CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
According to what I can tell, this just translates to "the Proof of the Righteous", and the way it is described on Islamic Teaching websites, it's basically just the argument from morality, people do good because they wish for Allah's praise and fear his torment.
I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. We know where morals come from, and it wasn't a magically scribed rulebook, they developed because we are a social species, and we have empathy and the capacity to reason for the greater good of the tribe.
So, no, whether English or Arabic, this argument is still wrong.
There is no such thing as morals in evolution. All that matters is survival. There is nothing wrong in evolution with killing you to take what you have. In evolution there is nothing wrong with forcing you to be my slave after sterilizing you so you can't produce offspring. You don't get to evolve, I do.hahahhahha
You have one tiny passage from the old testament? Before Christ followers of God went to heaven if they followed the Torah that changed with the birth of Christ. Lesson 1 of Christianity you fake.
17hrs ago
Support Dispute Clarify Report Jump to Debate→
New Response!
JatinNagpal(781) 1 point
Insulting you would require that you be smart enough to at least understand them.
You're an idiot than which can no greater idiot be conceived.
I wonder how you can even use this website. If people in ancient Israel programmed a chatbot, it'd be smarter than you.
You have one tiny passage from the old testament? Before Christ followers of God went to heaven if they followed the Torah that changed with the birth of Christ. Lesson 1 of Christianity you fake.
17hrs ago
Support Dispute Clarify Report Jump to Debate→
New Response!
JatinNagpal(781) 1 point
Insulting you would require that you be smart enough to at least understand them.
You're an idiot than which can no greater idiot be conceived.
I wonder how you can even use this website. If people in ancient Israel programmed a chatbot, it'd be smarter than you.
Islam upholds something it calls God in place of the Living God who is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The God of Islam is something bitter and demanding, something that was miserably alone in eternity past, something that is cruel and demands it's followers kill or enslave all who will not bow to the God of Islam who is not God of the Bible.
I personally believe in a God. I don't have a solid case for his existence, but it reminded me of Rene Descartes' Meditations, where he tackles the question. Although it is just his thought process and not proof, I think people might want to check it out if you haven't. It's just an interesting take. Read 'Meditation III: Concerning God, That He Exists'
I will start out with just one to allow other opinions to flow in.
The Moral Argument "Can man be good without god"
To get this average response I do not mean can you be good without believing in god (the answer is an obvious yes) I mean be good without him at all. So 0 commandments, 0 laws, 0 foundations for governments, etc. Without God there is no Objective Morality just differing opinions. This debate I will not intervene at all nor will I leave a link to strengthen my argument. Good Luck to both sides!
You have to actually prove morality is objective before we start assuming where that morality came from. And so far there is no compelling evidence supporting objective morality precisely because everyones opinions differ and have differed between time periods and cultures since the beginning of time.
If you can prove there is objective morality then what he described is a problem in understanding. If however, there is no objective morality you would see exactly what he described. In any event, the assumption that objective morality exists is illogical.
What I mean by objectively moral is that something is right or wrong regardless of how I may think or feel. Some of the proof is in the fact that everyone would say that some things are right or wrong. Some examples of things that are right or wrong are as follows. Some things that would be good are things like taking care of children and people that are sick. For bad, popular examples are things like murder, theft, and rape. Its universally accepted that these things are good and bad and will remain so regardless of whether or not we think or feel otherwise. My question for you is, why do you consider it illogical?
What I mean by objectively moral is that something is right or wrong regardless of how I may think or feel.
Ok. By default it doesn't exist. Otherwise, everything would exist.
Some of the proof is in the fact that everyone would say that some things are right or wrong.
People have subjective morality. That doesn't mean objective morality exists.
Some things that would be good are things like taking care of children and people that are sick.
Would you take care of my children for free? I am not seeing the morality there.
For bad, popular examples are things like murder, theft, and rape.
Those are all immoral by a subjective definition. Murder is unlawful killing. What is unlawful? The subjective definition found in our laws. Theft is just the unlawful taking of someone's stuff. If someone leaves a lawnmower in their front yard and you take it, it is theft. If the lawnmower has a sign that says "free", taking it is no longer theft, hence, subjective. Rape is unlawful sex. We aren't even sure what constitutes rape at this point. It is very subjective, and still changing.
Its universally accepted that these things are good and bad and will remain so regardless of whether or not we think or feel otherwise.
The acts that would be considered murder in one state may be considered self defense in another state.
My question for you is, why do you consider it illogical?
Saying something exists because it exists is the tautology fallacy. Using fallacies is illogical. Saying something without proof is not logical.
Logically everything doesn't exist by default. You have to show it exists.
Everybody has subjective morality, yes.
The price matters because of I pay you it is a different transaction and doesn't play into morality.
What part of the word immoral makes you think it is allowed. Moral things are allowed. Murder, theft, and rape are forms of killing, taking things, and sex. Those things can be allowed.
In Florida you allowed to kill someone in self defense even if you had the chance to avoid conflict. In California, you have to be sure that there is nothing else you can do.
Deli_subs used the fallacy with the moral argument for God.
Logically everything doesn't exist by default. You have to show it exists.
This sounds unnecessarily restrictive. It also sounds like a bit of a cop out
Everybody has subjective morality, yes.
So whats true for each individual is true for everyone?
The price matters because of I pay you it is a different transaction and doesn't play into morality.
So its only ever right to take care of children if I get paid to do it?
What part of the word immoral makes you think it is allowed.
My point was that no where in the world where you find things like murder, theft, and rape acceptable. Thats because of objective morality. Its always been that way and probably will continue to be that way.
Moral things are allowed. Murder, theft, and rape are forms of killing, taking things, and sex. Those things can be allowed.
So killing something, taking things, and sex in a proper context justifies the immoral use of each?
In Florida you allowed to kill someone in self defense even if you had the chance to avoid conflict. In California, you have to be sure that there is nothing else you can do.
Thats evidence of leniency, not subjective morality
Deli_subs used the fallacy with the moral argument for God.
Just in the few replies that you've had with me, it looks like you were using that same argument for your side
You didn't respond to anything I said. You just refused to understand the definitions of the words we are using and asked meaningless questions. Everything you said was an attempt to make sure you stay ignorant of the topic. I can explain exactly where you went wrong in each of your statements, but each statement you made was just a dumb question.
So objections to what you're saying is evidence that what I'm saying is dumb and I want to stay ignorant? It looks like all your replies are simply what you believe to be true. Is it really that much of a problem for me to question your beliefs?
You didn't object to what I am saying, you just objected. You ignoring what I am saying is evidence that you want to remain ignorant. All of your replies are you actually saying you believe something to be true instead of pointing out what is wrong with what I wrote. You aren't questioning my beliefs. You are questioning beliefs that no one has. Your questions do not make sense in response to my argument. You don't know what murder, theft, and rape are. Look up the definition of murder.
Killing someone can be justified, therefore not a murder. Some places think killing anyone that enters your home is not murder. Some places think that there had to be a threat on your life in order for it to not be murder. This is subjective morality on killing. If killing is deemed morally wrong it becomes murder by definition. The words you are using are describing actions that have already been judged morally.
All those examples you gave have to do with a difference in understanding, not morality. I do agree that killing CAN be justified, but it still holds true that unlawful killing is wrong regardless of whether or not I happen to kill someone in self defense. Thats why I was saying earlier that its an issue of understanding. Its understood that if the other person attacked first, then they are the ones with the charge. Even with that though, it would still be considered murder if he were to kill me because its understood that him killing me would be murder
How do you know it is unlawful? By applying morality. Why are laws different? Subjective morality.
You saying that immoral killing is wrong just means that morality exists, not objective morality.
Its understood that if the other person attacked first, then they are the ones with the charge. Even with that though, it would still be considered murder if he were to kill me because its understood that him killing me would be murder
Not true. In Florida you can attack someone first and as long as that person gets the upper hand on you at some point you can still kill him in self defense and not be considered murder.
How do you know it is unlawful? By applying morality. Why are laws different? Subjective morality.
The problem with the first half of this is that you're assuming an objective morality. If everything was truly subjective then there would be no need for things like laws or law enforcement of any kind whatsoever
You saying that immoral killing is wrong just means that morality exists, not objective morality.
Except that immoral killing is going to be wrong regardless of where you are in the world
Not true. In Florida you can attack someone first and as long as that person gets the upper hand on you at some point you can still kill him in self defense and not be considered murder.
I'm not sure I believe that theres a law that allows an attacker to be considered the victim if they are overpowered. How about you show me and I'll believe you
The problem with the first half of this is that you're assuming an objective morality.
No, I am assuming morality.
If everything was truly subjective then there would be no need for things like laws or law enforcement of any kind whatsoever
False. If there was objective morality there would be no need for laws. Laws are required for groups of people to agree on the correct subjective morality. If objective morality existed there would be no disagreements, and therefore no need for laws.
Except that immoral killing is going to be wrong regardless of where you are in the world
Morality tells us what is right and wrong. You are making the claim that some kind of morality exists throughout the world.
I'm not sure I believe that theres a law that allows an attacker to be considered the victim if they are overpowered. How about you show me and I'll believe you
If you're going to just assume it exists without evidence - just go ahead and do this with god (what you're doing anyway) and skip trying to justify the constituent parts in the same way.
So whats true for each individual is true for everyone?
No - there are (nearly?) no universal morals, and universal morals aren't definitively objective.
So its only ever right to take care of children if I get paid to do it?
No - it won't universally be done without being paid.
Which part of the world allows things like murder, theft, and rape?
Many actually.
Thats evidence of leniency, not subjective morality
Some places consider it more or less moral - hence subjective. What defines killing vs murder? an objective standard or a subjective one? war, mercy killing, abortions, self-defense, the death penalty, etc. no clear delineation of right/wrong and certainly not a universally accepted one.
If you're going to just assume it exists without evidence - just go ahead and do this with god (what you're doing anyway) and skip trying to justify the constituent parts in the same way.
You do know what I was referring to right?
No - there are (nearly?) no universal morals, and universal morals aren't definitively objective.
Except you need to import a moral law to say something is morally wrong. Having a moral law implies a moral law giver to which you can compare an action to to see if its moral, making it objective
No - it won't universally be done without being paid.
According to who?
Many actually.
Which one?
Some places consider it more or less moral - hence subjective. What defines killing vs murder? an objective standard or a subjective one? war, mercy killing, abortions, self-defense, the death penalty, etc. no clear delineation of right/wrong and certainly not a universally accepted one.
An objective standard would differentiate killing vs murder. There is a clear delineation of right and wrong in those situations. Murder is always wrong, but theres a different understanding of what constitutes murder. Just because understanding is different, that doesn't make morality subjective.
Except you need to import a moral law to say something is morally wrong. Having a moral law implies a moral law giver to which you can compare an action to to see if its moral, making it objective
That isn't true at all. Humanity can be the "moral law giver", but the existence of said giver doesn't make it objective. You are presupposing the validity of the moral law giver, under the assumption that it's god.
Objectively, murder involves killing. Subjective, murder is killing that we consider wrong depending on the circumstances.
There is a clear delineation of right and wrong in those situations.
No there isn't, which is why you have trials to determine if any given killing is murder, and why you often have people disagreeing with said rulings.
Just because understanding is different, that doesn't make morality subjective.
That's exactly what it does, so long as there lacks evidence of an objective criteria to determine objective morality, which we lack.
That isn't true at all. Humanity can be the "moral law giver", but the existence of said giver doesn't make it objective. You are presupposing the validity of the moral law giver, under the assumption that it's god.
Humanity being the law giver is what would make morality subjective because they would be their own standard. Anytime someone thinks that something is wrong, they would have to import a moral law. Even if humanity is the moral law giver, they are imposing an objective moral law on others. They would be saying that something like unjust killing is always wrong regardless of what someone else might think or feel
Objectively, murder involves killing. Subjective, murder is killing that we consider wrong depending on the circumstances.
Murder is always wrong. What people try to figure out are the circumstances surrounding why someone was killed to figure out if someone was killed unjustly
No there isn't, which is why you have trials to determine if any given killing is murder, and why you often have people disagreeing with said rulings.
Trial rulings aren't evidence against objective morality. The trials are there to determine whether or not the person being charged with the crime is being justly convicted and if so, how far the punishment should go. They hold to the fact that murder is objectively wrong, but give people different punishments depending on how involved they were. Disagreements with the rulings don't play into morality
That's exactly what it does, so long as there lacks evidence of an objective criteria to determine objective morality, which we lack.
It is always wrong to kill someone unjustly. How someone was killed can be subjective between cases but that doesn't change the fact that unjustly killing someone is wrong. Also, saying we don't have evidence for something presents a problem. It shows that on your end, you were either intellectually dishonest, not showing due diligence, or just being intellectually lazy. If you think the evidence for or against something is weak or poor, thats different
Humanity being the law giver is what would make morality subjective because they would be their own standard.
Indeed.
Anytime someone thinks that something is wrong, they would have to import a moral law
Only if you believe that moral laws exist.
Even if humanity is the moral law giver, they are imposing an objective moral law on others.
No they aren't, and that's a direct contradiction of what you just said two sentences ago.
They would be saying that something like unjust killing is always wrong regardless of what someone else might think or feel
No, their declaration that X is wrong would be predicated upon how they might think or feel, which is what makes it subjective.
Murder is always wrong.
That's because murder is defined as being unjustified. That's like saying "Wrongful killing is always wrong". Despite that, this statement only holds true in our society. There exist plenty of contexts in which unjustified killing is not viewed as wrong.
What people try to figure out are the circumstances surrounding why someone was killed to figure out if someone was killed unjustly
And the different means of determining that through different cultures backs up what I am saying.
Trial rulings aren't evidence against objective morality. The trials are there to determine whether or not the person being charged with the crime is being justly convicted and if so, how far the punishment should go.
Yes, all of which is predicated upon a social understanding of what a given society has determined is "right" or "wrong". Nothing objective involved.
They hold to the fact that murder is objectively wrong, but give people different punishments depending on how involved they were.
Just about nothing in our legal system makes any claim about objective morality.
Disagreements with the rulings don't play into morality
So when you have people claiming that rulings were morally wrong, that has nothing to do with morality?
It is always wrong to kill someone unjustly.
That's because we define "just" as being right, so you are saying that it is always wrong to wrongfully kill someone. Not only is that tautological, but it is still predicated upon your social understanding of the right and wrong times to kill.
How someone was killed can be subjective between cases but that doesn't change the fact that unjustly killing someone is wrong.
Again, that is not a universally held stance, and there is no objective criteria by which we can judge that to be true.
Also, saying we don't have evidence for something presents a problem. It shows that on your end, you were either intellectually dishonest, not showing due diligence, or just being intellectually lazy. If you think the evidence for or against something is weak or poor, thats different
Wow, way to be an asshole. So instead of providing evidence for this objective criteria, you just implicitly insult me.
If this criteria is so obvious, then provide evidence of it.
The fact that we are having a conversation about right and wrong proves that there is a moral code that people go by which would then point to a higher law
No they aren't, and that's a direct contradiction of what you just said two sentences ago.
Except that they are. Like I said earlier, each person has a moral code. The thing is though, they think that everyone else should follow it. That would mean that they would think that their moral code is objective and they are the objective law giver. The only thing that people do to make it subjective is that this idea applies to everyone
No, their declaration that X is wrong would be predicated upon how they might think or feel, which is what makes it subjective.
Someones thoughts or feelings might be different, but that doesn't justify doing something wrong.
That's because murder is defined as being unjustified. That's like saying "Wrongful killing is always wrong". Despite that, this statement only holds true in our society. There exist plenty of contexts in which unjustified killing is not viewed as wrong.
Thats not evidence of unjustified killing. Thats evidence of people trying to justify what they did, but that doesn't mean that unjustly killing someone isn't still wrong
And the different means of determining that through different cultures backs up what I am saying.
Just because different cultures have a different way of looking at things, that doesn't mean that morality is subjective. Its always wrong to unjustly kill someone. What different countries find out is if the person was unjust in their killing
Yes, all of which is predicated upon a social understanding of what a given society has determined is "right" or "wrong". Nothing objective involved.
The fact that they are even discussing right and wrong shows that there is an objective right and wrong that exists outside of themselves. Otherwise, trials would be completely unnecessary
Just about nothing in our legal system makes any claim about objective morality.
The fact that we have a legal system to determine whether or not what someone did was right or wrong shows that there is an objective morality
Again, that is not a universally held stance, and there is no objective criteria by which we can judge that to be true.
Except that it is though. No where in the world will you find murder to be legal. What you find is a different understanding of what is considered murder
Wow, way to be an asshole. So instead of providing evidence for this objective criteria, you just implicitly insult me. If this criteria is so obvious, then provide evidence of it.
You yourself said that we lack evidence for this subject. I did provide you evidence in the replies that I gave you. If you honestly think that there is no evidence for it, then really are just being intellectually dishonest, not giving due diligence, or just being intellectually lazy. If you think that the evidence I gave you is weak or poor, that is different than saying that there is NO evidence whatsoever
Nothing I've said implies that at all. I believe that humans are "moral" beings (ha, get it?), in that the overwhelming majority of people are going to behave according to our social norms. In other words, people aren't going to be assholes just because objective morality doesn't exist.
The fact that we are having a conversation about right and wrong proves that there is a moral code that people go by which would then point to a higher law
No, it really doesn't. We are discussing the abstract concept of morality, that does not prove that an objective code exists. That's like saying discussing unicorns proves that they exist (not in a metaphysical sense, I mean).
Except that they are. Like I said earlier, each person has a moral code. The thing is though, they think that everyone else should follow it.
Nope. All it takes is one person to prove that wrong, and since I do not believe that everyone else must (or even should) follow my moral code, that one is effectively negated.
That would mean that they would think that their moral code is objective and they are the objective law giver.
Are you telling me you think that every one of your opinions is objective?
The only thing that people do to make it subjective is that this idea applies to everyone
No, what makes it subjective is the fact that it is based on their personal opinions. The desire to apply it to others does not have any relation to the definition of the word subjective.
Someones thoughts or feelings might be different, but that doesn't justify doing something wrong.
We aren't talking about justification, we are talking about the concept of morality. Their thoughts or feelings are what will determine if they think they are justified in doing something, and whether or not it is right or wrong.
Thats not evidence of unjustified killing. Thats evidence of people trying to justify what they did, but that doesn't mean that unjustly killing someone isn't still wrong
Okay, do you know what the definition of the word "justify" is? "To show to be just or right". The act of justifying is an individual trying to convey that they believe what they did was right. That means that these people believe what they did was right, while others do not. Both sides believe they have morality on their side, and in many cases, there is no clear answer as to which is right.
Just because different cultures have a different way of looking at things, that doesn't mean that morality is subjective. Its always wrong to unjustly kill someone.
Repeating that over and over does not make it a universally held truth.
What different countries find out is if the person was unjust in their killing
I feel like part of this sentence got cut off.
The fact that they are even discussing right and wrong shows that there is an objective right and wrong that exists outside of themselves. Otherwise, trials would be completely unnecessary
You have repeated this claim like a dozen times without providing a single logical justification for it's conclusion. There is no logical way in which the simple discussion of morality proves objective morality exists. One can argue that it proves that the concept of morality exists outside of ourselves, which, I mean, duh, but it does not prove that objective morality exists in any way.
The fact that we have a legal system to determine whether or not what someone did was right or wrong shows that there is an objective morality
And again, there is no logical link here. We as a society have come together through processes to determine what actions the state will allow or forbid. That has no link to objective morality.
Except that it is though. No where in the world will you find murder to be legal. What you find is a different understanding of what is considered murder
We aren't talking about legality, we are talking about morality. You can easily find places in which what we consider to be murder is considered morally acceptable. Take the Sentinelse people, for example, or certain tribes in New Guinea.
You yourself said that we lack evidence for this subject. I did provide you evidence in the replies that I gave you.
No you didn't, you begged the question and made claims with no epistemological backing.
If you honestly think that there is no evidence for it, then really are just being intellectually dishonest, not giving due diligence, or just being intellectually lazy.
And again you are just being an ass. I disagree that what you provided with evidence, and now you are saying "agree with me or I'll insult you". That's pathetic.
If you think that the evidence I gave you is weak or poor, that is different than saying that there is NO evidence whatsoever
Again, I do not believe that what you have provided constitutes evidence at all, for the reasons I have previously said.
Pull this "Agree with me or I will insult you" shit again and I'm out.
Nothing I've said implies that at all. I believe that humans are "moral" beings (ha, get it?), in that the overwhelming majority of people are going to behave according to our social norms. In other words, people aren't going to be assholes just because objective morality doesn't exist.
You're right when you say that people aren't going to become assholes. However, if everything is completely subjectivised, there will be nothing that is truly wrong. Ya people may have their own opinions about what they think is right or wrong, but there is nothing stopping someone from putting a bullet in your head and saying something about how it was the right thing to do
No, it really doesn't. We are discussing the abstract concept of morality, that does not prove that an objective code exists. That's like saying discussing unicorns proves that they exist (not in a metaphysical sense, I mean).
There is an inherent flaw in your argument. You are comparing something immaterial to something that is material (or would be if they existed)
Nope. All it takes is one person to prove that wrong, and since I do not believe that everyone else must (or even should) follow my moral code, that one is effectively negated.
That is a fair point
Are you telling me you think that every one of your opinions is objective?
Maybe not EVERY single one, but for the most part yes
No, what makes it subjective is the fact that it is based on their personal opinions. The desire to apply it to others does not have any relation to the definition of the word subjective.
You're right, but you misinterpreted what I said. I wasn't saying that people have the desire to apply it to everyone. What I was saying was that, whether its conscious or not, it is applied to everyone
We aren't talking about justification, we are talking about the concept of morality. Their thoughts or feelings are what will determine if they think they are justified in doing something, and whether or not it is right or wrong.
Except you do need to justify right and wrong. You do need to have reason why you're doing something.
Okay, do you know what the definition of the word "justify" is? "To show to be just or right". The act of justifying is an individual trying to convey that they believe what they did was right. That means that these people believe what they did was right, while others do not. Both sides believe they have morality on their side, and in many cases, there is no clear answer as to which is right.
Just a little off on the definition here. Its to show or prove to be right or reasonable. Just because there may not be a clear answer that doesn't mean that there is no objective morality. All that means is that people don't know what to do. This is just a conjecture on my part, but it seems like you think that if morality were objective, everyone would know what to do in every moral situation, but because we don't then morality must be subjective
Repeating that over and over does not make it a universally held truth.
Except I'm not just repeating it for my own health. I repeat it because a claim that requires this kind of answer keeps being brought up
I feel like part of this sentence got cut off.
It wasn't. It was intended to be like that
You have repeated this claim like a dozen times without providing a single logical justification for it's conclusion. There is no logical way in which the simple discussion of morality proves objective morality exists. One can argue that it proves that the concept of morality exists outside of ourselves, which, I mean, duh, but it does not prove that objective morality exists in any way.
If morality exists outside of us, why wouldn't the standard also exist outside of us?
And again, there is no logical link here. We as a society have come together through processes to determine what actions the state will allow or forbid. That has no link to objective morality.
People may be able to know that something should be allowed or forbidden, but how can they justify why it should be allowed or forbidden?
We aren't talking about legality, we are talking about morality. You can easily find places in which what we consider to be murder is considered morally acceptable. Take the Sentinelse people, for example, or certain tribes in New Guinea.
The legal system has everything to do with morality. The law tells us that one behavior is right and the opposite is wrong
No you didn't, you begged the question and made claims with no epistemological backing.
Thats because this isn't an argument of epistemology. Its an argument of ontology
And again you are just being an ass. I disagree that what you provided with evidence, and now you are saying "agree with me or I'll insult you". That's pathetic.
Hold on. According to everything you've been saying up to this point, morality is subject to each persons opinion. Why would what I said be morally wrong if morality is truly subjective? Did what I say all of a sudden become objectively wrong? Also, where did you get the idea that I was insulting you? Aren't I just making a claim about what you said? It may have been hard to hear, but how was it an insult?
Pull this "Agree with me or I will insult you" shit again and I'm out.
You're the only one thinking that I'm saying this. The truth can be offensive sometimes. What I said follows logically from what you said
You were saying that objective morality should just be assumed.
A) No, it shouldn't.
B) Even if you assume it until there is at least some evidence against - there is some evidence against - moral dilemmas.
you need to import a moral law to say something is morally wrong
You only need an objective moral law in order to say something is wrong "objectively" - not to say that something is subjectively wrong.
According to who?
If you think every single person in the world would volunteer to watch your children without getting paid - ask 10 people and get back to me.
Which one? (RE: murder, theft, and rape)
murder: When is it murder vs just killing - war, abortion/self-defense, mercy killing, death penalty, animals for food/sport, etc. Saying murder is wrong because it is wrong to murder is just a circular tautology.
theft: necessity e.g. bread for your starving family, stealing secrets/spying or stealing from enemies generally, eminent domain, etc., etc.
rape: spousal rape is allowed in many countries with no repercussions (ref, ref), if a person is a child molester and they go to prison and are raped there, is their rape just as morally wrong as the child rapes they committed? if a lion rapes a lioness is it objectively wrong?
Just because understanding is different, that doesn't make morality subjective.
It makes objective morality either non-existent or unattainable - thus humans are still left with only subjective morality.
You were saying that objective morality should just be assumed.
Thats not what I was referring to. Cartman said that nothing exists by default until you prove it exists. My comment that it was unnecessarily restrictive was referring to this.
You only need an objective moral law in order to say something is wrong "objectively" - not to say that something is subjectively wrong.
You need a moral law to say anything is wrong no matter how small
If you think every single person in the world would volunteer to watch your children without getting paid - ask 10 people and get back to me.
I asked for evidence, not a request
Which one?
I was actually referring to the countries you mentioned that there were parts of the world that allowed the things you mentioned. My bad. I should have clarified
murder: When is it murder vs just killing - war, abortion/self-defense, mercy killing, death penalty, animals for food/sport, etc. Saying murder is wrong because it is wrong to murder is just a circular tautology.
War-murder still applies here. There can be a case for someone justly killed someone else. The question is whether or not the killings were just
Abortion/self-defense-self-defense is a poor reason not to get pregnant or to get an abortion. Most pregnancies happen out of willful consent to sex so they basically brought it on themselves. The rest that didn't consent still have a responsibility to the child who is not attacking the mother
Mercy killing-more often than not, mercy killing is taken as murder
Death penalty-this can have its problems. However, this is the only one where I can see what you mean by murder vs just killing someone. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't still people who are killed unjustly
theft: necessity e.g. bread for your starving family, stealing secrets/spying or stealing from enemies generally, eminent domain, etc., etc.
Stealing is always wrong regardless of whether or not someone thinks its necessary
rape: spousal rape is allowed in many countries with no repercussions (ref, ref), if a person is a child molester and they go to prison and are raped there, is their rape just as morally wrong as the child rapes they committed? if a lion rapes a lioness is it objectively wrong?
Just because its allowed without any repercussions that doesn't make it any less wrong. The jail persons rape is just as morally wrong as their child rape. As bad as rape is, animals aren't subject to moral laws since they aren't accountable to anyone
It makes objective morality either non-existent or unattainable - thus humans are still left with only subjective morality.
That doesn't follow. If I don't understand theft, does that make it nonexistent or unattainable? What about with murder or rape or anything else in the world?
My comment that it was unnecessarily restrictive was referring to this.
And both Cartman's responses: "By default it doesn't exist. Otherwise, everything would exist.", "Logically everything doesn't exist by default. You have to show it exists."
and my response: "If you're going to just assume it exists without evidence - just go ahead and do this with god (what you're doing anyway) and skip trying to justify the constituent parts in the same way."
apply to your claim that somehow it is 'unnecessarily restrictive' to just assume it exists without any evidence.
You need a moral law to say anything is wrong no matter how small
If you have subjective moral law, you can say something is subjectively wrong.
In order for a person to say something is objectively wrong, there needs to be both an objective morality and a reliable way for the person to access it.
I asked for evidence
Ok - I will not watch your kid for free. Our argument is now proved.
I was actually referring to the countries
As to spousal rape being legal, my link named: China, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and India.
My other link showed that spousal rape was legal in the US until recently. It is still not treated equally to non-spousal rape in several states ref.
As to the rest, the issues I raised are being dealt with in all countries.
There can be a case for someone justly killed someone else.
Exactly. Is this process of justification objective?
self-defense is a poor reason not to get pregnant or to get an abortion.
Your comment applies mostly just to abortion rather than self-defense generally.
We discussed why abortion should be considered self-defense in our other debate here
Your arguments for consent and responsibility to the child (/person posing harm) would not apply to the generally accepted self-defense right - so, perhaps you can address that.
more often than not, mercy killing is taken as murder
Which just means sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't - ergo, subjective.
Stealing is always wrong
Just saying so does not address the cases I provided where people "justify" stealing (necessity, spying, eminent domain, etc.)
Just because its allowed without any repercussions that doesn't make it any less wrong.
Actually, that is exactly what it means. If one type of rape has severe penalties and another type has none, that means that the people in control deem that it is less wrong/more justifiable.
The jail persons rape is just as morally wrong as their child rape.
Do you think everyone would agree?
If I don't understand theft, does that make it nonexistent or unattainable?
Yes, it can be nonexistent/unattainable for you even if it is attainable by a population with control over whether you stay in an asylum.
If people don't understand right from wrong, we do treat them differently than people acting with intent.
apply to your claim that somehow it is 'unnecessarily restrictive' to just assume it exists without any evidence.
You see the stuff in front of you and are using it. That is proof it exists. Also, its not my job to provide evidence for someone else's claim.Its their job to provide evidence for their own assertion. Russell's teapot claims that a philosophical claim is false because it can't be scientifically verified. The logic is faulty because a philosophical claim isn't meant to be tested scientifically. The person making the claim implies, in one way or another, that there is only truth in science. That claim isn't a scientific truth, its a philosophical claim that can't be tested scientifically so the claim defeats itself. The dragon in my garage claim is also problematic. If all that existed was the natural world, then that analogy would be right, but it leaves out anything that can't be scientifically tested. Things like truth, morality, and freedom would have no rational reason to exist since they can't be proven scientifically in a purely naturalistic worldview.
If you have subjective moral law, you can say something is subjectively wrong.
Part of the issue with this though is that yo have to assume that there is no need to improve. Take slavery for example. We as a country used to own slaves, but don't anymore and in fact forbid it. People believed then just as we do now that people have inherent human rights, but that the slaves weren't human. Human rights didn't change. What changed was peoples understanding of what a human actually is. If there truly is a subjective moral law, then there was no need to change this
As to spousal rape being legal, my link named: China, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and India.
How is the fact that this is legal there proof of subjective morality? This is a difference in the understanding of rape rather than morality
Exactly. Is this process of justification objective?
It is objective. Is it hard for someone to stay objective? I'd would imagine some people would. A just killing isn't considered murder. Whats different is peoples definition of just which is why honor killings are allowed in some countries
Your comment applies mostly just to abortion rather than self-defense generally.
We discussed why abortion should be considered self-defense in our other debate here
Abortion being considered self-defense is still a poor argument. Thats why I mentioned consent and responsibility. Also, all the stuff that happens to a woman during and after pregnancy is either made out to be worse than it actually is or seems more frequent than it actually happens. Self-defense requires some kind of attack on the mother, even in a legal sense. Notice I never mentioned intent
Your arguments for consent and responsibility to the child (/person posing harm) would not apply to the generally accepted self-defense right - so, perhaps you can address that.
Part of your defense for abortion makes a pregnancy out to be some kind of attack on the mother thus requiring self-defense. If the woman willingly consented, she basically brought it on herself and is thus responsible for whatever happens. In the cases where she wasn't responsible, she still has a responsibility to the child even though she didn't consent to the pregnancy
Which just means sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't - ergo, subjective.
A difference in understanding of what constitutes murder does not mean that morality is subjective. Murder is still wrong even if someone does a mercy killing. All they are doing is trying to find a way around it to make what they are doing ok
Just saying so does not address the cases I provided where people "justify" stealing (necessity, spying, eminent domain, etc.)
People can try to justify theft, but in reality there is no justification for it. Necessity, spying, and eminent domain are not just causes for the unlawful taking of something that isn't yours
Actually, that is exactly what it means. If one type of rape has severe penalties and another type has none, that means that the people in control deem that it is less wrong/more justifiable.
In actuality, is still wrong. Just because someone tries to justify a wrong doing by redefining it, that doesn't make what they do any less wrong
Do you think everyone would agree?
Not everyone needs to. An objective morality makes it wrong regardless of whether or not someone like me or someone else thinks so
Yes, it can be nonexistent/unattainable for you even if it is attainable by a population with control over whether you stay in an asylum.
Its either nonexistent/unnattainable or it isn't. It can't be both true and not true at the same time
You see the stuff in front of you and are using it. That is proof it exists.
What I see in front of me is morals that differ from culture to culture and from time to time. Is that proof that subjective morality exists? It certainly isn't evidence for an objective one.
its not my job to provide evidence for someone else's claim.
The original question was raised by Deli_Subs - "Without God there is no Objective Morality just differing opinions. This debate I will not intervene at all nor will I leave a link to strengthen my argument."
You chose to defend the position that objective morality exists: "What I mean by objectively moral is that something is right or wrong regardless of how I may think or feel. Some of the proof is in the fact that everyone would say that some things are right or wrong."
Therefore, the onus of defending the claim that objective morality does exist is yours.
Russell's teapot
No, Russell's teapot/onus probandi does not only apply to things that can be proven/disproven scientifically. Do you believe I have an incorporeal, perpetually flying, heatless-fire breathing dragon in my garage because it can't be disproven scientifically? Or, that there is a unicorn at the center of the sun? etc.
Things like truth, morality, and freedom would have no rational reason to exist
Sure they would - groups are stronger than individuals, and group dynamics requires a certain level of honesty, etc. Therefore, evolution favored these traits.
yo have to assume that there is no need to improve
If one believes they have been given an objective moral code from god, they would have no reason to improve. If people know they are imperfect and that they only have a subjective perspective on things, they may be more persuadable.
We as a country used to own slaves, but don't anymore and in fact forbid it.
Slavery and indentured servitude still exist many places in the world. refref
Human rights didn't change.
Did rights for women change? Did we not think them human?
This is a difference in the understanding of rape rather than morality
Difference in understanding is what subjective means.
Whats different is peoples definition of just
Difference definition of just is what subjective means.
Abortion being considered self-defense
Again - whether abortion is self-defense is better handled in a separate debate.
Please address when self-defense is justified killing and when is it murder. If someone is stealing food from your refrigerator can you kill them? What if they are stealing your TV?
A difference in understanding of what constitutes murder does not mean that morality is subjective.
That is exactly what it means.
Murder is still wrong even if someone does a mercy killing.
So, if a person has a terminal disease and is in chronic pain and wishes to die, but they can't do it themselves - killing them is objectively murder?
Necessity, spying, and eminent domain are not just causes for the unlawful taking of something that isn't yours
Says who? Since humans allow all of those things.
Just because someone tries to justify a wrong doing by redefining it, that doesn't make what they do any less wrong
Again - different understandings and justifications and relative weighing of the factors involved is exactly what subjective is.
An objective morality makes it wrong regardless of whether or not someone like me or someone else thinks so
You are left with 2 possibilities - either an objective morality does not exist, or it exists in a way that humans cannot reliably access it. Making it either non-existent, or worthless.
Its either nonexistent/unnattainable or it isn't.
It can be unattainable for one and rational for another - because it is subjective.
Just because opinions are different does not mean there is not a definite answer. Just because a question is question is complicated and people disagree does not mean there is not one single answer
If 1/3 = 0.333 repeating, does 3/3 really equal 1 or does it equal 0.999 repeating? There is a singular answer to this question which is 1. But if you do not know geometric series, advanced uses of pre-calculus, or calculus, the answer SEEMS to be both, but this is from a lack of knowledge. The same principle can be applied to morality. There is a singular answer to questions, it just requires an understanding of psychological, biology, and general sciences. For example adultery and/or fornication. The modern idea of morality is nihilistic when it comes to sex. But sex before marriage increases chances of divorce dramatically unless the person you have sex with ends up being your spouse, which is unlikely if the standard doesn't exist. Why get married, why not just have sex with whoever you want whenever you want? The only time children do not have development problems or harmful emotional dispositions is when a man and woman are married and marital problems are relatively low. People can argue morals from a nihilistic view but that doesn't excuse or make the the psychological ramifications of their actions disappear.
Knowledge about all of the psychological and biological principles in the Hebrew Law is a very convincing argument for God. Cultures had bits and pieces of morals that make sense biologically and psychologically but no culture has the wealth that the Hebrew Law has.
The only time children do not have development problems or harmful emotional dispositions is when a man and woman are married and marital problems are relatively low.
My point still holds, you're purposefully not acknowledging concepts. Yes 1/9 is equal to 0.111 repeating it is repeating implying infinity. If you remember from your high school Calculus course, as the number approaches infinity the difference 0.9 and 1 increasingly gets smaller until it reaches infinity and is essentially nothing, and in turn 0.9 repeating is essentially 1. Seems like there is two answers, but if you lay everything out and define terms, there is only one answer. The same principle applies with morality. Use solid logic, define terms, you get one answer.
Baloney
Social studies are almost always biased, both religious and those trying to oppose the religious view. However, pay attention to your friends. I guarantee anyone that has lived in an unstable home has emotional baggage that influences their decisions with relationships. Sexual standards try to minimize the possibility of marital instability that comes from sexual jealousy, and ensuing lack of interest in the spouse that comes from extra-marital affairs.
First, .9 repeating isn't "essentially" 1 - it IS 1 - thus, there aren't two answers at all - only 1.
Second, even if we were to take the thrust of your point and say that sometimes one answer appears different from another when they are actually the same - that would certainly not always be the case.
If one person says gay marriage should be illegal and another person says it should be legal - clearly those are not different expressions of "one answer".
Social studies are almost always biased
So, you think randomized, controlled, peer-reviewed studies of large cohorts are less reliable than talking to a couple of friends?
Maybe you don't have too many friends - because I know a lot of people (including myself) that are products of very dysfunctional heterosexual marriages...
First, .9 repeating isn't "essentially" 1 - it IS 1 - thus, there aren't two answers at all - only 1.
So there is only one answer. Thus was my point.
If one person says gay marriage should be illegal and another person says it should be legal - clearly those are not different expressions of "one answer".
Just because opinions differ does not mean the answer has multiple possible answers. For example, if homosexuality itself creates dysfunctional and in itself wrong, the question doesn't even arise. Should we kill a murderer or not and allow a possible escape? (alluding to the Joker) The answer is control yourself and don't commit murder in the first place ( the answer to the "One Bad Day" concept).
So, you think randomized, controlled, peer-reviewed studies of large cohorts are less reliable than talking to a couple of friends? Have you read through the studies? The definitions of "bad behavior" is purposely ambiguous to allow researchers to confirm their own bias. The peer-reviewed studies are usually condemned both on the religious and non religious side. People you know and can communicate with are much more reliable because you KNOW them.
Maybe you don't have too many friends - because I know a lot of people (including myself) that are products of very dysfunctional heterosexual marriages... Congrads you're alive and can hold a job. But the point I care about goes past what researchers can see. Are you selfless to the point of fault in relationships? Can you handle and control your emotions in extremely stressful relationship situations (no way to present those in an controlled experiment) and seek out to be sacrificial for the other person? This is very personal and I'm not faulting you or assuming anything but I do have alot of friend that have come from dysfunctional homes and most have tendencies that cause harm to relationships. The relationships they hold may be able to survive, but I wouldn't say they'd be better off coming from the home they did. The "sins of the father" is a very real concept.
Just because opinions differ does not mean the answer has multiple possible answers.
It means that either objective morality doesn't exists or that it exists in a useless way - as people can't reliably access it.
Should we kill a murder or not and allow a possible escape? (alluding to the Joker)
Um, the Joker is fictional. Should we kill non-fictional murderers who live in reality where we have super-max prisons that no one has ever escaped from? What about people like Osama or the blind sheik where their imprisonment might be used to excuse terrorist activity?
The answer is control yourself and don't commit murder in the first place
Except all of the times where we allow it (e.g. self-defense) - or, presumably, if God tells you to, etc.
Have you read through the studies?
Many of them, yes.
The definitions of "bad behavior" is purposely ambiguous to allow researchers to conform their own bias.
"Bad" itself IS ambiguous - as it is subjective.
People you know and can communicate with are much more reliable because you KNOW them.
I know many children of single-parents that are more well-adjusted than many people I know who grew up with married heterosexual parents.
Can you handle and control your emotions in extremely stressful relationship situations (no way to present those in an controlled experiment) and seek out to be sacrificial for the other person?
Can an astronaut?
Ron Garan is a NASA astronaut, entrepreneur, humanitarian, etc. and was raised by a single mom.
Do you think that supports the idea that: "The only time children do not have development problems or harmful emotional dispositions is when a man and woman are married and marital problems are relatively low."
"sins of the father"
A) How is that relevant?
B) Does the bible contradict itself related to whether children should suffer for the "sins of the father"?
"I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me" - Exodus 20:5
(and original sin, etc.)
"The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity;"
In the same way multiple answers doesn't assume a single answer, multiple answers doesn't exclude the possibility of a single answer. I wasn't avoiding the argument I just through that was common sense
It doesn't matter if there is one answer or multiple. That is a red herring. You never actually engaged in the argument. The guy said that you have to prove objective morality exists before you can claim it is responsible for something. You saying that it is possible for a simple answer from something complicated had nothing to do with the discussion.
Actually it does matter. From the biblical standpoint morality has never ever presented morality as some magical law or contract that the deity abstractly made that man had to follow. It has always been presented as God's instruction manual to his creation from the deity that created their body. It was actually atheists and agnostics that straw-manned arguments to put morality as some abstract law, that many Christians stupidly use. Morality has always been the balance between the good of society and the individual, and is why the founding fathers of American wrote the form of government that they did. It very much DOES matter that there is a single answer because that means a form of good can exists besides what God describes as how our body and psychology works.
The Bible describes very well exactly what a subjective morality would look like. "Here are some rules to live by. Break those rules when I say to".
It was actually atheists and agnostics that straw-manned arguments to put morality as some abstract law, that many Christians stupidly use.
It isn't a strawman, it is called reading comprehension.
It very much DOES matter that there is a single answer because that means a form of good can exists besides what God describes as how our body and psychology works.
You are begging the question. You are presupposing a single answer so that you can presuppose what that answer is so that you can presuppose the answer leads to God. You don't need to bother with the part where you tell us that there can be one answer. No one said there can't be one answer.
The Bible describes very well exactly what a subjective morality would look like. "Here are some rules to live by. Break those rules when I say to".
Which ones?
It isn't a strawman, it is called reading comprehension.
See above
You are begging the question. You are presupposing a single answer so that you can presuppose what that answer is so that you can presuppose the answer leads to God. You don't need to bother with the part where you tell us that there can be one answer. No one said there can't be one answer.The guy said that you have to prove objective morality exists before you can claim it is responsible for something. If there is only one answer then morality is objective.
I am actually having a problem finding any that don't fit that description. How about killing people. Let's start with that.
The guy said that you have to prove objective morality exists before you can claim it is responsible for something. If there is only one answer then morality is objective.
Your argument that one answer is possible proves nothing.
I am actually having a problem finding any that don't fit that description. How about killing people. Let's start with that.
There is a difference between senseless killing and justice. People cherry pick circumstances and verses to prove this argument. What they fail to remember is that God did not give the Israelite's their promised land till the sin of the current inhabitants of the land was past a certain point. The previous inhabitants of the land worshiped Moleck (spelling maybe wrong) and would ritually sacrifice children through burning and had sexual orgies with all genders that included animals which would lead to widespread STDs, not even mentioning the relationships problems. The Israelite's being used by God as judgment was not senseless as you portray it. Next example?
your argument that one answer is possible proves nothing if one answer is not only possible but how God decided morality then all other actions besides the one answer would be wrong and in turn morality would be objective
The Israelite's being used by God as judgment was not senseless as you portray it.
We see many instances in the Bible where God carries out the punishment Himself. It is senseless to have moral people have to kill people to appease God.
if one answer is not only possible but how God decided morality
This is a premise that you have not once tried to demonstrate.
then all other actions besides the one answer would be wrong and in turn morality would be objective
You are saying that God would have to have objective morality which proves that God exists. Great circular reasoning. There is nothing to suggest that God or objective morality exist.
Thou shalt not kill - now go kill the Amalechites, the Midianites, witches/fortunetellers, gays, stubborn children, adulterers, men/women/children/animals etc in towns that believe in other gods, etc., etc., etc.
I understand the general point but how is .999... onto infinity the same as there being a god if you can't prove there's a god other than opinionated proof which is definitively not proof by the concept of being debatable proof. 1 is 0.999...etc can be proved on paper but it doesn't say much about god. It feels like saying "humans call yellow a color therefore black people are worse than white people." I don't see how the statement holds up because the causing argument is provable but everything after "therefore" is not proven by that logic and is still an opinion even though the part before therefore is a fact, its not a relevant fact. or it might be but I don't see your logic. how does 0.999999..... and so on being 1 say anything about god. you proved that some things aren't debatable very nicely. now how does that apply to god?
Jesus said it will be "just like the days of Noah!
We have entered the Ark, trying to heard you beasts in with us!
We will be hidden from the horror that will take place when the middle east let's loose it's final acts. You can be hidden in Jesus, or not! But the destruction is coming regardless.
Now He painstakingly filed them into the Ark Male and Female.
Not three-somes or bi-sexuals, or same-sex couples, only male and female entered!
Why did God start this story discussing the unnatural marrying of fallen angels with daughters of men?
"Unnatural" and then also equate the final destruction calling attention to "marrying and given in marriage" unnatural against His design, 1 male with his 1 female!?
Do you think same sex marriage was a blessing? Think again!
It will be just like the days of Noah, then He adds Sodom and Gomorrah just to cover His basis in CLARITY!
All the others, we'll they were marrying and given in marriage to whomever they pleased!
Weird Jesus would mention this dynamic, when God was displeased by their marital choices and their seed of offspring.
Yet Jesus mentions that too!
"Like birth pangs" "like a woman in labor" " woe to them that nurse babes and give sucks in those days" woe to us who raised and nursed these babes of Millennials, woe!
Jesus unites these two stories!
And without the Holy Spirit you can't understand a thing!
So good luck, or get into the Ark!
Romans
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; *(for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Luke 17
32 Remember Lot’s wife.
33 Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.
34 I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left. (Unnatural and immorality, and fornication)
35 There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other will be left. (False doctrines and false teachers)
36 [Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left.”] (working serving masters, one serving themselves and god of this world, one serving Jesus)
37 And answering they said to Him, “Where, Lord?” And He said to them, “Where the body is, there also the vultures will be gathered.” devoured by beasts in a dog eat dog world! Demons devouring them as they devour each other!
Guess what happens 1st? Taken by their own lusts comes 1st!
Dead bodies of sin devoured by vultures, birds of the air, Principalities of the air!
3)Is it moral to walk into your neighbor's house, steal his things and kill him?
4)Is it moral to look at a goat ready to pounce upon it in a ghastly attempt to fornicate with said goat in an effort to bring forth little half human half goatlings?
Widely accepted subjective moral views are not proof of objective morality.
If morality is objective you have to demonstrate its source. You cant demonstrate a source. As such it is subjective.
Is rape immoral? Ancient peoples didnt think so. Hell even the isrealites from your own holy book said it was ok if shes from a different tribe. But today its horribly immoral. Society changed. Culture changed. MORALITY changed. Ie: morality is subjective.
Is it moral to molest a child? Same thing as above. In islam they say sure why not. Morality is different between cultures. Ie: morality is subjective.
You just asserting that all these things are immoral to you in 2016 is not proof that youre right.
Once again, you actually have to demonstrate a source of objective morality
First off you'd have to prove morality's objective. Next off morality is greatly a construct of remorse, which is proven to be wired into your brain at birth because there is a part of the brain that controls it. Morality can be learned from surroundings, and humans choose the "don't kill other humans" morality because it works the best.
Not just wired into the brain, it's the brain that put conscience to reasoning. Conscience is conscience the brain justifies or condemns conscience and that the part that is wired into the brain.
Like ISIS knows murder is wrong but their brain goes against the conscience that will eventually condemn them, saying every reason it's right to do the opposite.
Then conscience becomes dull, and darkened, and slippery slope, they are not even aware how evil their actions are. But in front of God their excuses of the mind won't exist, just the judgement of their deeds weighed against the conscience, which the law of God is written!!! On 2 stone tablets soul and heart !!!!!!!
Romans 2
5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; . 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
Their own conscience will testify as a witness against them!!!!
There were moral laws long before any of the bible was penned, and I find it impossible to believe that you think people would not have figured out you shouldn't kill people without some commandment from a god. Furthermore doing something because you are threaned with violence if you don't does not make you moral.
Yes. When I was a kid I remember being told"one day the land that is now Syria will be bombed into oblivion, the Russians will be allied with Iran, an epic battle will begin to rotate around Northern Israel, the U.S. will be a mere shadow of its former self, Christians will be genocided in the Middle East, and Christians will be beheaded. My oh my. I never thought we'd actually be right here in this exact position in my lifetime, but...here we are.
Yes there are arguments on a list that's a mile long. Do you have any evidence for the magic "not God" that manifested reality from its magical "not Godness"? No? I didn't think so.
The question of morality is defined by God, if God exists.
The answer is morality is subjective if God does not exist.
And for the most part, we can't "prove" He exist, or doesn't exist!
But there is more indicating He does exist, then indicating He doesn't.
We can't see gravity, to prove gravity. But the indications themselves are "the proof" that gravity exists. No matter what experiment you use showing gravity, only the outcome of gravity is seen, and measured, and is the basic foundation of earth, everything on earth, and I think even the rotations of the earth in space with Sun and moon. I'm not that science educated, but we all kind of know the basics. So even though we can't see gravity, it's existence is indisputable. Well if you look at God with the same examination and investigation, then you will also find God is actually as indisputable as gravity.
But if you refuse to investigate as you would gravity then you can't conclude the truth that's actually as in your face factually as gravity!
Now I won't actually go into everything in detail, because it's a vast deep question with even greater vast deep answers.
If you actually have a heart that wants to know, you will investigate it, if not then someday you will meet Him anyway. It's inevitable if He truely exists. If He exists, you not knowing it is your judgement. Because you not knowing it means, you are His enemy not His child.
The children know the Father, the others will meet the God that we call Father!
Here is just a glimpse... a thought to start your own investigation ... but I will caution you, if your heart is evil and closed, your eyes and understanding will also be darkened and closed!
Ezekiel, Daniel, and a few other prophets focus on end times prophesies along with Revelations, and some of what Jesus said direct.
The Bible an instruction manual, explains every detail for understanding, and then also a Time keeper for us to show us where we are and what's next. It's written to His people and as time progresses, "at the appointed time" God opens the playback within the pages of the "football" to reveals things, times, events, rebellions, everything from the Catholic midevil dark ages to religious freedom, to extreme depravity all recorded in the "football," in order to keep His people on track, and give warnings, and instructions and commands for preparations for His people to stay on the side of the light as everything goes down!
And while He shows His people, He blinds everyone else.
Blinding them so they "stumble at noonday" "the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, stars fall, earthy quakes"
If you read through the prophets Isaiah Jeremiah Ezekiel all of them, this "violent Bible" as people accuse, is actually a revealing of everything from beginning to end. Which currently we are about 6000 years since the story of Creation. 6 days!
The Word of God is like moving "a football" through time. Like a football the presidents pass with all the informations and codes needed to defence and procedure.
So I posted Ezekiel 38, here because it's pertinent to what we see happening today. This is an end time prophesy.
And Islamic extremism is a key player, as they hate Israel and the US whether we admit or not is considered a Christian Nation, as well as which Christianity is part of Judaism, when passing the football. Also Muslims are part of the football.
Here is a prophesy given about Ishmael, now this is part of the football. There are lots of parts. But it's significant. Gog is the use of the many nations and the Spirit of Ishmael. His blood is in many Nations, and we see this enmity and strife set as a part of the football. And Russia is significant, Turkey, and the "horn" of Africa.
We see beasts with horns in the Bible apocalyptic prophesies.
And note its very interesting, the prophesy discusses in
verse 10 -‘Thus says the Lord God, “It will come about on that day, that thoughts will come into your mind and you will devise an evil plan, 11 and you will say, ‘I will go up against the land of unwalled villages. I will go against those who are at rest, that live securely, all of them living without walls and having no bars or gates
Its interesting with all the political discussions of open borders and the funny "wall" discussions of our day
Israel and the USA and other Allie Nations, the United Nations, and all political, geographical, and Islamic extremism is all part of the "football"
Here is a prophesy regarding Ishmael -
Genesis 16
8 He said, “Hagar, Sarai’s maid, where have you come from and where are you going?” And she said, “I am fleeing from the presence of my mistress Sarai.” 9 Then the angel of the Lord said to her, “Return to your mistress, and submit yourself to her authority.” 10 Moreover, the angel of the Lord said to her, “I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be too many to count.” 11 The angel of the Lord said to her further,
“Behold, you are with child,
And you will bear a son;
And you shall call his name Ishmael,
Because the Lord has given heed to your affliction.
12 “He will be a wild donkey of a man,
His hand will be against everyone,
And everyone’s hand will be against him;
And he will live to the east of all his brothers.”
And Gog did mix with decendents of Ishmael.
So my point in posting is how far Liberals have taken the USA from the founding Fathers intent, and the self declarations of the Liberal populous, "We are not a Christian Nation" with a fist up!
So as we are being torn up from within and without, by "bowls of wrath being poured out," from Revelations, and actually some are being poured out, already! As we stand, and we don't even know it!
But as the US puts their fist up against God, so in essence, we declared war against God. And its a sad day, but a joyous day.
In 1 sense sad because the hate and violence is dancing in the open like never before, its shocking to the reasonable mind! Yet almost acceptable and natural to the mind that is like the wild animal, "or beast" the "mind of a beast" and the becoming minds like beasts is also recorded to happen in the football. But in another sense joyous because we are coming to the end of the whole game. And that means Jesus is coming soon and for His people, we'll we look forward to it.
It's a double edge sword, separating darkness to more darkness and light to more light.
So Benghazi is an example of the mind of the beast in leadership, with Gog tearing us as another beast. And every bit of it is judgement. And the blood spilled of these men, is on the heads of both of these beasts.
This is circular reasoning. If I believe there to be no god, any book that is claimed to have been written by this god cannot be used to argue his existence.
At minimum integrity an no bias in educational studies like ancient history and archiology
This is one of the many examples.
Atheists don't just leave out truth and history regarding the biblical text, they change history, close the door to knowledge, and even destroy artifacts.
So in education they teach wrong information, in order to discredit the Bible, and mislead people in order to illuminate biblical faith.
.
Free thinkers are really dictators of thought. Atheists and skeptics close the door on finds that prove the Bible. The literally direct it, control it, and it comes down to ruling, one world government, dictatorship.
There has been an agenda throughout history to discredit the Bible even in historic value.
So in the 1930s, they had determined Exodus to be in Rameses as Pharoah. Without finding anything they declared, the bible and God to be dead. Then with atheism force of their agenda, based in Satanism really. Satan rules and the goal is to eliminate God and His people and that's what we see today, no matter how unreasonable, it's a closed door.
But the door was closed for all of you "free thinkers" by the dictating "free thinkers"
1st of all I'll say many Biblical scholars were asleep at the wheel. So they are to blame for apathy.
Genesis is very detailed on geneology, just math tells you the approx time period of Exodus.
There was a place called Rameses generations before Exodus, because the word Rameses as in the place, the jumped to a conclusion, and instead of using simple math, the intellectuals did it their way, conveniently.
So your a historian you have simple math in ancient texts, do you study it? Or assume based on word association?
Apparently simple is to easy for the atheist and skeptic, so let's just go with word association!
"Patterns of Evidence-Exodus" is a well done documentary proving all stories from Joseph to Moses to the walls of Jericho!
Right were it's supposed to be be by my own study of simple math in geneology purposely detailed by God in Genesis.
Also location is tricky for a few reason, changes in names modern map compared to ancient map. And also commercialization, if a location says this is a Biblical place, the location can make money in tourism, some areas welcome that and exploit it. Whereas other government do not at all want to confirm biblical artifacts and places.
One factor is Muslim countries do not want to cooperate with confirming biblical History, for obvious reasons.
And all these are obstacles the dictators of free thought don't tell the little free thinkers, because the dictating free thinkers want to discredit the Bible and remove God and Christianity.
Only Jews and Christians, although there are some that want to eliminate violence of Muslims, the religion doesn't bother them.
None of the others bother them, why? Because Satan is behind it, and he is still trying to ascend above God.
The question I have, same with liberal media, I get conservatives do it also, but not nearly to the degree of liberals.
In liberal politics, the free thinkers dictatorship organizations are working conspiracies, and universities also have been infiltrated, Republican also have been infiltrated. But the left is much more of a useful tool. They are tools! And media and universities all tools. Using each other by taught skills of exploitation, manipulation, using everything, even causing harm, to "fix it"
Because the goal is one world rule, basically one world communism. The question is, do you think they wear that on their sleeves, and on display?
So you have this big giant that controls what you get to choose.
So they only allow what they want you to think, and gift wrap it for you all, and call it free thinking! But wouldn't free thinking be to give you all the information and let you all think freely, and conclude freely?
So they found everything in a time line the Bible itself said it would be in, yet they dig 200 years outside of it and tell the world, "see nothing" and when people of integrity in the field show everything, even in sequence of order, they keep the door shut, thereby keeping the door to the little free thinkers minds closed also!
I'd be passed if someone controlled me, I hate it.
Not only do you know shockingly little about the ideologies you discuss, but you have managed to create quite a substantial number of unsubstantiated conspiracies to go along with it.
Indoctrination through education took root pretty early in American History. As it already established global prominence by elite educators like Dewey.
John Dewey and his socialist brotherhood, a hundred years ago, decided they would use the public schools to transform the entire society. They first had to seize control of what is taught in K-12 classrooms. Dewey and his successors settled on two major strategies for controlling what educators call "content."
First, they discarded as much of the traditional curriculum as possible – i.e., knowledge was thrown out the window by the boxload. Secondly, they invented many techniques for scrambling classroom instruction so that knowledge was no longer taught efficiently.
So we have here, across a wide front, a well organized war against knowledge and the transmission of knowledge. Dumbed down schools were created intentionally in order to create dumbed down students. That, my research suggests, is the horrible reality.
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Have you watched Patterns of Evidence-Exodus? I think it may currently be on Netflix.
There are many others documentaries as well. And David Rohn is a great resourse- videos on youtube.
I like the presentation of Patterns of Evidence because it discusses sequences in finding that are in order of the biblical History, and findings or coincidentally seen in a time line are in accurate sequence that match the biblical historic account.
It's denial is more a byproduct of militant atheism, and political control of education for social indoctrination, then for independent thought, and true free thought.
So if there is evidence of Joseph, which there is, and also evidence of the events recorded ie… a long term famine, and also followed by slavery, a massive migration, then conquests of places like Jericho, I'd be inclined to think the digs should be taken seriously, rather than leading education and thought by its denial of the findings and their appropriate applicaton.
The claim that Atheists change history and destroy artifacts is rather bold. Do you have any evidence to support this?
Between the comments that Atheism is based in Satanism and that we control what others think yet call it free thinking show you clearly don't have an understand of Atheism. At its core, because no evidence has been provided to show otherwise, we do no believe in supernatural beings, including any supreme dieties or satan. To clarify, atheism is not based in Satanism because we do not believe Satan exists.
I have not read nor seen "Patterns of Evidence-Exodus" so I will not discuss this directly, however with the sheer amount of peer reviewed studies to conclude the lack of evidence, I doubt I'll be convinced by it. The lack of evidence for the Exodus is only the tip of the iceberg for us anyway. According to Genesis, Adam & Eve were the first man and women. Mounds of evidence in the fossil record however indicates modern, homosapien has been around far longer than 6,000. There is no geological or archeological evidence to support the global flood purported in the bible. Some have argued that the flood was not truly global but rather a local flood. If this is the case, what does it mean when the bible claims God would never flood the earth again? There have been countless localizd floods in recent history. As discussed there is no evidence to support a mass exodus. Christians like to claim the destruction of Jerusalem was predicted in Matthew and Luke however the destruction took place in 70AD and biblical scholars suggest Matthew and Luke were written in 80AD. There are far too many contradictions in the Bible to even try to list here (but I will cite my source). To say the God exists because the Bible says so is no different than if I claim Newt Scamander exists because "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" does. Unfair comparison? I don't think so. I see both books to be works of fiction and fantasy.
You claim Atheism is trying to control people's thoughts, but on the contrary I believe religion to do this. I was a Christian for 33 years before I finally started to think on my own and realize the absurdity of it all. Don't think so? The entire premise for any religion is "faith". Websters defines faith as, "a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion. b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust. To convince people to believe something for which there is no evidence shows the ability to control minds. In contrast, Atheism promotes doing your own research and making your own decision.
The question comes down to, do you really want to know if it is true?
Senator Paul Hoagland of Nebraska: "The fundamentalist parents have no right to indoctrinate their children in their beliefs. We are preparing their children for the year 2000 and life in a global one-world society and those children will not fit in."
.
Watch Patterns of Evidence I think it on Netflix
And watch Medigo 1 and 2 - full movie links YouTube below
Documentaries show is its roots, if your discerning at all maybe you'll see what's behind it all, the dark ruler of this world.
The “Humanist Review” magazine observed, "Education is thus
a most powerful ally of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school's meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?"
.
P. Blanchard, in The Humanist, 1983, continues: "I think that the most important factor moving us toward a secular society has been the educational factor.
.
Our schools may not teach Johnny how to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is 16 tends toward the elimination of religious superstition.
.
The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all other myths of alleged history."
.
John J. Dunphy wrote in the Jan/Feb 1983 edition of The Humanist, "The battle for mankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom. The classroom must and will become the arena of conflict between the old and the new: the rotting corpse of Christianity and the new faith of humanism."
.
I am as sure as I am of Christ's reign that a comprehensive and centralized system of national education, separated from religion, as is now commonly proposed, will prove the most appalling enginery for the propagation of anti-Christian and atheistic unbelief and of antisocial nihilistic ethic, individual, social, and political, this sin-rent world has ever seen.
You can't judge what I know till you look at the evidence, I can't pass it in by osmosis.
You don't believe it without proof, yet you won't look at proof.
It's rather simple there is one real enemy of this world and His people, it's obvious. And we are in a time where it has reached the top and its almost complete.
I'm sorry, this is the most ridiculous of the arguments.
Someone gave me a scripture "contradiction" Jesus last words.
I handled the argument by simply reading each and seeing if prespective fits as eyewitness.
By the time I was done, God showed me so clearly, I could literally explain were they were standing, and the transition of emotion in the text.
The sentence in question: what was Jesus last words, and why the disciples couldn't seem to match.
I guess everyone has this picture of quiet people praying the rosary! It's silly!
All 4 are eyewitness, and I can tell by simple being reasonable.
One Gospel says He screamed out, and John says It is finished.
Can you scream with your head down?
Head position down while talking or screaming is difficult, in the Gospel text is noted here he screamed out and bowed His head and died, that was His last minute!
So the guys are spread out hiding in the crowd, but Jon is sitting right in front of Jesus with Mary, same in the court room.
Read His Gospel the niches and details tell you exactly were they were standing at the court house and at the cross.
And bozos still have mouths full of nonsense!
If you are beginning to pass out or die while tied in an upright position, and you breath your last breath, and give up your spirit, is your last breath, with I assume head raised face up to sky when screaming, because you can't scream when your chin is tuched into you chest, right? Go ahead and try it.
So was Jesus last breath what He called out loudly?
Like ones hiding in the crowd heard?
Or do you bow your head and simply mumble a whispet?
Like John heard sitting in front of Jesus with Mary.
Which sentence would John hear, that the others could not?
Who do you think John recorded what He heard Jesus say in very last Words? And the others record calling out loudly, and no quiet statements? Logic reasoning, skeptics are ridiculous!
He this whole section of the cross is not mentioning anything Jesus is screaming out, John records the quieter sentences but not the screams.
I witness accounts are from the view or vantage point of the observer as to their experience in it.
They are not writing an account of someone else's experience. So why do you want it to be not an eye witness accounts.
Each account ... has emotion in it. You can actually see Luke going from a matter of fact account at court, to as unglued as Luke gets. The writing seems to speed up, and it gets less organized. You can tell the memory details are messy, and a little emotionally messy. Which is unusual for the personality of this writer.
Or did you take one line and think they should be the same prespective?
If they did that, then that would make them not from an eyewitness account. Because eyewitness accounts are from the view of the writer as to their experience in it. So it should be like an imperfect puzzle or a little bit messy of a puzzle yet that fits together to make one picture anyway.
They are not writing an account of someone else's experience, they are writing as they experienced it. So why do you want the text to sound different than an eye witness account. And not an eyewitness account.
You have to think, they didn't have some kind of rules. No one said hey someday is going to dissect my words and if I say it slightly different, they will accuse the faith. They wrote accurate facts without comparing notes, according to their eyewitness memory, and it's infused with personality and even emotion.
Again John is right in front of the cross
He this whole section of the cross is not mentioning anything Jesus is screaming out, John records the quieter sentences but not the screams.
Wouldn't it be similar on any given day at any given event?
If me and my husband were at the hospital with an my daughter when she was in labor with my grand baby, and I was at the bedside, and my husband was in the hall while the nurse was in.
Would we hear things differently in the conversations. He might catch the nurse and whatever she said on the way out of the room. I may have to ask him, what did she say?
But he might not have heard my daughter ask me for ice chips while I was close to her in the room and he was in the hall.
Were we at the same hospital? With the same daughter and grand baby?
Or would it be proof to be false because what we heard was not the exact same?
The sentences are just common sense.
I'm amazed how desperate everyone is to disprove the Bible!
Luke is over toward the right of the thieves in a loud crowd
Luke has a better vantage point. But not like Luke is hearing the screams pretty clear, but not the quieter sentences like John.
John is right in front! He has had a best seat position since the trial, he is with Jesus mother, and doesn't leave her side.
Matt is over toward the left in a noisier crowd.
Mark is furthest from the trial and the crosses, he is by the road looking on from there, so maybe toward the back of the crowd. You can tell because he mentions reactions as people were passing by, not standing in the midst of the commotion.
So all 4 texts show their prespective down to where they were standing and who they were likely with.
Peter was probably easy to pick out, we know he was scared and hiding. Mark writes alot more about Peter's prespective in the Gospel, so you know they were connected.
Mark discusses Joseph the rich guy with the tomb was scared, no one else did.
So you can see this was their discussions.
Matt was scared, paranoid, and shocked at the behaviors of the crowd, and John is sitting with Mary , so he records the quieter sentences. All fits like each is an historical account by eye witnesses!
Now the sentence in question:
He literally records a conversation from the cross to Mary and John. Now, no one is going to be horrible to Mary, she is mom watching this, so there is some level of expectation that her townspeople would give her some respectful space.
John is with her, and everyone else in mixed in trying to blend in. We know this because Peter felt scared enough to deny Jesus three times, just as Jesus pre-told.
Even in details of the trial, you can tell where John Matt Luke and Mark were by their details.
John was in the court room with Mary, John mention more stenographer like details of testamony. Luke at a great vantage point probably near to the exit door, he also records detail in the court room, not like Jon thoubecause he catches much of the trial, and also on the way out he catches much on the way.
Matt tell of some of the court, he didn't get as close as Luke, and especially not as close as John. And Matt is hanging near this regretting of Judas, so he wasn't in a good vantage point, he was likely hiding near where the pharasees where gathered.
You can see each's personality.
Each account ... has emotion in it.
You can actually see Luke go from a matter of fact account at court, to progressively more emotional, a bit unglued which Luke doesn't usually get.
Luke's writing seems to speed up, and it gets less organized. You can tell the memory details are a little emotionally messy. Which is unusual for the personality of this writer.
Luke 23
44 It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 because the sun was obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two. Luke describes unusual outward event first.
46 And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I commit My Spirit.” Having said this, He breathed His last.
Luke is probably closer in or in a less noisy surrounding crowd, than Matt, Mark, and Peter.
I think Mark was Peter's road dog, and I think Joseph the rich guy with the tomb, was with them both for some of the time.
Luke has details that are inclusive of on the way while walking, he seemed to have been in a good hearing of the trial and walk. He also likely followed closer on the walk in, because he has more side conversations detailed. He also hears what both criminals were sayiing back and forth. And Luke records something Jesus said that others didn't when they were planting the cross.
Luke 23: 4
34 But Jesus was saying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.” And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves.
While standing in the crowd Luke also seems to be within an ear shot of the cross, he was probably on the right side, over nearer to the thief on the right side, because Luke heard what the right side thief said, as a matter of fact he heard the whole entire conversation between the thieves from his vantage point.
Matt was over toward the left, and you can tell his account is from a memory that seemed more emotion and paranoid than Luke's account.
Matt is negative about everyone who was present, he is seeing the horror. And his account shows it.
Probably further left. You can tell in putting the pieces together, that Matt is describing his prespective. Visually seeing the two thieves screaming out words, and it all blends in as insults.
So he likely could hear some of the thief on the left's words, and seeing the thief on the right moving his mouth screaming, but he can't distinguish the words in the noise.
In his writing, his ears were focused on the loud insults, noise, and hate. He comes off disgusted.
He is writing like we would, if some injustice made us write what was done to our friend, listing them with a finger banging at each count.
Matt is still emotionally there in that moment in this writing.
He is running through that list like, on going inclusive, and that one, and that one, and over there them to!
Because Matt says about then, put in commotion, and weeping, and insulting noises and realize they are writing their perspective.
And its not going to be rehearsed or a perfect picture, like a scene in picture in a Cathedral. It was real life noise, and real life crowd, emotionally weeping and also a protesting mob.
Luke's accont shows details, he was close by, but not as close as John and Mary.
47 Now when the centurion saw what had happened, he began praising God, saying, “Certainly this man was innocent.”
48 And all the crowds who came together for this spectacle, when they observed what had happened, began to return, beating their breasts. 49 And all His acquaintances and the women who accompanied Him from Galilee were standing at a distance, seeing these things.
By the time I was done, God showed me so clearly, I could literally explain were they were standing, and the transition of emotion in the text.
Just picking one doesn't make it so.
Did God show you one thing and the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry something else? They claim, with exactly the same fervency based on nothing, that: "the last thing Jesus said was "Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit," "
Can you scream with your head down?
yes.
46 And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I commit My Spirit.” Having said this, He breathed His last.
If you scream something with your last breath can you then say "I am thirsty." get a little wine dabbed on your mouth and then say "It is finished!"
---------------------------------
"28 Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” 29 A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. 30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."
- John 19:28-30
---------------------------------
"46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last."
The Bible disproves itself, we really don't need to do much. What's interesting is how christians can't seem to prove their own book, instead take everything on faith. You went on and on about one particular contradiction and ignored the many others. As "proof" you keep citing the Bible, but you cannot use Bible to prove the Bible no more than can I use the Lord of the Rings to prove The Lord of the Rings is true
There are thousands. The one you are probably referring too, Yah-Yah, the murderous psychopathic bully tyrant sky god of Bronze Age Hebrew mythos, is but one in the vast pantheon of gods. That all have been invented by our evolved homo sapien minds in an attempt to forestall our pending and certain deaths.
And, umm...no. There is not a scintilla of proof for ANY of these gods.
Not even a scintilla of EVIDENCE!
But yet, thousands or reasons I could list why this world in all appearances now and in the past seems to be certainly random and not controlled by any sort of supernatural entity.
Let me know if you would like a list of some reasons why there almost certainly is not god.
For start (even though I realize you are a troll) it states "Are there any good arguments for Gods existence" it is not being specific. Second you presuppose evolution is fact and religion is mere myth. "Not even a scientilla of evidence" I have to ask a question Do you even examine both sides of the arguments or are you just an atheistic troll who goes on websites dedicated to religious satire whose owners are either ignorant of the religion itself or take the verse/verses out of context? If troll then you are that closed-minded. I'm religious not because I am a delusional closed-minded jesus freak. I have examined both sides of the arguments and came out a theist. I researched which religion is true and I came out a Christian and am one because of evidence. Research it yourself unbaisedly and you will probably become a Christian
Funny you mention "The one you are probably referring too, Yah-Yah, the murderous psychopathic bully tyrant sky god of Bronze Age Hebrew mythos, is but one in the vast pantheon of gods. That all have been invented by our evolved homo sapien minds in an attempt to forestall our pending and certain deaths."
God has a response for you, if your ears heat, if you have a heart that can understand!
Deut 28
22 The Lord will smite you with consumption and with fever and with inflammation and with fiery heat and with the sword and with blight and with mildew, and they will pursue you until you perish. 23 The heaven which is over your head shall be bronze, and the earth which is under you, iron.
If the Heavens are Bronze to you, you can't see even at noon in the middle of the day!
You may want to rethink your position, your no match for God, and its terrifying to fall into the hands of The Mighty God!
Hebrews 10
28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
So can your mate. Better not get married. This is the stereotypical "throw the baby out with the bath water" technique, meaning? If you do not agree with someone, even if they make decisions omnisciently, know the finality of all paths and results, instead of working through it, an atheist will cut their nose off to spite their face.
Thanks for helping make not one but TWO major points I have been extolling here for months now.
ONE...with your silly bible quotes, you affirm what a bullying, malevolent, murderous douche bag Yah-Yah is.
TWO: you show how your type has no evidence or proof what so fucking ever of your gods, outside of your little book of lies you call your bible.
Actually there is a third point I always make that you helped support here: how mundane and boring it is to us when you guys paste your bible quotes here. Here's a hint for you: if we wanted to do some fantasy lit reading, we would probably pick up something far superior and interesting like one of the GOT books, or even Greek Mythology (the latter of which I hold equal to Hebrew Mythos, but have always found more interesting.)
Ergo...we don't need you to paste that shit for us. thanks just the same. I am sure you mean well, of maybe just don't know any better, but still.
If the Bible be correct, you have purposefully chosen a god who is all the characteristics you have described and on steroids, thus condemning yourself per your oewn conscious choice to choose "the god of this world". Any questions?
Funny you mention "The one you are probably referring too, Yah-Yah, the murderous psychopathic bully tyrant sky god of Bronze Age Hebrew mythos, is but one in the vast pantheon of gods. That all have been invented by our evolved homo sapien minds in an attempt to forestall our pending and certain deaths."
God has a response for you, if your ears heat, if you have a heart that can understand!
Deut 28
22 The Lord will smite you with consumption and with fever and with inflammation and with fiery heat and with the sword and with blight and with mildew, and they will pursue you until you perish. 23 The heaven which is over your head shall be bronze, and the earth which is under you, iron.
If the Heavens are Bronze to you, you can't see even at noon in the middle of the day!
You may want to rethink your position, your no match for God, and its terrifying to fall into the hands of The Mighty God!
Hebrews 10
28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Pretty much all arguments for the existence of God get slammed with so much ease it just makes it an easy decision for me not to believe. The ontological argument for example id just pathetic and a sort of play with linguistics. Gaunillo's response with his island put that to bed and showed why the argument is mostly inductive when it is thought to be mostly deductive. so many religions. who is right? so many religious experiences contradict each other. Who is right? However, it is nice that believers try to make arguments as things like debates can happen but i would emphasize that that's all they are good for. 'That all have been invented by our evolved homo sapien minds in an attempt to forestall our pending and certain deaths.' excellent summary.
the fact that religion is something meant by its very nature to be done out of belief and not scientific study is one. also the idea that darkmatter2525 (a known youtuber) can make a fucking comedy show out of joking arguments against god appears like a valid argument to me.
The fact that you are dying in your sin is reality. The fact that only God can save you is reality. If you want to be religious and believe you keep yourself out of Hell by saying it's not real, that's your problem.
You're only fooling yourself if you think you can logically disinherit God from ruling over His creation and over you. There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD. All your striving against God does is ensure your separation from Him forever, and you'll end up in Hell where your attitude belongs with your foul mouth you punk.
Here's a fool for you. You ask the how God influenced their life and they answer "Which god" and burst out laughing. How in the world a fool thinks that by saying gods are not God you know there is no God is indeed a joke.
Of course gods are not God, how stupid can you be to insist things which are not God are not God?
This is so stupid......gods are not God, God is the only One you do not want ruling over you, He is the one you have sinned against, He is the One you must face on Judgement Day. It's just plain ignorant to talk about things that are not God and claim that things which are not God proves God is not God.
Ok well the kalam cosmological argument makes the god of the gaps fallacy (as do most apologetics arguments). And the ontological argument has a flawed premise in it.
Lets start with just these two.
The Kalam cosmological argument says that,
1. Whatever began to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe had a cause
And then it concludes by saying that god is the best explanation for that cause and furthermore that its the god of the bible.
But it never proves this last point. Even if i grant all 3 premises all you have is that the universe had a cause. Anything added to the argument after that is just wholly made up and not based on any logical argumentation.
The argument as a whole is basically just a god of the gaps argument. It chooses the biggest gap in scientific understanding (the origin of the universe) and just shoves god in there. "you dont know how it happened, therefore god did it" is the summation of the argument.
The ontological argument is a bit more complex.
1.it is possible that god exists
2.If it is possible that god exists then god exists in some possible worlds
3. If god exists in some possible worlds then god exists in all possible worlds
4. Therefore god exists in this world
Premise 3 is just a big fat glaring fallacy. If something exists maybe then it exists definitely? Thats just absurd. The premises are logically backwards. It should be if god exists in ALL possible worlds then he exists in SOME possible worlds. The other one doesnt follow logically from anything.
Usually this argument gets spiced up with terminology like "a maximally great being" instead of the word god. Because part of the qualities of a maximally great being (as defined by apologists) is that a maximally great being necessarily exists. Well thats just absurd because all that does is just define god into being. It ignores the entire point of the argument. If youre going to just attach "definitely exists" to the definition of god then why bother with the premises at all? All you did was define god as something that exists and then whipe your hands like the argument is over. If i define unicorn as "a magical winged horse with a horn THAT EXISTS IN REALITY". Does it then poof into existence just because i defined it as so? Of course not.
This is why physical, observable, testable proof is so important and why atheists hype on it so much. Because words are just words. Words cant make things exist. You cant argue god into existence with words alone. Hence why the bible is not proof. Its just words.
Yeah that's all your mind and thoughts, but didn't you ever remember sensing God, like maybe for a few moments.
Like I remember sensing God when I was like 5, when I was thinking about telling the truth who painted on the porch. I remember picking truth. Then I didn't really sense God again till I was about 20.
No i never remembered sensing god. And i an assure you if i went back and read it cover to cover 5 times in a row i wouldnt "sense" god. I dont even know what that means. Also, lets say for a second that i did feel a tingle in my feet or saw a light twinkle in my eye for a second. I would sooner chalk it up to a coincidence or hallucination then use it as some conclusion that what im reading is true.
Imagine if a muslim told you to read the Quran. You read it cover to cover and are unimpressed. Then he asks "did you sense allah?" Would you not see that as a ridiculous question?
You remember sensing god when you were 5?!
I cant even remember a single detail of when i was 5. I thought santa claus brought my presents at christmas time when i was 5. You could tell me the moon was made of cheese and id believe you when i was 5. That seems more to me like you were indoctrinated to believe these things and when a parent asked if you sensed god your young mind just made stuff up and believed them. Its incredibly easy to persuade young children. So citing a personal experience of when you were that young is hardly persuasive.
So...your conscience told you to tell the truth, and you did. Where does god come into that equation? Is it not more reasonable to conclude that you were taught to tell the truth as a child and in that moment your conscience told you to follow that rule?
Very true, pharasees had it memorized and still didn't know Him.
It's a closed book if your heart isn't willing to count the cost and follow Him.
Not if He calls you, and you listen. I have had times where I shut Him out, and I've had times I didn't. And I've had times where there was to much coordination to chalk it up as coincidence.
I've been a Christian for 30 years, asleep for part of it.
I just woke up recently, and I have to say the events that woke me up was a series of events that were a pretty good series of coincidences if that's the case. And its comparable to my 1st experience becoming a Christian, both were equally unusual, and not likely coincidental. Too many moving parts and hit too specifically and targeted, for me to dismiss it. And I wasn't a willing to go in the direction I went in, but I think because I prayed that He not let me go He honored that prayer. And I also think it was a time of humbling to he used in this time period, and He had put some things in Me in my 1st years as a Christian that were early then, but are now for this time period. So He moved me to put me where I saw things in His Word and with understanding 30 years ago, and now when I was sleeping He woke me up with a shake up to find what I got 30 years ago was on purpose to share today, in these specific days.
Now I don't expect you to understand all that, and I expect you to dismiss it in skepticism, but if God ends up working in you, maybe you will recognize it. I've been through lots of crazy things over 30 years. But these two times, these were movement of God in my life, like no other. I have a nice Christian story of how I met my husband, and other nice stories I can say we're likely God working.
But these two times were like I was a piece on a chess board and it didn't matter what I wanted, or thought I wanted. And no matter what the collision I encountered when I was being moved, I was moved. And in 50 years, I know the difference between the nice hand of God moving me, and the persistent hand of God moving me!
My parents didn't talk about God. I went to Catholic school, but we weren't one of the fervent families. And I was about 5 so I didn't have much religion at that point.
I am 50 Now, I have a few clear memories, but when this isn't a typical event to commit to a memory at 5 years old!
Its a weird memory to have stuck in the head of a wild child 5 year old. And there is no triggered reason to pull that memory out.
Never brought up by anyone, I never talked to anyone about it, my family wasn't like that, no one around me was aware of my thoughts.
Its like He was asking me before the teens beat me, and numbed
my conscience If I was concerned about truth. I had to be honest about who painted on the porch. I don't even know it's significance, but for some reason it's a time I felt God for a moment, maybe a
few minutes.
I'm not talking about a day at the fair, I'm talking about a specific time of a thought, and remembering specific time surrounding a thought. And out of all my memories, it even looks different then other memories. It was a moment that was out of the clear blue.
Watch the Daniel project. Those guys are on target.
They go into some fulfillments, it is really not just worth the watch, it's important to watch. You should actually, please watch it.
When we get into predictive prophesy and whats next is tricky.
But there are educated guesses. God will adjust the lense when we need Him to. But the message is specific to now, in this time and day, and some of it is what I saw 30 years ago. So for me to be woken up by such a knock, I am very concerned!
Watch this the Daniel Project, it may help you see some things, its rare to find a production that is actually presenting things in accuracy. We are in a last days where overnight there was an outpouring out of a section of Revelations, and its been poured out during this time.
He is at the door! I never saw Him pour out a cup of wrath before and we pretty much just saw it poured. I'm thinking crap what am I supposed to do with this awareness. So I'm just warning people.
I just watched it on Amazon Prime it will be more entertaining than reading ramblings.
He's misrepresented the ontological argument for the reality of God in quite juvenile fashion. The fact that we all know the meaning of God is an evidence that He is God. Atheists who say there is no God usually use a straw man argument saying "all gods are imaginary" which is not an argument against God who gave us the power of imagination. They avoid acknowledging the concept of God being God because it implies an awareness of God. How can they say they do not believe in God when they know God's name?
It's not about the possibility of God being there, it's about the fact that even those who say they do not believe in God know who they are referring to when they deny Him. It's a Biblical argument against atheists and idol worshipers plainly spelled out in Romans Chapter 1.
You are correct in pointing out that anybody who can argue against God at least once in their life was aware of His presence. That first moment of truth for me came when I was outside playing as a little kid who was supposed to come home immediately when the street lights came on. One night the lights came on, and I said to myself, "I can stay out a couple more minutes, who will know? and I can lie if Mom says anything and say I didn't know they had come on, and who will know?" I sure had the feeling that somebody knew what I was doing as I disobeyed my mom and broke the rule. I knew I was guilty in the sight of God, but hey, what's He going to do about it? I found that out too, I paid.
That's nothing like the argument. That doesn't even have any logic of any kind. Have a Daisy, Same concept.
One goes from what is needed to achieve Maximum Potential, is to have a Creator with Maximum Excellence.
Qualities pertaining to Maximum Excellence in Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Moral Perfection necessary to achieve Maximum Greatness is determined by the highest possible Evolution in any and every possible world.
Maximum Excellence is point of reference, and Maximum
Greatness is also a point of reference!
If you unicorn was your Maximum Potential then you have fantasy land. How is that the same?
Well the unicorn works in the simplified ontological argument. When you start throwing in random words like "maximum greatness" and "maximum excellence" and "moral perfection" then it doesnt really work anymore. Because nobody attributes such qualities to a unicorn.
But i could easily just counter that and say that the unicorns i am talking about have maximum potential. This unicorn has maximum excellence, omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection necessary to achieve maximum greatness.
So there, now it fits in the same slot that a god would. but theres no real logical counter to saying why this unicorn doesnt fit as a creator and why god does. If i give them the same qualities they are equal.
Define it Maximum Greatness that a world created by a unicorn achieves.
If you notice I defined terms for Maximum Effectiveness and Maximum Achievement. You can't Achieve Greatness beyond Maximum Greatness. So we look at our world to achieve Greatness even as far as we achieved the Creator would have to be Greater than The combination of all Greatness Achieved, and in all areas of Greatness
Yeah and this unicorn can create maximum achievement. Anything you try to do to establish a separation between God and this unicorn won't work. See the point?
The point is if something exists, then what would the result be.
The point of the Maximum Excellence argument is if something exists, namely the Start or the Creator whatever that be. Then what would the result be, what is Needed for Maximum Possible Potential and Maximum Possible Achievement.
And if a random unicorn was the Creator, what would be the highest progress in every aspect as the world progresses.
So the Unicorn is a magical creature, that is a horse, with a horn, that can fly. There are no other attributes and even if you added some like kindness or good luck, then the outcome would be have a Daisy and fate of luck for all, as that world's greatest achievement.
Maximum Greatness we have concluded that is at Minimum needed for "our world" are based on the Maximum Qualities ever achieved.
Although there is human depravity, in humanity the Maximum Achievement is a Standard. Those who fall a bit short of that in humanity is just a curve. But those who fall short with great depravity is shocking. Because of the Maximum Excellence as its standard, Maximum Achievement reaches.
So Maximum Excellence is sought in Maximum Achievement, As we try to exemplify Maximum Qualities, for Maximum Potential, with Maximum Excellence as our HIGHEST possible Standard.
And its in all areas of Qualities in our word.
So what does Maximum Excellence have to possess as a quality to be of the utmost highest possible Maximum Standard which then the Creator has to be all those qualities above even the achievable standard, and that is Maximum Excellence!
And we can't achieve above the standard, because then we all would be the Creator, even those that are below the standard acceptable curve, in Maximum Depravity.
So Maximum Qualities that are in Maximum Excellence are all encompassing in every area, being Maximally Excellent in each.
So Maximum Qualities that are in Maximum Excellence are all encompassing in every area, being Maximally Excellent in each.
The unicorn has all these qualities.
Ive already told you whatever qualities you try to assign to god and NOT assign to the unicorn i will just arbitrarily assign to the unicorn as well. Imagine the unicorn and all its traits as being equal to those traits of god. If they both have all those traits how would you know if god is god or if the unicorn is god?
And keep in mind this is all in dispute to the argument that doesnt establish as its last premise which creator is responsible for creating the universe
God isnt a unicorn, God and this unicorn have all of the same qualities and traits. They are utterly identical except one is your god and one is just a unicorn.
If we follow the kalam cosmological argument to its final premise:
1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore it has a cause
If we follow this to its final premise the only thing we have proven is that the universe has a cause, which leaves a gap for what this cause may be. You would say the cause is your god. But as i have laid out there is also a unicorn that is utterly identical to your god. Who is to say it was your god that is the cause and not the unicorn? How would you prove that your god exists and was the cause and that this unicorn does not exist and was not the cause?
Yup then the horse achieves maximum excellence. I mean what other animal is raced in the kentucky derby and bet on with millions of dollars? What other creature dominates the open plains and is ideal for travel. Clearly it is the most excellent.
Obviously this is silly but so is saying that humans are the perfect mirror of a god. Does god really look human? No its some otherworldly force thingy thats outside space and time. Humans cant exist there so how can he be human? And since when are humans maximally excellent at anything? Were destroying our own planet, we kill eachother over arbitrary beliefs and disputes, we still poop and pee like animals and we THINK were the best at everything. So god is like that?
And what do you mean that takes evolution to a much more difficult believability? Do you think that evolution is supposed to result in something that achieves maximum excellence? Because i assure you maximum excellence is not even a scientific term. Evolution trends towards things being "maximally excellent" to their niche within their respective environments. Theres no such thing in evolution as something maximally excellent overall and if there was it wouldnt be humans.
Well since God has attributes likened to human form, and since Jesus took human form and was raised in human form, and since it says we were made in His image, then I'd conclude that human hands and features, as we reach higher in our potential. So the person of Maximum Excellence would have to have attributes that alow us to see an image reflective of us. So the rule of Maximum Excellence, would have to exemplify character and qualities above our highest possble achievement, and that the pursuit of Maximum Excellence would be pursued by the highest potential to reflect Maximum Excellence with the closest possible image related to the Qualities of Maximality and Characteristics, from the highest form of Qualities
1st of all I never said we were the "perfect " image of God.
" And since when are humans maximally excellent at anything? Were destroying our own planet, we kill eachother over arbitrary beliefs and disputes, we still poop and pee like animals and we THINK were the best at everything. So god is like that?"
This is a childish argument - maybe your watching too many Kia commercials or too many cute dog tricks on Facebook.
We have minds conscience and superior creative inventive ability and 100s of verbal and written languages.
So yeah we are unique in every way compared to anything else on earth. Now if you think you dog is superior to you, or if you think you are as low as a mouse than I guess you are whatever you think you are.
This is just a silly argument that carries no strength in the argument.
It's something my daughter at 16 would of come up with if she felt like arguing, but at 19 she would consider it a juvenile argument.
Ok then you know God's Word,well. Wow, if He woke you up, and then put everything together before your eyes, that would be very interesting.
The "dead knowledge" from Catholicism that I had before my personal experience with Jesus became alive as The Spirit took hold of all those facts and kind of adjusted the lense, and in a moments time I understood many things all at once differently.
And if you read and didn't experience God, I have to ask why?
What weren't you willing to give Him?
Or what where you looking for in Him, the motive of your heart?
And if you did experience The Spirit, then what flood swept you away?
Ok then you know God's Word,well. Wow, if He woke you up, and then put everything together before your eyes, that would be very interesting.
The "dead knowledge" from Catholicism that I had before my personal experience with Jesus became alive as The Spirit took hold of all those facts and kind of adjusted the lense, and in a moments time I understood many things all at once differently.
And if you read and didn't experience God, I have to ask why?
Why? Well i think its because god doesnt exist and its just a book of ancient myths. I think that were expected to believe it and often taught as children to believe it. I once believed it. But knowing everything i know about reality, reading a book that contradicts all of that just wasnt persuasive.
And i dont even know what "experiencing god" means. I mean how vague is that? What is it supposed to be? Do i see god? Feel a tingle in my feet? Hear him speak in my head? Does he pop out of my belly like a facehugger from Alien?
I think christians use this purposefully vague language to make people more open to interpreting unrelated things as being "godly signs".
For instance, if you said experiencing god is a distinct rash on the bottom of your feet. Well then 99% of people would never experience god because they wouldnt get such a rash. But when you leave "experiencing god" as open ended, people can fill that in to be anything.
Maybe when im reading the bible a breeze rolls through the window and flips the pages to a psalm about wealth and im currently going through financial troubles. Maybe i interpret that as being a sign from god.
Maybe when im reading the bible i get severely lightheaded and pass out. When i awake i assume that it was the holy spirit overpowering me.
In reality all these are probably just coincidences totally unrelated to the book youre reading. But by leaving "experiencing god" as open ended people are free to attribute any little coincidence to works of god. It becomes confirmation bias.
What weren't you willing to give Him?
Belief without evidence. If i read the bible and god pops into my living room and gives me a highfive ill believe in god that instant. If i read the bible and get a heart palpitation, im not gonna just assume thats god and im gonna go see a doctor.
Im not willing to read so far into things that i ignore logical reality. Im not willing to put aside all the knowledge i have about the world to believe in something even if i want it to be true.
Or what where you looking for in Him, the motive of your heart?
I was looking to see if he exists. And i didnt get any conclusive evidence from the bible.
And if you did experience The Spirit, then what flood swept you away?
I didnt experience the spirit.
However i used to believe in god. i used to be protestant from when i was baptized until like age 16 or so. I fully believed in god, went to church, prayed, ect. I even prayed vehemently for forgiveness when i made fun of some girl at school one day. Because i thought i was going to hell and was terrified.
But i realized my beliefs were unfounded. i realized i was believing in things for which there was no good reason. I realized it was silly to assume that out of 3000 religions i just happened to be lucky to be born into the one that was true. I realized just because an adult tells me something does not mean its true even if its my parents.
An example would be I was looking at scriptures in Genesis and I saw a possible pattern on Day 3 after journaling points, there might be a number pattern.
I felt to journal each point in the 1st place, and as I was doing it I felt that I couldn't use short hand or paraphrase, when I did He brought me back to it for me to correct it.
And the significance of the day was on the 3 rd day
And all that was happening on day 3.
He was Gathering Waters, Making Sea and Dry Land, Growing plants and trees with seed after their own kind. He was adding many of the events and players in this day 3 text. Same with the other days.
Each has several things appointed. And the number patterns have significances 3 3 6 7
He has to throw out a straw man version of God which is not God. There is no wisdom, nor counsel, nor understanding against the LORD. There is no valid argument against God and atheists know it, they always argue against straw men which are not God. They are avoiding the Ontological Argument because they know they can't get around God. Proverbs 21:30.....There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
He's using straw men and trying to lead you around never ending rabbit trails, he'll just keep jumping trails every time he senses you are putting some light on him....jumping to the trail of a different straw man or a red herring trying to avoid acknowledging God. You'll just be wasting time with him, he thinks he's getting off the hook in death.
He used a straw man argument, proposing something less than God is God, which is nonsensical as only God can be God and a unicorn is a created thing which cannot be God. He's arguing against his own straw man nonsense.
So you are giving us the intellectual falkacy of the nothing monster that created this apparent something. Is this nothing monster magic, a fairytale, or more like an invisible friend?
You calling what preceded the big bang a "nothingmonster" is fallacious. I never posited that nothing gave birth to the universe. You just claimed i did. My real answer is i dont know. The big bang model is our best theory right now but as for what preceded it we have no idea. But we ADMIT we have no idea. Youre too insecure to do that so you hold on to the "something monster" because even a baseless imaginary god is a better explaination than "i dont know".
I'm going to need you to explsin your god, the nothingmonster, that created it all from nothing. Give us his/her/its attributes and explain to us how it got its magical properties and abilities.
There is no god. Just physics, natural processes doing what they do. But if youre asking what preceded the big bang the answer is i dont know. Nobody knows. Difference between you and me is i dont pretend to know
Your understanding fails. It's a closed book, because you have not sought Him. Seek and you shall find, the opposite is true if you don't seek you won't find Him.
Then He explains how to seek! He say seek as one who sells everything to buy a field for the pearl of great price.
So it's an investment proposition, and it goes like this;
You have a net worth, the field is for sale but it costs your entire network worth, but there is a guarenteed appraised pearl in the field, and its worth seven times seven times your net worth.
Do you buy the field and excavate it?
Do you buy the field and not excavate it?
Or do you keep your net worth, and pass up the opportunity that is hidden in the field?
Reading the Bible is not seeking, Jesus said to seek like hunting for treasure. Seek that way and you will find.
Ive read the bible cover to cover. 2 of every animal cannot repopulate their entire species. Then again, the world never flooded. Geologists have disproven that fully.
And it wasn't TWO of every animal! It was two in each set (male and female) two was a subset not a total.
Gen 7:
2 You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3 also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth.
Clean - 7 sets of 2; unclean - 2 sets of 2; and birds- 7 sets of 2
8 Of clean animals and animals that are not clean and birds and everything that creeps on the ground,
9 there went into the ark to Noah by twos, male and female, as God had commanded Noah.
14 they and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after its kind, and every bird after its kind, all sorts of birds.
15 So they went into the ark to Noah, by twos of all flesh in which was the breath of life.
16 Those that entered, male and female of all flesh, entered as God had commanded him; and the Lord closed it behind him.
Jesus said it will be "just like the days of Noah!
We have entered the Ark, trying to heard you beasts in with us!
We will be hidden from the horror that will take place when the middle east let's loose it's final acts. You can be hidden in Jesus, or not! But the destruction is coming regardless.
Now He painstakingly filed them into the Ark Male and Female.
Not 3somes or bisexuals, or same-sex couples, male and female! Why did God start this story discussing the unnatural marrying of fallen angels with daughters of men. "Unnatural" and then also equate the final destruction calling attention to "marrying and given in marriage" unnatural against His design, 1 male with his 1 female!? Do you think same sex marriage was a blessing? Think again! It will be just like the days of Noah, then He adds Sodom and Gomorrah just to cover His basis in CLARITY!
All the others, we'll they were marrying and given in marriage to whomever they pleased!
Weird Jesus would mention this dynamic, when God was displeased by their marital choices and their seed of offspring.
Yet Jesus mentions that too.
"Like birth pangs" "like a woman in labor" " woe to them that nurse babes and give sucks in those days"
Jesus unites these two stories.
And without the Holy Spirit you can't understand a thing!
Jesus said it will be "just like the days of Noah!
We have entered the Ark, trying to heard you beasts in with us!
We will be hidden from the horror that will take place when the middle east let's loose it's final acts. You can be hidden in Jesus, or not! But the destruction is coming regardless.
Now He painstakingly filed them into the Ark Male and Female.
Not 3somes or bisexuals, or same-sex couples, male and female! Why did God start this story discussing the unnatural marrying of fallen angels with daughters of men. "Unnatural" and then also equate the final destruction calling attention to "marrying and given in marriage" unnatural against His design, 1 male with his 1 female!? Do you think same sex marriage was a blessing? Think again! It will be just like the days of Noah, then He adds Sodom and Gomorrah just to cover His basis in CLARITY!
All the others, we'll they were marrying and given in marriage to whomever they pleased!
Weird Jesus would mention this dynamic, when God was displeased by their marital choices and their seed of offspring.
Yet Jesus mentions that too.
"Like birth pangs" "like a woman in labor" " woe to them that nurse babes and give sucks in those days"
Jesus unites these two stories.
And without the Holy Spirit you can't understand a thing!
No evidence of any god exists. And it is highly illogical to believe water, beauty , life and such makes a good argument because as you might know science has many theories with supporting evidence of how such things happen. Something can come from nothing as quantum physics proves.
The problem you're encountering is the same one Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort can't escape. Physicists and Cosmologists have a different definition of "nothing" than the common usage. Much like the term "Theory" in Science, the colloquial usage is inappropropriate when discussing Cosmology. Nothing is defined as "lacking properties of any kind."
Further, seemingly ignored by every Theist, is quantum physics, where matter does indeed come from your definition of nothing every second of every day. Something comes from nothing all the time. To ignore this presents a pretty clear confirmation bias.
Not really. A theoretical quantum field comes from something.
Energy, subatomic particles in motion, etc have to have an initial mover.
Nevertheless, if you adhere to a theoretical nothing that produces something, you still have the same fallacy of a regress of infinite causality.
And to deny any particular theory based on a theological or nontheological grounds is a confirmation bias. Notice. Atheists are fine with aliens seeding the Earth. Our creator is a 13 year old kid, etc, but God? Now the confirmation biases abound and manifest like children when they hear the icecream truck.
No one cares about someone's semantical version of "nothing". Nothing is nothing, or it is something. If it is actually nothing, it can't do anything. Anyone with a brainstem gets this.
And of course, you know that by "nothing", we are going by the definition in the dictionary, not a semantical "nothing". A semantical "nothing" by dictionary definition is something. Calling a dog "nothing" makes it no less a dog.
If something ever comes from it it wasn't nothing in the first place. A semantical and distorted atheist definition of nothing doesn't change reality, philosophy, or common sense. Ifyou give the nothing any properties, it's not nothing. It still falls under the regress of infinite causality. If it had no properties it actually was nothing and a literal and non distorted definition of nothing, then something never comes from it. And if we are to believe in such a mythological concept, a creator becomes the more believable narrative. Besides, our reality is currently turning right into the direction the Bible said it would.
It's not a deceptive usage of the term, as someone as clearly articulate as yourself will know, words do not have intrinsic meaning. They have usages; and as such, when discussing certain topics, the context of the usage should give a clue as to the intended usage. I doubt we're in disagreement here.
This being the case, those educated in Physics and familiar with the mathematical nature of the field, use the term as intended in the mathematical context. It is in this context that Cosmologists and Physicists use "nothing," but as I stated, to conflate the colloquial usage with the technical usage when discussing the technical details...that is a blatant Equivocation Fallacy.
What the claw has proposed is what in the days of Middle Earth, beyond a hole in the ground, in a time of elves and men, was referred to as good... old... fashioned...
By quoting The bible or other religious books you don't quite make an argument because we believe it is just a book written by men a very very long time ago to pass their standards , ideas and generally things practical for them. No we are not certain of the origin of the bible but if you want to argue about god using the bible as a basis first explain to me why your religious text book is the true one.
At minimum integrity an no bias in educational studies like ancient history and archiology
This is one of the many examples.
Atheists don't just leave out truth and history regarding the biblical text, they change history, close the door to knowledge, and even destroy artifacts.
So in education they teach wrong information, in order to discredit the Bible, and mislead people in order to illuminate biblical faith.
.
Free thinkers are really dictators of thought. Atheists and skeptics close the door on finds that prove the Bible. The literally direct it, control it, and it comes down to ruling, one world government, dictatorship.
There has been an agenda throughout history to discredit the Bible even in historic value.
So in the 1930s, they had determined Exodus to be in Rameses as Pharoah. Without finding anything they declared, the bible and God to be dead. Then with atheism force of their agenda, based in Satanism really. Satan rules and the goal is to eliminate God and His people and that's what we see today, no matter how unreasonable, it's a closed door.
But the door was closed for all of you "free thinkers" by the dictating "free thinkers"
1st of all I'll say many Biblical scholars were asleep at the wheel. So they are to blame for apathy.
Genesis is very detailed on geneology, just math tells you the approx time period of Exodus.
There was a place called Rameses generations before Exodus, because the word Rameses as in the place, the jumped to a conclusion, and instead of using simple math, the intellectuals did it their way, conveniently.
So your a historian you have simple math in ancient texts, do you study it? Or assume based on word association?
Apparently simple is to easy for the atheist and skeptic, so let's just go with word association!
"Patterns of Evidence-Exodus" is a well done documentary proving all stories from Joseph to Moses to the walls of Jericho!
Right were it's supposed to be be by my own study of simple math in geneology purposely detailed by God in Genesis.
Also location is tricky for a few reason, changes in names modern map compared to ancient map. And also commercialization, if a location says this is a Biblical place, the location can make money in tourism, some areas welcome that and exploit it. Whereas other government do not at all want to confirm biblical artifacts and places.
One factor is Muslim countries do not want to cooperate with confirming biblical History, for obvious reasons.
And all these are obstacles the dictators of free thought don't tell the little free thinkers, because the dictating free thinkers want to discredit the Bible and remove God and Christianity.
Only Jews and Christians, although there are some that want to eliminate violence of Muslims, the religion doesn't bother them.
None of the others bother them, why? Because Satan is behind it, and he is still trying to ascend above God.
The question I have, same with liberal media, I get conservatives do it also, but not nearly to the degree of liberals.
In liberal politics, the free thinkers dictatorship organizations are working conspiracies, and universities also have been infiltrated, Republican also have been infiltrated. But the left is much more of a useful tool. They are tools! And media and universities all tools. Using each other by taught skills of exploitation, manipulation, using everything, even causing harm, to "fix it"
Because the goal is one world rule, basically one world communism. The question is, do you think they wear that on their sleeves, and on display?
So you have this big giant that controls what you get to choose.
So they only allow what they want you to think, and gift wrap it for you all, and call it free thinking! But wouldn't free thinking be to give you all the information and let you all think freely, and conclude freely?
So they found everything in a time line the Bible itself said it would be in, yet they dig 200 years outside of it and tell the world, "see nothing" and when people of integrity in the field show everything, even in sequence of order, they keep the door shut, thereby keeping the door to the little free thinkers minds closed also!
I'd be passed if someone controlled me, I hate it.
Not logical or scientific ones, simply assumptions and proclamations of faith. Once upon a time, the majority thought the world was flat ... never forget that ...
However, the things such a creature stands for ... behaving and getting along with each other, are valid arguments ...
"Why is you Progressives support the Muslim faith?" If you understood English better you might understand that "Progressives" support the RIGHT to ANYONE to believe in their faith! We may not agree with their religious doctrines, but they DO have to, in this country, forego any customs that violate the Constitution! In other countries, they can do what they can get away with, like the middle east. We Progressives even protect YOUR right to accuse us of whatever YOU believe ... after all, conservatives in this country believe we have an over abundance of mentally ill people ... and THEY have the "right' to bear arms!
Progressives believe in the right to ones own beliefs and religion. Progressives believe in the "right to bear arms", progressives believe in the Constitution, but, the Constitution's Number ONE reason for existence, is to protect a person's RIGHT to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The protection of LIFE includes protection from dangerous religious practices, (including Sharia Law), and dangerous people with guns. The protection of Liberty includes the right to ones own religion (or not) AND the right to bear arms IF you are mentally fit to do so! The protection of the "Pursuit of Happiness" includes the right to live without fear of EITHER a religion or gun wielding idiot! I suggest YOU take your arguments to the middle east since you don't agree with our Constitution (as written).
Silly, small thinker, they shut your mind like a trap door, and then they remake it some version of freedom.
And they blame Christianity, when is the last time a Christian controlled your information or choices.
FYI Catholocism isn't Christianity, and it's the same agenda, power greed control, one world government, hmm Catholocism was doing that right out in the open, worldwide, and sneaking, so now it wears other faces, but same BEAST!
Silly, small thinker, they shut your mind like a trap door, and then they remake it some version of freedom.
And they blame Christianity, when is the last time a Christian controlled your information or choices?
But you all buy it, they sold it and all the fools follow like blind men being lead by their hand. Blind follow blind both fall into the pit.
FYI Catholocism isn't Christianity, and it's the same agenda, power greed control, one world government, hmm Catholocism was doing that right out in the open, worldwide, and sneaking, so now it wears other faces, but same BEAST!
It's obvious that Protestant religions don't consider Catholicism "Christian" ... but that's just THEIR opinion. I knew a lady that said Catholicism was the "only true religion". They worship CHRIST, to me THAT makes them "Christian". You are entitled to your own opinion.
THEY ... shut my mind like a trap door?? THEY didn't teach ME anything. NO ONE told me I couldn't believe in GOD. I looked over the "evidence", didn't find any, found that MAN, not GOD wrote the Bible, found that it was pieced together with stories, ancient myths (even when they were "finally published", saw that men continually used it to "make it some version of freedom", take freedom as something "created" by the bible and "control YOUR information and choices". Catholicism wants "one world government"?? They, like Evangelism, Islam and others, want "one world religion" to CONTROL the worlds governments. THAT is obviously the "same agenda" they've "sold to all the fools" that will follow them! Don't look now, but, YOUR trap door is closed.
Christianity, the true followers lost their heads for their faith. But like Him, in His image, the beloved children of God, never forced faith by any means, especially by violence. 1 John: Beloved Children, they will know us by our love! It's a neon sign, that separates Wheat from Tares, Shepherds from Wolves! Love of the brethern, not as the world loves, love that keeps, not like Cain, who declared "am I my brothers keeper?" We are keepers, we are our brothers keeper. We are those who keep each other from stumbling. Yet they are not keepers of the brethern, and they are stumbling blocks!
Jesus said:
Matt 11
11 Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force. 13 For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14 And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come. 15 He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
16 “But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places, who call out to the other children, 17 and say, ‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.’
18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon!’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.”
20 Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent. 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you.
23 And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. 24 Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.”
25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.
26 Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight.
27 All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
28 “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”
.
Matthew 23New American Standard Bible (NASB)
1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,
2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.
4 They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5 But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments.
6 They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. 8 But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.
9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11 But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.
13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 [Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.]
15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.’ 17 You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold? 18 And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.’
19 You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? 20 Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it. 21 And whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it. 22 And whoever swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it.
23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.
27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
32 Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?
34 “Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
You: It's obvious that Protestant religions don't consider Catholicism "Christian" ... but that's just THEIR opinion. I knew a lady that said Catholicism was the "only true religion". They worship CHRIST, to me THAT makes them "Christian". You are entitled to your own opinion.
THEY ... shut my mind like a trap door?? THEY didn't teach ME anything. NO ONE told me I couldn't believe in GOD. I looked over the "evidence", didn't find any, found that MAN, not GOD wrote the Bible, found that it was pieced together with stories, ancient myths (even when they were "finally published", saw that men continually used it to "make it some version of freedom", take freedom as something "created" by the bible and "control YOUR information and choices". Catholicism wants "one world government"?? They, like Evangelism, Islam and others, want "one world religion" to CONTROL the worlds governments. THAT is obviously the "same agenda" they've "sold to all the fools" that will follow them! Don't look now, but, YOUR trap door is closed.
I was raised Catholic, and the Protestant movement was a movement of God, and now the Protestant movement has become stagnant, and has also fallen away. The measure is not man or religion. The measure is the Word and the Spirit, and God. Jesus said My Sheep hear My Voice another they will not follow. So like Israel in the desert, they followed the cloud by day, and the flame by night. And whenever these moved, no matter what they were doing, they dropped it and followed. And when they didn't, they were disciplined. That's how closely we are to follow. When Jesus said be alert, and warned, and gave instructions, he said clearly, you have no need of man to teach, His Spirit will teach us. And He said we would be one, teaching submit one to another, but under one head of the body and that head is Christ. So the measure of truth is Christ, His Word, His Spirit. The final authority, the King of all kings, the Good Shepherd, not one that climbs in other ways, or hurts His the Good Shepherds sheep. So little shepherds follow the Good Shepherd, and care for the sheep, and feed the sheep truth, and also make sure the sheep are full of truth, so they are not decieved.
Then Jesus warns of the deceptions, wolves that are clothed to look like sheep, but they tear and rip, and cause the sheep to be lost.
So my statement is Catholocism is a wolf, and most congregants like in many churches will be lost because as in Revelations, Jesus stands at the door of churches, and knocks, and they keep Him out. These He will judge, because shepherds lead sheep to living waters, not polluted waters. And Catholocism is a polluter of waters!
In Revelations He says, "Come out of her, so you do not partake in her deeds and her plagues."
They will be judged by the martyrs under the throne of God who cry out to Him night and day!
Does a good tree bear bad fruit? Jesus said, you will know them by their fruit.
So what is your measure? Of man, or of God through His Spirit and Word?
Matthew 7:15 NAS
15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting.
13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds
Matthew 24:24 NAS
24 "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.
Matthew 24:11 NAS
11 "Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many
2 Peter 2:1 NAS
1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
1 John 4:1 NAS
1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Revelation 2:2 NAS
2 'I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false
Revelation 16:13 NAS
13 And I saw coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs;
Revelation 19:20 NAS
20 And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone.
Revelation 20:10 NAS
10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
1 John 4:1 NAS
1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 Corinthians 11
12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting.
13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness,
whose end will be according to their deeds
Revelation 2:2 NAS
2 'I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false;
Revelation 19:20 NAS
20 And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone.
Saying you are a Christian, and murdering people, is like saying your a hamburger because you went through a McDonald's drive through.
.
1 John 3:15
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
.
John 8:44
You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
.
Revelation 22:15
Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.
The 1st Amendment is not about the Pursuit of Happiness, that phrase comes from the Declaration of Independence. The 1st Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I know that. However, the Constitution is the document that "protects" that Bill of Rights and the people who claim them. NO persons "rights" can infringe on another persons "rights". Sometimes a difficult balancing act. That's why we have courts.
This is a fallacy. The atheist stance is Christianity needs to go and be replaced, then they turn around and go for a replacement of the Sermon on the Mount with the religion of jihad, beheadings, child rape, and the oppression of women and then wonder why an Orlando nightclub was blasted to smitherenes...
Think about it. The globalists are pushing a new world order to such a degree that Russia is trying to keep the U.S. from controlling Syria, but why? The U.S. keeps overthrowing leaders and trying to push a global narrative. Russia is fully nationalist and believes in the power of the individual state. Sadly, on this one they are right. I used to think Russia would be on the antichrist's worldview. I'm beginning to think it is us.
In many circles we call them liberals. No wall. Allow in a million Syrian refugees and ignore possible threats. Overthrow leaders, import Muslims into Europe in mass, socialism/communism, free this free that. This is the globalist agenda. A nationalist faces the stark reality that:
1)If we can't help ourselves we can't save the world.
2)320 million people is more than the government can take care of much less foreign peoples in mass.
3)It simply leads to a one world government that cannot be opposed, nor can it help 7 billion people when it can't even help Chicago.
The people obviously didn't always listen to the prophets God sent, so asking what did the people know is a foolish way to conclude anything. Since they had the whole thing memorized and the religious leaders didn't see the fulfillment, even though He was literally standing in front of them face to face and toe to toe!
God really wasn't going out of His way to let everyone know the world is round, it just IS round. But the prophets who saw things God showed them mentioned it, maybe to let us know 4000 years later that God actually was speaking, but the world being round is actually irrelevant to His Word, other than helping skeptics of modern day realize the Creator obviously knew that basic little thing, and so did the prophets he happened to show that little thing to!
Isaiah 40
21 Do you not know? Have you not heard?
Has it not been declared to you from the beginning?
Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?
22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
Job 26
“He stretches out the north over empty space
And hangs the earth on nothing.
8 “He wraps up the waters in His clouds,
And the cloud does not burst under them.
9 “He obscures the face of the full moon
And spreads His cloud over it.
10 “He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters
At the boundary of light and darkness.
Proverbs 8 (wisdom also John 1 says Jesus is the Word, and all things were made through Him the Word, which is Wisdom and Jesus)
While He had not yet made the earth and the fields,
Nor the first dust of the world.
27 “When He established the heavens, I was there,
When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,
28 When He made firm the skies above,
When the springs of the deep became fixed,
29 When He set for the sea its boundary
So that the water would not transgress His command,
In Job it is interesting the empty space (hangs a globe north side up, and hangs it to dangle on nothing! You might think His mind traveled in a vision and looked at it from a space station or something!!
And this verse is interesting, "He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters At the boundary of light and darkness"
It describes separating light from darkness in our information which the Bible often calls "waters" and also
It describes God giving the watery surface of our globe a circular outline!!
It describes earths position in space, again His mind saw as though He was on a space station!
The complication is, the Bible is riddles, or parables. Jesus said I speak in parables so people who have a heart for God can see and understand, while the people who don't can't see anything or understand anything!
It's pretty silly to go to the gospels and read the Parables and not understand to some degree what Jesus was saying, but that's the point, they were nice stories to everyone, but truth was hidden, even if they memorized the stories.
Yet with eyes open, you see connections of a River rushing through time and Eternity connecting Word to Word to Word... and without understanding "your foolish heart is darkened"
I would say that there are no arguments for the existence of God. All evidence we have today such as evolution and the big bang theory points towards the notion that there is no God. Why believe in God when in all likeliness, he's not there? Yes, the existence of God can't be completely disproved; let's say, hypothetically, that the chance of God existing, when taking into account all the evidence we have today, is 1% (I would argue that the actual figure is much less, but for the sake of argument, let's say it's 1%). That means the chance of God not existing in 99%. You may wish to argue with these figures however, the point I'm making is that the chance of God not existing is far higher than the chance of God existing. So if you don't know the absolute definite answer, surely the wisest option is to go on the basis that the most likely scenario is true?
I would say you are a fool. Look in the mirror. Do you think you came from mindless matter? Look at your computer. Do you think it came into being by random chance, yet a single cell in your body is infinitely more complex than a computer?
You have to be a fool to say there is no God. To say there is no God, you have to believe in silly things like mindless matter producing intelligence and non-living matter producing life, two scientific impossibilities. Life comes only from life, intelligence/consciousness does not come from mindless matter or from nothing.
You are setting up a brick wall in your mind, the blocks are your sins and you are hiding behind them hoping God can't see you....but the wall is tumbling down and you are falling in sin to Hell. You need God the Savior, Jesus Christ, to bring you up out of it or you have no hope but to escape reality in death and that is a false hope. You did not chose to be here, you cannot by saying "God is not there" make yourself exempt from punishment by Him for your sins.
I am a fool? You think I'm going to hell? You think that someone who's been dead for the past 2016 years is the only one who can save me?
Yes I do think I came from mindless matter. That is a perfectly explainable concept. The idea of evolution makes much more sense than the idea that a divine intelligence, who somehow spawned out of nothing, or was here eternally, created the whole universe and then decided, 'yknow what? I'm just gonna make a tiny little planet in the middle of a little galaxy in a small cluster which will have lumps of meat wandering about on it and green things everywhere.
I'd like to clarify that I do not believe i am here by random chance because evolution is not a random process. The only part of evolution that is random is the mutation in a species that either gives in an advantage or a disadvantage over others. Those with the advantage (say for example, a duck mutates and gains webbed feet) will survive better (because it can now swim faster) and it will reproduce more than ducks without webbed feet. The ducks with webbed feet will grow in population as they are better adapted than the ducks without webbed feet whose population will die out as they get eaten by predators. Now let's say another mutation happens another 1,000 years down the line (a tiny amount of time in comparison to the age of life on earth) which gives the duck longer legs. Now again, this will become the dominant trait within the duck population and that will cause the ducks with shorter feet to die out. The same happened with us. Something very complex can arise from something very simple. The human brain included. Consciousness is a tricky concept. What is it? Let's talk about free will then. You believe, as a Christian, that all humans, and only humans, have free will. Well I would say that so does a computer.
A computer can make decisions, much the same as we can. It gathers information, processes it, and then creates a decision. Any decision we make we believe is for the best for ourselves (obviously), so why are we different from a computer (other than being much more complex)?
A single cell is more complex than a computer, maybe so. But the time for development of a single cell is a hell of a lot more than the time for the development of a computer. The amount of time evolution has had is incomprehensible. It's huge. The age of the uninverse, even more!
'Intelligence/consciousness does not come out of nothing' you say. Then explain to me, from where does the consciousness of god come? How does he come into existence? By your argument, another intelligent being must have created him.
God is God, if His intelligence came from something outside of Himself, He could not be God. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of "God". God is the creator of all things, the eternal living God.
When you imply that God could not be intelligent independently of anybody or anything other than Himself, you are creating an imaginary god and calling it God.
It is much easier and logical to say intelligence is a gift of God, than to believe intelligence rose from mindless matter, a scientific absurdity.
Yes you are on your way to Hell. There is no other place for a sinner who will not repent of all their sin. You want proof, eh? It's coming, and you won't like it.
Yes you are a fool. How foolish can a person be to believe that life emerged from non-living matter and intelligence rose from nothing.
'How foolish can a person be to believe that life emerged from non-living matter and intelligence rose from nothing.'
My answer to that is 'not very foolish at all' because it is entirely explainable and there is a lot of evidence supporting it. Yes I do want proof if I am to believe in God. Why do you believe he exists? What convinces you?
Life emerging from non-living matter is a scientific impossibility. We never observe anything scientifically other than living things coming from living things. The same for consciousness, intelligence....science never has and never will see intelligence come from mindless matter. To believe these scientific impossibilities takes a lot more faith than to believe God created all things and loves you.
You really want proof? You have to admit you have sinned against God or you will always deny He rules over you and you'll end up in Hell. I don't think you really want proof, I think you love your sinning more than you love living and I think you would rather burn in Hell forever than enter into agreement with God regarding the filthiness of your sins.
How can I love something I don't even believe is a plausible concept? For me to love sinning, I would have to believe that God exists, which I don't. So no, I don't love 'sinning' because the idea of sin was creating by religion meaning 'to go against God's will' or something like that. Since I don't believe there is a God with a will, I do not believe that 'sin' exists so I therefore cannot love it. Again, you said I would rather burn in hell than enter into agreement with God. I don't even believe that Hell exists, so how can i prefer to go to somewhere that doesn't exist.
I do really want proof. Proof and evidence is the basis of all my beliefs. So if you want me to believe in God, give me some evidence that he exists.
You do love sinning. Your pride is sin, you refuse to admit that you are not as good as God, you will not bow, you defy God to leave you in Hell forever, you think you are outsmarting Him and keeping yourself exempt from His judgement and you feel powerful, more powerful than God in your pride. You do love it, even if it takes you into Hell you love it like a moth loves flying into the fire not realizing it's going to fry until it's too late. Ignorance is bliss they say.
Asking for proof of Hell is not a very bright idea. The only way you, in your pride, will believe Hell is real is to be stuck in the fire unable to get out. You are asking for proof and you will get it. That is why you are a fool.
"Give me some evidence" is nothing but willful ignorance, and ignorance is bliss until you wake up in Hell. Enjoy yourself while you can. I guess I"m wasting time with you.
'I guess I"m wasting time with you'. Well, it seems the same is true for me. You are not understanding one very simple idea. I do not believe that sin is real. I therefore cannot love it. If I am sinning by not believing in God, then that is ridiculous for God to count such a thing as a sin. How can I believe he exists when almost all evidence says he doesn't exist. That's not my fault, there simply is not evidence to make me believe that god exists. Why do you believe in God? Don't just carry on telling me that I will be forever burned in hell, actually tell me why you believe that will happen.
You can't even prove that you are real, and it is your fault for rejecting the truth. There is no excuse for saying "there is no God". Willful ignorance is not an excuse.
And who cares if god exists when you can't tell me what it is. It is God you have to face in judgement, gods can't help you on the day.
Why do I believe God is God? Many reasons. I figured this stuff out when I was around 7 years old, with evolution being pumped down my throat by any available means in mass media and public education. If I were to believe what they wanted me to believe, that life emerged from non-living matter, that would mean life is ultimately worthless and meaningless, and there would be no such thing as right or wrong (which is where you stopped thinking and have decided you are not a sinner which means you claim to be innocent and doing no wrong). I simply could not accept the notion that there is no such thing as right or wrong, and wrong doing is justified as survival mechanism with natural selection favoring the strong over the weak. If it were true, there was no good reason to live in a world with pain and suffering.
They also told me I was supposed to believe in emptiness outside of matter. It seemed too cold hearted to believe nothing was there where I could not see it.
Then one day, I did something I knew I was not supposed to do (still a young child) and I thought that only God could know about it and I could lie my way out of punishment. The idea that God was aware of my wrongdoing didn't matter enough to make me stop what I was doing wrong ......and I lied my way out of punishment in the matter.
So as a little child I understood the basic evidences of God....the whole creation testifies to a Creator, we have an innate awareness of God, and we have an innate sense of morality.....and I set out to find the truth because nothing in life matters if there is not solid truth to stand on. I wanted to know that there is a place I can stand solid and unshakable and twenty years later I came to know the truth...that I am a sinner who is worthy of death and not worthy of life, and God who created me died in my place, paid my price in death because He loved me, and is risen from the dead offering forgiveness to all who believe on Him....and I received Jesus Christ the Living God in reality as my Savior, the only Savior is God...and I was born anew by His Spirit which is Christ in me and I know I will be like Jesus in His glory when I see Him face to face and am forever and completely change and will never sin again when this body of sin I reside in is destroyed and I have a new body free of sin and death.
There is going to be a resurrection, my body will be changed in the resurrection, if you are dead in your sin as you are now (unless you repented and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ which I doubt you ever will) your bony old sin-stricken corrupt body will be with you forever in the lake of fire where sin belongs. You are making your choice and you have to pay for it. There's only one way out, that way is God the Savior, Jesus Christ. You can be saved from Hell but I doubt that you will be, I think you are going to wake up in Hell and be haunted forever by the memory of your rejection of truth when you were told.
If you don't believe I am me, I'm displeased with you for denying that I am me, and I have to conclude that I cannot trust you since you can't simply take me at my word that I am me.
If you won't believe God is God, He indeed holds your ignorance against you as you are against Him. Justice is served.
Do you think I"m reading your spiteful garbage? I don't know what your problem is, you're a dead man (or woman or whatever you think you are or claim to be) in your sin and you've made it clear enough that you intend to take you sin to Hell. So why should I care? I've heard enough from you and I've tried hard enough to get you to see that God loves you and you can have eternal life through Jesus Christ and be saved from your sins, saved from Hell.
Now....do you think I'm reading your posts? I don't want you foul polluted garbage in my face.
What is your problem? I did not dispute the origin of the word bonfire.
In this discussion, the question is "is Hell a good fire". If you insist on using the generally agreed upon origin of the word being from "bonefire", fine. The question remains unchanged regardless. Is Hell a good fire? Is it good to know the bones of the wicked will smolder like coals as the wicked forever are dying in Hell?
How about you stick your stupid questions up your arse and whistle?
God took your punishment on Himself and paid in full what you can never pay in Hell as you are unable to stop being a sinner. Your sins have you separated from God, death is the penalty of sin and you have to pay in Hell forever if you will not accept the gift of God which is eternal life through Jesus Christ the Lord God Almighty.
Evolution is a joke and you have to be a fool to believe in it. I don't care how many doctoral degrees you have, if you believe in evolution you are a fool. You don't have to clarify anything. I fully understand you believe in evolution and you believe you have the right to exist outside of Hell, and you are wrong.
You cannot try to scare me into belief in God. That will not work. Provide me with some evidence. Then I'll decide whether I really will be burned for eternity in Hell. By the way, where is hell?
I"m not trying to scare you, I'm only telling you the truth. Deal with it however you want, you are free to turn your back on God's offer of pardon, He gives you that freedom, He will allow you to go away from Him forever with your sins on your if that's what you want to do.
"Provide me with evidence" is nothing but willful ignorance. If you're going to be that way, you will be separated from God forever by your sin and you will end up stuck in Hell forever where sin belongs.
Where is Hell? Ask that question when you get there, you sure are not slowing down in your journey toward Hell. You would to better to ask "Why do I have to die, what have I done to deserve to die?"
I haven't done anything to deserve to die. Everyone is going to die, like everyone before us has died, and before them. Everything dies. I don't deserve to die, it just happens, deal with it. So yes, where is hell? Just answer the question please.
If you don't deserve to die, then it's not fair that you should have to die.
We all deserve to die. We are all corrupt, we are all sinners, and the corruption of sin is death in our bodies. You are not living, you are dying. This is reality. Deal with it.
If you claim you don't deserve to die, then you are claiming to be innocent and I doubt that anybody believes you are innocent. You are guilty and deserve to die.
I can't show you where Hell is. You'll see soon enough for yourself if you keep demanding to know where it is. I think the Bible is pretty clear that it is in the center of the Earth. It also seems that the lake of fire which is the second death, where death and Hell will be cast into forever after the final judgement is the sun. This fits the character of God to put the truth of reality right in front of our faces, so the scoffers again have no excuse. If you won't believe Hell is real except by seeing it for yourself rather than by believing God's word, then you will see it for yourself when you can't get out of the fire.
You love your sin more than life and don't care if you are on your way to Hell, correct? You will not bow to God willingly, will you? You think you are as good as God, don't you? If you say there is no God, like a typical fool, then you are saying you are actually better than God because you say He is not there and you are here.
There is no valid argument, no counsel, no understanding nor wisdom against the Lord God Almighty who created all things.
Now you tell me....do you really exist or are you only a pigment of your imagination, a hologram of personality which is not real because life is really only nothing but chemical fizzes?
Atheists are trying to convince themselves and others that God is not there and He laughs at them. God mocks atheists.
Psalm 2:1Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
5Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
Proverbs 1: (The Spirit of God here is called "Wisdom")....notice especially verses 24-26.
20Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets:
21She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, saying,
22How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
23Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.
24Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
25But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:
26I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
27When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.
28Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:
29For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:
30They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.
31Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.
32For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.
33But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.
God speaks through His Word. What you just read is part of the Word of God, and if you will not heed it you will be reminded that you refused to listen when you appear before God in judgement.
God is calling out to you, Jesus is knocking at your door desiring to come in to you and be in fellowship with you and you are pretending not to hear, you are refusing to listen, and God will not buy any excuses for refusing to listen to Him...you are trying to make excuses and all you are doing is sealing your own death warrant to be executed in Hell's consuming fire forever.
'God is calling out to you, Jesus is knocking at your door desiring to come in to you and be in fellowship with you and you are pretending not to hear, you are refusing to listen, and God will not buy any excuses for refusing to listen to Him...you are trying to make excuses and all you are doing is sealing your own death warrant to be executed in Hell's consuming fire forever.'
God had better try harder because I'm not hearing anything. I would love to believe that I will be rewarded eternally in heaven. I would love to. But I can't believe something that makes no sense to me. I'm not going against god because i don't believe god is there to go against. If there was substantial evidence for the existence of god, I would happily believe he exists. But that's not the case. There's no evidence that he exists. Therefore I can't believe he does.
You're not hearing Him the same as a criminal is not finding a policeman. It is not His fault you will not listen, and if He laughs at you when tragedy falls on you and you cry "OH GOD, WHY!!!!", you won't hear Him laughing at you the same as you won't hear Him calling out to you pleading with you to trust Him to be saved from Hell.....God mocks atheists.
You are not listening, you are being stubborn in your pride and it's taking you down to Hell. You are not listening because you don't want to hear, you don't want to be humbled by God, you don't want to admit that you need to be saved. You are not listening. All you are doing is declaring yourself to be as good as or better than God and God is not listening to you.
You can believe Jesus is risen from the dead because He is God, the Son of God. You won't because you know that to see yourself as He sees you will require that you side with Him against your sin and that you forsake your sin, and you know that believing on Him will change your life. He died for your sin, rose from the dead offering you forgiveness and you are saying "NO". You are choosing death over life, dying, and will be forever dying in Hell if you won't repent of your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. When you face God, He won't buy "you didn't give me enough evidence to believe" as an excuse. He put me here and you here at the same time so that through me He can verbally reach out to you. You are shutting Him out and it's your own fault if you keep on doing it until you wake up in Hell having rejected the only remedy for your condition of dying.
To say their's no evidence is nothing but willfully ignoring the truth. You are indeed going against God, you are calling Him a liar. You are rejecting Him and as long as you are doing that you will be rejected by Him because that's the way you want it to be.
I'm not calling God a liar because I don't even believe he exists. Saying there's no evidence is the truth. I don't WANT to be rejecting God, as I have said, I would love to live eternally in heaven. But I can't believe it exists because why should I? Why do you believe that God exists?
God says He loves you and you say He does not exist, you are calling Him a liar.
And you wonder why God mocks atheists when calamity falls on them and they cry "WHY OH GOD WHY!!!!!!" Of course they are crying out to what they believe is nothing when they cry "WHY, GOD, WHY!?!?!"
you are refusing to listen, and God will not buy any excuses for refusing to listen to Him...you are trying to make excuses and all you are doing is sealing your own death warrant to be executed in Hell's consuming fire forever.'
'You love your sin more than life and don't care if you are on your way to Hell, correct?'
Incorrect. It's not difficult to understand. I-do-not-believe-that-sin-is-real. Therefore, I cannot love it. Obviously, if I believed I was on my way to hell, I would care. But I don't believe that is the case. I am not sinning, in my mind, because I do not believe there is someone who will recognise it as a sin.
Yes I really exist. Here I am! You're not understanding what I'm saying about consciousness existing purely from the brain. The brain is what does the thinking. Not a spirit or a soul, the brain. If a soul was present to control the mind, then why on earth would God decide to give us brains too? If a soul exists, a brain is not required. So, since we know we have a brain that thinks, which is proven, the necessity for a non-physical component of our conscious mind disappears. Why overcomplicate it? Just look at things in the most simple, easy way to understand. Let's just assume since we have no proof of the existence of a soul, that they don't exist. Especially since the necessity for one isn't there. The brain can do it all.
Life really is nothing but chemical fizzes. Again, that idea makes sense, more sense than the application of meaning to life in my opinion. It's much easier to understand the world when you assume it is meaningless. Assigning meaning just makes things too complicated. There's no need for it. Why do things have to mean something? Everything that has happened just happened. We were just created, not for any particular reason, we just were. And here we are because of that.
In pride you resist the truth, your pride is what you love, defying God is sin, you are dead in your sin, a dead man walking in condemnation and if you will not repent of your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ who died for you and is resurrected now offering you forgiveness, you will not be forgiven and you will wake up in Hell where sin belongs.
If the brain does the thinking and you are not a spirit or a soul in a body, why does the brain stop thinking? I believe your brain stopped thinking when you decided there is no God. At that point, you no longer need to think because you are embracing death in hope of pain and suffering ending. You are you in reality, you are a spirit which chooses it's own words, thoughts, and actions and you are you forever if you believe it or not. You are going to be with God in Heaven forever or against God in Hell forever as He has no other place for you outside of time here if you will only be against Him as you are now. You're not being wise, your being a fool....for your own sake you need to rethink what you are doing and the consequences of your choice. You're not getting off the hook in death.
Whatever you want...just go find out for yourself if Hell is hot since it seems the only way you will believe it is real is to be in the fire. That's what you are doing, your propelling yourself in to Hell, you want to go that way, so why should I not bid you farewell? Have a nice long life and enjoy yourself while you can. You can have the reality you want where nothing good is from God.......you can have it and that reality is in the fire of Hell. Arguing with me won't get you out of it, you won't be talked out of it i guess so there's no point in repeating myself with you.
You're being a fool, dying in your sin and falling into the fire of Hell. You do need to be saved but if you insist you can't be or don't want to be saved then of course God will give you what you really want and allow you to be separated from Him forever....and He has only one place to put you in your enmity against Him.
You do not care if you are on your way to Hell. You can say you don't believe you are a sinner, you can say you don't believe in God, you can say you don't believe Hell is real......you do not care if you are wrong and on your way to Hell. You insist it cannot be possible and you do not care if you are wrong. You're a fool. You think life is meaningless and God does not care about you and you do not care if you are on your way to Hell. Be that way if you feel you must.
Why are you different from a computer? Seriously? If you can't see the difference between yourself and a computer, your basket is missing a few weaves.
Obviously there a differences. A computer is much less complex and sophisticated than a human brain, but they operate similarly. Our consciousness is merely an 'illusion' - if you will, made up of the immense complexity of the network of neurones in the brain. The network is immense. Every thought you have comes from the brain. That is the point I'm making.
If you believe you are only an illusion, you will die that way and wake up in Hell. You're real, you are inside your body temporarily and you are going somewhere else when your mortal time is over.
This is simple common sense. You are not your body, your body is not you.....your body is where you reside temporarily.
You think what you want to think. If you think your brain chooses your thoughts and you do not choose your thoughts, I think you are hopelessly insane.
Hell is a place where people suffer because of their sinning against God. It is not a profanity except in the mouth of profane people like yourself...and you think God won't leave you in Hell and forever separate your profanity, confining it in the consuming fire? You better think again, but I'm not sure that is possible for you. You have decided you are smarter, better, and stronger than God so you no longer need to think rationally about reality.
You know that there are many religions in the world (estimated at 4,300). So when you die, if there is a God, in all likeliness (in fact, a 4,299/4,4300 chance), you will be punished by one of the Gods in whom you chose not to believe, since there are far more Gods that you don't worship than you do worship. So it's almost guaranteed that you too will be punished in the afterlife (On the basis there is one, I do not believe there is). Unless you are absolutely certain that Christianity is correct (And you most definitely cannot be certain), then you are going to hell (or whatever else it may be in another religion).
Of course, that argument has to use the assumption that one of the 4,300 religions is correct. So going by that (hypothetically), there's a very big chance that you're going to be punished.
Yes, there are many religions. They are all about what you are supposed to do in order to keep yourself from burning in Hell forever. Only God says there is nothing you can do to keep yourself safe, He did for you what you can't do by dying in your place on the cross, paying for your sins with His sinless blood so that your debt is paid in full, He took your sins on Himself and died for you...because He is God, death could not hold Him in the ground and He offers you forgiveness of all your sins if you will repent of all your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Receive Him in reality as your Savior and you will be saved.
You can be certain. Why do you think the apostles and hundreds or thousands of other believers chose horrible tortuous death over renouncing their faith in the Living God the Savior? They knew Jesus conquered death and that He would keep them safe in eternal life through faith in His blood which covers the sin of all who repent and believe on Him. I'm forgiven, I'm on my way to Heaven, I will be like Jesus in His glory when I see Him face to face..........
You can be certain. When you say nobody can be certain, all that proves is that you don't know the truth.
Either all faiths are lies or one is true. God is true, this is reality, let God be true and every man a liar.
Jesus took my punishment on Himself, He died for me, rose from the dead to justify all who believe on Him. I'm forgiven, I'm on my way to Heaven. Where are you going? Off into uncertainty about religions? You can keep your uncertainty if you want to, but God wont' buy any excuses for not believing on His Son who died for you to save you from eternal dying in Hell.
You've missed the point. You CANNOT be certain at all about religion, absolutely not. That's why many people aren't religious. So no way can you be certain that Christianity is true, when 99% of evidence suggests that religion itself is not true. So if there are 4,300 different Gods that could exist, the chance of yours being the one that exists is very small. That means, in all likeliness, almost certainly, the Christian god does not exist (a 4,299/4,300 chance the Christian God does not exist). The same can be said for any religion. Any God has a very small chance of being the God that is true. So surely it would be better to assume that no God is true, since that is a much more plausible option (And it is, that can't be disputed).
'When you say nobody can be certain, all that proves is that you don't know the truth.' you said. That is true. Nobody KNOWS the absolute truth. I do not KNOW that there isn't a God, I cannot know for absolute certain. But given all the evidence we have today, you can have a pretty good idea. A very good idea in fact. So you're saying that disbelief in God is a sin? Well, that is a pretty nasty thing for which to punish someone. I am not choosing not to believe in God. All I am doing is thinking about the evidence that I have, weighing it up, and then deciding. If God wants to punish me for that, then he is not respectable. It's his own fault, if he exists, that I don't believe in him because he hasn't provided enough evidence. If he wanted me to believe in him (Which I would assume is the case), then he'd provide some better evidence ; he could show himself right in front of me. Since this 'better evidence' is not present, I'll have to assume that God is not there.
You are the one missing the point. I am certain Christ is God who died for me and is risen from the dead, I am certain He paid for my sins so I'm forgiven, I am certain that I will be with Him forever the moment my time in this world is over. YOU.....yes, YOU who say I cannot be certain can only be certain that it is YOU who is not certain. You choose ignorance because you love your sin more than life and would rather be damned in Hell forever than to confess and forsake your sin believing on the Risen Savior.
You do not know the absolute truth because you do not want to admit you deserve to die and burn in Hell. That is the truth, we all deserve to burn in Hell forever. You reject the truth. I know the truth and it makes me free, Jesus Christ is the truth, the way, the truth and the life and no man comes to God the Father but through Jesus Christ who is God the Son, the Son of God.
Yes, disbelief is sin. You are rejecting your creator and replacing Him with your own mind and telling yourself it is impossible for you to be stuck in Hell dying for ever and you are wrong.
You'er being a fool, and you're going to wake up in Hell if you wont' repent of your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.....a stubborn hard headed hard hearted fool.
I'm sorry, the truth is, you cannot be certain. That is certain. I don't see how you can actually say you are certain! You can't be certain. You can't. I am pretty sure that the vast majority of people on earth today would agree with that. You can't be certain. You are not certain that Christ died for you, not at all, it says that in a particular book, no way can you say that makes it a certainty. You are not certain, that is certain, you cannot be absolutely certain, 100% sure. Impossible.
Anyway, telling me that you are certain has no validity. I could equally say that I am certain. Then we'd get nowhere. Tell me why you're 'certain', and I will tell you why I am 'pretty sure'.
You are in punishment now, you are on death row condemned to die, you are as good as dead, a dead man walking. Saying the punishment is unreasonable will only assure the Judge orders your execution. You are being offered pardon by God to be forgiven of your sins based on the fact the the Judge gave His Son to die in your place and the Judge is satisfied that your price was paid in full so you can be pardoned from full payment which is eternal in Hell where sinners belong.
You are indeed choosing to reject God's offer of pardon through the blood of His Son, you are trampling the blood of Christ under your feet and you will be rejected by Him the same as you reject Him and you will have no excuse on Judgement Day. You're only fooling yourself when you say you can't believe on Christ. You won't believe because you love your sin more than life and will not give it up.
You also miss the point that I am speaking of reality, not of religion. You are dying and need to be saved, this is reality. You are a sinner unworthy of anything good, unworthy of life, worthy of nothing but the fire of Hell where sin belongs. This is reality. God the Creator took on Himself a human body to die for us, and rose from the dead to justify all who believe on Him and trust Him as their Savior. This is reality, it's what God did for us to save us from Hell, it's not religion in which a person tries to convince themselves that they are exempt from eternal damnation in the fire of Hell.
There can only be on God, anything called a god which is not God. He's the one you owe everything to. He's the One who created you. He's the One who wants you to agree with Him regarding His right to punish your sins, and His right to forgive you and save you and keep you in eternal life if you will repent of your sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
The eternal Living God has always been and always will be God. To imply he came from something other than Himself is to say He is not God, and you are creating a straw man which cannot be God and then arguing that the thing which cannot be God is not God.
You're practicing a religion of logical fallacy, worshiping the material universe ascribing to it the ability to cause life and consciousness to come into being, and your logical fallacy demands you deny that God is God.
Jesus conquered death, He's alive today, He is God who died for your sins to save you from Hell.
Nobody dead can save you, only the Living God can save you. You need to be saved or you will be as you are, lost forever making silly arguments trying to deny reality.
You won't believe Jesus rose from the dead, will you? Of course not, to believe He is alive and is God the Savior would mean you have to confess and forsake your sins to follow Him, and you love your sin more than life. Right? You will not repent of your sins, will you?
Nothing in the world or in life makes sense if Christ is not God who died for our sins and rose from the dead offering forgiveness to all who believe on Him. I know He's alive because I admitted to God that I deserve to burn in Hell and I met the Savior in reality, He saved me, I'm forgiven, God the Creator died for me as God the Savior, He bought my life with His blood, I'm His property bought and paid for.
I could go on about the historical record by which an honest person would admit no other conclusion but that Christ rose bodily from the dead exactly as the eyewitnesses testified and refused to recant their testimony no matter how much they were tortured and executed. I could tell you how I explored deeply in the occult and Hinduism and other philosophical/religious belief systems. Only one thing makes sense and holds water......all other concepts are full of holes....the only thing that makes sense is that we are separated from God by our sins, and God loves us and wants us to be reunited with Him forever to glorify His own name, magnifying His glory and receiving from Him all things that pertain to life...
Sinners who deserve to die who God took on Himself the form of a man to die in our place to save us from our sins, to save us from eternal dying in the damnation of Hell where sin belongs and will one day forever be confined in the consuming fire. Nothing else makes sense. If you don't want to be changed from what you are, a dying sinner, then don't believe. It's your choice. God does not accept "I don't have enough evidence" as an excuse. You have been told.
If God does exist and he is omniscient,omnipotent,omnibenevolent and omnipresent like everyone says he is, then why is there starving children all over this world?If God does exist, he is vindictive and cruel. If he is always there, surely he would be able to stop the terrible things going on in this world because he would be right there after all. If God is all powerful, then why hasn't he stopped these terrible things from happening and why have we not officially seen him? Is he not powerful enough to show his presence? If he is all loving, would he not want to put an end to all the hatred we witness in this earth today? The worst thing is, he knows all about it. He is apparently 'all knowing' meaning he knows about these horrific things but CHOOSES to do nothing about it , even with the power he possesses.
Scientifically, this does not make sense. I understand people have their own beliefs, but this is mine so please do not insult me for it. Do you really think there is a God who listens to your prayers or is it what you want to believe? Do you actually think there is a heaven or hell , or is that just the nicer way of thinking about the taboo of death? Is the bible fiction, based on what people wanted to hear? It can be beautiful, i support the morals, however i simply cannot believe in a God, its to unrealistic and fictitious to me.
I agree entirely. Yes, the bible gives some good moral by which to live, but that does by no means give it validity to its basis of the existence of God. If God exists, it raises too many questions like 'Well, why does God exist?' or 'How does God exist?'.
There is immense suffering in the world. Diseases, hunger, extreme poverty. This is all supposedly God's will. God wants this to happen.
Whenever you mention God, you forget the other guy Satan.
There are two sides on this earth with different goals. God's is to save and satan's is to destroy. The people who die everyday wouldn't be enough for satan if God wasn't involved.
God has saved many and satan killed many. But with God you have to make a choice.
Proof God Exists are in the bible......inventions and discoveries made almost 1000 years after they had been prophesied by men of God in the bible....
"Why does God exist?" is a stupid question. If all you are going to do is ask stupid questions, you can be sure you won't get an answer. If you ask about yourself "why do I exist" and you ask honestly and do not stop asking until you find the truth, you will know God created you and you will know Jesus is God who died for you to save you from Hell, to save you from your sins, to save you from eternal dying in the lake of fire which is the second death.
God's will is for you to believe on His Son who died for you so you can be saved from Hell. If God ended all the pain and suffering when it started or even now, you would be in Hell with no way out.
To a nonsensical person, nothing makes sense. Nothing is your religion and you worship nothing hoping it keeps you safe from burning in Hell. You're a blooming fool.
On the contrary dear sir, there is no such thing as a 'Stupid Question'. And now I ask ye to gaze upon the reflection glass with thine glassies and ask thineself "Why do I exist?", ignoring your current beliefs. Use your glassies to look upon thineself from the viewpoint of someone else. Then return with the answers. That is the real question, you dig?
A stupid question is one you know the answer to. Listen kid....if you look at yourself as God sees you, you are a sinner who deserves to die and burn in Hell. Your sins separate you from God. He took on Himself the form of a man to die in your place, to pay your price so you don't have to pay in Hell. He rose from the dead offering forgiveness to all who believe on Him and receive Him by faith as their Savior, giving eternal life to those He justifies through faith in His sinless blood which covers the sin of all who believe on Him.
It is you who needs to examine his own beliefs. You think you have the right as a sinner to exist outside of Hell and you are wrong.
God is self-existent, to ask why He exists is a stupid question. You seem to be avoiding asking why you exist which would be a good question....and don't stop asking until you get an answer stronger than death. I'm not concerned about the opinion of sinners about me, I'm concerned what God thinks of me and you do not know God except that you come to Him through His Son.
There is no such thing as morality if you are not a sinner. Morality which is not objective is situation ethics which is based on personal desire and not on morality.
Why in the world you guys go back and forth patting each other on the back with your worn out old atheistic nonsense.......acting like fools and applauding each other in it.
God is not omnibenevolent, He cannot be good to evil. God is always good but to evil He cannot be good because the mind of evil is twisted against God and cannot see God as being good.......God hates evil, He is not benevolent toward evil. God punishes evil because it deserves punishment.
God is in control, it is you who is out of control.
"Omnibenevalent" is not a characteristic of God. God cannot be good to evil as evil cannot see God as being good.
Why do you gloat over starving children? And why do you blame God instead of the evil people who run the governments in countries where children are starving? You seem to enjoy starving children as you think it gives you something to hold against God.
If God were to end all evil in the world today, you would be burning in Hell now. The time will come when evil is purged from creation and left to burn in its passion against God in Hell forever.
What does not make sense scientifically is to believe life arose from lifeless matter and intelligence/consciousness came from mindless matter. These are two scientific impossibilities.
Please do not insult you for your belief? You are insulting everybody who believes God is still on His throne and will judge the living and the dead.
God is not all loving, God hates evil.
These silly arguments you make are so tired and worn out it's amazing that so many people like you parrot these ideas mindlessly. The truth of the matter is that you walk according to your lusts and you don't want God to rule over you. That's just too bad for you, isn't it? God still is on His throne and He rules over you even if He can only prove it by leaving you dying forever in the lake of fire.
Your whole post is a rambling insult against God and those who trust in Him. "Please don't insult me for my beliefs" you say as you insult every way you can think of against God and His people...and you think God is going to spare you from Hell? Really?
I don't believe in a God, therefore i don't believe he will spare me from hell because i don't think there even is a hell. Maybe i have insulted you, this may be because of the insults i have received for being atheist and having these beliefs, i can be quite defensive on this topic so I'm sorry if i have offended you.
I was saying if there is a god by some chance then i do not see how he is a pleasant God because of the things going on in this world. I do blame the governments entirely, i do not blame a god because i don't think there is a God to blame. He is supposedly all powerful yet he doesn't change a thing, he is all knowing so he knows about it all and he is also always there so he has the chance to change it. Anyway I'm going to leave this debate here, i do not want to get too involved in this topic because clearly i insult people with my views.
Well then, I guess in death you will find out if you are right, won't you? Don't listen to God calling you to seek His mercy and find it in Jesus Christ who died for you and offers you forgiveness, and you won't be saved from Hell.
Atheism is the religion of fools. That is not an insult, it's the truth. You have to be a fool to say there is no God and then enter eternity in defiance of the One who give you life and takes it away.
How can you say God does not change a thing when you are edging closer and closer to finality of dying every moment? God gives you time and you are wasting it trying to convince yourself that He is not there and does not love you and does not want you to believe on His Son who conquered death so you can be delivered from it into eternal life by Him, the Living God . There is not "a god by some chance". A god would be a thing you can call a god, appropriately or inappropriately, which was created by God. God is not "a god", He is God who created all things for Himself to enjoy, God who loves you and wants you to enter into agreement with Him so you can be pardoned of all your sin, forgiven and set free through faith in the sinless blood of His Son which He gave as the covering for sinners who repent and believe on Him. If you will in honesty admit you are a sinner who deserves to die, believe Jesus is God the Son who is the innocent One who died for you, paid your price, conquered death and is risen bodily and is God who will judge the living and the dead, ask God the Father in the name of Jesus the Son to forgive you and by faith receive Jesus as your Savior, He will give you a new heart which hates sin the same as God hates sin and loves God the same as God loves you.
Refusing to repent and believe on the Son of God is refusing your own life and sealing your own judgement as a sinner who will be confined where sin belongs in the fire of Hell. You're not being smart by refusing to believe on the Son of God.
Can you please just stop banging on about our eternal death in the fires of hell. I get the point. I'm not interested in it. I don't believe there is such a place, neither physical or non-physical. Can you not just enter into a sensible, intellectual debate (Which is the point of this website). All you're doing here is attacking those who do not believe in God. You're attacking people who don't have the same beliefs or views as you. One of the Christian teachings is 'love thy neighbour'. You are not doing that at all. In fact, you are attacking about 70% of the World population. Now that is hardly loving thy neighbour.
You need to be told that you are on your way to Hell. You need to be told that you are a sinner worthy of nothing but eternity in Hell. Maybe you will wake up before it's too late so you can secure God's pardon through faith in His blood which He gave to pay for your sin so your account can be settled and you don't have to pay in Hell as a sinner, never able to pay off the debt you owe, only piling on to that debt moment by moment as a sinner unfit for Heaven, unfit for life, worthy only of dying forever and the only place God has to keep sinners from corrupting His creation is in the fire of Hell which forever consumes and contains sin.
There is no such thing as a sensible discussion with a fool. To a fool, the truth is folly and they can't see truth in their darkness of sin. The truth is not debatable; it is what it is.
I'm not attacking anybody, I'm telling them the truth. It's you who came attacking me because you hate the truth and want to believe you have the right to exist as a sinner outside of Hell.
A "Christian teaching" which excludes the gospel of the good news of God in Jesus Christ who conquered death so sinners can be saved from their sins and not have to fry like undying worms on a hot skillet in Hell, is not Christian but rather is a religious attempt to deceive oneself into believing they are not worthy of Hell.
Oh yeah, I'm attacking 4 billion people. Wow, I never imagined I had that much power. Don't worry, one of them will start shooting nukes sooner or later and if you're not saved you will go down to Hell with them.
I can't claim to love my neighbor if I know the truth and do not tell them. Knowing you are on your way to Hell and keeping silent, not telling you of the danger you are in would be hateful, apathetic and selfish being more concerned about your appreciation of me than I am concerned about your predicament believing lies from Hell.
You don't KNOW the truth though. You believe it to be true, you don't know it is. By all means debate your views, get them heard. But only do so if you are willing to have a proper debate, not just suffocate people with your beliefs so much they will simply ignore you. Okay, I'm going to hell. Believe that if you want. If it makes you happy to think I'll suffer for eternity for my sins, then fine. Only one thing will change my mind, and that is a sensible, compelling argument for God's existence.
Truth: You are in the first death, dying, a sinner separated from God by your sins.
Truth: You need to be saved from your sins or you will be lost forever
Truth: There is no place to contain sin and prevent it's evil from spreading but in the fire of Hell which you need to be saved from
Truth: As a sinner, you do not have the right to exist outside of Hell, you do not have the right to live.
Truth: God loves you and gave Himself as the Son of God to pay for your sins so you can be forgiven if you agree with God on what you deserve for your sin, repent of your sin, and believe from your heart that He is raised from the dead and receive Him by faith as your Savior
Jesus Christ is the truth.
If this is not sensible and compelling for you, the fire of Hell will be compelling for you.
It's not sensible at all to me. You can't just say that Jesus Christ is the truth. Prove it. I could say that tomorrow I will grow 4 more arms. Ok, that may be a reasonable assumption if I had some medical experiment conducted upon myself and its intention being the research into growing back lost limbs. That then could well be true. But since that is not the case, I have had no medical experiments conducted on myself, then the idea that I will grow 4 more arms tomorrow is ridiculous. There is no reason to assume such a thing, so it therefore must be considered untrue. Do you believe in fairies? I assume you don't. Why not?
You want proof that Jesus Christ is the truth? You're asking to find yourself in Hell unable to escape and God will give you the proof you insist cannot be found.
Demons sometimes appear to some people as "fairies". I believe demons, or devils/fallen angels are real, and I believe angels are real. I do not believe in "fairies".
I can say you are on your way to Hell, and if you want proof you are asking to be in the fire with no way out. Your growing arms analogy is absurd. Your being separated from God by your sin is obvious, and there is no place for you but Hell if you will not repent of your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. I guess you think you are proving me wrong. We'll see, won't we?
You don't believe in fairies? Why not? (and by fairies, I mean little pretty things with wings and magical dust, not demons)
You can't say I am on my way to hell because you don't know that, and don't say you can know that because you can't (That is definite).
Have you ever experienced God? Or is your whole belief based on what a book says? (I strongly feel it would be the latter). Let me tell you, there are also many books that say that fairies exist, but you don't believe in those. So what gives the bible so much validity to you? Why is the bible any different?
You can talk with God if you will first admit you have broken His holy law and are unworthy of life. If you will approach God honestly admitting your need of His mercy, He will make Himself known to you. If you draw near to God, He will draw near to you. You are trying to uphold a mental block brick wall in your mind behind which you think God cannot see you. You're making a mistake, that wall is crumbling to dust and you have nothing to cover your wrongs. All things are naked and open to God, you can't hide anything from God, you are only fooling yourself if you think God is void by your desire that He be void.
Anything that appears to be a fairy is a demon in disguise. A lot of people do see fairies or leprechans or other things.........they are demons in disguise.
I do not believe fairies are some kind of race of ethereal beings with magical powers. I do believe demons sometimes appear to people as fairies.
I answered this before. You are so engrossed in what you think is your unanswerable rhetoric that you can't hear when you are answered. God is trying to get through to you and you are trying to fortify that mental block wall in your mind. God loves you and wants the best for you and you are doing your damnedest to keep from admitting your guilt and need of His mercy, doing your damnedest to keep yourself away from God.
I told you they are not fairies but they are demons who fool people into thinking they are fairies. Devils can appear as beautiful things.
I can indeed say you are on your way to Hell as I know you are on your way to Hell because you refuse to admit your guilt and you refuse to believe God took the punishment of your sins on Himself when He died for you on the cross as the Son of God. You are trampling His blood under your feet when God gave it to pay for, to cover your sin so you can be set free from the debt you owe to God. You are spitting in God's face saying you don't need mercy, you don't need pardon, you don't need to believe He died for you to save you from Hell, you are sealing God's wrath against your sin and propelling yourself in pride away from God's love into a reality you want, a reality void of anything good from God and that reality can only be in the fire of Hell. You are taking the good things God gives you for granted and not thanking God for them, you are heaping up more and more of His wrath and one day you are going to find it poured out on you in the fire of Hell if you will not repent of your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Nothing in life makes sense but that God loves you and gave Himself to be the propitiation for your sins so you can be reconciled to Him and have eternal life. Apart from Jesus Christ the Savior you have nothing but death and it will be forever in the fire of Hell. This is about what God did for you in reality, not religion in which people believe they earn the right to exist outside of Hell. The faith of God in Christ is the only entirely logical and rational explanation of life, including pain and suffering. Your believe in Naturalism is belief in complete nonsensical existence with no real meaning, purpose, or value. If God did not create you, what does it matter if you exist?
You can meet God in reality if you will first believe that He is God and approach Him admitting you need His mercy. You need to be concerned about yourself and give up this silly notion of getting out of reality in death. You have to face God and you will know Him as either your Savior or your Judge. It's better to come to terms with Him now, admitting your guilt and need of mercy, than to be forced to admit your need of relief in the fire of Hell.
God will hear you if you will tell Him you are a sinner who deserves whatever punishment He deems fitting and ask for His mercy. If you will believe Jesus is God the Son who paid your price in death and rose offering you forgiveness and ask God the Father in the name of God the Son who took your place in death to forgive you as He is free from death in victory of His resurrection...if you will believe on Him in faith and invite Him into your heart as your Savior He will come in to you and you will know God personally the only way it is possible to know God...ON HIS TERMS
Like I said, the fire of Hell will be compelling to you. You want proof? You're asking for it and sure to get it though it looks like you will get it the hard way and not like it when you get it.
God is calling out to you now, inviting you to be saved, to know His mercy, to have eternal life through Jesus Christ who gave Himself for you to save you from your sins. Believe on Him, receive Him by faith as your Savior and by the blood He gave as payment for your sins you will be reconciled to God and have eternal life now and death will be swallowed up in victory, and Christ will be in you a river of living waters flowing to eternal life.
6And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.
7Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.
8And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. 9Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
10And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. 11He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
12And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
16I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
17And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
2nd Peter 1:16-21 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
I know the truth, and I know that you can know the truth but you choose to not believe the truth in preference of your sin which you love more than life. You think you have the right to exist as a sinner outside of Hell and you are wrong. The fact that you claim nobody can know the truth only proves one thing: YOU do not know the truth. You do not know the truth because you don't want to repent of your sin, you think you are as good or better than God and you think you have the right to exist outside of Hell. I doubt that you will ever stop trying to elevate your own mind above God and you will end up cast away from God forever in your sin in the lake of fire. I hope I'm wrong about that, but it seems by your own words and attitude you are becoming increasingly defiant against God and He will one day say "Enough is enough out of you" and you will be gone forever to pay the debt you owe as a sinner by serving your time forever in Hell where the existence of sinners is justified.
It is you who is debating, I'm simply presenting the truth. The truth is not debatable. You are the one who wants to argue against God and all you are doing is opposing your own life and sealing your own eternal dying. You need to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved before it's too late.....but with you, like many of the fools here, I have to think it is too late already and you will never seek God's mercy, never believe He died for you on the cross, never believe He conquered death, never escape dying forever in the fire of Hell.
God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked nor do I. I do not want my worst enemy to burn in Hell. That's why I try to tell even my worst enemy how they can find God's mercy and know for sure they are forgiven and on their way to Heaven so they can be saved from Hell. God loves you and wants you to be saved from Hell. If you don't care about where you are going or who you are serving, that's your own fault and you will serve your sin forever and pay for it in Hell as you are rejecting the payment God made with His own blood in Christ who died for you....you will be rejected by Him in death the same as you are rejecting Him in life.......it does not have to be that way except you are choosing your own way over the way of the cross of Christ who wants to take you in eternal life to share in all the blessings of Heaven glorifying the One who created you. You need to think about what you are doing to yourself, you're on a course of self-destruction and can only honestly blame yourself if you won't repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
God doesn't want me to burn in hell? Well being all powerful, surely he could stop that if he really wanted. As I keep saying, if he wants me to believe in him, show me he exists.
God will not stop you from going against Him if that's what you want to do. You don't want God to rule over you, do you? Do you want to give God the honor He deserves for creating you? Do you want to agree with God on what you should and should not do? Do you want to bow to Him as your master?
Love and freedom are two sides of the same coin. God loves you so He gives you the freedom to go against Him and there is no place for those who are against Him but in the fire of Hell where they won't disrupt the beauty and peace God gives to those who love Him.
God is giving you time wanting you to come to repentance, to agree with Him about your sin and quit going your own way against Him. He will not give you forever to change your mind. You can't say you haven't been warned about where you are going. God is being merciful to you now, giving you time you do not deserve and you think He's supposed to allow you to go free forever doing your own thing however you feel like doing it?
Everything living and non-living in the universe shows God's handiwork. Your own consciousness shows God created you as a soul. To say "show me evidence of God" is willful ignorance and God won't buy it as an excuse. You don't want God to rule over you, so you are choosing to believe that nothing good is from God and God is giving you what you want, allowing you to think that way and act according to your own feelings and desires (lusts). The only place where there really is nothing good from God, which is what you want your reality to be (existence with nothing good from God)......that reality can only be given to you in Hell where fire prevents anything good from reaching you. God is trying to reach you and bring you into reasonable agreement with Him regarding your sin, to ask His forgiveness, to be saved from Hell by the One took your sin on Himself and paid the price in full as the innocent One who did not die for His own sins but died for yours, and is risen from the dead offering forgiveness if you will repent of your sin and believe on Him. If all you're going to do amounts to "I don't see any evidence", then the only evidence you will get will be inescapable eternal dying in Hell, you are asking for that reality void of anything good from God and if God were not reluctant to give you what you want you would be there now.
As I have already argued, although it is getting to the point now where I am feeling that I am wasting my time, that consciousness does not need the presence of a 'soul'. If we all had souls, why did God give us brains? What can a brain do that a soul can't? If a soul can control your conscious mind (a very complex thing), then surely it could also take over many other functions of the brain.
Let me pose this scenario to you (off the topic of souls). Let's say that suddenly a group of people suddenly appeared on a remote island (Hypothetically speaking). They have no knowledge of any religion and haven't even considered the concept of theism or atheism. Then they think about how they came into existence (let's ignore the idea that these people suddenly appeared here). They see how complex their bodies are and, reasonably, assume that they must have been designed by another intelligence. This is, how i believe religion came into existence. But Charles Darwin is amongst this group. He explains to them evolution. Now, there's two options for those people to believe here. 1) They were designed by an intelligence whose own existence cannot be explained and for which there is no evidence (And has apparently existed forever - which means that it took him an infinite amount of time before the creation of the universe to suddenly decide to create it. This makes absolutely no sense to me. What was God doing before the creation of the universe that takes an infinite amount of time?) or 2) They can reason it out and go for the most likely solution which is scientifically explained and sensible. They discover the evidence for the Big Bang theory and dinosaurs, the age of the universe; they understand physics, cosmology and begin to explain how it is plausible for something to exist from nothing. A lot about their existence can be explained. Then, let's say that you suddenly appeared there and told them all of your beliefs. They would say 'What?! You must be joking.'. Just like if you told somebody that fairies exist, they would say 'What?! You must be joking'
It is not plausible that nothing can become something, it is not plausible that life can come from non-living matter, it is not plausible that consciousness comes from mindless matter. To believe such things happened or do happen is to ascribe supernatural power to nature, believing it does what common sense tells us can be done only by God. The religion you are using to try to convince yourself that you are exonerated of guilt in death is called "Naturalism". The religion you are promoting is based on nothing but wishful thinking, hoping to escape judgement in death.
If you think I'm going to believe in your religion, you are indeed wasting your time. I live in reality, God gives me life and I am His property bought and paid for by the blood of God Himself in the Son of God, Jesus Christ who died for my sins and in whom I found forgiveness as He rose in victory from the grave, victory over sin, death, and Hell, I"m saved from eternal condemnation as sin has no place with God and must be confined to Hell.
Your arguing is only taking you down in death, you are arguing against your own life in favor of death hoping it keeps you out of Hell. People come up with all kinds of religious ideas like yours in hope of escaping judgement in death. You owe God for every moment of your time, you have sinned against Him and you're not getting off the hook in death, believe it or not.
God gave you a brain because He wanted you to have powers of reason, imagination, creativity and communication like Himself, so He could enjoy communing with you on His level. God made man in His own image....for Himself to enjoy giving life and all things as a father enjoys giving life and good things to their children. You arguing against God is doing nothing but sealing your tomb and there is only one place for you to go when you are going against God and that is Hell. I hope you reconsider and seek God's mercy through the blood of His Son which He gave to cover your sins if you will put your trust in Him. I'm afraid you are like most religious followers of Naturalism and you won't give it up because you think death is going to get you out of reality, out of responsibility for your sins, out of Hell. You are not living in reality if you think you get off the hook in death, you are only dying in reality and it will be forever in the fire of Hell if you don't have the life of God in you which is the Spirit of God given when a person receives Jesus Christ by faith as their Savior.....and then live in Him forever knowing death does not have the victory over them.
I can present you a list of people among the most highly accomplished and respected scientists in all areas of study who believe exactly the same thing as me. You don't have to believe in the big bang or evolution to be a scientist. Evolution and the big bang are not science, and people who believe in them follow the logical fallacy of begging the question in their studies, declaring what they believe MUST be true, so everything they do MUST support their belief and they make careers out trying to prove what they believe is true while the reject any other ideas which explain reality. They are practicing the religion of naturalism which takes a lot more complications of faith than to believe that God created all things for His own pleasure and purpose, God loves you, and life means God is good because God is the giver of life.
Your religion is in hopelessness, meaninglessness, and death...hoping to get out of reality in death. You're not getting out, your going to be in Heaven or in Hell forever and they way you are going I have to believe you are going to wake up frying in Hell like an eternal sausage and I really hope you find God's mercy and prove me wrong.
There is one huge clarification that needs to be made here. I am not religious. I do not follow a religion. If you say that I'm religious, then that means that someone who believes that there is a cake somewhere in the world is religious. All i am doing is believing what evidence and reason suggest is true, just like there's evidence and it's reasonable to assume that there's a cake somewhere in the world. I must stress that the previous ideas mentioned are plausible. Read Lawrence Kraus 'A universe from nothing' if you don't believe me. He explains how not only is it plausible for something to exist from nothing, it has to happen.
God gave me a brain for X Y and Z. ???? Then what's the point of a soul if a brain can do all that??
If you believe living things came from non-living matter, you believe in a religion in which mindless lifeless matter is supernatural. You also believe that because you came from mindless and lifeless matter that you are not a sinner and are exempt from punishment in death. You have established a religious belief system which you order your life according to for your own lusts.
Nothing cannot cause something to exist. To believe nothing can cause something is nonsense. Those ungodly physicists try to make up that stuff because they cannot handle the thought that God rules over them. They invent a religious belief system which dictates how they interpret reality and they reject scientific data which contradicts their beliefs. They are frauds.
Please get it out of your head that atheists are religious. Atheists (or I do, at least) simply look at what is presented to them, and then make up their mind. Would you call someone who believes that today is Monday religious? Of course not, that would be silly. You can't prove absolutely that today is Monday. Your calendar may say it is, but what if your calendar had a mistake in it. Or if you use a calendar on a 'phone, a glitch may have occurred. Or maybe aliens came down to earth and made us all think it was Monday by changing all the calendars and meddling with our memories. These are all incredibly unlikely, so we believe it is Monday because the Calendars do say it is Monday, and you can remember Sunday being yesterday and the chance of aliens doing what I said is very unlikely. All the evidence suggests that today is Monday, so someone who believes it is Monday doesn't follow the religion of 'It-is-Monday-ism'. An atheist is just the same. Not just disbelieving in God for the sake of it, making an informed decision based on what they have. And at present, given evidence for evolution, the Big Bang theory, etc, an informed decision would be to say that God doesn't exist. That's not a religion.
Atheists are religious if they admit it or not. To believe consciousness came from mindless matter and to believe living things arose from non-living matter is a religious belief in which you think matter has supernatural powers. You replace God with the material universe and worship your own mind as your own little deity, and you think that you make yourself exempt from Hell and free from responsibility for what you did in your moments of time.
Atheism is a willfully built brick wall in your mind behind which you think God cannot rule over you, and beyond which you hope to escape reality in death. All of the evidence suggests you are dying and need to be saved or you will be lost and gone forever where you cannot be saved, and the fire will consume and contain your sin forever so that your corruption will not spread again.
Atheism is not a religion. By definition, it is the lack of a religion. To believe consciousness came from mindless matter is explainable by evolution. Intelligence gives a species a massive advantage. The most intelligent organisms lived, becoming more intelligent via genetic variation in that species. Evolution is as much a fact now as today being Monday. We don't yet know how the first living cell came into existence, but I have no doubt we one day will. For example, people claimed that we will never know the chemical composition of our sun, meanwhile some scientist had already begun experimenting with spectroscopy and now today we can find the chemical composition of not only our own sun, but other stars in our galaxy and of other galaxies. To begin answering how life began, you first must agree that evolution happened to create all complex life forms today. This is widely accepted by both theists and atheists. The first forms of life would have been very simple, just a single cell, possibly only a nucleus, cell membrane and cytoplasm. That can result from simple chemical reactions. We don't know yet though. But I think it's important to appreciate that the first form of life would've been very simple, which makes their existence much more plausible to have occurred without the need of a God to design them.
I don't think matter has supernatural powers. Why do you suggest that? Why do you think that something supernatural must create life?
'All of the evidence suggests you are dying and need to be saved or you will be lost and gone forever where you cannot be saved, and the fire will consume and contain your sin forever so that your corruption will not spread again.'
Please enlighten me with this evidence. I am certainly unaware of it.
In atheism you make yourself to be your own god, believing you get out of reality in death. To claim to be an atheist and not religious is silly. In atheism you believe you are as good or better than God.
To begin answering how life began, you must recognize the scientific fact that living things come only from living things, therefore the first living thing which was not God had to have been brought to life by the living God. This is simple common sense. To believe in the scientific impossibility of life coming from non-life is silly, and it is a religious belief in which you ascribe supernatural ability to non-living matter.
The only reason ungodly "scientists" invent false science and call it science claiming to study what is never and will never be observed in nature is nothing but the logical fallacy of "begging the question".
You don't see evidence that you are dying? Dying people need to be saved, unless of course you believe a person has no real value which is the bottom line of atheism, worthlessness of life.
You want proof that sinners can't get out of the fire of hell? You'll get it, just keep asking for it.
All living things must be created by other living things, you say. So God, being a living thing himself, had to have created that first living thing. Why doesn't God need to have been created by a previous living thing, being a living thing himself? Or is it okay for God to be able to create himself from mindless matter (or from nothing, or has always lived - which makes no sense at all) but life on earth... that had to be created by God did it? How does God escape the bounds of this 'scientific impossibility'?
Of course I see the evidence that I am dying. Everyone else is, has and is going to be. So am I, then. Do we NEED to be saved? No. Why do we NEED to be saved? Want to be saved from death, of course. But we don't NEED to be saved.
In the grand scheme of things, an individual person doesn't have any real value. They're just a lump of meat plodding about on a single, minute planet in a little galaxy in this gigantic universe. But of course to other people, an individual person does have value, like the value of a child to a parent, a spouse to their spouse, friend to a friend. I wouldn't say a disbelief in God means you have to deem life as worthless, not at all. I certainly don't deem life as worthless. I can create worth from it, simply by enjoying it. But if I wasn't born, I wouldn't exist to care. So worth of life only exists because a person creates its worth themselves.
Yes, I believe that life is meaningless. There is no reason for our existence. We just exist and should make the most of our brief existence, make your life worth something. But life itself doesn't get automatically assigned worth, because all it is is chemical reactions and electrical impulses.
I said all living things come from living things, before there were living things the Living God who created all things was there. If you believe living things came from non-living things, you believe in scientific impossibilities.
If you believe life is meaningless and there is no reason for your existence then you have absolutely no value and are not worth your salt. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard......well, some people say they prefer to burn in Hell over bowing to their Creator and I think that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard but you take second place.
God is God outside of the universe the same as He is God everywhere. Before anything was there, God was there and He made man in His own image and you are worth more than the whole world because you are made in the image of God.
Why do you want to believe you are worthless and life is meaningless? It seems to me that you are trying to punish yourself. You want punishment so you degrade yourself and somehow you think that makes you strong and smart. All it is going to make you is what you are now, dying forever and your pride is taking you into the fire of Hell where dying never ends as it does in this world.
You are worth more than the whole world. God Himself took on human form to plunge Himself into your dying so that in His resurrection you can be pulled out of it. You are worth so much that God gave His only begotten Son for you, so that if you will believe on Him you will have eternal life.
There is only one real reason anybody rejects the gift of God which is eternal life through Jesus Christ....it's because they love their sin more than life and want to keep it no matter what it costs and it's costing you your soul and you are losing all that is good to the fire of Hell.
Or maybe they reject it because there is so much evidence against it? Please stop saying I love sinning. I don't even believe I AM sinning because I don't even believe in God.
They reject God because they want to continue in their sin and they love their sin more than life. The only reason you do not want to believe God loves you and His name is Jesus who died for your sins and rose from the dead offering you forgiveness of your sins is that you do not want to confess and forsake your sin, you feel you are flying high in the momentary pleasures of your sin and you love it like a moth flying into the flames.........so onward you go into the fire of Hell and you are being a fool, rejecting God's love and incurring His wrath.
You are defying God and demanding proof that Hell is real. If you don't think you are sinning against God, well, I wonder how you will feel about it in Hell......and it really looks like you are so hard headed that God will never get through to you and you will never realize He loves you and gave Himself for you as a ransom to buy you back from the penalty of your sin which is the fire of Hell.
The proof of Hell which you say is impossible is only one breath, one heartbeat away. Your asking for it, epitomizing the concept of being a fool.
If life is meaningless you are worth nothing no matter what you do or what you own. If life is meaningless there is no good reason for you to live. If you don't want to live, you are going to end up in Hell. If you seek God's mercy you will find it in His resurrected Son who conquered death so that you don't have to pay in Hell for your sin.
I guess you just have to be in the fire of Hell with no way out before you believe it's fire is fueled by sin and you won't stop being a sinner, will you? You won't admit to God that your sin is evil and worthy of nothing but the fire of Hell, will you? My guess is that you will wake up in Hell haunted by the times you refused God's offer of pardon through faith in the blood of His Son which he gave to cover your sin but you prefer the fleeting pleasures of sin and you trample His blood under your feet and spit in His face saying you don't need to be saved.....so guess what...you won't be saved and you will get what you deserve.
If God were created by something, then God would not be God but would be a thing. God is the creator of all things. Your twisted mind is having trouble knowing who God is because you are a sinner and don't want to admit that you are guilty.
You are trying to create a straw man which is not God and then you are arguing that it cannot be God because it is not the Creator of all things. Duhhhhh, how long did it take you to figure out that a thing which is not God cannot be God? Is that the highest accomplishment of your education? Did they give you an award for figuring out that a thing which is not God can't be God?
God is not bound by the laws of physics. The universe is bound by the laws of physics. God is bigger than the universe, He created it and is there in the universe as He is outside of the universe. If He were bound by the laws of physics He could not be God. You are bound by the laws of physics. God is not bound by the laws of physics....and that's so much for the stupid idea that God is made in the image of man rather than the other way around.
God gave you powers of reason, imagination, creativity, communication, like Himself and He gave mankind the power to reproduce more in their own image the same as God made you in his image. God will not give you His place as the King of Creation....yet He made you in His image but you want to be in the image of a devil trying to deprive God of what He created.
Things are created, God is the Creator of all things. What is so hard to understand about that? A thing cannot be God because God created all things. Are you really that dense that you don't know the difference between God and things that He created?
You can call believing in evolution a religious belief if you are willing to also accept that believing that today is Monday is a religious belief. Believing today is Monday (almost Tuesday for me now) clearly isn't a religious belief so neither is believing in evolution.
I believe in reality. Believing in evolution is believing in scientific impossibilities, so that your own mind becomes your god causing the impossible to be possible in your mind and nowhere else.
Evolution is not a scientifically impossible, not at all. It's been proven. We can observe natural selection today! It's a real thing, it happens. We know that. We have seen bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics as a result of natural selection. If you don't understand evolution, I'll try to explain it to you:
When the first life began, it was very simple and I would imagine, very numerous. Possibly there were many types of life on earth in the beginning. Say they're living in water (the first forms of life probably were). One of the cells has powerful flagella so it can move quickly. (these came about as a result of random mutation; the chance of flagella occurring as a random mutation is slim, but when multiplied by the sheer number of cells present, it's a very high chance that at least ONE of the millions of cells present will have a flagella. This cell can move quickly, faster than all the other cells. It survives longer because it can outrun its predators. It therefore reproduces by mitosis, producing two identical cells (Same DNA = flagella present). These cells with the flagella will begin to grow in population size because of this. Advantaged cells will reproduce more, and the population will increase exponentially. The other cells will die out because the flagella cells will either eat them or another predator will. So now all cells have flagella as a result of ONE little mutation in amongst millions of cells (which is likely to happen, may I add, due to the sheer number of cells that may have existed near the time of the origin of life). Propose a few thousand generations down the line, a cell mutated a faster working nucleus. It can process its surroundings from its sensory organs much more quickly. (the nucleus itself would have started out very simple, VERY simple, but as a result of random mutation and then non-random natural selection, that nucleus gets much more complex, without an intelligent designer). Over time (A LOT of time, incomprehensible amount of time), these little additions to the species build up, and up, getting more complex each time, until you reach us; 46 chromosomes, DNA, genetics, brains instead of a single nucleus. Circulatory system, slowly developed as explained above, respiratory system, digestive system, all developed as explained above. It makes sense! Something as complex as a human body can exist, perfectly plausibly, without an intelligent designer. All you need is a lot of time and random genetic mutation.
Life may have began as chemicals (hydrocarbons; like oil). Chemicals surely don't need an intelligent designer to exist. These chemicals may have begun to behave in a certain way (due to their chemical properties/electronic structure or whatever). All chemicals react to their surroundings, they may react with other elements if heat is applied, or a catalyst. The point is, they will behave in a certain way, (This is all theoretical, by the way). The chemicals may react in a certain way as to clump together into balls (like a cytoplasm in a cell). These 'cytoplasms' will be floating about the place, just as simple blobs of stuff. They may also contain phosphate and sugar, along with adenine, cytosine etc. (The components of a DNA molecule). All of these chemicals, as a result of their chemical properties, will bond to create DNA. This then may just be floating about in the cytoplasm, not as an actual nucleus (like bacteria cells; these are actually believed to be the oldest form of life). The DNA may cause a chemical reaction that makes the DNA molecule replicate itself and enter another cytoplasm (Cell division/reproduction). From here on, the rest can be explained by evolution and natural selection. That obviously isn't the asnwer to the origin of life (if only), but it's a start. Life really is just a load of chemical fizzes, which at face value, does make it meaningless. However, we have got the ability to think conceptually. We think philosophically. Therefore, we are capable of making our lives mean something ourselves.
The way you are approaching belief in evolution is by practicing the logical fallacy of "begging the question". You start with the assumption that evolution is real, then everything you look at in nature must be interpreted according to your belief.
There is no proof of evolution, there is no evidence of evolution. It's all make believe.
No proof or evidence of evolution?! Well that is simply not true. How you can say there is no proof or evidence baffles me. I don't start with the assumption that evolution is true, I start with no assumptions at all, as we all do. A new born baby has no opinions of anything at that age. I then look which option has more evidence and which makes more sense. That happens to be evolution. I would appreciate it if you could stop dismissing everything I say as 'untrue' and consider it rather than immediately jump to the conclusion that it's wrong. Please take all of the following as true and don't dispute it:
1. I am not religious, so I can't believe I am sinning, so I can't love sinning
2. I am not intentionally 'going against God' to spite him (because I don't believe he exists), I am simply choosing not to believe in him because there is more evidence and reason to the alternative.
3. Evolution has A LOT of evidence
4. My 'beliefs' are constructed purely upon reason and evidence, as should anyone's I believe
5. Science can't answer everything yet, but one day, I'm sure we will be able to explain a lot more. (As has happened in the past)
6. This debate can't continue with me if you're not going to provide logical arguments, rather than just dismissal of everything I'm saying.
(Tempting to add 'God is not real' but that will be disputed, I know)
Anything you call "evidence" of evolution is only make believe. It's nothing new, it's an ancient anti-God philosophy/belief system which in modern times has gained enough believers so they can forcefully promote it's religion in the public schools and mass media.
Believing in evolution and then calling it science is the logical fallacy of begging the question. You believe it happened and is happening, therefore all of your interpretations of data must fit your belief system and contradictory data must be discarded. Evolution/religion of Naturalism is a fascist method of conditioning people to accept devaluing of life so that when governments commit atrocities against their people it is supposed to be accepted as "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest".
The main reason people cling to the religion of Naturalism is that they follow their own lusts and do not want God telling them what or what not to do.
Evolution is more than a worthless belief system, it is an evil systematic degradation of the sanctity of life. It is completely useless and unnecessary for true science; there is no need to believe in evolution to study true science at any level and I can give you a list of some of the most highly accomplished and respected scientists in all fields of science who believe exactly the same thing I believe.
Your idolized leaders who try to make a name by claiming more "proof" of evolution have brainwashed you into worshiping them and seeking their approval as you seek the approval of your peers. Evolution is for cowards who are afraid to think for themselves.
Believing in evolution is not logical. It is completely illogical to believe living things spontaneously appeared out of non-living matter, it is completely illogical to believe consciousness/intelligence rose from mindless matter. If you believe that garbage, nothing will satisfy you are a logical argument against your beliefs. If you really want to know how science in all fields not only contradicts evolution but shows that evolution should be completely discarded as a theory you would do some web searching yourself....just take a wild guess looking for scientific evidence against evolution in a web search and you will find plenty of science which is forbidden in the institutions which have brainwashed you.
You are against God, that is sin to the core through and through. You are against God in favor of death hoping it gets you off the hook so you don't have to answer to God for your sins.
Anybody who says they are not a sinner is just a bold faced liar.
You are indeed intentionally going against God. You want to make your own morals to suit yourself in whatever situation comes up, you don't want God telling you what you should or should not do. You want to feel like God can't see you and you can get away with your wrongdoings as long as people around you can't catch you....and maybe you don't even care if people around you know the evil of your imaginations and actions.
There is no evidence of life emerging out of non-living matter or consciousness/intelligence coming from mindless matter. All science has ever found is that living things and their consciousness/intelligence is inherited. All evidence points to the Living God as the originator of life and consciousness/intelligence. You don't have to focus on that fact, you don't have to believe that you need to be saved from Hell, but to invent a whole belief system in the religion of Naturalism teaching atheism and evolution as science is fraudulent.
I have to say I appreciate your good manners. It's rare for anybody on a site like this to express themselves about God with good manners when they insist He is not there and they insist it is impossible for them to end up in Hell.
You are elevating your intellect as equal to or superior to God. That is obvious sin. Most people who insist God is not there and there is no Hell have issues with their sexuality, wanting to indulge sexually however they feel like doing it. I have not met one person, who says God is not there and there is no Hell, who upholds objective morality regarding sexual indulgences. So far, every one of them maintains "situational ethics", or "if it feels good, do it" mentality even if they themselves are faithful in marriage or sexually abstinent while not married. They all uphold situation ethics as their morality, with no Giver of the Law above their own mind which gives them excuses for immorality when the situation seems to call for bad behavior to get what they want. This is what the Bible means when it says those who scoff at God do so because they walk according to their lusts, their own personal desires determine their pseudo-morality of situation ethics.
Belief in evolution is constructed only on wanting to belief life is independent of God. It is a conclusion from the start which requires all commentary regarding scientific observations fit to support the conclusion. That method of "science" is not true science, it's the logical fallacy of begging the question. If one piece of data is found that is impossible if the assumed theory is true, then that theory must be rejected. There is plenty of data contrary to evolution and discussing such data is pretty much censored out of public schools and mass media. Evolution never was more than a hypothesis, and an honest scientist would not even entertain it as a hypothesis.
You can't prove evolution until you turn a monkey into a man. It's a joke. It does not happen, never will happen, never has happened.
It is a scientific impossibility for life to spring up out of non-living matter and it is a scientific impossibility for mindless matter to produce intelligence/conscience.
All your science dribble trying to show evolution happened is a waste of time. You're a sinner dying and on your way to Hell and you need to be saved by God the Savior. Keep on believing in evolution hoping you get out of reality in death and you will find dying is forever in the fire of Hell.
Bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics is bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics. The bacteria does not change into a monkey who fathered you from an orangutan
Life may have began as chemicals (hydrocarbons; like oil).
This statement is a belief totally contrary to what is observed scientifically. Living things come only from living things, that is all that has ever been observed by science. People who call this kind of "may have" stuff science are scientific quacks.
I'm not going to prove Hell is real, you are going to find out for yourself that it is real. I don't want you to go to Hell which apparently is the only way you will believe it is real. Just wait and see for yourself if you think you can get out of it.
I know Hell is real, I don't have to see it to know it. Most people will not believe it is real until they find themselves in the fire and unable to get out. By the way you talk, you are one of those people who will not believe Hell is real until you are in the fire feeling the heat and unable to get out.
How do you know it's real? You have to see it to know it, that's just the truth. In fact, there is always the possibility of hallucination so even if did see it, you wouldn't KNOW it exists (Hallucination being rather unlikely). What if I told you that I know that tomorrow at 4am, a giant octopus will attack me and then decide to eat ice cream in the kitchen sink? Would you believe that, just because I told you that I know it's true? No, you wouldn't unless you were very gullible (VERY gullible). Why don't I believe in Hell and God? The same reason I don't believe I'll be attacked by an octopus that then eats ice cream in my sink. There is no proper basis on which to believe it. Only could I believe that I will be attacked by an octopus etc, if there was sufficient evidence to suggest it. For example, if the octopus was known to live out of water and hide under people's beds and then attack them at 4am, then have a craving for ice cream, then I would have good reason to suspect that might happen. However, there is not that kind of evidence for Hell. We have no proof of its existence at all. So i cannot believe it exists.
You are going to Hell in your sin. Your sin separates you from God and you love it more than life so all you get is dying forever and it belongs in Hell. You can be saved from Hell, but apparently you won't be. Believe it or not.
There is proof of the reality of Hell. Just wait and you will get proof. If you refuse to trust in what God did to save you from your sins, you will wake up in your sin in Hell and you will remember how you refused to listen to God's appeal for you to reason with Him to be pardoned from your sin so you could have eternal life and not burn in Hell. You are making your choice and getting what you deserve. It does not have to be that way, but that's the way you want it. You want reality to be void of anything good from God even while God is allowing you to enjoy good things. God will reluctantly let you have the reality you want because He is good, He gives what you really want. The reality you want is in Hell where there is nothing good from God. You are bringing in on yourself. Just wait for your proof and it will come. You do not have to believe it until you are in the fire if you must have it that way.
I know Hell is real for one thing because I'm saved from Hell. I have eternal life in Jesus Christ who is God the Savior who died for my sins and rose from the dead offering forgiveness to all who believe on Him. Because He lives, I live, Because He took the penalty of my sins on Himself, the innocent one died for the ungodly guilty sinner, He justifies my life in that He is risen from the dead. My sins have been paid for in full so I don't have to pay in Hell.
You probably won't believe you deserve to die and burn in Hell as a sinner, you probably won't believe God loves you and wants you to be saved from Hell, you probably won't believe Hell is a place where unrepentant sinners burn forever until you find yourself in the fire unable to escape.
I know Hell is real because God says it's real and you need to be saved from it. I know the Bible is God's word and God cannot lie or be fooled like you are being fooled into thinking you have the right to exist outside of Hell.
I don't have to prove anything, the truth stands with no need of proof. You can believe it or not. Not believing the truth will not keep you out of Hell. Saying you can't believe the truth is not an excuse for rejecting the truth, saying you can't believe it won't get you out of it.
I could wait until 4 am to see if your octopus shows up. You can wait until your time is over and see if Hell is real. I'd rather have your octopus attacking me than to be stuck in the fire of Hell with no way out. You go ahead and wait and see if Hell is real.
Another way you can know Hell is real is that it is entirely logical that there be a place to put evildoers when they are removed from God's goodness. Hell separates the dead from the living, the eternally dying from those who are given life by God. It is justice and the reason people fight against the thought of Hell is that deep down they know it is true and they deserve to be there. If they believe the logical conclusion that Hell must exist, that belief would cause them to seek God's mercy and they are too proud to do that so they say "prove it". And then they get their proof the hard way.
It's not perfectly logical to believe there is a place which we've never seen and for which we have no evidence. I tried hard not to involve myself in this debate again because it is clear you refuse to understand what I'm saying. I shall continue no more with this debate since this is not for what I came here. I wanted a proper, intellectual debate. I have had no reasonable or logical arguments from you.
Nothing in life makes sense if sin is not punished and there is not a Savior to get you out of condemnation. Because you reject God the Savior, Jesus Christ, you will have confusion and delusion believing you have the right to exist outside of Hell.
People know in their hearts that Hell is real out of necessity. They also know that they deserve to be there in the fire forever if they admit that Hell is there as God is there. This is why people hate God, they hate His word, and they hate His people.........they feel like if they can destroy God's people and burn His word they prove God's promises are untrue and therefore they believe they are keeping themselves out of Hell.....just like ostriches burying their heads in the sand in face of danger.
It is you who has no logical answer for your existence...because you reject your Creator so you must believe in nonsense like living things forming themselves from non-living matter, a scientific impossibility, and intelligence/consciousness coming from mindless matter, another scientific impossibility. And then you have to tell yourself silly little lies like "death is ok, I'm ok with it, it exonerates me so my troubles will be over", and you hope in things you have no rational reason to hope for.
You do not want a proper intellectual debate or you would quit trying to defend nonsense and admit you are a sinner who does not deserve to live outside of Hell.
How in the world can you think I do not understand what you are saying? Evolution is a childish fairy tale belief system, I had it pumped down my throat through every available media and the public schools for more than fifty years. I took college biology classes, three of them, which try to explain how the silly things you believe in "may" have happened. What a waste of time....they spend almost half of the semester pushing evolution which is useless in scientific endeavor. Evolution is the most brain dead waste of time on the planet.
You want anything but the truth is what you want....you want to believe you are justified by your existence and exempt from Hell; exonerated in death. Your hope is in death, you think the enemy of life is your friend. If you want what you call "logical discussions" you'll have to talk with people who believe the nonsense you believe.. then you can fool each other into thinking you are rational...and there is no shortage of suckers, one is born every minute.
You can't win arguing against God. You lose everything trying to invent arguments against God. There is no wisdom, nor counsel, nor understanding against the LORD. All you can do in trying to argue against God is to fool yourself and die, and then you end up forever as you are now, an enemy of God repulsive to Him and disposed of in the flaming garbage pit of Hell.
Ok, then go on believing you are exonerated in death and God does not care about you. That's a big point in the conclusion of The Book Of The Revelation Of Jesus Christ.
Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Rev:22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Don't believe a word of it, go on believing their is no punishment for sin and you cannot end up in Hell. If that's what you want to believe, then believe it. Your blood is on your own head
You're going to see it from the inside if you are not saved from it. I'll see it from the outside as the smoke of the torments of the condemned will rise forever from the lake of fire.
Isn't it amazing how the Bible depicts Hell as being in the center of the Earth and recently scientists have found that the center of the Earth burns with brimstone? Also, isn't it amazing how the second death is said by the Bible to be in the lake of fire and modern scientists have found the sun to resemble a lake of fire with burning plasma rain? The Bible says that in the final judgement death and Hell will be cast into the lake of fire which is the second death, eternal dying in the lake of fire, God's wrath burning against sin as sin in it's passion burns against God begging condemnation of fire?
Wouldn't it be just like God to put Hell and the lake of fire right in front of your face while you insist there is no evidence and you can't see it, and the only way you will believe Hell is real is to see it from the inside since you can't see it from the outside?
You're going to see it from the inside if you are not saved from it. I'll see it from the outside as the smoke of the torments of the condemned will rise forever from the lake of fire.
Isn't it amazing how the Bible depicts Hell as being in the center of the Earth and recently scientists have found that the center of the Earth burns with brimstone? Also, isn't it amazing how the second death is said by the Bible to be in the lake of fire and modern scientists have found the sun to resemble a lake of fire with burning plasma rain? The Bible says that in the final judgement death and Hell will be cast into the lake of fire which is the second death, eternal dying in the lake of fire, God's wrath burning against sin as sin in it's passion burns against God begging condemnation of fire?
Wouldn't it be just like God to put Hell and the lake of fire right in front of your face while you insist there is no evidence and you can't see it, and the only way you will believe Hell is real is to see it from the inside since you can't see it from the outside?
The only way for you to know, by your own choice, is to be stuck in the fire with no way out. That is the proof you are asking for and will get if you keep asking for it. You could believe God and trust the Savior to save you from Hell, you can be saved from Hell but I don't think you will be. I think you will leave this world saying "I won't believe Hell is real unless I see it and know it burns the flesh of sinners forever fueled by their ongoing sin"....or something like that, a shorter version of course as you won't even admit you are a sinner....so you'll leave this world saying "I see no proof of Hell so I'm not going to fear it". Then you'll leave this world and realize that you were a fool and you'll have the proof you said is not possible when you find yourself unable to get out of the fire of Hell, stuck in eternal dying, condemned by God who you try to condemn by saying He is not God, does not care about you, is not good....whatever. You're losing it all and need to be saved or you will be forever lost in Hell and have what you want now...a reality void of anything good from God, a reality which can only exist in Hell where it is impossible for sinners to believe that it is good to know God punishes sin.
What's the point of believing you get out of reality in death?
What is the point in your existence if you are only a pile of fizzing chemicals?
What does it matter if you exist if there is no God? What does it matter how you act if there is no God?
Atheism is just plain foolishness. You have to face God, you will know Him as your Savior or you will know Him as your Judge.
God did not give you a brain to be a fool. God gave you a brain because He wants to enjoy your existence and you are doing your damnedest to deny God of that honor which He deserves for creating you...and you really believe you cannot be on your way to Hell, defying God saying "Prove it!!!" People have lied to you telling you that God does not rule over you and you can do whatever you feel like doing. You're believing lies and somehow convincing yourself that it's good for you.
Frankley with some of the stuff that you have just spouted out I think you very much deserve to be insulted, as do we all, it's only way we are ever going to get anywhere. Straight away I want to say that I believe in God but it irritates me when Christians pull the victim card when their argument starts to crack, I would have also believed that a christian in the 21th century would have figured out from event he most basic theology that God loves nothing and hates nothing, it is beyond emotion. In fact to anthropomorphize God is a sin in the core Judaeo-Christian faith so you wont avoid hell either, if such a moronic concept exists.
"God still is on His throne and He rules over you even if He can only prove it by leaving you dying forever in the lake of fire." HAVE YOU EVEN STUDIED ANY THEOLOGY? If you were to say that to arguably the most intelligent christian who has ever existed (Descartes) he probably have laughed at you, or be genuinely scared by humanity that you could believe such a thing. When you state that it is scientifically illogical to suggest that life came from lifeless matter then you probably haven't researched any arguments for it (You'll probably say you did, in order to avoid ego degradation). You sound like a stereotypical christian who has never even heard of the theodicies and possibly never even heard of the ontos, telos and cosmos arguments. It's likely that the only reason you are a christian is because you have been brought up in a christian culture and have internalized the belief system and traditions of the faith while never questioning.
Firstly, it's 'you're a blooming fool, to whom it is not worth responding'. And secondly, nobody will admit to something of which they do not believe they are guilty.
It doesn't matter if you believe you are guilty or not, and you don't have to admit guilt. You can stand there and claim to be innocent and try to blame God for not making it clear that you are guilty and in need of mercy; in need of pardon. You can remain forever as you are, separated from God by your sin and your existence, if that's the way you must have it, will be justified by keeping you in the fire of Hell. Your life could be justified by the risen Savior who gave His innocent life's blood to be a covering for your sin if you will believe on Him, but you seem to think you justify yourself by saying you don't believe you are guilty.
Yeah, I get dyslexic with your and you're.....spell check doesn't catch it
If you think you are as good or better than God and have the right to exist outside of Hell, prove it for yourself and there is only one way you can really prove what you believe. You have an appointment coming where all your "evidence"will be weighed and you will have your final answer.
Okay, here we go to address your pompous arrogance. Atheists can be such jerks having shut down their brains in denial of God. You're an 18 year old punk. I'm sure that by the time I was 18, around 30 years ago, that I had studied at least twice as much "theology" as you, dabbling around seeking the truth. I spent two and a half years in college studying theology and by that time I had read more on the subject than most of my teachers. I was deep into occult and Hinduism which you seem to hold some form of believing everything is God and God does not love you but rather coldly forces you to exist and die. I found the truth, His name is Jesus Christ.
And furthermore you little punk, I stay abreast of the latest fake science used to support belief in evolution just to see what stupid things atheist are doing trying to twist their interpretations of reality to fit their belief. I took three semesters of college biology and had the latest beliefs of abiogenesis and evolution crammed down my throat.....it's all an April fools joke. Anybody who believes living things came from non-living things is missing a few weaves in their basket.
I am no fan of the popular constraints of expression and thought dictated by "educators". God is reasonable, the faith of God in Jesus Christ is the only completely sound and logical explanation of life and reality.
Descartes was schooled by Jesuit Priests who are like Satan's mafia thugs. Descartes was a Catholic, Catholicism is pagan religion masking itself as Christian. You can be the most educated person on the planet and if you don't fear God you know nothing, and if you don't know God personally you are lost.
It's amazing that punks like you think they are such hot stuff. When I was your age kids showed respect for their elders. If I were your father, I would tan your hide for the way you are acting.
You sound like stereotypical teenage punk who thinks he knew everything their is to know when he turned 16.
You are tying to be the devil defeating God. You are demonizing yourself against God. God wants you to be like Him, but you want to be like a devil against God so you will end up in the devil's Hell. Simple, eh?
These silly arguments you make are so tired and worn out it's amazing that so many people like you parrot these ideas mindlessly. The truth of the matter is that you walk according to your lusts and you don't want God to rule over you. That's just too bad for you, isn't it? God still is on His throne and He rules over you even if He can only prove it by leaving you dying forever in the lake of fire.
You say that I walk according to my lust, yet you have never met me or seen me or the philosophy that I follow. I bet you haven't even heard of Eclecticism or stoicism yet you scream out unintelligent judgement and prejudice like every other religious fanatic who knows less about their own faith than a run-of-the-mill Atheist does. Learn some humility.
Scoffers scoff at God because they do not want Him to rule over them, they don't want God telling them what they should or should not do, they walk according to their own wants which are called lusts. Most of them will quickly admit they are engaged in or condone sexual indulgences dishonoring bodies outside of marriage. A few, very few, will hold a higher moral standard yet still walk according to their lust for power, recognition, or whatever.
I don't have to know a lot about you to basically understand you. All sinners have the same heart, all are corrupt, and that corruption is in my body the same as yours.
I bet you haven't heard that you are a pompous idiot assuming you know more than me. You are the one making a lot of assumptions here. I'm simply going by what you say. You make it clear that you are a scoffer toward God and that means you walk according to your lusts.
You want humility? Admit you are a sinner who deserves to die and burn in Hell. Fear God. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, knowledge, and understanding but fools despise instruction. You are here in time under God's mercy, you don't deserve one moment of time breathing God's fresh air, and the same goes for me....and YOU are going to tell me about humility? You think you are as good as or better than God and you are going to tell me about humility?
Listen Monty punk........God loves you and will save you from Hell if you repent of your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. If you will not admit you are a sinner who deserves to die and burn in Hell, you know nothing about humility and have nothing to teach me.
You are the fanatic screaming against God...just another big mouth punk atheist, a fool.
You're new here I guess. You are on your way to Hell and need to be saved from it by the only Savior who is God, Jesus Christ who died for you to save you from Hell. Repent of your sins, believe from your heart that Jesus is God who could not be held in the ground by death, He is bodily risen from the dead offering forgiveness to all who admit they are sinners who deserve to die and burn in Hell forever, believe Jesus is God who paid sinners' price in death and conquered death bodily rising from the dead, and ask God the Father in the name of God the Son, Jesus, to forgive them and save them from Hell.
I doubt that you care about any of this, you probably think you are as good as or better than God and you believe you have the right to exist outside of Hell when you don't even have the right to live on Earth. I guess the best I can say to you is enjoy your borrowed time while you can before you wake up in the fire of Hell.
You are mindlessly believing you have the right to go without punishment in death and you are going to find, in the fire of Hell, that you are wrong. You're a fool.
Mate the simple fact that you have a computer or laptop that you can reply to me on means that you are not living the way that God and your lord Christ has commanded you, you have luxury where others do not, DIRECTLY AGAINST THE TEACHING OF JESUS. You probably don't even know that hell wasn't even considered a physical place like heaven until Dante's Inferno in the 14th century, so when you talk of us burning in hell you don't even realize that you are committing a sin right there. Also the fact that you have arrogance to assume MY ARROGANCE means you would be judged poorly for pride and for harmful intention.
Even the very fact that you tell me that I will burn in hell is you attempting to know God's mind by passing judgment on his behalf, i'm not even a christian and I have a better understanding of your concept of god and of the faith built around it.
Samuel 2:3 Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him<--- actions are weighed
You know nothing if you do not fear God, your understanding is detrimental if you do not fear God, what you think is wisdom in not fearing God is foolishness. You're just another punk atheist.
Whoever you think educated you fed you a lot of lies and your belief of having the right to exist outside of Hell while you deny God loves you while He hates your sin is going to take you into the fire of Hell.
What am I supposed to say? Am I supposed to tell you that God does not care about your sin and won't leave you in Hell if you refuse to believe on His Son? Is that what you want? You want me to lie to you to help you believe the lies you have adopted?
I'm not an atheist and your not a christian, you act the exact opposite of the way you are supposed to and say the exact opposite but i'm conscious of the fact that in reply to this you will scream something about hell and that I know nothing. Do us a favor, if all your going to do is insult and repeat the same thing over and over again all the while refusing to debate PLEASE DON'T JOIN A DEBATING WEBSITE.
1) No and any true christian should be absolutely unsure about that, infact they should spend no time on its thought and only spend time on the love of God and his teaching.
2) Around 1.5 years ago when I first learned about stoicism, however the stoic definition of god is far older and VERY different from the Judeo-Christian God. (in short everyone is God and everything in existence is God).
3) If you think God has emotions then you think he is bound by his creation and that he is on a similar level to you. Even your own Pope, apparently most of those who have existed, states that God cannot be thought of in terms of human knowledge, he I the vicar of Christ on earth and should be thought of as telling the truth, unless you are arrogant enough to state that either he is wrong or that I have an wrong interpretation of his exact theology.
4) If you claim that I have no manners only to then go on and insult me that is not very logical. Unless what I was saying was Blasphemous Blasphemy and you have a god-given right to insult another human being, which would then make you very arrogant indeed.
I can imagine your reply will be more of the same inane insults and repetitions of previous posts so if you would be so courteous to answer my question as I have been to you:
Do you believe that you will "get in" to heaven?
(if you have listened or thought about anything I have said, you will know its a trick question. If your a follower of God that is)
A) Admitted that he/she has sinned against God and deserves to be eternally separated from Him in Hell.
B) Believed Jesus is God who died for their sins and is now resurrected bodily from the dead and is the Living God who offers forgiveness to all who believe on Him
C) Called on God the Father in the name of God the Son to have mercy on them and forgive their sins and they received Jesus Christ as their Savior and He lives in them by His Holy Spirit and they are born of the Spirit of God as new creations.
The Pope is not a Christian. Catholicism is not Christian, it is paganism which wears a Christian mask by using some characters from the Bible.
You don't know God, kid. You need to be saved from Hell.
Your trick question is a question of your own ignorance, I'm not getting into heaven based on anything I do, the Son of God paid my price in death, He lives in me and Heaven is my home, He has made me a child of God and there is a place reserved for me now in Heaven and I will be there soon and will be forever changed into the image and likeness of Jesus Christ when I see Him face to face and this body of sin is put off forever.
I don't think much of the stuff you say because all you are doing is trying to justify yourself by claiming to be better than me. Nobody can justify themselves, nobody can earn the right to exist outside of Hell. Only God the Savior can save you from Hell.
The Pope is not Christian. Catholicism is a form of paganism which used some Biblical names masking itself as Christian.
You're lost in sin, separated from God by your sins, you are not God nor a part of God, you are you, a sinner who needs to be saved by God who created all things and loves you so much that He gave His Son, who is God the Son, to die for your sins, to pay your price in death so you do not have to pay in eternal death in Hell.
You know nothing if you do not fear God. If you insist you are God you are going to be cast away from God forever in the fire of Hell.
So apparently by the way you dodged the question you are not sure your sins are forgiven and you are not sure you are going to Heaven....and why not? Simple...because you don't want to admit that you have sinned against God and deserve eternal condemnation in Hell.
You're the same as an atheist, you've set up an idol in your mind which is not God and you call it God. I have nothing to debate, the truth is not debatable. You are trying to make a debate because you think that as long as you can argue against God it keeps you out of Hell........and your losing your argument, losing your soul, losing your life, losing everything and you're going to wake up in Hell if you will not repent of all your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ
They said Jesus acted exactly opposite of how He was supposed to act....because He told them the truth and they hated Him for it.
You've got Catholicism confused with Christianity. Christianity is living in the kingdom of God ruled by Jesus Christ who indwells His people by His Holy Spirit. Catholicism is a pagan religion which uses some Bible names and ideas with twists of meaning to conform to pagan religious beliefs. They call it Christian but is not Christian, they hold Catholic dogma and the Poope above the word of God. A real Christian is born of the Spirit of God and recognizes nobody but Jesus Christ as the only Potentate (which is abbreviated to "Poop" by Catholics.)
I'm a child of God, a disciple of Jesus Christ, who said the world (that's people like you) would hate me the same as they hated Him if I follow Him, and I should not be surprised. When people like you hate me for speaking the truth about sin and it's consequences and telling them God's simple plan of salvation at the cost of His own life's blood on the cross, I know Christ is in me and your rejection of His gospel testifies against you while it is also recorded that God used me to try to win you over to love Him and you refuse to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Whatever you call your religion, it's basically the same as atheism as you deny God's love for you and His anger over your sins. You are on your way to Hell thinking you have the right to exist outside of it. You need to be saved and only God the Savior Jesus Christ can save you.
BTW...Descartes was Catholic, trained by Jesuit priests, and no matter how smart you think he was he was not a Christian. The Bible defines what being a Christian is, the Poope and Catholic church do not.
