end except death which is the same end we all go to.Buddhists are religious, Prodigal. So are Wiccans. Could you offer a more careful definition? Maybe you could go ask an adult.

prodigal
November 18th, 2004, 03:42 PM
Lighthouse,
(All I'm suggesting is that you might have gotten answers, but you didn't see them, because they weren't what you were looking for)

Than what good is god anyway? If all he's going to do is give me answers that I either can't see or have no use for, what good is he?

(I didn't say it won't work for anyone else. But since others were not there, then how can it work as proof for them? All they can do is believe me, but they wouldn't have any proof.)

They wouldn't be wise to believe you. Belief in a thing without proof of the things existence is a dangerous game.

(You can't prove there is no God. You're a hypocrite.)

I never set out to prove that god doesn't exist. I set out to show that there's no proof that he does, and therefore there's no way you can pass off your beliefs as true for anyone but yourself. That goes for you, all of christianity and every other form of god worship out there.

(It's not an avoidance. The proof is there. You're the one who said you don't see it. All I said is that you refuse to see it. How is that avoiding?)

It is an avoidance, LH. What proof is there? What am I missing? The existence of the creation does not explain who or what created it. It only proves that it was, at one point, created. I've accepted your challenge, and for the past twenty years I did test god. I've never refused anything because nothing has ever been offered. You say the proof is there, but it isn't. Telling me that I'm either blind or that I refuse to see it doesn't prove that proof exists, it proves that you haven't an answer to give.

(I don't read minds. And I didn't read yours. You just come across as someone arrogant enough to be like that.)

I'm as arrogant as you are weak-minded LH.

(See? I was right. You denied it.)

You're right, I did deny it. I deny anything that is espoused as truth with no proof to validate it. Existence is not a sign of a personal creator, it is a sign that we have been created. Nothing more, nothing less. The difference between you and I is this: You have an ancient book that explains the origin of the universe.

I just don't care.

What do I care about:

People passing off the unprovable as indisputable.

I don't have anything to prove. I believe in hard work, sleep and eating. I don't have to prove that eating will sustain me, because it requires no proof. I don't have to prove that sleeping will rest my body because it requires no proof. I don't have to prove that hard work will get me paid because it requires no proof. It's just true: work and get paid, eat and be fed, sleep and be rested. That's what I believe in. Long and short, I believe in myself, my family and friends.

(My faith [trust] is real. Faith is not belief, prodigal. And the validity of what I beleive in no way effects people's beliefs. I haven't always believed what I believe. And I definitely don't believe what you believe. So, based on your own logic, what you beleive isn't true, either. Which is it?)

Sorry, LH, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, maybe you can explain that last part a little bit better? I believe in myself, so I guess the answer to your question would be no.... but like I said I don't really understand the question.

prodigal
November 18th, 2004, 03:59 PM
Hilston,

If I want to validate the correctness of my brain, or the validity of my senses, I can just go to a doctor. I'm not entirely sure if there's any way for anyone to validate their senses. I can go to college and learn that the sky is in fact blue and I can be shown color samples of blue and red and see the difference between the two. Other than learning and doctor's visits, I don't really know what you want from me. What criteria is there for validating my senses? If there's none than everyone is in doubt and uncertainty and in which case no one should believe anything. Hilston, if I'm reading you correctly, there's no way anything can be proven so long as there's the possibility that our eyes are actually seeing something that isn't there. What's the criteria for knowing that what you see is indeed not what you're seeing? You can use big words, philosophical arguments and you can talk down to me, but you have no solutions to any of the problems you point out so far, so my only assumption can be that you're just trying to confuse me.

Hilston, you're a lot smarter than I, but you haven't convinced me of anything. I don't have to validate my senses, like I said, I'm a healthy person, but saying the sky is red when in fact it is for everyone to see, blue doesn't make sense to me. In a world where blue can be red and six can be nine, wouldn't you agree that it's not safe to believe anything?

Oh, and how do I go about validating my senses? You seem to know all about it, can you refer me to a local sense validator, or whatever they call them? If it's so darn important to you, I'd like to get it done, if it is at all possible, and if it's not than your questions to me are pointless, hostile and worth nothing more than my middle finger. If there is a way for me to validate my senses than I can move up the ladder and be closer to you and I won't frustrate you so much?

Broken down:

Hilston, how do I validate my senses?

If it is impossible to do, than I'm going to consider your questions as nothing more than a pompous attempt to confound me.

If it is possible to do, I'll be in your debt.

If it is possible and you don't know, than screw you.

If it is possible and you won't tell me, than see above.

If it is impossible than you're just as dumb as I am and all of your intellectual blathering is good for nothing.

If you don't know, than see above.

Yours truly,

Prodigal

prodigal
November 18th, 2004, 04:03 PM
I'm tired, Ima go home now

dotcom
November 18th, 2004, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by prodigal



Dotcom,



I have said that god is the least foolish answer for the origin of the universe as compared to evolution, but since we have no proof I don't rest anything too heavily on it. For right now, all I do is go to work, earn my money, eat my food, go to sleep and do it over again the next day, without giving thanks to a god who I'm not even sure exists and who hasn't helped me a day in my life. There's nothing empty or rote about going to work to build your life to the point where you can start a family and provide for them. That's what I do. If I have a religion, than it's the religion of myself, because no one else is going to help me but myself, so I might as well give thanks to no one but myself. Maybe my boss, maybe my mom and dad when they bail me out in hard times, but god has never done anything to help, so why worship him?

All you are trying to say here is that you are an atheist. Some people are atheists others Christians etc. Being an atheist may explain your own nonbiblical worldview, but that position cannot be used to discredit the Christian view. It is irrational to claim the atheist view is better than the other side without enough information.

wickwoman
November 18th, 2004, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

I wonder where Clete gets these ideas that Jesus would say stuff like that. :think: What an imagination he has.

I mean, just because Jesus is quoted saying those things in the Bible, doesn't mean He ever actually said them, right Wick? We're lucky to have you around to inerrently reveal to us which parts of the Bible are true and which are false based on how they sit with your sensibilities.

You are free to point out to me where in the Bible Jesus says he will personally grind me into powder.

Hilston
November 18th, 2004, 04:47 PM
Prodigal writes:
If I want to validate the correctness of my brain, or the validity of my senses, I can just go to a doctor.And how will you then process the information he gives you? By the senses and reasoning faculties that you cannot validate? The doctor may be giving you an accurate assessment of your senses and reason, but without validating them, you don't know if what you're hearing from him is being accurately perceived by your ears and correcty processed by your brain.


Prodigal writes:
I'm not entirely sure if there's any way for anyone to validate their senses.So then you need to shuttup about denying "claims that have no proof to verify their validity." Until you can validate that very statement, which you admittedly cannot, you have no grounds to deny anyone's belief about anything.


Prodigal writes:
I can go to college and learn that the sky is in fact blue and I can be shown color samples of blue and red and see the difference between the two.Not if your senses are invalid, Prodigal!!!


Prodigal writes:
I don't really know what you want from me.An admission that you have an irrational blind faith assumption, the very thing you criticize of others.


Prodigal writes:
What criteria is there for validating my senses? If there's none than everyone is in doubt and uncertainty and in which case no one should believe anything.Yes, you get it now. Excellent.


Prodigal writes:
Hilston, if I'm reading you correctly, there's no way anything can be proven so long as there's the possibility that our eyes are actually seeing something that isn't there.Bingo!


Prodigal writes:
What's the criteria for knowing that what you see is indeed not what you're seeing?I couldn't have said it better myself.


Prodigal writes:
You can use big words, philosophical arguments and you can talk down to me, but you have no solutions to any of the problems you point out so far, so my only assumption can be that you're just trying to confuse me.I apologize for talking down to you, Prodigal. I was about ready to give up on you because you weren't getting this. But with your most recent post it seems you now get it. No, I'm not trying to confuse you. I'm actually trying to bring clarity to this question, to get you and others to face the problem we all have with our most basic assumptions about life, existence, experience, etc.


Prodigal writes:
Hilston, you're a lot smarter than I, but you haven't convinced me of anything.I would hope that I've convinced you that you can't go around demanding proof and validation when you yourself cannot prove or validate the means by which you presume to assess someone else's proof or validation.


Prodigal writes:
I don't have to validate my senses, like I said, I'm a healthy person, but saying the sky is red when in fact it is for everyone to see, blue doesn't make sense to me.What if you see blue as red, Prodigal? How would you ever know? Color blind people sometimes go a very long time thinking dark grey is "red" and light grey is "green." Sometimes they're lucky enough to find out that the concensus differs from their perception, but that in itself doesn't make the consensus correct. Maybe the so-called "color blind" people are correct, and the rest of us are seeing something that isn't really there?


Prodigal writes:
In a world where blue can be red and six can be nine, wouldn't you agree that it's not safe to believe anything?Based only on what you've offered thus far, I would agree. Your world is a dangerous, uncertain, and dubious place.


Prodigal writes:
Oh, and how do I go about validating my senses?See below.


Prodigal writes:
You seem to know all about it, can you refer me to a local sense validator, or whatever they call them? If it's so darn important to you, I'd like to get it done, if it is at all possible, and if it's not than your questions to me are pointless, hostile and worth nothing more than my middle finger. If there is a way for me to validate my senses than I can move up the ladder and be closer to you and I won't frustrate you so much?We all presume to be rational people. But if we want to be authentically rational, we need to find a way to validate our presumed rationality, as well as our sense functions. Your way obviously doesn't work. This was the sin of the Garden. Adam tried to validate his own reasoning by declaring, by his actions, that he would go it alone. He would make judgments and assessments based on his own autonomy, his own senses, his own reasoning. Determining good and evil is the essence of deity. By presuming to discern good and evil apart from God, Adam unlawfully usurped God's authority and sought to become his own lawmaker, knowing good and evil. Eating the fruit was almost incidental. That action manifested what was already in Adam's heart. And with that act, all of Adam's certainty went out the window, and he found himself in the same shoes that you are in right now. And if you do not repent of being your own lawmaker and throw yourself upon the mercy of The Court, you will burn in hell with Adam.

Only trust in Christ as revealed in the Scripture can validate your reasoning and sense faculties. With trust in Christ comes the gift of certainty, by which you can be certain about the verity of the Scriptures. By acknowledging Christ as the Source of all truth, and the Scriptures as His inerrant and infallible Word, you won't have to toss an apple in the air a million times to know that induction works. You will see it attested in the Scriptures, and since you will have certainty regarding the Scriptures, you can then be equally certain about what they infer, including the verity of the senses and the validity of logic and reason.

One Eyed Jack
November 18th, 2004, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman

You are free to point out to me where in the Bible Jesus says he will personally grind me into powder.

No problem.


Originally spoken by Jesus Christ, from the Gospel According to Luke:

20:17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?
20:18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

Turbo
November 18th, 2004, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman

You are free to point out to me where in the Bible Jesus says [if I don't repent] he will personally grind me into powder.

Then He looked at them and said, "What then is this that is written:
'The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone'?Whoever falls on that stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder." Luke 20:17-18




I take it you already know where in the Bible Jesus says you are condemned already, wickwoman?

Clete
November 18th, 2004, 06:46 PM
Jim,

Post 155 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=629283#post629283)

Excellent! :thumb:

POTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=629365#post629365) ! :first:

Resting in Him,
Clete

Hilston
November 18th, 2004, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Jim,

Post 155 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=629283#post629283)

Excellent! :thumb:

POTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=629365#post629365) ! :first:

Resting in Him,
Clete I'm officially freaked out now.

Balder
November 18th, 2004, 08:59 PM
Maybe the so-called "color blind" people are correct, and the rest of us are seeing something that isn't really there?

Color isn't out there! It is not a property of objects.

Clete
November 18th, 2004, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

I'm officially freaked out now.

Yeah! Me too! :freak:

Are you sure there aren't mind control rays shooting out of the eyes of that avatar of yours? I can't seem to stop staring at it! I could swear it's staring back! :noway:

Granite
November 19th, 2004, 07:21 AM
I notice the second challenge of post 149 went ignored...

wickwoman
November 19th, 2004, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

No problem.

Thanks, however, who says I fell on "the stone." And, second, the more accurate translation is:

Luke 20:18 (NIV)
18Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."

Crushed as in broken to pieces which is more comparable to a state such as found in Psalms:

Psalm 51:17
17 The sacrifices of God are [1] a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart,
O God, you will not despise.

Which, the passage says God will not despise. Jesus is not a stumbling block to me. He's my hero.

wickwoman
November 19th, 2004, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

Then He looked at them and said, "What then is this that is written:
'The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone'?Whoever falls on that stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder." Luke 20:17-18


See my post to Jack above.


Originally posted by Turbo
I take it you already know where in the Bible Jesus says you are condemned already, wickwoman?

Do you mean to say "where the Bible says Jesus said you are condemned already?" If so, I can direct you to John, the gospel which many scholars believe is the least accurate of all the gospels.

John 3
17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[1] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

And, again, I will ask, who says I don't believe? You? What do you know about me? Very little.

Granite
November 19th, 2004, 08:24 AM
Sadism in scripture! Yay!:bannana:

Clete
November 19th, 2004, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by granite1010
Also if you can demonstrate where Jesus himself ever said "It is more blessed to give than to receive"--note I say JESUS, not someone QUOTING him out of thin air--it'd be appreciated.

This is from post 148 not 149 but I assume this the "challenge" you refer to above.

The phrase is directly attributed to Jesus in Acts...

Acts 20:35 I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"

We do not have the occasion recorded in the Gospels where Jesus said these words and so are unable to directly quote Him, but Paul does directly quote Him in the same Bible in which the Gospels are located and thus if that is not enough to demonstrate that Jesus did in fact say those words then no words of Jesus can be demonstrated to have been said at all. In other words, we can say with the same confidence and on the same authority that Jesus said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." as we can that He said ,"...he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.", that authority being the Word of God.

By the way, what was the point of this "challenge" anyway?

Resting in Him,
Clete

wickwoman
November 19th, 2004, 08:28 AM
Dear Hilston:

I understand your argument, however, it only seems to make believing in the "big man" in the sky even more risky. I mean, if we can't even believe the things we already think we know, how could we possibly expand that to trust a book written thousands of years ago and in a God that we can't see?

Basically, what you've said is that every solid thing we think we know now is in question and, as a result, we should throw caution to the wind and believe in a book written by people we will never meet? And, in an invisible God we have never seen nor heard?

Granite
November 19th, 2004, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

This is from post 148 not 149 but I assume this the "challenge" you refer to above.

The phrase is directly attributed to Jesus in Acts...

Acts 20:35 I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"

We do not have the occasion recorded in the Gospels where Jesus said these words and so are unable to directly quote Him, but Paul does directly quote Him in the same Bible in which the Gospels are located and thus if that is not enough to demonstrate that Jesus did in fact say those words then no words of Jesus can be demonstrated to have been said at all. In other words, we can say with the same confidence and on the same authority that Jesus said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." as we can that He said ,"...he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.", that authority being the Word of God.

By the way, what was the point of this "challenge" anyway?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Paul invented this out of whole cloth. The entire "quote" is pulled from thin air. Beyond Paul's word there is no reason to believe Jesus ever said such a thing. That was the point: it's one of those things you just take for granted. But this phrase is not in the gospels and none of the apostles who actually knew Jesus ever used this in their epistles.

Paul made it up, senor.

Clete
November 19th, 2004, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by wickwoman

Thanks, however, who says I fell on "the stone." And, second, the more accurate translation is:

Luke 20:18 (NIV)
18Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."

Crushed as in broken to pieces which is more comparable to a state such as found in Psalms:

Psalm 51:17
17 The sacrifices of God are [1] ;
,
O God, you will not despise.

Which, the passage says God will not despise. Jesus is not a stumbling block to me. He's my hero.

This is truly rediculous!
If were correct the verse would read...
Luke 20:18 (WWV)
18 Everyone who falls on that stone will have a broken spirit, but he on whom it falls will have a broken and contrite heart"

Stupid! :doh:

How about stopping these idiotic games which just serve to make you look even more foolish and simply admit that you had no idea that the Bible said anything about Jesus grinding people who do not fall on Him for mercy into itty-bitty peices?

Resting in Him,
:Clete:

Granite
November 19th, 2004, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

This is truly rediculous!
If were correct the verse would read...
Luke 20:18 (WWV)
18 Everyone who falls on that stone will have a broken spirit, but he on whom it falls will have a broken and contrite heart"

Stupid! :doh:

How about stopping these idiotic games which just serve to make you look even more foolish and simply admit that you had no idea that the Bible said anythhing about Jesus grinding people who do not fall on Him for mercy into itty-bitty peices?

Resting in Him,
:Clete:

Yeah, Clete's right. Let's stop this game and move on to his favorite challenge: a spelling contest!:D

You people.

Clete
November 19th, 2004, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Paul invented this out of whole cloth. The entire "quote" is pulled from thin air. Beyond Paul's word there is no reason to believe Jesus ever said such a thing. That was the point: it's one of those things you just take for granted. But this phrase is not in the gospels and none of the apostles who actually knew Jesus ever used this in their epistles.

Paul made it up, senor.

This is an argument from silence at best. Luke is the author of Acts which was a sequal to the gospel which bears his name. So we not only have the testimony of Paul but of Luke, an author of a Gospel, as well. Are you suggesting that Luke made the whole story up or that he accurately recorded a fabrication of Paul's or didn't you know that Luke was the author of Acts?
Further, as I have already mentioned, Acts is in the Bible. If you reject Acts you must reject the rest of the Bible with it in which case you have no grounds upon which to claim that Jesus said any specific thing, which might be fine with you but then you would find yourself with the same problem that prodigal is having with not being able to know for sure that his nose is on his face.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Granite
November 19th, 2004, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

This is an argument from silence at best. Luke is the author of Acts which was a sequal to the gospel which bears his name. So we not only have the testimony of Paul but of Luke, an author of a Gospel, as well. Are you suggesting that Luke made the whole story up or that he accurately recorded a fabrication of Paul's or didn't you know that Luke was the author of Acts?
Further, as I have already mentioned, Acts is in the Bible. If you reject Acts you must reject the rest of the Bible with it in which case you have no grounds upon which to claim that Jesus said any specific thing, which might be fine with you but then you would find yourself with the same problem that prodigal is having with not being able to know for sure that his nose is on his face.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Hot air and smoke. Guesswork: Jesus never said it, so you need to find an explanation. Hence this breathless stretch-your-mind post. Remember to keep the solution simple, Clete. KISS. What's simpler to believe: that Paul made it up and passed it on, or...well, actually, you don't give an alternative in this post, so I don't know what you're left with.

Clete
November 19th, 2004, 09:58 AM
Just how fine a powder would granite make anyway?

:think: :think: :think:

Granite
November 19th, 2004, 10:17 AM
You gotta figure out how to crush it, first. Knock yourself out!

Clete
November 19th, 2004, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

You gotta figure out how to crush it, first. Knock yourself out!

Don't worry Jesus can crush you very easily and will if you don't repent.

Granite
November 19th, 2004, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Don't worry Jesus can crush you very easily and will if you don't repent.

Say it with me now: Paper--Tiger.

This coming from the guy who can't even define what his "biblical worldview" is, though I'm suspecting it's just a McGuffin...

Hilston
November 19th, 2004, 10:42 AM
wickwoman writes:
Dear Hilston:

I understand your argument, however, it only seems to make believing in the "big man" in the sky even more risky.If that's the conclusion you've come to, then you don't understand my argument.


wickwoman writes:
I mean, if we can't even believe the things we already think we know, how could we possibly expand that to trust a book written thousands of years ago and in a God that we can't see?You don't have to see Him to know He's there and that He has judged you as worthy of judgment and condemnation. When you stand before Him, you won't have the excuse "You were invisible and Your book was really old." You know He exists and that you are accountable to Him. Rather than criticizing the Book and looking for excuses in the lives of hypocritical "christians", you should be seeking His mercy and recognize that the Book speaks of the God you already know exists.


wickwoman writes:
Basically, what you've said is that every solid thing we think we know now is in question and, as a result, we should throw caution to the wind and believe in a book written by people we will never meet? And, in an invisible God we have never seen nor heard?Look at it this way: You can try to justify and validate your fundamental assumptions on your own, which gets you nowhere if you take Prodigal's tack, or you can surrender your presumed autonomy back to God and realize that only He can validate your experience and turn your assumptions into certainty.

Or you can stay the current course and make a bee-line straight to a well-deserved hell.

Ecumenicist
November 19th, 2004, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by wickwoman

Thanks, however, who says I fell on "the stone." And, second, the more accurate translation is:

Luke 20:18 (NIV)
18Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."

Crushed as in broken to pieces which is more comparable to a state such as found in Psalms:

Psalm 51:17
17 The sacrifices of God are [1] a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart,
O God, you will not despise.

Which, the passage says God will not despise. Jesus is not a stumbling block to me. He's my hero.

WW,

I thought this was a great post.

Amen sister.

And BTW, glad to see you getting your heros straight ;)

Dave

Nineveh
November 19th, 2004, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

WW,

I thought this was a great post.

Amen sister.

And BTW, glad to see you getting your heros straight ;)

Dave

So sayeth pastor dave, brother to pagan sister ww.

Granite
November 19th, 2004, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

So sayeth pastor dave, brother to pagan sister ww.

Get over yourself...

Ecumenicist
November 19th, 2004, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

So sayeth pastor dave, brother to pagan sister ww.

And brother to poison spewing ex-witch sister Nineveh, don't
forget that.

Nineveh
November 19th, 2004, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

And brother to poison spewing ex-witch sister Nineveh, don't
forget that.

I don't know you or your teachings, pastor dave. You want to be seen in partnership with paganism, not me. Been there, done that, repented and was saved.



granite, feel free to mind your own business :)

Ecumenicist
November 19th, 2004, 11:02 AM
OK, I'll share my salvation experience with you.

It was about 1985, I had been suffering a heart condition which
turned out to be not dangerous, but was pretty scary nonetheless.

I was driving down the road, praying, and I asked God if there are
birds in heavan. He replied, through an overwhelming warm feeling of
peace and joy, yes there are. Then I asked, are there trees? Again,
God replied, yes there are.

THen I asked, is there anything on this earth that is not in heavan?
Is there anything I cannot do in heavan?

And God replied, yes, there is no pain nor suffering nor death in
heavan. And therefore, the only thing that cannot be done in heavan
is comforting those who suffer.

Suffice it to say, tears were streaming out of my eyes.

And that's when I dedicated my life to God, to sharing God's message
of hope and love and peace through Jesus Christ.

Dave

Nineveh
November 19th, 2004, 11:11 AM
Dave (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=629687#post629687)

Granite
November 19th, 2004, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

I don't know you or your teachings, pastor dave. You want to be seen in partnership with paganism, not me. Been there, done that, repented and was saved.



granite, feel free to mind your own business :)

I think everybody needs to just chill out, take a breather...

Ecumenicist
November 19th, 2004, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

I think everybody needs to just chill out, take a breather...

Its OK Granite, just rasslin' with Satan. I'm empowered
to do this through Christ.

Nineveh
November 19th, 2004, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

I think everybody needs to just chill out, take a breather...

Have a beer while you take 5, granite :)

Nineveh
November 19th, 2004, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

Its OK Granite, just rasslin' with Satan. I'm empowered
to do this through Christ.

Is it through Christ you support ww's twisting of Scripture, too?

Granite
November 19th, 2004, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Have a beer while you take 5, granite :)

Mmmm. Beer.

wickwoman
November 19th, 2004, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

If that's the conclusion you've come to, then you don't understand my argument.

You don't have to see Him to know He's there and that He has judged you as worthy of judgment and condemnation. When you stand before Him, you won't have the excuse "You were invisible and Your book was really old." You know He exists and that you are accountable to Him. Rather than criticizing the Book and looking for excuses in the lives of hypocritical "christians", you should be seeking His mercy and recognize that the Book speaks of the God you already know exists.

Look at it this way: You can try to justify and validate your fundamental assumptions on your own, which gets you nowhere if you take Prodigal's tack, or you can surrender your presumed autonomy back to God and realize that only He can validate your experience and turn your assumptions into certainty.

Or you can stay the current course and make a bee-line straight to a well-deserved hell.

Hilston you didn't answer the question. How does questioning the things we think we already understand, make an invisible God or an ancient book any more true or real?

wickwoman
November 19th, 2004, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

WW,

I thought this was a great post.

Amen sister.

And BTW, glad to see you getting your heros straight ;)

Dave

Nope, sorry you're still my hero too. Of course, not up there with Jesus, but I don't think you'll feel too slighted about that right? ;)

wickwoman
November 19th, 2004, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

OK, I'll share my salvation experience with you.

It was about 1985, I had been suffering a heart condition which
turned out to be not dangerous, but was pretty scary nonetheless.

I was driving down the road, praying, and I asked God if there are
birds in heavan. He replied, through an overwhelming warm feeling of
peace and joy, yes there are. Then I asked, are there trees? Again,
God replied, yes there are.

THen I asked, is there anything on this earth that is not in heavan?
Is there anything I cannot do in heavan?

And God replied, yes, there is no pain nor suffering nor death in
heavan. And therefore, the only thing that cannot be done in heavan
is comforting those who suffer.

Suffice it to say, tears were streaming out of my eyes.

And that's when I dedicated my life to God, to sharing God's message
of hope and love and peace through Jesus Christ.

Dave

I'm so glad you told me that. I really wanted to know if my Siamese cats that passed away and my German Shepard and really pretty mut cat I have now will be there.

wickwoman
November 19th, 2004, 12:28 PM
Mike's Hard Lemonade, low carb, for me, please.

Ecumenicist
November 19th, 2004, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman

Nope, sorry you're still my hero too. Of course, not up there with Jesus, but I don't think you'll feel too slighted about that right? ;)

Not at all...

Lighthouse
November 19th, 2004, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

"And when Muslims are confronted with who the Bible says Christ is, they believe the Quran to be false. The Quran does not effect Christians in such a way to make them believe it, and deny the Bible."

Oh yes. Every Muslim who is confronted with the New Testament converts to Christianity on the spot.

Brandon, get a clue.
I never said that. In fact, I refuted the idea in the original post about Muslims converting, based on the NT. So, who needs to get a clue?

Lighthouse
November 19th, 2004, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by prodigal

Lighthouse,
(All I'm suggesting is that you might have gotten answers, but you didn't see them, because they weren't what you were looking for)

Than what good is god anyway? If all he's going to do is give me answers that I either can't see or have no use for, what good is he?
It's not His fault you can't see them. But no one ever said you couldn't use them. It just appears to me that you wouldn't want to use them.


(I didn't say it won't work for anyone else. But since others were not there, then how can it work as proof for them? All they can do is believe me, but they wouldn't have any proof.)

They wouldn't be wise to believe you. Belief in a thing without proof of the things existence is a dangerous game.
Where have I ever said otherwise?


(You can't prove there is no God. You're a hypocrite.)

I never set out to prove that god doesn't exist. I set out to show that there's no proof that he does, and therefore there's no way you can pass off your beliefs as true for anyone but yourself. That goes for you, all of christianity and every other form of god worship out there.
You said that the lack of proof of His existence is proof of His non-existence. So, yes, you are preaching that He does not exist. E.g., you're a hypocrite.


(It's not an avoidance. The proof is there. You're the one who said you don't see it. All I said is that you refuse to see it. How is that avoiding?)

It is an avoidance, LH. What proof is there? What am I missing? The existence of the creation does not explain who or what created it. It only proves that it was, at one point, created. I've accepted your challenge, and for the past twenty years I did test god. I've never refused anything because nothing has ever been offered. You say the proof is there, but it isn't. Telling me that I'm either blind or that I refuse to see it doesn't prove that proof exists, it proves that you haven't an answer to give.
You're missing everything. You refuse to open your eyes, to see what is there. And my pointing it out to you is going to do nothing, because you haven't seen it yet. Why should I believe that you'll see it when I point it out? All you'd do is refute it.


(I don't read minds. And I didn't read yours. You just come across as someone arrogant enough to be like that.)

I'm as arrogant as you are weak-minded LH.
You're an arrogant little twit who thinks God owes Him something. God doesn't owe you anything.


(See? I was right. You denied it.)

You're right, I did deny it. I deny anything that is espoused as truth with no proof to validate it. Existence is not a sign of a personal creator, it is a sign that we have been created. Nothing more, nothing less. The difference between you and I is this: You have an ancient book that explains the origin of the universe.
No. I have a god who leads me into all truth. I know Him. I've met Him.


I just don't care.

What do I care about:

People passing off the unprovable as indisputable.
And yet, that's exactly what you've been doing throughout this entire thread. Hypocrite.


I don't have anything to prove. I believe in hard work, sleep and eating. I don't have to prove that eating will sustain me, because it requires no proof. I don't have to prove that sleeping will rest my body because it requires no proof. I don't have to prove that hard work will get me paid because it requires no proof. It's just true: work and get paid, eat and be fed, sleep and be rested. That's what I believe in. Long and short, I believe in myself, my family and friends.
And I don't have to prove anything to you, either. And neither does God.


(My faith [trust] is real. Faith is not belief, prodigal. And the validity of what I beleive in no way effects people's beliefs. I haven't always believed what I believe. And I definitely don't believe what you believe. So, based on your own logic, what you beleive isn't true, either. Which is it?)

Sorry, LH, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, maybe you can explain that last part a little bit better? I believe in myself, so I guess the answer to your question would be no.... but like I said I don't really understand the question.
You said that if what I believe was as true as I say it is, then everyone would believe it. Yet, not everyone believes what you believe. So, based on your own logic, what you believe must not be as true as you say it is. Which is it, prodigal? Or are you going to continue to be a hypocrite?

Lighthouse
November 19th, 2004, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman

Thanks, however, who says I fell on "the stone."
No one. It is being suggested that the Stone will fall on you. Are you really that ignorant that you didn't catch that?

Granite
November 19th, 2004, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

I never said that. In fact, I refuted the idea in the original post about Muslims converting, based on the NT. So, who needs to get a clue?

You said that Muslims confronted with the New Testament believe the Koran to be false. Do you stand by that statement or not?

Hilston
November 19th, 2004, 02:01 PM
wickwoman writes:Hilston you didn't answer the question. How does questioning the things we think we already understand, make an invisible God or an ancient book any more true or real?If you understood my argument as you claimed earlier, you wouldn't be asking this question. When you say "more true and real", are you using non-normative definitions of "true" and "real"? Because, as I understand the terms, something is either true or not; either real or not. If you can't ask a coherent question, how do you expect to get an intelligible answer?

Here's the logic:

Premise A: My own efforts to validate my cherished assumptions fail.
Premise B: The invisible God and His ancient book exclusively validate my cherished assumptions.
Conclusion: The invisible God and His ancient book are true and real.

Whether it's true or not, and whether you like it or not, that's the logic. However, I'm not suggesting that you ought to believe in God and His book on that basis. In fact, if you claimed that to be the basis of your belief, I would say it is an insufficient grounding for one's faith. But that's the logic, nonetheless. Now you might prefer to be illogical and to live as an irrational person. In which case, don't bother trying to have a comprehensible discussion about things that rely on logic and reason.

As to the grounds upon which you ought to throw yourself upon God's mercy, they are as follow: You know He exists; you know you are accountable to Him; you know He will commit both your body and soul to hell if you do not repent.

Lighthouse
November 19th, 2004, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

You said that Muslims confronted with the New Testament believe the Koran to be false. Do you stand by that statement or not?
I never said that they all do. But many of them do.

Granite
November 19th, 2004, 02:17 PM
"And when Muslims are confronted with who the Bible says Christ is, they believe the Quran to be false."

Maybe I'm picking nits here, but you certainly gave the impression that all Muslims confronted with the Bible suddenly drop their devotion to Allah. In any event, I'll go back to my original response: so what? Even if some Muslims convert to Christianity the opposite can and does happen.

wickwoman
November 19th, 2004, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Hilston
As to the grounds upon which you ought to throw yourself upon God's mercy, they are as follow: You know He exists; you know you are accountable to Him; you know He will commit both your body and soul to hell if you do not repent.

Dear Hilston:

I see from your posts to Prodigal is that you were offended he said that Christians shouldn't push their beliefs on others because they can't be proved. Your response to him was you can't prove anything. How does that prove your God is real? It doesn't. If anything, it makes it LESS provable.

As for me knowing that God will "commit both my body and soul to hell," I know no such thing. As a matter of fact I vehemently deny it. And ask you for objective proof thereof.

Zakath
November 19th, 2004, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by granite1010
...Even if some Muslims convert to Christianity the opposite can and does happen. I know of several former Christians who are now Muslims...

Granite
November 19th, 2004, 02:55 PM
Exactly. So it's more or less a wash.

Clete
November 19th, 2004, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman

Dear Hilston:

I see from your posts to Prodigal is that you were offended he said that Christians shouldn't push their beliefs on others because they can't be proved. Your response to him was you can't prove anything. How does that prove your God is real? It doesn't. If anything, it makes it LESS provable.

You missed the point. Jim isn't saying that "you can't prove anything" at all period, but that prodigal (and you) cannot prove anything based on your world view. It isn't that nothing can be proved but that without a logcially coherent foundation (which you and prodigal do not have) nothing can be proved.
(I know, I know double negative city.)

Resting in Him,
Clete

Hilston
November 19th, 2004, 03:02 PM
wickwoman writes:
I see from your posts to Prodigal is that you were offended he said that Christians shouldn't push their beliefs on others because they can't be proved.I wasn't offended. I was just pointing out to him that he was being hypocritical and putting requirements on others that he wasn't willing to put on himself.


wickwoman writes:
Your response to him was you can't prove anything.No. My response to him was that Prodigal cannot prove anything on the basis of his own presuppositions by his own stipulated criteria.


wickwoman writes:
How does that prove your God is real? It doesn't. If anything, it makes it LESS provable.Since you misunderstood my point, those statements don't apply.


wickwoman writes:
As for me knowing that God will "commit both my body and soul to hell," I know no such thing. As a matter of fact I vehemently deny it. And ask you for objective proof thereof.What will you accept as "objective proof"? How do you define "objective"? And is your definition of "objective" itself objective? Or is it a subjective definition?

prodigal
November 19th, 2004, 03:05 PM
Lighthouse,

(It's not His fault you can't see them. But no one ever said you couldn't use them. It just appears to me that you wouldn't want to use them.)

And why should I? Anything I have ever received has been from the hand of either myself or someone I know, god has never given me anything.

(You're missing everything. You refuse to open your eyes, to see what is there. And my pointing it out to you is going to do nothing, because you haven't seen it yet. Why should I believe that you'll see it when I point it out? All you'd do is refute it.)

I've missed nothing, LH. There's nothing to miss. What the heck do you mean by opening my eyes? And if pointing it out to me won't do a lick of good, than what good is evangelism in the first place? If it is nothing that can be pointed out, than what good is "it"? And if the only one who can reveal it to me is god, than what good is he if he hasn't?

(You're an arrogant little twit who thinks God owes Him something. God doesn't owe you anything.)

You're right, god doesn't owe me anything. You're wrong that I think it does though. The only person who owes me anything is me, that's why I worship myself.

(No. I have a god who leads me into all truth. I know Him. I've met Him.)

By your own admission you haven't heard god speak, you haven't seen god. Your mind is playing tricks on you. What's more feasible, the idea that an invisible deity has revealed itself to you, or that your imagination has gotten the better of you?

(And I don't have to prove anything to you, either. And neither does God.)

I know you don't have anything to prove to me, that's the point.

(You said that if what I believe was as true as I say it is, then everyone would believe it. Yet, not everyone believes what you believe. So, based on your own logic, what you believe must not be as true as you say it is. Which is it, prodigal? Or are you going to continue to be a hypocrite?)

I agree, not everyone believes in me. I don't tell them that they should. I do have the proof that I'm worth believing in, I'm young, strong, smart, handsome, full of potential. My family and friends believe in me because they see the fruit of my labor. I don't blame my success on god, I, and my fellow believers blame it all on me.

Hilston,

I appreciate the answer you gave me. You actually talked to me instead of at me and your usual tone of intellectual superiority was almost non-existant. But you still have me convinced of nothing. Your answer for how to validate my senses was to convert to a biblical worldview. I'm not quoting you verbatim, so if I missed something, please let me know, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Converting to a christian worldview brings us right back to square one, Hilston. You tell me that until I can validate my senses I shouldn't attack christianity. I accepted what you said, I asked you for a way to validate my senses. You came back and said the only way to validate my senses was to convert to a christian worldview, right so far? Hilston, you're arguing in a circle, and I haven't fallen for it. If the only way to validate my senses is to go back to a biblical worldview than you're asking me to believe in that which I don't. You're asking the impossible, you're trying to get me to play a game in which you're the only winner, and there is no reasonable outcome except that which YOU desire.

Hilston, I was on the cusp of respecting you, I was on the cusp of taking all of your high class intellectual blatherings seriously. I was excited about learning something new, but as I feared, your words are useless to me. I want nothing more than an admission from christians that they can't prove anything they believe, and you told me that I can't prove anything I believe because blue MAY NOT be blue but it COULD BE red. That's not good enough, Hilston. The sky IS blue, not red. Everyone knows it. An apple tossed into the air WILL fall, even if I throw it a million times. To say that it MAY NOT fall is not good enough for me. The fact that it always has fallen is enough for me to accurately and certainly predict that it always will. Telling me that there is a possiblilty for it to fly away one day, is not good enough.

Hilston your argument is based on a world view that you cannot prove. I can predict that what I believe in will happen, and then I can prove it. You can't do either, and telling me that the only way to validate my senses is to convert to your narrow minded idea of reality is not good enough for me. I don't have to validate anything, I just need to know that I believe in myself and reality. I can predict reality, and then I can test it, and then I have proof. If one day the sky turns out to be red than I'll tip my hat to you. But saying that it COULD QUITE POSSIBLY BE RED, is not as good as being able to look at the sky and see that it is blue.

No doubt this will infuriate you and you will continue to say how embarassed you are for me, and how stupid I am, but Hilston, you believe that the sky is red and that your messiah is a zombie.

Unphased and always your truly,

Prodigal

wickwoman
November 19th, 2004, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by Hilston
What will you accept as "objective proof"? How do you define "objective"? And is your definition of "objective" itself objective? Or is it a subjective definition?

Objective - impartial, fair.

I see your game now. So, if you don't want to play, never mind.

Clete
November 19th, 2004, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by prodigal
Converting to a christian worldview brings us right back to square one, Hilston. You tell me that until I can validate my senses I shouldn't attack christianity. I accepted what you said, I asked you for a way to validate my senses. You came back and said the only way to validate my senses was to convert to a christian worldview, right so far? Hilston, you're arguing in a circle, and I haven't fallen for it.

There's nothing to fall for prodigal; Jim is not setting a trap for you. Stop anticipating and just take the conversation one step at a time. Don't be scared of the truth. If you understand Jim's point (the specific one's he's actually made, not the one's you think he's going to make later) then accept them and move on to the next step. Even an atheist would agree that this must be done in any search for truth whether that truth be philosophical or in a test tube, what cannot be false must be true. Be man enough to admit that much and stop with the knee jerk reactions to conclusions that have not yet been made.

Resting in Him,
Clete

wickwoman
November 19th, 2004, 03:52 PM
Clete:

The problem, is: there is no second step. So if Prodigal accepts Hilston's question reality theory, then he's left with even less than he started with.

Hilston
November 19th, 2004, 04:13 PM
Prodigal writes:
But you still have me convinced of nothing.Then you're a fool. You don't have to convert to Christianity to see that your way of validating your senses and your reason doesn't work. At least you can admit to being convinced of that. If you're not convinced, let's try again. Go ahead and validate your sensory and your reasoning faculties. I bet you can't do it.


Prodigal writes:
Your answer for how to validate my senses was to convert to a biblical worldview. I'm not quoting you verbatim, so if I missed something, please let me know, I'd greatly appreciate it.It was merely a suggestion. If you want to continue wallowing in irrationality and fatuous self-worship, that's your business (for now).


Prodigal writes:
Converting to a christian worldview brings us right back to square one, Hilston. You tell me that until I can validate my senses I shouldn't attack christianity. I accepted what you said, I asked you for a way to validate my senses. You came back and said the only way to validate my senses was to convert to a christian worldview, right so far? Hilston, you're arguing in a circle, and I haven't fallen for it.Did I start with arguing the Christian worldview? No. So where's the circle you accuse me of?


Prodigal writes:
If the only way to validate my senses is to go back to a biblical worldview than you're asking me to believe in that which I don't.No, I'm merely informing you of the only way to validate your senses. You can continue the way you're going if you wish, but you can no longer demand proof of anyone for anything without being a hypocrite.


Prodigal writes:
You're asking the impossible, you're trying to get me to play a game in which you're the only winner, and there is no reasonable outcome except that which YOU desire.This has nothing to do with me. Pretend I don't exist. You're still left with an irrational worldview on which you have no basis to prove, test or validate your own faculties, knowledge or beliefs, and no basis to expect proof or validation from others about their beliefs.


Prodigal writes:
Hilston, I was on the cusp of respecting you, I was on the cusp of taking all of your high class intellectual blatherings seriously. I was excited about learning something new, but as I feared, your words are useless to me.I can't say that I'm surprised. Nearly every atheist or quasi-Christian or anti-Christian I've debated has said the same thing. They get all excited when things start to make sense, but then they're disappointed when they find out that my message is the same as the Bible's. "Repent or perish." It seems the reason you're disappointed is that you got all excited about the seeming "high class intellect" that goes into such a treatment of the issues, only to find out that it's been a biblical treatment you've been subjected to. So of course you're going to lose respect for me once you realize that's what you've been getting from the start. And that's because you have a prejudicial a priori hatred of the message of the Bible. So you realize that you wouldn't even be able to claim: "Look what I've ascertained and established on my own intellectual prowess," because the credit would have to go to God and His Word. You want to remain your own lawmaker and worship yourself. Your auto-idolatry puts you on the broad road with all the other auto-idolatrous gods, Prodigal.


Prodigal writes:
I want nothing more than an admission from christians that they can't prove anything they believe, ...Why should we admit that to you when you can't even justify your standards of proof, let alone your own ability to assess whatever proof is presented? Did you forget that part?


Prodigal writes:
... and you told me that I can't prove anything I believe because blue MAY NOT be blue but it COULD BE red.And you agreed, remember? Didn't you admit "there's no way anything can be proven so long as there's the possibility that our eyes are actually seeing something that isn't there"? Don't be a hypocrite, Prodigal.


Prodigal writes:
That's not good enough, Hilston. The sky IS blue, not red. Everyone knows it. An apple tossed into the air WILL fall, even if I throw it a million times. To say that it MAY NOT fall is not good enough for me. The fact that it always has fallen is enough for me to accurately and certainly predict that it always will. Telling me that there is a possiblilty for it to fly away one day, is not good enough.Fine. Then you simply have a "so-far-so-good" best-guess assumption about reality on the basis of senses and reason that you cannot prove, test or calibrate. But you cannot have any certainty about anything in your experience, and you never will until you submit your thinking to the only One who exhaustively knows everything. And as long as you have no certainty about anything, you have no grounds on which to demand proof about anything from anyone.


Prodigal writes:
Hilston your argument is based on a world view that you cannot prove.I can prove it. Your problem is this: You have no grounds to demand proof without being a hypocrite. You can't even rationally reject my proof without being a hypocrite. Remember what you said? You said that you deny "claims that have no proof to verify their validity." Look in the mirror, Prodigal! You just described your own espoused reality, and on that basis, you must reject and deny your own claims (and you want to worship yourself?!?!?!).


Prodigal writes:
I can predict that what I believe in will happen, and then I can prove it.You have a short memory, Prodigal. I don't deny that you can make predictions and make proofs. My point is that you must be arbitrary in doing so. You must stipulate arbitrary standards that you can't justify. You must use senses that you cannot validate. You must use reasoning faculties you cannot calibrate. I can watch your experiments and agree with you about predictions and watch their outcome and know with certainty that science was done properly. But you have no such certainty. We both watch and experience the same event and come to the same conclusions, and one of us can be certain about what was just witnessed and the other cannot.


Prodigal writes:
You can't do either, and telling me that the only way to validate my senses is to convert to your narrow minded idea of reality is not good enough for me.I predicted that, and I can prove it happened.


Prodigal writes:
I don't have to validate anything, I just need to know that I believe in myself and reality.That's called self-delusion. Crazy people talk like that, Prodigal. They're always the first ones to tell you that they're not crazy.


Prodigal writes:
I can predict reality, and then I can test it, and then I have proof.Without certainty about predication and logic (which you admit you cannot validate) and without certainty about your sensory faculties (which you admit you cannot validate), you have no certainty about your proof of anything.


Prodigal writes:
If one day the sky turns out to be red than I'll tip my hat to you.You've completely missed the point. It doesn't have to turn red for you own admission to be true. Remember when you recognized this?: "[T]here's no way anything can be proven so long as there's the possibility that our eyes are actually seeing something that isn't there."


Prodigal writes:
But saying that it COULD QUITE POSSIBLY BE RED, is not as good as being able to look at the sky and see that it is blue.Seeing it with what? Your eyes, whose verity you cannot validate? Your visual cortex, whose proper function you cannot validate?


Prodigal writes:
No doubt this will infuriate you and you will continue to say how embarassed you are for me, and how stupid I am, but Hilston, you believe that the sky is red and that your messiah is a zombie.I admit I had hope for you. Maybe not in "converting" you, but at least in your acknowledging the epistemological dilemma that emerges when one is willing to ask the tough philosophical questions. It doesn't infuriate me. I predicted this would happen. Like most people, when a little bit of light seeped into the crack, it scared you. You're not the first one I seen this happen to, you won't be the last.


Prodigal writes:
Unphased and always your truly, ...Thanks for the dialogue. By the way, I think "unfazed" is the word you're looking for, and I don't think it's really true. I think you were quite seriously fazed, if at least for a moment. But human self-delusion is rather powerful thing. So powerful that it send scores of people to hell every day.

Clete
November 19th, 2004, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman

Clete:

The problem, is: there is no second step. So if Prodigal accepts Hilston's question reality theory, then he's left with even less than he started with.

Sure there is.
prodigal has already admitted that his world view is in as a bad a position as he is claiming that Christianity is in, that's step one.
There is more than one possible step two but one obvious possible direction would be to go into why a Biblical world view provides the logically coherent foundation that prodigal (and yours) does not. It is obvious that it is Jim's position that the Biblical world view is the only logically viable one to hold but he hasn't gone into WHY this is so (at least not that I have seen, I admit I haven't read every post so I may have missed something).

Resting in Him,
Clete

Hilston
November 19th, 2004, 04:25 PM
wickwoman previously wrote:
As for me knowing that God will "commit both my body and soul to hell," I know no such thing. As a matter of fact I vehemently deny it. And ask you for objective proof thereof.

Hilston asked:
What will you accept as "objective proof"? How do you define "objective"? And is your definition of "objective" itself objective? Or is it a subjective definition?


wickwoman writes:
Objective - impartial, fair.Is that definition objective?


wickwoman previously wrote:
I see your game now. So, if you don't want to play, never mind.My game? I didn't make the rules, ww. If you don't like the rules, stipulate your own, but be prepared to justify them.

What will you accept as objective proof? That's a valid question. If you don't want to play, nevermind. No one's stopping you from taking your ball and whiffle bat and going home.

gabriel
November 19th, 2004, 06:54 PM
.... well, at least mr. hillston's attempt at logic caused gabriel to laugh aloud........hmmm, perhaps that was not actually a laugh that escaped from gabriel's mouth. maybe it was really a .....a.....scream gabriel heard - oh wait, then again maybe gabriel's ears need calibrating. hmmm, what is real after all? thoughts of solipsism fill gabriel's head.... oh wait, maybe gabriel does not have a head (puts hands on object atop neck)..... feels like a head - gasp, but how can gabriel trust her fingertips .....maybe they need validating. (runs to peer in mirror) hmmm, looks like a head - ooops, how can she trust her eyes....and, and maybe it is not a mirror after all. maybe it's a .....a........truck. yeah! it could be a truck .....wait, wait, let's objectively define truck....................ad nauseum...............

Hilston
November 19th, 2004, 07:05 PM
Gabriel writes about Gabriel:
.... well, at least mr. hillston's attempt at logic caused gabriel to laugh aloud........hmmm, perhaps that was not actually a laugh that escaped from gabriel's mouth.Hilston wonders what Gabriel thinks is funny. Hilston likes to laugh. Hilston asks to be let in on the humor so Hilston can have a good laugh, too.

Lighthouse
November 19th, 2004, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

"And when Muslims are confronted with who the Bible says Christ is, they believe the Quran to be false."

Maybe I'm picking nits here, but you certainly gave the impression that all Muslims confronted with the Bible suddenly drop their devotion to Allah. In any event, I'll go back to my original response: so what? Even if some Muslims convert to Christianity the opposite can and does happen.
You obviously didn't read my post, previous to the one in which I posted the quote you used.

Because somebody has to say it.
Zakath-
They were never Christians.:p

Lighthouse
November 19th, 2004, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by prodigal

Lighthouse,

(It's not His fault you can't see them. But no one ever said you couldn't use them. It just appears to me that you wouldn't want to use them.)

And why should I? Anything I have ever received has been from the hand of either myself or someone I know, god has never given me anything.
That's just sad that you believe that. Who gave you your breath, by the way?


(You're missing everything. You refuse to open your eyes, to see what is there. And my pointing it out to you is going to do nothing, because you haven't seen it yet. Why should I believe that you'll see it when I point it out? All you'd do is refute it.)

I've missed nothing, LH. There's nothing to miss. What the heck do you mean by opening my eyes? And if pointing it out to me won't do a lick of good, than what good is evangelism in the first place? If it is nothing that can be pointed out, than what good is "it"? And if the only one who can reveal it to me is god, than what good is he if he hasn't?
You've missed it all, because you refuse to see it for what it is. It's staring you in the face, and you claim it's something other than what it is. Pointing it out won't do any good, because you can already see it. You just deny it for what it is. And my pointing to ti is just going to cause you to do more of the same. And God has revelaed it to you. You deny that He has. Do you expect Him to smack you upside the head? Do you expect anything from Him?


(You're an arrogant little twit who thinks God owes Him something. God doesn't owe you anything.)

You're right, god doesn't owe me anything. You're wrong that I think it does though. The only person who owes me anything is me, that's why I worship myself.
You do too think that. You expect somethign from Him, and think that He at least owes you proof of His existence. He doesn't. So stop whining about it. He's given you more than you will ever deserve, and you don't want it. Do you expect Him to force it on you?


(No. I have a god who leads me into all truth. I know Him. I've met Him.)

By your own admission you haven't heard god speak, you haven't seen god. Your mind is playing tricks on you. What's more feasible, the idea that an invisible deity has revealed itself to you, or that your imagination has gotten the better of you?
My imagination isn't that good.:rolleyes:

And just because my eyes have not seen, and my ears have not heard...that doesn't mean my soul has not been broken open at His calling.


(And I don't have to prove anything to you, either. And neither does God.)

I know you don't have anything to prove to me, that's the point.
I never said I didn't have anything to prove. I said I don't have to prove anything. There's a difference.


(You said that if what I believe was as true as I say it is, then everyone would believe it. Yet, not everyone believes what you believe. So, based on your own logic, what you believe must not be as true as you say it is. Which is it, prodigal? Or are you going to continue to be a hypocrite?)

I agree, not everyone believes in me. I don't tell them that they should. I do have the proof that I'm worth believing in, I'm young, strong, smart, handsome, full of potential. My family and friends believe in me because they see the fruit of my labor. I don't blame my success on god, I, and my fellow believers blame it all on me.
You forgot "conceited.":rolleyes:


Unphased and always your truly,

Prodigal
I don't believe you. You must not be right.:dizzy:

One Eyed Jack
November 19th, 2004, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman

Thanks, however, who says I fell on "the stone."

You haven't fallen on the stone, and that's the problem.


And, second, the more accurate translation is:

Luke 20:18 (NIV)
18Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."

You might want to read about the translation methods they used for the NIV. Then you'll know why I'm laughing at you right now. :chuckle:

brother Willi
November 19th, 2004, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

You might want to read about the translation methods they used for the NIV. Then you'll know why I'm laughing at you right now. :chuckle: care to elaborate that .?

One Eyed Jack
November 19th, 2004, 10:18 PM
I quoted from the KJV, which is a literal translation, and wickwoman quoted from the NIV, which is a dynamic equivalent translation. Basically, wickwoman proved herself wrong -- that's why I was laughing.

For more info, see this site (http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Bible/BibleType.htm).

gabriel
November 19th, 2004, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

Hilston wonders what Gabriel thinks is funny. Hilston likes to laugh. Hilston asks to be let in on the humor so Hilston can have a good laugh, too.

.... logic that twists back upon itself like a pretzel amuses gabriel. why does hilston like to laugh?

Lighthouse
November 19th, 2004, 10:49 PM
"Jimmy likes Elaine.":freak:

Talib
November 20th, 2004, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by gabriel.... well, at least mr. hillston's attempt at logic caused gabriel to laugh aloud........hmmm, perhaps that was not actually a laugh that escaped from gabriel's mouth. maybe it was really a .....a.....scream gabriel heard - oh wait, then again maybe gabriel's ears need calibrating. hmmm, what is real after all? thoughts of solipsism fill gabriel's head.... oh wait, maybe gabriel does not have a head (puts hands on object atop neck)..... feels like a head - gasp, but how can gabriel trust her fingertips .....maybe they need validating. (runs to peer in mirror) hmmm, looks like a head - ooops, how can she trust her eyes....and, and maybe it is not a mirror after all. maybe it's a .....a........truck. yeah! it could be a truck .....wait, wait, let's objectively define truck....................ad nauseum............... It was about time for some comic relief. :thumb:

Hilston:


originally posted by Hilston... Premise A: My own efforts to validate my cherished assumptions fail.

That doesn't seem to be a very concise premise. Is your "premise A" a way of saying that you accept that you can't trust your senses?? Because, if you don't trust your senses, you are completely at a loss to claim that there is indeed an ancient book or an invisible God or much of anything, for that matter. If you believe your senses are capable of fooling you, you have no way to verify that the ancient book is a book and old, at that, or whether it is even really anything at all. For example, in premise B, you can't simple state that there is an ancient book, you would have to state that you think you may be perceiving something that may entirely be fooling your senses into interpretting it as an old book, while accepting that it may not even exist at all -- since you have no way of validating your senses. Try including that as a part of premise B and see how your argument proceeds from there. :chuckle:

If I've misconstrued what you've meant by premise A, please clarify what you mean by "cherished assumptions".

Hilston
November 20th, 2004, 02:14 AM
Combined reply to Gabriel and Talib:


Gabriel writes:
.... logic that twists back upon itself like a pretzel amuses gabriel.Hilston asks Gabriel to elaborate. Hilston would like to see a specific example of what amuses Gabriel.


Gabriel writes:
why does hilston like to laugh?The Bible tells Hilston that "a merry heart does good like a medicine:"

Hilston previously posted concerning wickwoman's and prodigal's cherished assumptions and speaking in their behalf:
... Premise A: My own efforts to validate my cherished assumptions fail.


Talib writes:
That doesn't seem to be a very concise premise. Is your "premise A" a way of saying that you accept that you can't trust your senses??No, I was stating that in behalf of wickwoman and Prodigal. The latter admitted this.


Talib writes:
Because, if you don't trust your senses, you are completely at a loss to claim that there is indeed an ancient book or an invisible God or much of anything, for that matter.Talib, you need to either (a) catch up to the discussion by going back and reading what preceded these recent posts, or (b) gird your loins for the public thrashing you will receive if you persist to mischaracterize the participants of this discussion.


Talib writes:
For example, in premise B, you can't simple state that there is an ancient book, you would have to state that you think you may be perceiving something that may entirely be fooling your senses into interpretting it as an old book, while accepting that it may not even exist at all -- since you have no way of validating your senses. Try including that as a part of premise B and see how your argument proceeds from there.Thanks for the epistemology lesson, David Hume. Please go back and read my posts before you waste your time and mine and in the process make an abject fool of yourself.

While we're at it, let's hear your method of validating your senses.


Talib writes:
If I've misconstrued what you've meant by premise A, please clarify what you mean by "cherished assumptions". What you've misconstrued is that "premise A" belongs to me. It doesn't. I happen to believe that my senses and reasoning faculties are generally reliable, and I can validate that belief. Wickwoman and Prodigal are the ones who are up "Premise 'A' Creek" without a proverbial paddle. But you should have already known that to be my thesis before you even posted.
:freak:

Turbo
November 20th, 2004, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

"Jimmy likes Elaine.":freak: :chuckle:

brother Willi
November 20th, 2004, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

I quoted from the KJV, which is a literal translation, and wickwoman quoted from the NIV, which is a dynamic equivalent translation. Basically, wickwoman proved herself wrong -- that's why I was laughing.

For more info, see this site (http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Bible/BibleType.htm). interesting

wickwoman
November 20th, 2004, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Hilston

Hilston asked:
What will you accept as "objective proof"? How do you define "objective"? And is your definition of "objective" itself objective? Or is it a subjective definition?

Is that definition objective?

My game? I didn't make the rules, ww. If you don't like the rules, stipulate your own, but be prepared to justify them.

What will you accept as objective proof? That's a valid question. If you don't want to play, nevermind. No one's stopping you from taking your ball and whiffle bat and going home.

Dear Hilston:

When I say "objective," you can put your own meaning and provide me with what you believe is objective proof. Otherwise, you can use the dictionary just as I did above.

The game is this Hilston: You tell prodigal he can't trust his own judgment and/or bodily senses. Fine then. By your own argument, he can't trust your judgment either. As a matter of fact, the argument you present tells him he can't trust the argument because you, a human being, have presented it to him.

And, he can't trust the Bible, because, if he used his own senses to read the Bible and his own judgment to interpret it, he would be right back where he started. Guess what, that's the only way he will be able to comprehend the Bible, by using his own eyes to see it and using his own brain to comprehend it.

This is the quandary of your "logic." If you doubt your human ability to understand, then you've basically obliviated the whole God concept, as it is a concept contrived by human beings. Aliens did not come down and hand us this idea of God. Human beings have been considering God since humans could consider. So, if we cannot use human reasoning and abilities to comprehend him, then we should all just throw in the towel about God and continue bumbling and stumbling around like a bunch of deaf, dumb and blind people.

How about this idea: God is powerful enough to reveal himself/herself in a way that Prodigal can understand. This is what I was suggesting to Prodigal when I suggested he enjoy a sunset once in a while. The way to discover God is inside him. He will never accept your God. He needs to discover God on his own. Why don't you trust that God is powerful enough to show Prodigal that he/she exists in a way the he can understand? I do.

gabriel
November 20th, 2004, 09:22 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hilston

Hilston asks Gabriel to elaborate. Hilston would like to see a specific example of what amuses Gabriel.

(g) gabriel is a visual person: see the pretzel. see the twists and turns of the pretzel. that is the path hilston's logic follows.

The Bible tells Hilston that "a merry heart does good like a medicine:"

(g) oh yes, the "old book". the one in which if anyone questions validity of hilston suggests said person does not have proper sense-calibration.

Talib, you need to either (a) catch up to the discussion by going back and reading what preceded these recent posts, or (b) gird your loins for the public thrashing you will receive if you persist to mischaracterize the participants of this discussion.

(g) whoa.......gabriel is visualizing again (sees talib with loins girded)
(my apologies to talib)

wickwoman
November 20th, 2004, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by gabriel

.... well, at least mr. hillston's attempt at logic caused gabriel to laugh aloud........hmmm, perhaps that was not actually a laugh that escaped from gabriel's mouth. maybe it was really a .....a.....scream gabriel heard - oh wait, then again maybe gabriel's ears need calibrating. hmmm, what is real after all? thoughts of solipsism fill gabriel's head.... oh wait, maybe gabriel does not have a head (puts hands on object atop neck)..... feels like a head - gasp, but how can gabriel trust her fingertips .....maybe they need validating. (runs to peer in mirror) hmmm, looks like a head - ooops, how can she trust her eyes....and, and maybe it is not a mirror after all. maybe it's a .....a........truck. yeah! it could be a truck .....wait, wait, let's objectively define truck....................ad nauseum............... :chuckle:

wickwoman
November 20th, 2004, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

I quoted from the KJV, which is a literal translation, and wickwoman quoted from the NIV, which is a dynamic equivalent translation. Basically, wickwoman proved herself wrong -- that's why I was laughing.

For more info, see this site (http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Bible/BibleType.htm).

Jack, I'm not here to debate translations. My understanding is that the NIV is more accurate than KJV. It's not a new concept that I'm just making up. Sure you can dig up any theory on the KJV you want to dig up.

Besides the fact that you know I don't take the Bible literally, nor do I even believe that all the Bible is God inspired. When presented with a scripture that appeared to "damn" me (which was presented I might add in a rather angry, rude and disagreeable manner) I merely responded with a scripture that appears to ellaborate on the whole "broken" concept. Sometimes I have to speak a language that the person I'm conversing with understands.

One Eyed Jack
November 20th, 2004, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by wickwoman

Jack, I'm not here to debate translations. My understanding is that the NIV is more accurate than KJV. It's not a new concept that I'm just making up. Sure you can dig up any theory on the KJV you want to dig up.

I don't have to dig up any theories. We're dealing with known facts here. You should have done your research before you tried to bandy semantics.


Besides the fact that you know I don't take the Bible literally, nor do I even believe that all the Bible is God inspired.

Yeah, I know that. So?


When presented with a scripture that appeared to "damn" me (which was presented I might add in a rather angry, rude and disagreeable manner)

What was so angry, rude, and disagreeable about the manner in which it was presented? When you ask your husband to do something, and he says "no problem," do you accuse him of being angry, rude, and disagreeable?


I merely responded with a scripture that appears to ellaborate on the whole "broken" concept.

You responded with the very same Scripture that had just been presented to you (Luke 20:18). You weren't trying to elaborate on the whole 'broken' concept." You were trying to convince everybody that the verses Turbo and I had posted came from inaccurate translations.


Sometimes I have to speak a language that the person I'm conversing with understands.

Why not everytime instead of just sometimes?

Hilston
November 20th, 2004, 10:40 AM
Wickwoman writes:
When I say "objective," you can put your own meaning and provide me with what you believe is objective proof.You want "fair" and "impartial" proof? What kind of proof would that be? Give me an example. If I'm going to try to meet your requirements, I need to know what they mean, and on what grounds you stipulate said requirements. To me, that's objective. That's fair. That's impartial, according to my view of the terms. If you share that view, then let's hear your response.


Wickwoman writes:
The game is this Hilston: You tell prodigal he can't trust his own judgment and/or bodily senses.To be more precise, I told him that he has no grounds on which to trust them. I believe he can, and I know why. He admits that he knows neither how, nor why, and is thus left with a blind faith commitment to their verity. I suspect you're in the same sinking boat.


Wickwoman writes:
Fine then. By your own argument, he can't trust your judgment either.On the contrary, I have sufficient grounds on which to trust my senses and reasoning.


Wickwoman writes:
As a matter of fact, the argument you present tells him he can't trust the argument because you, a human being, have presented it to him.That's exactly right. So he's in heap-big trouble when it comes to his epistemology, isn't he?


Wickwoman writes:
And, he can't trust the Bible, because, if he used his own senses to read the Bible and his own judgment to interpret it, he would be right back where he started.Of course. If he has no grounds on which to trust his senses or his reason, then anything he does employing those faculties is suspect. But I didn't say he can't trust them; I only said that he has no grounds on which to trust them; which means he has a blind faith, just as you do.


Wickwoman writes:
Guess what, that's the only way he will be able to comprehend the Bible, by using his own eyes to see it and using his own brain to comprehend it.Of course, and I'm telling him, and you, that your eyes and brain are sufficiently trustworthy to read, comprehend and acknowledge the message of the Bible. I have grounds on which to say this; you and Prodigal do not.


Wickwoman writes:
This is the quandary of your "logic."On the contrary, it's your quandary, not mine. I have no doubt about this matter. But if you are willing to be consistent, you must admit doubt in your worldview.


Wickwoman writes:
If you doubt your human ability to understand, then you've basically obliviated the whole God concept, as it is a concept contrived by human beings.I don't doubt my ability because I have a foundation on which to base it (a pou sto, in Archimedian parlance). You and prodigal do not.


Wickwoman writes:
Aliens did not come down and hand us this idea of God. Human beings have been considering God since humans could consider.Of course, and that is because humans have rational and sensory faculties that work. That doesn't mean everyone is able to justifiably validate those faculties, which is what I'm trying to communicate to you. If I didn't think you could understand and read what I'm saying, I wouldn't be wasting my time. But I do believe you can, and I believe that based on a solid epistemological footing, which you don't have.


Wickwoman writes:
So, if we cannot use human reasoning and abilities to comprehend him, then we should all just throw in the towel about God and continue bumbling and stumbling around like a bunch of deaf, dumb and blind people.If you were consistent with your own premises and presuppositions, that's exactly what you'd do. But that's the problem with irrational and godless worldviews: They cannot be consistent and function according to their own espoused tenets.


Wickwoman writes:
How about this idea: God is powerful enough to reveal himself/herself in a way that Prodigal can understand.He is indeed. And Prodigal is without excuse. That's what the scripture says:

"... [T] hat which may be known of God is revealed in them; for God has shown it to them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."

This is a description of you and prodigal. "Vain in their imaginations" and "foolish heart was darkened" is the 17th-century way of saying "emataiothesan en tois dialogismois auton kai eskotisthe 'e asunetos auton kardia," which means the unbeliever becomes empty in his/her reasoning faculties and his/her irrational thinking results in a darkening of his/her heart. This is what is happening to you and prodigal.


Wickwoman writes:
This is what I was suggesting to Prodigal when I suggested he enjoy a sunset once in a while. The way to discover God is inside him.Who says?


Wickwoman writes:
He will never accept your God. He needs to discover God on his own. Why don't you trust that God is powerful enough to show Prodigal that he/she exists in a way the he can understand? I do.I do, too; in fact the Bible says God already has sufficiently shown you and Prodigal that he/she exists in a way that you both can understand. But you suppress that knowledge in sinful unrighteousness. It's my job to show that you that you can't have God on your own terms. That's why Prodigal got scared when the light shot through. He started to like what he was hearing, but then realized that he couldn't have God on any terms but God's. And Prodigal doesn't like that. Neither do you.

Pr 16:25 There is a way that seems right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Hilston
November 20th, 2004, 10:56 AM
Gabriel writes concerning Gabriel:
Hilston asks Gabriel to elaborate. Hilston would like to see a specific example of what amuses Gabriel.

(g) gabriel is a visual person:Hilston is amused and curious about why Gabriel is a visual person. Hilston wants to know if and how Gabriel is sure that Gabriel's visual faculties comport with reality, or is Gabriel not concerned about whether or not this is the case?


Gabriel writes concerning Gabriel:
... see the pretzel. see the twists and turns of the pretzel. that is the path hilston's logic follows.As Hilston indicated earlier, Hilston is interested in seeing the twists and turns of pretzel, too. Hilston requests a specific example regarding his logic that fits Gabriel's visualization.


Gabriel writes concerning Gabriel:
(g) oh yes, the "old book". the one in which if anyone questions validity of hilston suggests said person does not have proper sense-calibration.Hilston urges Gabriel to think a little more carefully, because this does not represent Hilston's thesis. Hilston does not disallow questions based on a deficit of sense-calibration, but rather on the questioner's own stipulated requirements. The questioner demands a certain kind of proof for Hilston's view, yet the questioner does not apply the same rules to questioner's own method of evaluation. Hilston finds hypocrisy repugnant.

prodigal
November 20th, 2004, 11:22 AM
Hilston,

(No, I'm merely informing you of the only way to validate your senses.)

The only way of validating my senses is to play your game. You're claiming victory before the battle has been fought. I don't think your exhortation for the validation of my senses is necessary. I think it's a clever tool to make an argument end with, you know, asking someone to do something that you know they won't but telling them that it's necessary. Nice trick, Hilston, but maybe you aren't as smart as I thought you were.

(You're still left with an irrational worldview on which you have no basis to prove, test or validate your own faculties, knowledge or beliefs, and no basis to expect proof or validation from others about their beliefs.)

Like I said above, I don't have to validate anything. Your sensory validation trick is almost as good as Clete's biblical worldview. You can talk about your secret weapons all day long, but in the end all you have are words and empty ideas.

(Why should we admit that to you when you can't even justify your standards of proof, let alone your own ability to assess whatever proof is presented? Did you forget that part?)

You're just trying to take the attention off of yourselves, Hilston. Trying to discredit my senses is just a way for you and other christians to claim the pot without showing your cards.

(And you agreed, remember? Didn't you admit "there's no way anything can be proven so long as there's the possibility that our eyes are actually seeing something that isn't there"? Don't be a hypocrite, Prodigal.)

Actually I was just asking you a question when I said that, I admitted to nothing.

(But you cannot have any certainty about anything in your experience, and you never will until you submit your thinking to the only One who exhaustively knows everything)

I do have certainty. And I don't have to validate anything. Call me a hypocrite, call me whatever you want but the burden of proof is on you, Hilston, and everyone else who claims to worship the one who "exhaustively knows everything".

(I can prove it.)

Than do it! That's all I'm asking for.

(I don't deny that you can make predictions and make proofs. My point is that you must be arbitrary in doing so.)

Not necessarily.

(That's called self-delusion. Crazy people talk like that, Prodigal. They're always the first ones to tell you that they're not crazy)

You're the one who worships a zombie messiah, believes in demons, believes in hell, believes in an ancient book, etc. You're calling me crazy?

(Without certainty about predication and logic (which you admit you cannot validate) and without certainty about your sensory faculties (which you admit you cannot validate), you have no certainty about your proof of anything.)

I do have certainty. The quest to validate one's senses is a quest that cannot be resolved, especially if resolution means bowing to an invisible deity, the only evidence for which rests in a 2,000 year old book.

(You've completely missed the point. It doesn't have to turn red for you own admission to be true. Remember when you recognized this?: "[T]here's no way anything can be proven so long as there's the possibility that our eyes are actually seeing something that isn't there.")

Once again, you're taking my quotes out of context. That was not an admission of anything, it was me clarifying your point.

(Seeing it with what? Your eyes, whose verity you cannot validate? Your visual cortex, whose proper function you cannot validate?)

Listen, just because you can't prove what you believe and I can doesn't mean you have to get all bitter and try to discredit my eye sight. It's just dandy, thank you, 20/20 in point of fact. My eye sight is just fine, Hilston, the burden of proof is on you.

(I admit I had hope for you. Maybe not in "converting" you, but at least in your acknowledging the epistemological dilemma that emerges when one is willing to ask the tough philosophical questions)

You've created the dilemma, Hilston. When confronted, when cornered, when the burden of proof is thrown so heavily in the face of your kind you get hostile and you create "epistemological dilemmas". If you can create enough gridlock, if you can create enough dilemmas, than the attention comes off of you and onto problems you've created that can't be solved. Like I said, it's a nice trick, but I've fallen for nothing.

(But human self-delusion is rather powerful thing. So powerful that it send scores of people to hell every day.)

I can't believe you mentioned human self-delusion AND hell in the same thought. Are you kidding me? You wanna talk about human self-delusion? You believe that I'm going to die and go to a fiery pit and burn for the rest of eternity, Hilston, what were you saying about human self-delusion?

Clete,

(prodigal has already admitted that his world view is in as a bad a position as he is claiming that Christianity is in, that's step one.)

I admitted nothing to that effect. Although my memory isn't quite what it used to be. Oh, and Clete, I thought you were letting Hilston fight your battles for you?

Lighthouse,

(That's just sad that you believe that. Who gave you your breath, by the way?)

My parents. Don't you know where babies come from LH?

(You've missed it all, because you refuse to see it for what it is. It's staring you in the face, and you claim it's something other than what it is)

If it were so pure and beautiful in it's truth and visibility, how is it that I can't see it? Must not be as grand as you think it is.

(You do too think that. You expect somethign from Him, and think that He at least owes you proof of His existence.)

AHA!!!!!!!!! YOU CAN READ MINDS!!!!!!! I don't think god owes me anything, if I thought that I'd still believe in it. I think I owes me something, and I think I can make good on that debt to myself. That's I believe in myself.

At least I can prove that I exist.

Oh, Hilston, I think you're right about "unfazed". I wasn't sure when I wrote it, but I figured it didn't really matter that much how I spelled it, just as long as everyone understood what I meant. You are right, I was a little shaken, but not stirred.

I remain, as always, unfazed.


Prodigal

gabriel
November 20th, 2004, 12:15 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hilston

Hilston is amused and curious about why Gabriel is a visual person. Hilston wants to know if and how Gabriel is sure that Gabriel's visual faculties comport with reality, or is Gabriel not concerned about whether or not this is the case?

As Hilston indicated earlier, Hilston is interested in seeing the twists and turns of pretzel, too. Hilston requests a specific example regarding his logic that fits Gabriel's visualization.

(g) gabriel does not know why gabriel is a visual person.....
hilston can not see pretzel...? ohh, gabriel is sorry hilston is not a visual person..... the specific example would be every hilston post on this thread.

Hilston urges Gabriel to think a little more carefully, because this does not represent Hilston's thesis.

(g) gabriels thanks hilston for the urgement... however, gabriel can just refer back to christianlogicdotcom to find canned representation of hilston's thesis..

Hilston
November 20th, 2004, 01:17 PM
Prodigal writes:
The only way of validating my senses is to play your game.Do you hear yourself? To say in one moment "The only way of validating my senses ..." and then to say in the next moment "... is to play your game" is quite ridiculous, isn't it? I mean, you take one of the most fundamental assumptions of human experience and admit you have no validation, then turn right around and say that validating them is a "game." Another horse led to water.


Prodigal writes:
You're claiming victory before the battle has been fought.You're right. But it's not because of my unwillingness to fight it. It's because you have no weapons, Prodigal.


Prodigal writes:
I don't think your exhortation for the validation of my senses is necessary. I think it's a clever tool to make an argument end with, you know, asking someone to do something that you know they won't but telling them that it's necessary. Nice trick, Hilston, but maybe you aren't as smart as I thought you were.It has nothing to do with smarts, Prodigal, but of logical necessity. Since you've all but admitted to having an irrational worldview, such terms as "argument" and "clever" really shouldn't matter to you, let alone erroneously calling me "smart." I'm not that smart. Ask my wife. Ask my boss.

Hilston wrote:
You're still left with an irrational worldview on which you have no basis to prove, test or validate your own faculties, knowledge or beliefs, and no basis to expect proof or validation from others about their beliefs.


Prodigal writes:
Like I said above, I don't have to validate anything.Then neither do I. Stop being a hypocrite by demanding that other people validate their claims. Stop boasting about how you deny "claims that have no proof to verify their validity." Those were your words, remember?


Prodigal writes:
Your sensory validation trick ...What would you have said if I called your challenge at "trick" when you demanded "proof to verify [the] validity" of my claims? It's not a "trick" Prodigal. It is fundamental, which you yourself recognized in your initial challenge. Now you conveniently call it a "trick."


Prodigal writes:
You can talk about your secret weapons all day long, but in the end all you have are words and empty ideas.Nice trick, Prodigal, calling you own demand for "proof to verify their validity" empty ideas.


Prodigal writes:
You're just trying to take the attention off of yourselves, Hilston. Trying to discredit my senses is just a way for you and other christians to claim the pot without showing your cards.I've shown you my cards. It's not that complicated. Explain what you don't understand I'll elaborate.

Hilston wrote:
And you agreed, remember? Didn't you admit "there's no way anything can be proven so long as there's the possibility that our eyes are actually seeing something that isn't there"? Don't be a hypocrite, Prodigal.


Prodigal writes:
Actually I was just asking you a question when I said that, I admitted to nothing.OK, fine. What was this then?: "The only way of validating my senses is to play your game." Were you just asking a question when you said that?


Prodigal writes:
I do have certainty.And you're not crazy either, are you?


Prodigal writes:
And I don't have to validate anything.Then neither do I. You need to remove the following phrase and its cognates from your thinking: "I deny outrageous claims that have no proof to verify their validity."


Prodigal writes:
Call me a hypocrite, call me whatever you want but the burden of proof is on you, Hilston, ...The burden of proof is on everyone, Prodigal. Anyone who makes a claim must prove it. I've proven that you cannot validate your senses or reasoning. You've admitted as much.


Prodigal writes:
... and everyone else who claims to worship the one who "exhaustively knows everything".I only need to know three things:
(a) What do you want me to prove?
(b) What would consider to be sufficient proof?
(c) How do you validate your stipulated requirement in (b) above?

Hilston wrote:
I don't deny that you can make predictions and make proofs. My point is that you must be arbitrary in doing so.


Prodigal writes:
Not necessarily.Then show me how you can make predictions and proofs without being arbitrary. If you can't, then you need to shut. up.

Hilston wrote:
That's called self-delusion. Crazy people talk like that, Prodigal. They're always the first ones to tell you that they're not crazy


Prodigal writes:
... You're calling me crazy?I'm not calling you crazy. I'm calling you self-deluded. You're the one who admitted that you cannot validate your senses and claim that you don't have to. :kookoo:

Hilston wrote:
Without certainty about predication and logic (which you admit you cannot validate) and without certainty about your sensory faculties (which you admit you cannot validate), you have no certainty about your proof of anything.


Prodigal writes:
I do have certainty.And you're not self-deluded either, right?


Prodigal writes:
The quest to validate one's senses is a quest that cannot be resolved, especially if resolution means bowing to an invisible deity, the only evidence for which rests in a 2,000 year old book.Notice the form of Prodigal's reasoning here:

Premise A: Validation of X depends on Y.
Premise B: I don't like Y.
Conclusion: Validation of X cannot be resolved.

Hilston wrote:
You've completely missed the point. It doesn't have to turn red for you own admission to be true. Remember when you recognized this?: "[T]here's no way anything can be proven so long as there's the possibility that our eyes are actually seeing something that isn't there."


Prodigal writes:
Once again, you're taking my quotes out of context. That was not an admission of anything, it was me clarifying your point.Fine. Then what is this if not an admission?: "The only way of validating my senses is to play your game."

Hilston wrote: Seeing it with what? Your eyes, whose verity you cannot validate? Your visual cortex, whose proper function you cannot validate?


Prodigal writes:
Listen, just because you can't prove what you believe and I can doesn't mean you have to get all bitter and try to discredit my eye sight.Notice Prodigal's form of reasoning:

Premise A: I can't validate my senses unless I play Hilston's game
Premise B: I don't like Hilston's game.
Conclusion: Hilston is bitter.


Prodigal writes:
You've created the dilemma, Hilston. When confronted, when cornered, when the burden of proof is thrown so heavily in the face of your kind you get hostile and you create "epistemological dilemmas".On the contrary, Prodigal, YOU started this by demanding proof and verification to validate claims. Remember? I've simply used your own stipulations on you. And now you don't like it. You tacitly claim to have the ability to evaluate "proof and verification." So I challenged your claim using your own requirements. The burden of proof was thrown heavily in YOUR face, Prodigal. Furthermore, I recognize that no one likes to be shown they're wrong. I also understand that whenever someone is shown to be wrong, the messenger is always viewed as hostile, bitter, and a big meanie. So it comes as no surprise that you respond this way. If anything, if proves that you're more than "fazed." You've been shaken and stirred, Prodigal, and now everyone sees it.

NavyDude
November 20th, 2004, 01:30 PM
Hilstonó

I would like to disagree with you on a few points, though I fear in jumping into the middle of a parlay I might be opening myself up to something already covered. This argument seems to be working on the premise that and understanding of God is somehow necessary to understand anything, or that not believing in Him is enough to satisfy one's existance, yes?

In this last post you made a couple of If X, then Y statements, wherein you juxtaposed your own interpretations of what it is that you believe prodigal meant. That's fallacious arguing as I think you're intelligent enough to know. In particular: X is derived from Y/ I don't like Y/ Thus X cannot be resolved. In any argument of religion, it is only in the theistic individual's worldview that X is derived from Y. Thus if one is to have an objective argument (as much as anything can be called objective in a world that is entirely subjective), one must dismiss the premise one is attempting to prove, and not use it in arguing. You can't use a premise to prove itself.

Granite
November 20th, 2004, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

You obviously didn't read my post, previous to the one in which I posted the quote you used.

Because somebody has to say it.
Zakath-
They were never Christians.:p

...which is known, of course, as the No True Scotsman fallacy (no expecting you to take time to look that up). It's an escape hatch, Brandon; a phony way of deflecting attention.

Hilston
November 20th, 2004, 02:26 PM
NavyDude writes:
This argument seems to be working on the premise that an understanding of God is somehow necessary to understand anything, or that not believing in Him is enough to satisfy one's existance, yes?No. Atheists and anti-Christians understand things. I don't deny that. Neither does the Bible. What I (and the Bible) deny them is the ability to account for what they understand, and the means by which they understand.


NavyDude writes:
In this last post you made a couple of If X, then Y statements, wherein you juxtaposed your own interpretations of what it is that you believe prodigal meant. That's fallacious arguing as I think you're intelligent enough to know. In particular: X is derived from Y/ I don't like Y/ Thus X cannot be resolved.No, you're not following the point. Remember that Prodigal said the following: "The only way of validating my senses is to play your game. "

Prodigal later complained:
"The quest to validate one's senses is a quest that cannot be resolved, especially if resolution means bowing to an invisible deity, the only evidence for which rests in a 2,000 year old book." [Emphases added by Hilston]

So here is what I wrote:

Premise A: Validation of X depends on Y [Which Prodigal admits; this is not merely my own interpretation]
Premise B: [Prodigal] do[es]n't like Y. [No dispute on this point, right?]
Prodigal's conclusion: Validation of X cannot be resolved.


NavyDude writes:
In any argument of religion, it is only in the theistic individual's worldview that X is derived from Y.On the contrary, Prodigal admitted this. I was not putting words in his mouth. Here again is what he said: "The only way of validating my senses is to play your game." In other words, one does not have to be a "theist" to acknowledge that the validation of one's senses depends on the existence of the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible. His own words and actions prove this to you, NavyDude. That's why Prodigal was so determined to dismiss the need for validation, because he refuses to surrender to the God of the Bible. And by so doing, he admits that he recognizes that he cannot have one without the other. He doesn't want the God of the Bible, so he's willing to sacrifice his rationality in order to dismiss Him.


NavyDude writes:
Thus if one is to have an objective argument (as much as anything can be called objective in a world that is entirely subjective), ...NavyDude, is that statement entirely subjective, or objectively true?


NavyDude writes:
... one must dismiss the premise one is attempting to prove, and not use it in arguing. You can't use a premise to prove itself.That's true, and that's precisely why the Judeo-Christian worldview is uniquely able to account for all predication and human experience.

NavyDude
November 20th, 2004, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

No. Atheists and anti-Christians understand things. I don't deny that. Neither does the Bible. What I (and the Bible) deny them is the ability to account for what they understand, and the means by which they understand.

No, you're not following the point. Remember that Prodigal said the following: "The only way of validating my senses is to play your game. "

Prodigal later complained:
"The quest to validate one's senses is a quest that cannot be resolved, especially if resolution means bowing to an invisible deity, the only evidence for which rests in a 2,000 year old book." [Emphases added by Hilston]

I'm certainly not going to lead an argument for Atheism (I'm Catholic), but it seems to me (and I very well could be wrong, as often I am when attempting to ascertain unwritten meaning from Internet text) that (given the subject's prediliction to argue and instigate a rucus for his own amusement) prodigal was most likely speaking (or rather, typing, unless he has one of those neat little Talk Type headsets) facetiously (I hope I spelled that right; if not, it's supposed to be a word similar in meaning to sarcastically, and of the same word type) and/or condescendingly. But even if he wasn't, he could (for the sake of argument) have been referring to ANY text which has existed for at least two millennia. By that qualification alone, he could have been referring to Homer's Illiad. But you and I both know that this is not the case; however, due to your level of nit-picking, you create for most readers the view that you are being overly analytical and it is indeed possible that you sometimes (in your literal analysis of typed (or possibly spoken) words) miss (either by failure or design) the unspoken meaning.


So here is what I wrote:

Premise A: Validation of X depends on Y [Which Prodigal admits; this is not merely my own interpretation]
Premise B: [Prodigal] do[es]n't like Y. [No dispute on this point, right?]
Prodigal's conclusion: Validation of X cannot be resolved.

On the contrary, Prodigal admitted this. I was not putting words in his mouth. Here again is what he said: "The only way of validating my senses is to play your game."
I'm with you.



In other words, one does not have to be a "theist" to acknowledge that the validation of one's senses depends on the existence of the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible. His own words and actions prove this to you, NavyDude. That's why Prodigal was so determined to dismiss the need for validation, because he refuses to surrender to the God of the Bible. And by so doing, he admits that he recognizes that he cannot have one without the other. He doesn't want the God of the Bible, so he's willing to sacrifice his rationality in order to dismiss Him.
Here's where we go astray. I would be willing to argue that one may be a "theist" without even knowing of the Judeo-Christian deity. Why there was a talk just last month by our local priest who was saying that the Native Americans were most likely not in Hell for having not known of Christ. He proposes that everyone who wishes to live a good and Godly life is capable of doing so, even in complete ignorance of Christ's coming and dying for us and for our sins. He further proposes that many spiritualities are able to conceive of the goodness of God, without knowing of God as we know Him. In such a case, one would have met all the requisites of being a Theist, even a Judeo-Christian Theist, without knowing of the Judeo-Christian deity.



NavyDude, is that statement entirely subjective, or objectively true?
That depends entirely on the quantum flux at any given moment. But let's just call it objective and hope no one notices, eh?



That's true, and that's precisely why the Judeo-Christian worldview is uniquely able to account for all predication and human experience.
You'll have to explain to me why exactly Judeo-Christian belief is required to account for the validation of human experience and consciousness. I'm pretty sure many of those people who lived some several thousand years before the Bible is dated probably knew how to see, even though they knew nothing of Yahweh.

Balder
November 20th, 2004, 02:51 PM
I've offered my own posts for Hilston's consideration on another thread, so I don't mean to get sidetracked with him on this one, but I guess this is as good a place as any to ask this question...

Hilston, can you offer any positive arguments for why the Judeo-Christian God is uniquely qualified to account for all human knowledge and experience, including mathematics and logic? I know you prefer to tear down other's views, which is why I have given you that opportunity on the Presuppositionalism thread, but I am interested in why you think logic, order, rationality, math, morality, etc, only make sense in a Christian theistic worldview. What qualities of Christian theism set it apart from all other theistic and non-theistic perspectives, making it uniquely and exclusively capable of accounting for everything?

NavyDude
November 20th, 2004, 02:53 PM
The only argument I could come up with stems on a belief in Yahweh; that, since He made the Universe, He is then responsible for all the knowledge that can be learned from it. But since we're speaking of inter-faith arguments, we can't lean on that as a presupposition, and thus I am also very curious.

Clete
November 20th, 2004, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by prodigal
Clete,

(prodigal has already admitted that his world view is in as a bad a position as he is claiming that Christianity is in, that's step one.)

I admitted nothing to that effect. Although my memory isn't quite what it used to be. Oh, and Clete, I thought you were letting Hilston fight your battles for you?
The comment you are responding too wasn't directed at you so I'm not sure I see the validity of your objection, but either way, the "battle", as you call it, was over a day or so ago, you've no more arms or legs but just keep flailing away, trying to bite Jim's knee caps off! (Somebody should make a comedy skit about that! :chuckle: )
You've already been beaten but you've not been broken. The former was Jim's doing the latter is between you and God.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Balder
November 20th, 2004, 03:20 PM
(Somebody should make a comedy skit about that! :chuckle: )

I take it you've seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

NavyDude
November 20th, 2004, 03:24 PM
When danger reared its ugly head, sir Robin turned and bravely fled.

prodigal
November 20th, 2004, 03:44 PM
Hilston,

(Do you hear yourself? To say in one moment "The only way of validating my senses ..." and then to say in the next moment "... is to play your game" is quite ridiculous, isn't it? I mean, you take one of the most fundamental assumptions of human experience and admit you have no validation, then turn right around and say that validating them is a "game." Another horse led to water.)

Once again you're misquoting me. Please knock it off.

(You're right. But it's not because of my unwillingness to fight it. It's because you have no weapons, Prodigal.)

I don't need weapons. All I need is a window with a good view of the sky.

(Since you've all but admitted to having an irrational worldview)

Haven't come close to doing any such thing, if memory serves and it doesn't always. Like I've said, you're the one who believes in the fairy tale and will refuse to account for why you believe it's true. I worship myself because what I am and what I do is self-evident, not just to myself but to the people who believe in me.

(You're still left with an irrational worldview on which you have no basis to prove, test or validate your own faculties, knowledge or beliefs, and no basis to expect proof or validation from others about their beliefs.)

Once again, it's a nice trick, but I ain't fallin' for it. Your argument is this: The sky COULD BE red, though it IS clearly blue, therefore because of WHAT COULD BE you have no basis on which to question what another person believes. I believe in what IS, Hilston. You believe in WHAT COULD BE.

(Then neither do I. Stop being a hypocrite by demanding that other people validate their claims. Stop boasting about how you deny "claims that have no proof to verify their validity." Those were your words, remember?)

My memory doesn't always serve, but I think it is this time. All you want me to do is stop attacking your faith, eh? Why? You've done a lackluster job defending it, so why should I stop? I don't really think I'm being too unfair. You say that your senses are validated, but I deny the validity of the system with which you validated them in the first place, so that's a moot point. So far, I've asked for proof, you've given none and the whole while you've been trying to discredit me with pointless arguments.

(The burden of proof is on everyone, Prodigal. Anyone who makes a claim must prove it. I've proven that you cannot validate your senses or reasoning. You've admitted as much.)

I've admitted that it's either a: impossible to do in the first place, or b: it's an untrustworthy system by which to go about with the "validifying" in the first place. All you've proven is that I can't do what you can't even prove to be able to do yourself. You've succesfully made mountains out of mole hills and wasted everyone's time. Thanks, Hilston.

(Then show me how you can make predictions and proofs without being arbitrary. If you can't, then you need to shut. up.)

Don't tell me to shut up, Hilston. This thread wasn't a challenge for all y'all to attack me, but to defend yourselves. You came to my thread, you didn't stick to the topic, you've insulted me and over all you're being considerably rude. Perhaps I haven't been one hundred percent cordial, but please, manners Hilston, manners. Didn't your mother, your TRUE creator, ever teach you any? And this whole arbitrary thing, what the heck are you talking about?

(That's called self-delusion. Crazy people talk like that, Prodigal)

Now check out this next line.....

(I'm not calling you crazy)

Okay......

(You're the one who admitted that you cannot validate your senses and claim that you don't have to.)

The only way to validate my senses is to prescribe to the system you use. You admitted that. You're challenging me to do the impossible, simply to gridlock the argument. It's worked so far, we've gone around and around like this for quite some time without getting anything accomplished. I felt like I made more progress with Clete. You've successfully shifted the entire topic of the discussion to something that in the end makes no sense. Bravo, Hilston, the old christian trick has worked again.

(And you're not self-deluded either, right?)

Right. Like I've already said, you worship the zombie, you believe in hell, you believe in angels and demons. No, I'm fairly sound of mind my friend.

Knowing that the sky is blue requires no self-delusion. Believing that you're going to a wonderful fantasy land after you die does.

(Premise A: Validation of X depends on Y.
Premise B: I don't like Y.
Conclusion: Validation of X cannot be resolved.)

It has nothing to do with whether or not I like Y. It has everything to do with not trusting your premise. You ask for the validation of my senses yet you admit to me that the only way for me to do it is to agree with a christian worldview. The basis of what I'm arguing on is that a christian worldview cannot be trusted because of the lack of proof, yet you try to undermine my challenge by making impossible requirements. It's a game Hilston, pure and simple. Christians have been playing these kinds of games for 2000 years.

(Then what is this if not an admission?: "The only way of validating my senses is to play your game.")

That was a clarification of the point you were making. I admitted nothing.

(Seeing it with what? Your eyes, whose verity you cannot validate? Your visual cortex, whose proper function you cannot validate?)

Hilston, your argument is based on hypothesis. My argument is based on the self-evident. I'll hypothesize along with you for a moment, and I'm qualifying what I'm about to say lest you misquote me again: "The sky appears to be blue, and it is within my capability to find scientific proof for why the sky is blue, but IT COULD BE RED because I, along with everyone else, do not know IF my eyes are working properly, therefore the sky COULD BE red, despite all evidence saying that IT IS blue."

I'm done hypothesizing. The sky IS blue. When measured against IT COULD BE, IS is always stronger. What IS as compared to your favorite, WHAT COULD BE.

(Premise A: I can't validate my senses unless I play Hilston's game
Premise B: I don't like Hilston's game.
Conclusion: Hilston is bitter.)

Like I said, it has nothing to do with whether or not I "like" your game. Frankly, I don't, but that's incidental. As much as you would hate to admit it, I'm actually taking you semi-seriously. I was a christian for 20 years, now I'm not, I have a rather unique perspective right now. I'm familiar with all of the apologetic tricks out there, and Hilston, I have no reason to believe that you're not trying to pull one over on me. I don't trust the validity of your beliefs so why should I trust your methods of determining reality, especially when they're based on your beliefs? What do you really expect from me?

(On the contrary, Prodigal, YOU started this by demanding proof and verification to validate claims.)

What, you don't think that's fair? To ask one why he believes in a zombie messiah, heaven, hell, demons, angels, satan himself, and the very words of a book that was written thousands of years ago? You obviously don't think it's fair otherwise you would have fearlessly answered me from the start.

(You tacitly claim to have the ability to evaluate "proof and verification." So I challenged your claim using your own requirements. The burden of proof was thrown heavily in YOUR face, Prodigal.)

First of all, we were supposed to be talking about you and the rest of christianity. Instead of fearlessly defending yourself from the beginning, instead of showing me the proof that you all claim you have, you've attempted to defend yourself via counter attack. If it's so true, if you really do have the proof, Hilston, why not show me, and THEN go on the offensive? You haven't proven a thing yet, and that's why I started this thread, to be shown proof. All you have to say if you have none is that you have none, and that will be that. But LH, Aimiel, Clete, and even yourself if I remember correctly (and I don't always) have eluded and even said that you have proof. Why not just elaborate? Why not give me an example? If you're so right, convince me, show me your cards. What do you have that makes your belief true?

I don't believe the sky is blue.

I know the sky is blue, it's right up there, take a look for yourself.

God is no where to be seen. You can say that you see god in creation, but evolutionists can see the fruit of their beliefs in creation as well, so when the experts disagree, you're right back to square one.

prodigal
November 20th, 2004, 03:52 PM
Clete,

(The comment you are responding too wasn't directed at you so I'm not sure I see the validity of your objection, but either way, the "battle", as you call it, was over a day or so ago, you've no more arms or legs but just keep flailing away, trying to bite Jim's knee caps off! (Somebody should make a comedy skit about that!)
You've already been beaten but you've not been broken. The former was Jim's doing the latter is between you and God.)

First of all, if you want to talk about me to someone else, be prepared for me to respond. The use of my name in an anecdote is all the validity I need.

The battle is no where near over. Claiming victory doesn't mean you've won, Clete. YOU still have yet to outline your "biblical worldview". As you have not done this yet, I can only assume that you're blowing smoke and do not, in fact, have a biblical worldview.

So far you've proven to be a run of the mill, ineffectual christian fundamentalist who when he runs out of answers just claims that he has won. You haven't won anything, Clete, and my appendages are right where they belong. Hilston hasn't won anything either, his apologetics are a show, nothing more. Neither of you have answered my challenge, and frankly it's not that hard. Your belief is strong, but you can't answer why you believe it. You have words like, "biblical worldview", but without an explanation it's good for nothing more than just a smoke screen. Hilston had his "validation of sensory perception" argument, but it was nothing more than a ploy to confuse me out of the argument. A smoke screen and attempted confusion tactic are not signs of victory. They're signs that you're stalling for time, but, y'all have had 2000 years to figure this out. 2000 years and neither you or Hilston, or anyone else for that matter can tell me why they believe and back it up with something tangible. I've had my life so far, and I can tell you, I believe in myself, because I'm here, because I'm strong, smart and for the most part quite affable. My family and friends believe in me because I'm young and they can see the potential in me for greatness. I don't plan on disappointing my fans out there.

jjjg
November 20th, 2004, 04:35 PM
Well from what we saw of the election, religion is hardly obselete.

dotcom
November 20th, 2004, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman

Dear Hilston:


When I say "objective," you can put your own meaning and provide me with what you believe is objective proof. Otherwise, you can use the dictionary just as I did above.


Hilston is presenting a genuine, philosophical & intellectual argument. An understanding of what is "objective" and what is "subjective" is a requirement. A mere dictionary is not going to help much.

For example, if I claim to believe in God, I don't have to prove it objectively because if I did, that "proof" becomes "knowledge" under the auspices of public context completely erasing the concept of belief! By assumption, that statement is deemed to be understandable by most people. No tricks like prodigal is insinuating.

You and prodigal are also presenting valid but corrupt arguments for mere purposes of arguing with no religious and philosophical value. In essence, Prodigal's premise challenged Christians to change a belief proposition into an objective proposition without knowing the difference.

Here is some help from an expert. Good debate nevertheless.

A Critical Distinction in Philosophical Realism


Objective Experiences and
Subjective Experiences

by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.



We could all save ourselves a great deal of time and trouble, not to mention headache and heartache, if only we would learn the distinction between objective and subjective propositions, between public context and private context, between objective knowledge and subjective introspection or belief, and between what assertions can be genuinely argued and those which cannot be argued. Furthermore, a knowledge of the distinction between matters of truth and matters of taste is essential.

We may spend a good portion of our time arguing over things which cannot be the subject of argumentation. Many people confuse their "feelings" with their "thoughts." Many people confuse "truth" with "opinion." Many others confuse "belief" with "objective assertions."



Objective Propositions

Objective propositions are assertions derived from sources of knowledge which can be publicly experienced and that are capable of public verification. This means that, in so far as evidence, proof, or demonstration is concerned, whatever is contained within the category of objective propositions must be accessible to the public at large in some way or other and at some time or other. Assertions of this type are assertions in a "public context." What is to be included?

Certainly it seems obvious that propositions stating facts acquired through direct observation should be included. If someone says it's raining outside, all we have to do to verify his claim is to go outside ourselves and observe the immediate environment. If an argument ensued inside the house about whether or not it was raining outside, the argument could easily be settled by all parties to the argument going outside to experience the rain. The proposition "It is raining outside," if true, certainly would be objective knowledge.

It also seems obvious that self-evident propositions acquired through thinking should be included as objective propositions. The truth of the fundamental propositions of thought, such as the principle of identity and the principle of non-contradiction, is accessible to anyone who thinks about it. The same thing holds true for the propositions "I exist" and "My intellect is capable of knowing the outside world around me."

Arguing about whether or not you exist, either with yourself or someone else, is a total waste of time, worthy only of freshman philosophy students who have nothing better to do. Such an argument is useless since you must accept the truth of self-existence before it can even be argued about.

These two forms of propositions, that is, assertions based on sense-perception through direct observation and assertions based on intellectual awareness through reasoning, can be publicly experienced and verified by any rational person. They are, then, said to be rational methods of acquiring knowledge. Such propositions, under normal conditions, also have the quality of absolute certainty or certitude. If you can't accept these types of propositions as true, there is nothing to really discuss or argue about at all. We would have to remain silent and thoughtless forever!

Another method of deriving objective propositions, which is related to, but not identical with, the above methods, is through what is generally called scientific research or the scientific method. This method begins with sense-perception (which is why we refer to its findings as "empirical" knowledge and the sciences associated with it as empirical sciences) and then goes beyond sense-perception to the process of reasoning about what is found empirically, which then expands our knowledge of the world even beyond what we can immediately experience with our ordinary senses.

The empirical sciences, such as biology, chemistry, and physics, use various procedures and processes to seek out truth and these are referred to generally as the scientific method. These scientific procedures and processes result in scientific laws, scientific hypotheses, and scientific theories.

True scientific findings can be verified in some way or other by the public (which, for the most part in this case, means the community of scientists), so we include them in the category of objectively-derived propositions. Since the scientific method uses reasoning (both inductively and deductively) and the reasoning procedures can be checked and verified by any rational person, the scientific method is said to be a "rational" method of acquiring knowledge.

Our immediate empirical observations ("It is raining outside") and self-evident intellectual propositions ("A is A"), assuming they are properly arrived at and verified, can be said to have absolute certitude. Can the same be said for the laws and theories of empirical science? Can a finding of empirical science be considered absolutely true? The answer is generally "no." These findings have certitude only to some degree or other and are, therefore, called "probable." The probability may be extremely high, even approaching 100% of certitude, but they are not absolutely certain in and of themselves.

Objective propositions, then, are capable of being publicly verified in some way and at some time by any rational person. The methods used to arrive at objective propositions include sense-knowledge, inductive and deductive reasoning, and the scientific methodologies. These methods are considered rational, insofar as any rational person may verify the findings included in the category of objective knowledge.

What about the findings of philosophy? Are philosophical propositions to be included in the category of objective propositions? Here we enter the land of historical and contemporary controversy. There have been and are many philosophers who maintain that philosophical truth is beyond our capabilities. There are also philosophers who claim that they found the absolute, ultimate truth and have expressed it as a comprehensive philosophical system. Then there are philosophers who argue that not only is philosophical truth beyond our capabilities, but there is no such thing as philosophical truth at all!

First, it needs to be said that, if there is no philosophical proposition that can be absolutely true, there are no other propositions that can be either absolutely or probably true. If we don't accept the absolute truth of the primary philosophical truths, then the entire structure of knowledge falls apart and we end up in universal skepticism, where nothing at all can be known.

What are the primary philosophical truths? They are three in number:

The First Fact is my own existence, expressed as the proposition "I exist."
The First Principle is the principle of contradiction, expressed as the proposition "It is impossible for something to be and not to be at the same time in the same respect."
The First Condition is the essential trustworthiness of my reason, expressed as the proposition "My reason is capable of knowing truth."
Each of these truths is absolutely certain. Wipe out any one of these, deny the truth of any one of them, and it is impossible to have knowledge at all. There are, then, no discussions to be had, no arguments to pursue, and no moral or legal principles to guide us.

We know that these three primary philosophical truths are included in the category of objective propositions because any rational person can verify them. Even the hard-nosed philosophical skeptic has to assume their truth in order to deny them!

Second, there are other philosophical truths which can be placed in the category of objective propositions. We will not go into detail about these other truths at this time. What will be said, however, is that any philosophical proposition which is based on the truth of the primary truths, which uses properly the inductive and deductive methods available to us, and is capable of being verified by any rational person, can be said to be a philosophical proposition falling into the category of objective propositions and constitutes, therefore, objective knowledge.

The assertions that constitute objective knowledge, propositions which can be publicly verified by any rational person, are said to be assertions in a "public context." These assertions are either true or false, absolutely or to some degree of probable certitude, and can be the focus of rational argumentation.



Subjective Propositions

We now come to the matter of subjective propositions. These are assertions derived from and within a "private context." Subjective propositions include all assertions derived from sources of knowledge which cannot be publicly experienced and whose propositions are not capable of public verification. This means that, in so far as evidence, proof, or demonstration is concerned, whatever is contained within this category is not accessible to the public at large in some way or other and at some time or other. What is to be included?

It seems obvious that certain statements regarding our internal states of body and mind belong in this category. For example, if I feel a pain in my chest and I say to you, "I have a pain in my chest," this statement cannot, strictly speaking, be publicly verified. No one else can feel the pain in my chest. Of course, you may have experienced chest pains yourself in the past and can relate somewhat to what I'm feeling. But in no sense can you actually feel my pain. This is an internal physical experience that I am having and all I can do is relate it to you. You'll have to take my word that I am truly experiencing the chest pain I say I am having.

The same holds true for internal mental-emotional states. I am depressed, or feeling low, or am content, or am anxious, and these experiences are real for me. No one else can feel my emotional state and, as far as we know now, no one else can experience my private thoughts as I am experiencing them. I can tell you what I am feeling or what I am thinking, but I cannot produce direct evidence, or proof, or demonstrate that what I am telling you is true.

It is certainly true, however, that I might exhibit behavior, or external cues, or what we call "body language," which may provide you with enough information to guess or estimate what I'm feeling or thinking. But, in no way, can you directly experience my private internal states as your own. I realize there are some who claim to be able to get inside our heads and read our thoughts, or who claim to be able to experience our internal physical states, but these claims are so far just that - claims. There is no evidence yet that such claims are true. These claims themselves are in the category of subjective propositions.

These internal states we all experience, whether physical, mental, or emotional, are private states and any statement we make about these internal states of body and mind belong in the category of assertions derived from and within a "private context." These statements may be true; they are not, however, publicly true or objectively true. These sorts of statements we shall call subjective propositions of "introspection."

The category of subjective propositions also includes assertions derived from sources such as intuition, mysticism, revelation, and certain sources labeled "paranormal." Intuition is always a personal experience. The mystic's experiences are private. Revelation, whether human or divine, demands "faith" as its criterion of belief. If human or divine revelations were public knowledge, we wouldn't need any "faith" associated with them, for faith is needed only where no acceptable public verification exists or is possible.

A "paranormal" source of knowledge is more difficult to analyze. At the present time, it seems prudent to keep statements whose source is paranormal or extrasensory within the category of subjective propositions. There is some evidence, mainly anecdotal, that there may be something to such paranormal phenomena as mental telepathy and clairvoyance. Furthermore, there may be something to some of the claims made by so-called "psychics." The question has not been finally resolved and there are ongoing investigations into the phenomena, but no definitive answer has been found.

Revelation, intuition, introspection, mystic experiences, and, for now at least, paranormal phenomena, are designated as belonging to the category of subjective propositions, assertions within a "private context." If these subjective propositions are not derived from personal "introspection," from our internal bodily or mental states, we call these subjective propositions, "beliefs." We refer to these as personal beliefs, or religious beliefs, and so forth. These beliefs as beliefs (at least at the present time) are not capable of public verification and are not, therefore, "rational" in the sense we are using the term here. If a belief becomes publicly verifiable, it ceases to be a belief, and it enters the category of objective propositions or assertions of a "public context"; it becomes a fact or state-of-affairs. It is knowledge, not belief or mere opinion.

If a belief was truly rational, then no rational person could deny it and the evidence, proof, or demonstration needed to support the belief would be accessible to any rational person. In fact, we wouldn't be talking about a belief at all, but statements regarding facts or states-of-affairs.



Rational, Nonrational, and Irrational

While beliefs based on revelation, intuition, introspection, mysticism, and paranormal sources, are not rational, it does not follow that they are irrational, as some people maintain. As we are using the term "rational" here, the opposite of it is "nonrational," not "irrational." Divine revelation, for instance, is a nonrational source of subjective propositions. Intuition is a nonrational source and so is introspection.

The term "irrational" refers to a proposition, not a source, that is self-contradictory or contradicts an empirical or theoretical proposition whose truth is established beyond reasonable doubt. There are, then, no strictly irrational sources of knowledge. But there can be propositions derived from either rational or nonrational sources which are irrational propositions.

Let's consider an example. The question as to whether or not the earth is spherical or flat can be resolved by an appeal to rational sources of knowledge, including sense-knowledge, reasoning, and the scientific method. The answer to the question can be determined by any rational person willing to do the necessary research. It can be publicly verified one way or the other. The final answer, in so far as any answer is final, can be found and verified over and over again.

If a friend comes up to me and says, "The earth is a sphere," I know he is speaking the truth. If I have any doubt about it, I can check it out myself. He has correctly stated a fact, a state-of-affairs, and his proposition is a rational statement based on rational sources.

If, on the other hand, my friend says to me, "The earth is flat," I know he is making a false statement. If we get into an argument about it, the argument is resolved by checking out the facts using sense-knowledge, reasoning, and the scientific method, which are the rational sources used to decide matters of this kind. Since his statement contradicts what we (or any rational person) know to be the truth, his statement is irrational.

Propositions generated from nonrational sources present us with a problem. Can a proposition based on revelation, for example, be said to be irrational? Revelation is a nonrational source and belongs to the category of subjective propositions, those within a "private context." I can think of only one situation where a proposition based on revelation, or another nonrational source for that matter, can be said to be irrational. This would be where an inconsistency occurs within a deductive argument within the category of subjective propositions. The only type of irrational proposition that could occur within the "private context" category of subjective propositions would be one that was irrational only because it was the conclusion of an argument that was illogical.

Remember that only arguments can be logical or illogical, valid or invalid. Propositions, on the other hand, can be true or false, but not logical or illogical. When we say, mistakenly, that a proposition is "illogical," we really mean that the proposition does not follow consistently from the other propositions supporting it. We always have to keep in mind the distinction between truth and validity.

A proposition whose source is nonrational is incapable of being verified by using techniques associated with the category of subjective propositions. If it could be so verified, it would be a proposition belonging to the category of objective propositions or be within the "public context." A proposition within the "private context" might, however, be inconsistent with other previously accepted propositions within the same private context. If it is a conclusion drawn illogically from the premises used to justify it, then to that extent the proposition would be considered "irrational."

So we can say the following. There are at least two possible categories of sources of knowledge: rational and nonrational. These two categories are distinguished from one another on the basis of whether or not the propositions contained therein are capable of public verification.

Propositions based on sense-knowledge, reasoning, and scientific methods are capable of being openly verified by any rational person, and we call these sources "rational." Propositions based on revelation, intuition, mystical experiences, introspection, or paranormal experiences are not (as yet, anyway) capable of being openly verified by all or most rational people, and we call these sources "nonrational."

A proposition within the category of objective propositions is said to be irrational if it is self-contradictory or contradicts what is known empirically or theoretically to be true. A proposition within the category of subjective propositions is said to be irrational only if it is the result of illogical reasoning within that category.



Arguments Within the Categories

An important characteristic of objective propositions is that the propositions contained within this category are capable of being publicly argued. This contrasts with propositions within the category of subjective propositions. In a strict sense, these propositions cannot be publicly argued simply because there is no method of public verification to be applied to them. However, should a proposition within the category of subjective propositions become capable of public verification at some later point in time, then that proposition would move from the category of subjective propositions to that of objective propositions.

This is not to say that some sort of argument cannot take place within the category of subjective propositions. But, it seems to me, this sort of argument would have to be a strictly private one between parties who accepted or denied a certain proposition already contained within the category of subjective propositions.

I can, for example, imagine a situation where two theologians are arguing over the Christian doctrine of Transubstantiation. This is the doctrine regarding the "real" presence of Jesus Christ's body and blood in the bread and wine used during the communion ritual held in many Christian churches. Catholics, and some other Christian denominations assert that the "real" presence is there, while other denominations believe that Christ's body and blood are only symbolically present.

The source for the proposition which asserts or denies such a claim is allegedly the private context of divine revelation. The propositions could be stated this way:

Proposition 1: Christ's body and blood are present in a "real" sense in the bread and wine used in communion.
Proposition 2: Christ's body and blood are not present in a "real" sense in the bread and wine, but are present only "symbolically."
Which proposition is "true"?

There is, of course, no way of transferring the propositions into the public context and utilizing sense-knowledge, inductive or deductive reasoning, or the scientific method. The entire argument must take place only within the private context of subjective propositions. There is no way of using "outside" sources in the public domain to settle the argument. Actually, the "truth" of either proposition seems to be entirely dependent upon how one interprets relevant passages in the Bible. The Bible itself is a source of knowledge only within the private context. The Bible does contain "secular" passages which can be matters of public context, such as historical places and events, but these verifiable passages are of little, if any, use in deciding questions of theological doctrine.

Back to the original question: Which proposition above is "true"? There is, as far as I know, no way to settle such an "argument." And here is the reason I say so. Consider how the propositions above should really be stated:

Proposition 1: I believe that Christ's body and blood are present in a "real" sense in the bread and wine used in communion.
Proposition 2: I believe that Christ's body and blood are not present in a "real" sense in the bread and wine, but are present only "symbolically."
Once the statements are in this form, which I think is the proper form, there is no genuine "argument." The only reply I could make to either one is: "No, you don't believe that." This, of course, would be absurd because I have no way of knowing whether or not the theologians involved really believe what they are stating.

A genuine argument can exist only where there is a genuine assertion of affirmation or denial. And, therefore, in a very real sense, genuine arguments cannot occur within the private context. The knowledge involved in the public context category is "objective" in the sense that it is "out there" to be verified by any rational person using the techniques cited above. The knowledge involved in the private context category is "subjective" in the sense that it is "in here," that is, in one's own mind. With the exception of statements about our internal physical, mental, and emotional states, we usually refer to this latter kind of knowledge as "beliefs." And if a belief is actually verified as true, it is no longer a belief. It becomes an objective proposition within the public context and is known to be true, either absolutely or to some degree of probability. It becomes, then, knowledge, and not mere opinion or belief.

jjjg
November 20th, 2004, 06:00 PM
Objective simply means independant of our minds, that is things we perceive through our senses. Subjective means dependant on our minds for a things existence such as the generalizations and abstractions of science.