drowning in off topic stuff
- --- JesusTrance <jesustrance@...> wrote:
> >You misunderstand, you have advocated testingYour entire existence testifies to your acceptance of
> >which ones are from god and which aren't. This
> >assumes they already exist.
> So maybe if you give me your definition of what
> would be a sufficient
> test to prove the material realm, I could prove to
> you a spiritual
the material world. So the problem of coming up with a
criteria for reality is your problem, not mine.
Unless you are trying that old hat about "you don't
believe in spirits? Oh yeah? Well you can't even
prove that YOU exist! Soooo...everybody has to take
everything on faith, therefore Christian faith is no
less justified than any atheist materialist's faith in
the physical world's existence".
>How do I know that the material realm exists?I should have guessed. Tell me, do you ask questions
> Or am I just
> assuming things?
about reality regularly in your life, or do you only
throw this stubble in the air because you know you
have no evidence and you wish to drag materialist's
down the drain with you?
If you honestly don't think the material world is a
mere assumption on your part, taken by faith, then you
already accept the material world and therefore the
problem of how to figure out what's real and the
reality of that which is merely alleged is YOUR
> Are we all assuming things? I'mSorry, your entire life testifies that you DO in fact
> telling you that you
> can't prove the physical realm to me!!! (Go ahead.
> Prove me wrong... ;-) )
accept the material world. You cannot back up and
pretend not to believe it. For by asking me to prove
it, you must first believe it exists. Did you ask me
a question, or is even your question a figment of your
The fact that you accept the physical world 99% of the
time, and the other 1% of your life, you discover you
have no proof to show your religious views true, and
so you choose to "question reality", proves that you
are INSINCERE when you ask whether the material world
exists. You only pretend to question it and then ask
me for proof, because you mistakenly think that by
saying "ah, but how do you know THAT is true" a
thousand times when analysing a single proof for the
material world, you are thereby showing that walking
down the street and waving to the neighbors takes just
as much faith as it does to believe Jesus walked on
water. Sorry, those days are over.
> >Unfortunately for you, Christians are divided downBecause of what I JUST SAID. Does "spiritually dead"
> >center as to whether "spiritually dead" means they
> >wouldn't acknowledge spiritual things if they were
> >beaten with them, or if the expression just means
> >are biased toward naturalism.
> Why does it have to be either or? Why can't it be
mean total inability, or partial inability? Come on.
> Just because some other people can't make up theirBut it DOES mean that the text underlying the belief
> minds, doesn't mean I
> can't take a stance on it.
is capable of more interpretations than one, unless
you take one interpretation and say all other bible
scholars that interpret differently are stupid.
I know I can feel the
> spiritual realm. IBy
> don't know if you can feel the spiritual realm or
> not, but given your
> staunch denial of it, I would wager a no. Say we had
> two scientists: one
> with a barometer, and the other without. Just
> because one scientist
> lacks a barometer, does this make the other
> scientist's readings false,
> or disprove the existence of barometric pressure?
> no means. In theFalse analogy, you are again assuming you HAVE that
> same way, I can tell you that the spiritual realm is
> true, and so can
> many other Christians.
tool by which to test the spirit world, so you know it
is real, while the atheists don't have the tool, and
fallaciously conclude the spirit world doesn't exist.
Let's keep your analogy going....why does the first
scientist find it so hard to just let the second
scientist borrow his barometer for a few days so he
can see if he gets the same readings as the first?
The analogy is also false because it makes your tool
for testing the reality of the spirit world something
that definitely exists, when there is actually much
debate about whether the spirit world can be tested in
the first place, and what "tools" are acceptable
testing devices for it.
Does your unbelief therefore
> make us all liars?False comparison. I "unbelieve" because of arguments.
I don't just stand around with my hands over my ears
and say "I can't hear you". I've heard the evidence
and I fail to believe because the arguments fail
logically or evidentially.
> We are only liars if we are not telling the truth,Sorry, but the failure of specific spiritual proofs
> and being that the
> existence of the spiritual ream is a universal
> concept, crossing
> cultures, peoples, and tongues, even where the
> gospel has not been
> preached, I would say our best conclusion from the
> evidence would be an
> emphatic "Yes!" The spiritual realm does, in fact,
convinces me to search for a naturalistic explanation
for the assumed proofs. Man is naturally desirous to
live forever, therefore it is only to be expected that
he would fantasize about living forever if in fact he
couldn't. This digs to the core of the heart of every
person; most people don't want to die someday, and
most people believe in some form of the
afterlife...what a conicidence!
> >>I don't believe I've ever heard of any real-lifeBetter stated,
> >>> cases in which damaging
> >>> the brain ever affected moral direction.
> what I'm saying is there is no case where in whichIf you strangle somebody to death, you cut off the
> one brain-damaging
> event ever caused an individual to permanently loose
> all moral direction
> when they previously held what I would call the
> "default," or normal,
> conscience of an average human being.
blood supply to the brain, which materialists say is
ncessary to keep the neurons firing, which produce
All moral direction is lost when the brain is damaged
by oxygen deprivation. But for the dualists, this is
ridiculous, the mind should continue to work in
conjunction with the body, because what exactly
happens to the brain, doesn't affect what happens to
the mind. But no, you strangle somebody and then they
stop feeding the kids period. I'd say the mind is a
VERY physical thing. How you can gloss over that and
say "but but but, perhaps the mind just goes somewhere
else when the brain stops working?" is beyond me.
perhaps when a car is totalled in an auto accident,
the engine's power just "goes somewhere else" when the
engine is damaged? Nah.
> thought, why doI don't know what you mean. if you meant
> intelligent people and unintelligent people all have
> the same
"consciousness", that's easy, the neurons in the brain
don't function as freely in people who are less smart.
Also, a person could have the brain ability, but
simply choose to ignore becoming educated for some
>If intelligence in caused by a differentI don't see why it WOULD be affected in the
> physical build of
> the brain, why does the conscience remain unaffected
> in unintelligent
physicalist view. From my own perspective, the part
of the brain that controls
consciousness/unconsciousness seems to be seperate
from the part that produces thoughts.
> Strangely, the wise and fools alike are bornTHAT is foolish. I've seen babies that share
> with the same moral
willingly their toys, and I've seen babies that like
to hurt other babies. Some of them have a natural
inclination against violence, and others have
inclination FOR it.
> >>Some people's brains work better than others.That's false, my son has been taking Ritilan for 8
> >>> >
> >>> With no physical signs as to why? That doesn't
> >>> with your allegations.
> >Well sure there are physical reasons! Some kids
> >sit still and can't concentrate, others can. Give
> >problem kids Ritilan, and suddenly, their neurons
> >process information more readily.
> Just ask any kid who's taken Ritalin, or parents of
> Ritalin kids. It
> doesn't work. The kids aren't themselves.
years. As long as he doesn't take more than his
prescribed dose, he is much better able to control his
thoughts. You cannot sweep away the physicalist
implications argued from ADHD and Ritilan with the
hasty generalization that "kids" aren't themselves
when they take it. Mine certainly is.
>There areBut not to my son.
> even studies
> pointing out that Ritalin is harmful to those who
> take it.
> Beyond that,I don't see how difference in intelligence level
> that ignores my example. What about Einstein vs the
> average Joe?
suddenly argues against physicalism or FOR dualism.
>Or ifAbsolutely. Ever drink alcohol sufficiently to get
> you can't adequately answer that one, howabout one's
> disposition? Do you
> also believe the aspects of one's personality are
> linked physically in
> the brain, and one could altar another's
> constitution by simply
> manipulating their brain?
> If so, has there been any
> evidence for that?
drunk or buzzed? Everybody agrees you will either
become quiet and reserved, loud and obnoxious, or just
plain less reserved and more inclined to violate your
own morals. Drunks either drink alone, or become
sudden social buffs, or love to start fights and
attract attention. There is a limited range of
perosnality changing stuff that alcohol can do. Sure
sounds like the personality is chemical fizzing in the
brain. How utterly unacceptable, that the mind is
NON-physical, but but but, somehow, the chemical
"alcohol" is able to cause this non-chemical mind to
make decisions it normally doesn't? If the mind was
not equal to the brain, we would fully expect the mind
to function APART from not only the brain, but
therefore apart from things that AFFECT brain
chemistry. Not a chance. The spirit world is a
fantasy world and nothing more.
Give a calm friendly mature faithful Pastor 500 cc's
of steriods or testosterone, watch him turn into a
girl-chasing lothario that feels the need to prove
that he can beat other guys in sports competitions, or
beat them up just because. Same answer.
> Is is something physical in the brain that causes alevel of testosterone for one thing.
> lion to have
> different instincts than a mouse?
> No, there is no exact comparison for God, but as IInexact? ok, we are made in his image. Is god a
> stated before, an
> inexact comparison, and therefore an analogy, would
> be human beings. We
> were made in His image.
hemaphrodite? If he doesn't have a physical image,
NOW you are starting to veer off course from what many
non-evangelicals believe; namely, that the image of
god that humans have, is a physical image, and that
the female genitals are accounted for when god says
"let US make man in OUR image", i.e., his wife
Ashereth helped in creation.
> >I believe in NOTHING that isn't scientifically"Scientifically" means "using the scientific method".
> >demonstrable. Take your best shot.
> Scientifically, nuclei should fly apart because of
> the positive and
> negative charges. Scientifically, you should believe
> the universe will
> fall apart into nothingness in about point three
> seconds. What makes you
> believe otherwise?
The "scientific method" is based on repeatability of
Since life goes on for everybody in the world WITHOUT
nuclei flying apart as you propose, then however long
you believe humans have been on earth, is how long
there have been scientific experiments that FAIL to
confirm the nuclei flying apart, and therefore, the
failure of your hypothesis. How many scientific
experients do you need to conduct before you gain the
scientific law that nuclei do NOT fly apart as you
propose they "should"? What scientific evidence did
you ever come across that told you they "should" in
the first place?
> Scientifically, we still don'tGravity is particularly scientifically proven.
> know how gravity works
Obviously you don't need to know EVERYTHING about
causes to have a scientific confirmation of some
process taking place. let go of a brick from up in a
a three story window, it will fall to the ground every
time. That's the principle of repeatability that
underscores "science". Nobody refrains from calling
repeatedly confirmed results, "scientific" simply
because they can't explain every last little possible
doubt all the way down past the anti-matter.
> - plasma research is proving all the currentThe guy who invented that stuff was a real "Crooke" :)
> theories false all the
>Why do you still doggedly hold to your idea ofFailure to prove absolutely, is not scientific
> gravity? Science
> can't prove absolutely everything...
failure. Please stop trying to justify the lack of
evidence for your position, by trying to drag the
obvious physical world down with you, wherein you
mistakenly think that asking millions of "but why did
THAT happen", and getting somebody to admit "I don't
know yet", suddenly means that walking down the street
and waving to the neighbors takes just as much blind
faith as belief in the spirit world. No way.
> >Didn't I already ask HOW, if god was perfect beforeUnfortuately for you, you never prove that "trying to
> >Genesis 1:1, that he could have had the slightest
> >motivation to create anything? Motivation to make
> >something for one's self indicates a feeling of
> Now you're trying to fit God in a box again.
get god in a box" is fallacious.
You must always DEFINE your terms.(what is god?)
But unfortunately for you, when you define what god
IS, you therefore imply what he ISN'T, due to the law
of non-contradiction. If you say god IS "alive", then
you are FORCED by logic to also say god is NOT
"non-alive (i.e., dead)
You may not want to hear this, but defining your
terms, forces you to admit to what a thing IS, and
thus what a thing ISN'T.
And when you know a thing IS and what it ISN'T...then
THAT is putting god in a box no less than a Christmas
present for Billy.
> said He was motivated?You wish to talk about god "doing" things because he
"loves" us, but you DON'T want to talk about his
"motivation"? Now you are contradicting yourself.
Your god gets stranger by the day, as i talk with you.
Now he is a god that does things without being
motivated. He is now even LESS capable of any
> And even if He was, motivation does not imply lack.False, if you see someone in need of help, and you
> I can be motivated
> to help someone or do something without lacking
> anything myself.
wish to help, then that WISH of yours will remain
unfulfilled until you fulfill it. BUT during that
small window of time between wishing to help, and
making the first MOVE to start helping, you
experienced the LACK of helping the person.
> ThereI didn't make up the reason. To do something, is to
> is nothing in the Bible that tells us why God
> created everything, so to
> make up a reason and subsequently prove it wrong
> does nothing to
> discredit God. That's simply setting up a strawman.
imply the DESIRE to do it having preceded it. Unless
you wish to say god shakes uncontrollably with
epilepsy; thus "doing" something without the desire
If there is DESIRE, then this is also MOTIVE.
I have made up nothing. I am working from within the
basic truths about your god that you will admit to.
if you admit that god "does" things, then you are
committing yourself to certain limitations that govern
what words mean.
> >What is a spiritual dimension?you already messed up. before you instantly reject my
> The Bible speaks of three heavens.
> The first one
> being from the earth to
> the sky, the second from the sky to the ends of the
notion that the universe is infinitely large, ask
yourself how stupid it is to think that the universe
is LIMITED in size. Hypothesize a rocket ship flying
in a single direction for billions of light years.
According to those who say the universe is of limited
size, the rocket will one day REACH that other side.
What then? What will it bump into? A sign that says
It should be perfectly obvious that there would NEVER
be a time when the rocket would hit anything. If it
is NOT obvious then you must have some idea of what
the rocket ship would hit when it reached one extreme
end of the universe. What would the rocket bump into?
>and the"underlay underneath the physical world"? Unless you
> third heaven is the spiritual dimension I've been
> talking about, which I
> understand as an underlay underneath the physical
> world; physicality
> overlapping it.
mean "deep in the ground"? "underneath" means
"below", implying direction. Which direction can I go
in order to get underneath the physical world?
Of course you can't answer that, there is no such
thing as "underneath" the physical world.
It is just a fancy sounding idea that nobody really
questions today in our post-modern hellenistic
>As a physical being, I interact withYou are no longer desribing what it IS and are now
> the physical
> universe all around me, and as a spiritual being, I
> also can interact
> with the spiritual realm all around me.
merely assuming it as if you are talking with a friend
who believes everything you do.
>That's alsoBut Jesus is a person, and persons cannot be
> how Jesus is said to
> reside inside of Christians when they are saved.
everywhere at once. If you know of any such person
who can, please introduce me to him. I am NOT asking
you to read me a story from a book.
> Physically speaking,What the hell is a spiritual realm? Underneath the
> that would be ludicrous. Spiritually, the Holy
> Spirit, which the Bible
> describes as the spirit of God's Son, resides within
> us in the spiritual
physical world? Makes about as much sense as 'north
of the number 5'.
> >"spirit" is a word that makes no sense to me. Whatyou fail.
> >exactly is a "spirit". Don't say "non-physical",
> >is a statement of what a spirit ISN'T.
> >I want to know what a spirit IS.
> A spirit is then a being that resides within the
> spiritual realm only,
> most likely possessing (obviously) a spirit and ayou fail, you assume a mind without a physical brain,
> mind, but no body.
when this debate is no finished. You are just begging
> Animals, then, AFAIK, have physicality and a mind,I am not a friend at your Sunday School that shares
> but no spirit.
> Humans, then, since we are in the image of God,
> possess all three.
your presupposition that humans are either made in
god's image, or that your specific understanding of it
is necessarily the right interpretation of Genesis
> >False analogy, having faith in the bus driver toSure, there is a certain amount of "faith" in everyday
> >safely get me from point A to point B, is a far cry
> >from faith that god is real. The first faith is
> >on direct physical scientific confirmation that
> >directly exposes itself to all the five physical
> Just because the bus driver has gotten you where
> you're going before,
> doesn't therefore prove that he's going to be
> successful at it again and
physical life, but it's all a major longshot from the
kind of faith that says a man who died 2000 years ago,
came back to life and is still living....and this man
>You put your faith in his abilities for that.But now you are confusing concepts. I do NOT believe
> And I'm not
> necessarily relating that faith as similar to faith
> that God is real,
> but faith in trusting in Him with your life.
the bus driver has complete control over my life while
I am on the bus. That's a far cry from the faith that
says "god controls my life". There's too many
differences. Two different types of gas, for one
> >You have not exhausted all the possibilities toYes I do. Unless you start flying off the handle with
> >explain the change in your life naturalistically.
> Oh, yes I have. You don't know what I've been
crap like 'I asked god to make 30 cents worth of gas
get me 2000 miles across America, and he did", there
are perfectly good naturalistic explanations for why
you gave up ANY bad habit or addiction of your choice
and statistics will take care of the coincidences
which you see no explanation for except god. One of
my last girlfriends had an ex-husband, whose birthday
was the same as mine. That proves NOTHING WHATSOEVER,
but her friends and my friends at the time were sure
certain that this meant god was giving us a sign that
we were supposed to be together for life.
>It's been nothingI don't believe you can give me one that you think is
> short of a miracle... there have been too many
> variables, too many
> things I can't control in situations... to many
a true miracle, but which also isn't some grandiose
story where god suspended the laws of physics just for
you. Yes, you are right...if you give me a story that
has too big of a miracle, I will deny the truth of it
immediately and with full confidence that apostle Paul
was an absurd liar for saying men are without excuse.
Paul was too ignorant to know what a good excuse would
be due to his fanaticism.
>Too manyor you think they shouldn't have ignorantly, when the
> times things worked out the way they shouldn't have.
truth is it's just a simple matter of statistics.
> To many thingsBut when an explanation for an unexplained phenomena,
> science and naturalism can't explain... there has to
> be a spiritual realm.
itself raises many questions as to what exactly it is
and how to test if it is real, then it becomes
explaining a mystery with another mystery and thus
> >Name any religion you think is false, mormonism,Distraction argument, I realize how interested you are
> >Muslimism, etc. They believed their lives were
> >transformed by god.
> Wrong. They believe they're supposed to transform
> their lives all on
> their own to appease their god.
in telling everybody they got religion, but you got
Jesus, but the fact is, for example, the Mormons, have
testified how god has changed their lives.
> Christianity is theThen you obviously aren't familier with Romans 2,
> only religion I know
> of that says your *can't* change your life on your
which teaches that eternal life is a reward to those
who do good works.
5But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing
up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God's
righteous judgment will be revealed.
6 For he will repay according to each one's deeds:
7 to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory
and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
8 while for those who are self-seeking and who obey
not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and
> >You are free toIf you aren't gonna specify what happened, and thus
> >believe what you wish, but you cannot seriously
> >maintain that unbelievers need to realize that god
> >worked in your life.
> If you don't realize it was God who worked in my
> life... at least
> realize it wasn't me. It was something far beyond
open up what you believe to examination and
interpretations other than yours, I can't do anything
> >That is more than sufficient to make your ownSuch as?
> >to your own life.
> Haha... not the stuff out of my control.
> >Jesus never equated them in the first place.Sure, it's a comparison of the mental act with the
> How is "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh
> on a woman to lust
> after her hath committed adultery with her already
> in his heart." not a
physical act, but where does he state that the mental
act is as bad as the physical act?
> Looking to lust means that there isYOU are supplying "the same as". But not Jesus.
> adultery in your heart -
> the same as in actual physical adultery.
The two are
> in essence thesame answer.
> same. One is just more noticeable than the other.
let me shoot your rebuttal out of the sky.
If you are gonna be condemned for THINKING it, you
might as well DO it. Your rebuttal to this will
contain the proof that the lusting and the doing are
> >Secondly, it should be intuitively obvious that theI you lust after a woman, you sin. But if you
> >physical act involves MORE sin, in a Christian
> >view, than the mere mental image.
> >From a Christian worldview? How so?
convince her to have sex with you, you are now
involving another person. That's obviously worse than
just sinning by yourself, in the Christian world view,
> >Really? Are there any biblical tests that are forNo, it was general for a purpose, to show the shallow
> >purpose of seeing whether what you believe in is
> Highly generalized statement. Mind being more
extent to which the bible asks it's readers to think
> And 'Biblical'Our debate is already strung out too think as it is,
> tests?!? Aren't you using that word there in more of
> a connotative sense
> than denotative? I'm talking about ways separate
> from the Bible to prove
> the Bible as true.
let's try to stick to divine "love".
> >I find Jesus blessing blind faith in John 20 withWho cares? Your belief without seeing, is BLESSED by
> >doubting Thomas. That doesn't doesn't exactly mesh
> >smoothly with testing your beliefs to see if they
> >evidence to support them.
> Of course it does. Seeing is only one way of testing
> what you believe.
> Another would be reading eyewitness accounts, or
> testing through real
> life experience.
Jesus, amen? So who cares if you have something more
to rest your faith on than those who don't see?
Getting blessed by god is all that counts, amen?
>Philosophical discussion andnot exactly.
> debates work well, too.
> Case in point. ;-) Jesus isn't saying you shouldn'tIncorrect, Jesus is doing more than than, he is
> test your beliefs,
> he's saying you don't necessarily need to see his
> nail-scarred hands to
> believe he rose from the dead.
blessing blind faith. Now lets get that down first.
jesus blesses the kind of faith that does NOT see.
> >It's quite possible that god created man with theI don't need it explained. You were arguing that
> >ability to never choose to sin? How do you explain
> >sin's consistent success in getting EVERYBODY to
> Have you read Romans 5:12-17? It pretty much
> explains your question for
there is no inevitability in sinning, because we have
freewill. Let me ask you, do you know any non-deity
human, that has just happened to always choose
correctly? if so, who? If not, then sin seems to be
> From other scripture and this, we can gatherDogs also bark naturally. So are you saying sinners
> that because Adam and
> Eve sinned, death and the curse passed upon all
> creation, and now all
> creation travails in pain waiting for the redemption
> by God through
> Jesus Christ. Sin comes naturally because we
> inherited a sinful nature
> from our parents, and they from their parents before
sinning is inevitable? Sure makes sense, but but but,
you will then be laying the groundwork for saying man
isn't responsible. You cannot be responsible for
something that was inevitable.
> >You didn't answer the analogy! If somebody built athat's perfectly false....the free will that adam and
> >nuclear bomb in their basement, they went out of
> >city, some theives broke in and set off the bomb,
> >would you argue that the bomb-maker was NOT
> >responsible for leveling the city, because he only
> >MADE the bomb, but didn't set it off?
> Your analogy misses one crucial point. What God made
> by giving up free
> will not only had the potential for destruction, but
> also had the
> amazing perpetual benefit of liberty and freedom.
eve had BEFORE the fall...IS "liberty and freedom".
That's exactly what you call it when you debate
calvinists who deny freewill, amen?
If you read god's words to them in the garden of eden
before they fell, he addresses them as free creatures
immediately and before the fall.
>IfIt's just that some bozos
> we want to stay
> with the nuclear theme, I think a nuclear power
> plant would be a much
> more fitting analogy.
> inside listened to someIf the workers are stupid enough to confuse the boom
> idiot who told them the button labeled "Boom" wast
> the automatic soft
> drink dispenser... :-P
button with the soft drink dispenser, can they be held
responsible for their actions?
However stupid you paint Adam and Eve to be, you've
got three problems;
1 - God talks with them BEFORE they fell, as if they
were already completely freewilled. What then do you
mean that freewill has the potential to bring freedom
and liberty? They already had it before they fell,
2 - Adam and Eve chose to sin logically BEFORE they
had a sinful nature. So even INNOCENCE is
insufficient to prevent sin. Why would god create
them with such a constitution of the will, if he
rationally expected them to what innocence cannot be
relied on to do? Do you bash sombody in the head with
a bat, then ask them to solve calculus problems
correctly? If no, then why does god create their
freewill a certain way, then make demands on it that
innocence obviously cannot shoulder?
3 - Many Christians believe god took away the tree of
life to prevent them from becoming eternal sinners.
This sort of sounds like if they would have resisted
the devil, and then ate from the tree of life, they
would have had their wills confirmed in righteousness
for the rest of eternity. Why couldn't god just
bypass this interlude and create their
will-constitution as righteously confirmed from the
beginning, sort of like he causes to happen to good
Christian's spirits when they die? Everybody goes to
heaven, nobody goes to hell, and nobody's will was
violated any more than what god can already be agreed
to do in THIS dispensation. Does god just toy with us
like this? Or does he just WANT us to sin, when the
solution to getting what he wants without violating
our wills is staring him in the face the whole time?
Or perhaps god wasn't smart enough to come up with the
solution that I did, and created hell because he knew
of no better way?
> >Sure he does, he created souls, he can destroy themExcuse me, if god creates something, then he obviously
> >permanently like animals, the way 7th Day
> >and Jehovah's Witnesses say.
> I don't care what the Jehovah's Witnesses or 7th Day
> Adventists say
> about it... they're wrong. Solomon said in
> Ecclesiastes that we can't
> conclusively say whether or not animals go to heaven
> or just 'cease from
> existing.' We do know that the lion lays down with
> the lamb, but are
> they the same animals from the first earth?
can destroy it if he wants to, agreed?
> >What, god didn't know the future? God knew for allYou are not answering the question! You did an about
> >eternity there would be specific people in hell,
> >for all eternity he wished it would have been
> Yet it is the sinner's choice to go to Hell.
>How issee above, I proved god could make their wills of the
> it God's
> responsibility for their /second /bad decision?
type that always choose the good without violating
their wills anymore than what the bible already says
> First they sinned, andCorrection, god never told them what to do when they
> he gave them a way out of that.
found sin tempting them. God simply said "don't do
You DO realize how stupid school teachers are, when
they KNOW they have a child that can't sit still, and
they say "when you feel like moving around, just sit
Commanding something does NOT guarantee that the
person who is to obey, will have the tools necessary
to resist disobeying.
>Then, they refusedGod commanding innocent people to resist the devil is
> to take the way out.
> Sounds like the responsibility falls squarely on the
> sinner's shoulders.
commanding them to violate their natures. to be
"innocent" is to NOT KNOW the difference between good
and evil, and so therefore Adam and Eve cannot have
appreciated the seriousness of "do not eat of the
tree, because you will DIE in the same day you eat of
it." An innocent person who lives logically BEFORE
knowledge of good and evil, logically cannot
appreciate what god meant, and therefore has no
intellectual basis upon which to obey. In their
innocent minds, god said don't eat, and they have no
reason whatsoever to take him seriously.
If god wants to be taken seriously when he threatens
death as the dangerou8s consequences of eating from
some tree, he should tell only people who DO have the
knowledge of good and evil. If you agree WE TODAY, as
knowing good and evil, are thus responsible, then Adam
and Eve's innocence REMOVES their own responsibility.
> >"spiritual" means nothing to me, because there isThat's your problem not mine. I already believe the
> >evidence for it.
> That's because I'm still trying to figure out what
> exactly you want as
spiritual realm is absolutely nothing but meaningless
jumble of letters, thus you can't expect me to request
evidence for it that I will believe, when i can't even
make sense of the words you use.
> >Oh, so you quote from somebody who DID make theseYou thought we were sticking to the Trinity, after
> >things up.
> I thought we were sticking with the Trinity? Unless
> you wish to discuss
> the viability of the Bible, too... otherwise jabs
> like these are
> unwarranted and unnecessary.
many exchanges where we left the subject and got into
responsibility for sin? Please answer my point that
instead of making it up as you go along, you QUOTE
from ancient authors who made it up.
> >Quoting the bible is not a problem, but does becomeI also know what the Book of Mormon says; but I refuse
> >curious when you quote it to atheists, who already
> >know what the bible says on the subjects.
> Well, being that you're still an atheist, I would
> argue that you still
> /don't/ know what the Bible says on the subject. ;-)
to trust it.
Do you therefore believe that my lack of trust means I
probably don't understand correctly what's in the Book
of Mormon? Why not? Why doesn't your logic work
> >>A judge who just lets a criminal go free isOh, so god DOESN'T have mercy?
> >>> blatantly irresponsible.
> >Really? When you god offers to let sinners go
> >you call it "mercy". Why are there so many excuses
> >nauseum for your god, but you are quick to say
> >judges are wrong for acting the same way as god?
> No, God is not doing the same thing as earthly
> judges who let people off
> scott-free. God requires obedience and a true heart
> towards Him; I've
> already stated this.
> >Paul argued from a literal truth about a potter'sI would say Humans have freewill, clay doesn't, and
> >relationship to clay to refute an objection:
> >Shall the thing formed, say to the one that formed
> >'why have you made me this way'? (Romans 9:20)
> >Why not continue along in Paul's logic?
> There comes a point at which an analogy stops.
therefore Paul was wrong to argue that we shouldn't
complain simply because clay doesn't. Fence posts
don't complain either, but how stupid, amen?
> That's why it's anSorry, clay doesn't have freewill, so the analogy
> analogy. We can't draw from Paul's analogy that
> human beings are
> literally lumps of clay in the same way we can't
> infer the lack of free
> will since clay doesn't have any.
breaks down immediately, because humans are
qualitatively MORE than clay. The analogy will let
"god created us for his use" and that's about it.
Nothing more theologically advanced than that.
> There are certainNo, his point was "who are you that repliest to god?
> truths Paul wanted
> us to draw from this analogy, and the two former
> weren't any of them.
> Though clay may collapse and crack and dry out, that
> doesn't stop the
> Potter from trying to make us into something better.
> That was his point.
The thing formed, won't say to the One that formed it,
'why have you made me this way', will it?"
His point was that inanimate clay doesn't talk back,
therefore when animate humans talk back, it is
equivilent to the absurdity of clay talking back.
Paul pushed the analogy too far.
> >"we have a choice to be supple? The clay does notOh, so I guess some humans are more sinful than
> >choose whether it becomes hard of soft, does it?"
> There are different kinds of clay, are there not?
others, since some humans are harder to work with,
just like some kinds of clay are harder to work with
> Some are easier toThank you for pushing the analogy so far that you now
> work with, and others aren't. Some dries out faster
> than others.
contradict your stance that all people are equally
sinful, by equating them with at least two different
types of clay.
By the way, the sovereign god who molds the clay,
doesn't find one type of clay "harder" to mold than
any other, IF he is "all-powerful".
> Sometimes when a potter fashions a pot, it collapsesI know this happens to human potters, but you would
> on them,
figure god can control his hands and knows when the
clay is about to give out long before any human does.
>or keepsclay can choose to harmonize with what the potter is
> on cracking. We have a choice to be supple - it all
> depends on how much
> we harmonize with what the Potter's doing...
doing? I'm sorry, you are pushing the analogy way too
far just like Paul did. Clay does NOT choose to do
anything by itself, so the analogy is unfitting and
false, if it is carried beyond "god created us for his
> >Nonsense, all verbs already presuppose time to beNo I don't. In order to suppose some part of reality
> >existence before during and after the action
> >by the verb.
> >"Billy jumped over a chair."
> >(there was a time before he jumped over the chair,
> >during the jump over the chair, and a time after he
> >jumped over the chair)
> >"God created time."
> >(there was a time before the creation of time, the
> >time DURING the creation of time, and the time
> >the creation of time)
> >Sorry, when you use verbs to describe the very
> >creation of the thing that verbs PRESUPPOSE, you
> >talking nonsense.
> You /do/ realize the limits on human language don't
> limit reality?
is real, but cannot be explained in human language,
you must have already had it explained to you,
defeating the statement.
One hypothesis to explain this problem is that your
ideas are FALSE. What other subject besides god, do
you automatically infer that human language
limitations are to be blamed for failing to express
an idea coherently.
And doesn't the failure of an idea to find coherent
expression in language, qualify the idea as
"INcoherent"? If not, what qualifies it as
>II don't care if you can't imagine what a square circle
> really don't care if the grammar doesn't mesh nice.
> There's really not a
> good way of putting it.
being held by a married bachelor would look like.
There's really not a good way of putting it. But But
but, it is real.
> The fact is that there onceSorry, you are spouting incoherent nonsense when your
> was a time when
> there was no time, and English wasn't a language
> invented to say that
idea cannot be expressed in human language. Again,
the failure to express an idea coherently, could
easily be because the idea itself is faulty. It is
not safe to automatically blame language limits when
your idea can't find expression.
Can you imagine somebody saying "2+2=3, and if that
doesn't make sense, this proves that mathematics is
all wrong, not that my idea is wrong."
That's bull. The ONLY people who attack the limits of
human language are religionist who believe in ideas
that human language forbids just as quickly as it
forbids square circles. Everybody else knows that if
they come up with an idea that doesn't make sense when
expressed in human language, that's because the idea
itself is absurd, not because the human language used
to express the idea is limited.
Please specify the criteria that must be satisfied
before saying an idea is "incoherent".
> >Excuse me, god said he would harden pharaoh's heartThat's false,
> >with the very first command of moses to let the
> >god, as recorded in Exodus 4:21.
> Yes He did, but he's referring to His act of
> hardening Pharaoh's heart
> in Exodus 10:20.
21 And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to
Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the
wonders that I have put in your power; but I will
harden his heart, so that he will not let the people
22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD:
Israel is my firstborn son.
23 I said to you, "Let my son go that he may worship
me." But you refused to let him go; now I will kill
your firstborn son.'"
Moses therefore went as early as chapter 5, and said
those exact words to pharaoh. Moses obviously thought
that the thing he was told in 4:21-23 were to be
fulfilled the VERY NEXT TIME he went to Pharaoh,
because he said the exact words to Pharaoh in chapter
5, that he was command by god in 4:21-23 to say to
>Every time before that PharaohGo ahead and read chapter 5, Moses understood god's
> hardened his own heart.
> It's not until 10:20 that it tells us it was God
> hardening Pharaoh's
> heart. Go ahead and read it... it's there. I
instructions to him and thus the promises in the same
speech in 4:21-23 as applying to his very next visit
with Pharaoh, read it, it's there, I promise!
> >But the analogy can still be true under a ChristianThen why are you quick to accept Israelite leaders in
> >world view! Suppose the parent decides the child
> >deserves death just like all sinners, and god is
> >motivating the parent to just sit still and let
> >claim the child?
> Now you're just being unreasonable. There's nothing
> out of a Christian
> worldview that would make someone reason to let a
> child suffer for no
> reason at all, or simply to "play God."
the OT playing god, when they use the "god told us to
do it" to justify stealing land and lives of other
> >And why doesn't your answer to me here,no rebuttal, I win the point. I think you refused to
> >refute the many times in the OT where the ancient
> >Israelites used the exact same cheap excuse "god
> >us to do it" to justify their bloody deeds?
> Two totally different and unrelated situations.
comment because stating your personal wishes was the
honest extent to which you believed you could argue
the point without being refuted easily.
> >You would figure a normal person would get tired ofMany Christians, mostly those of the Reformed
> >torturing people that way after a few million
> >But that's just naturalistic evolutionary thinking
> >that has blinded my eyes with secular humanist
> >to the true love of god.
> Again, God's not gaining anything by this.
persuasion, said our torture in hell forever, will
forever glorify god's justice. So god IS gaining, and
thus the picture of god that you paint, of a god that
reluctantly lets sinners choose hell, isn't working.
And the pain is far worse for the sinner in hell, than
for the god who experiences the loss of one more
creature in hell. God wishes forever that the sinner
would have chosen differently (not exactly a bright
future for god) while the sinner is screaming in
mindless agony forever in hell; the two cases are very
far from each other. I hardly think your apologetic
deserves further review on this point.
> says there will beThe limitations of language, which you fault before
> time anymore?
faulting the idea that human language can't express.
> What if time is to be done away with,"done away" is the verb. Like all verbs, there must
> just like everything
be a time before, during and after the action.
> What if time is to be done away with (so there mustbe a time before the doing away with time, the time
DURING the doing away with time, and the time AFTER
time is done away with),
> just like everythingNah, your postulate doesn't make sense.
> Assuming torture to be going on for 'millionsWhere does the lake of fire ever get extinguished?
> of years' is an
> assumption that is being made on unsupported
10 And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into
the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the
false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and
night forever and ever....
15 and anyone whose name was not found written in the
book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
> >Really? he sounds rather confident in matthew 7No loving father let's those whom they love, make
> >Matthew 25 and he commands them off into flames.
> That's because He's not only a loving Father, but
> he's also a Judge.
deadly mistakes, if the father has ability and
opportunity to prevent them from doing so. Otherwise
you are now talking about a "love" that cannot be
defined in any way that will make sense on earth, and
thus subject yourself to conjuring up incoherent
ideas, which will cause you to fallaciously once again
blame human language limitations instead of the idea
> IfThat's not what a true loving being would do. Unless
> you don't accept Him as your Father, He will one day
> be your Judge.
you define love as a "hitler" sort of love, and then
demand that other people disagree with it only because
they are blind. It ain't looking good.
> >Your logic doesn't make any sense. You might aspeople in hell glorify god's justice as eternal
> >say Hitler wasn't sadistic, because he only ordered
> >Jews killed out of his presence, and didn't
> >stand over them while their heads were sliced off.
> Sadism involves the suffering of others for one's
> own personal gain.
reminders that god was a righteous judge, amen?
> Justice involves the suffering of others for theirSo if my son steals candy from the neighbor's house
> own wrongdoings. God
> is *not* sadistic.
(sinner sinning), and I spank him without ever ceasing
for 20 years (god sending sinners to hell that never
ends), I am NOT sadistic.
> >I already proved in a previous post that god isI've also proved that the book of mormon is full of
> >wasting his time crying about people that are lost
> >hell, because I showed a way he could achieve ALL
> >he wanted without anybody going to hell and without
> >violating human freewill.
> If you had, this debate wouldn't still be going on.
contradictions to the Mormons. They insist I have
not, otherwise, my debate with them wouldn't be going
on as long as it does.
What do you think? Do you think perhaps the debate is
still going on with the Mormons because IN SPITE OF
HAVING PROVED MY CASE, their religion absolutely
forbids them any reason to disbelieve?
> >To say that you were given faith, but that thisNo comparison. I can imagine someone being given
> >cause you to be faithful, doesn't make a whole lot
> Someone can give you batteries, and you can choose
> to never use them.
> Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it is
batteries and not using them. But I cannot imagine a
person who was given faith, but chose not to use it.
Your logic necessarily requires the opposite to be
real as well. Please point out a few people who were
NOT given faith, so that I may know that "people who
were given faith" is something more than a fantasy.
> "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom:It's bible verses like that that cause people to
> and the knowledge of the holy is understanding."
> Proverbs 9:10 (KJV)
automatically reject knowledge that refutes their
beliefs. The rebuttal didn't come from the wisdom of
what they accept as god; it must be a false rebuttal
therefore. How untrue.
Your bible verse is nothing different than
"Acceptance of the book of Mormon is the beginning of
wisdom. Do they reject the book of mormon? Then they
don't have wisdom"
It's the same exact thinking.
i will not pursue this gargantuan effort with you
further. That means I will not fault you for not
responding to all the points, though you can so
respond if you wish. I desire to concentrate on the
Trinity as being "persons", and with the next stage of
that argument that somebody advanced, to prove that
immaterial persons could exist.
I was asked if a thought was material, so let's stick
with the mind/brain problem for now.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
I have added another new feature to the CBA web site, called the Apologetics
Answer Alert (AAA). This feature draws attention to a recent book or article
attacking some aspect of Christianity that merits an apologetics response.
The first AAA concerns a newspaper opinion piece that argues that the Ten
Commandments are antithetical to American values. For details, visit the
home page of our web site (see link below).
In Christ's service,
Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
Center for Biblical Apologetics