Forums

There is a group that goes around to every county trying to get them to put the motto on the wall over where the Commissioners hold meetings. They did that where I live and it's still up years after the ones that voted for it lost the next vote. 

Although a Christian at the time, I thought it was inappropriate to put "under god" into the pledge of allegiance, or put "in god we trust" unto our money during the  McCarthy era of the US because I though it was in contradiction to the separation of church and state -- supposedly implied by our constitution.

They long ago stopped questioning anything they believe. To them a white 'Murican gun-toting Jesus makes sense because they don't read the gospels in order to find out what God wants of them, but to reinforce beliefs they already formed after political pastors fueled the fire of religious patriotism. I have nothing against firearms generally, but to imply or even state that Jesus endorses a pseudo Old Testament slaughter of "god's enemies" is insane.   It is a form of confirmation bias, grabbing at magic verses that imply those doing the shooting will have magic abilities (because an almighty god can't snuff them out himself). Gideon is a prime example of the hypocrisy of a god needing people to slaughter for him. 

I don't recall asking anything about god's omnipotence or why he doesn't destroy hell and the fallen angels.  This seems to be just another way of dodging the question I did ask while seeming to provide more insight and information.  I suppose it doesn't matter, though, now that the debate is finished.

I have explained to you my understands of the words omnipotent (all powerful) and omnipresent (present everywhere) with the best understandings that I have of these words concerning the God of the Bible. IMHO God has unknown reasons for not destroying Hell and the fallen angels, for instance, not explained in the Bible along with many other possible questions unanswered. Again I have explained to you the best that I can, according to my beliefs, and I will listen to you but never argue with anyone about religion or really anything else. I do not like to argue. Of course there may be contradictions concerning things I've never thought about before but almost never change my mind quickly. My purpose is to explain what I know and believe to those asking, but never to argue about what I believe, only to answer questions about my knowledge and beliefs, answer questions for those who may be interested (seldom anyone), and listen and ponder their responses, but never to argue about my beliefs.   I make no claims here other than my beliefs. I guess the main belief that I have is that the Bible certainly has some errors in it for various reasons but I still choose to believe in the existence of God, that Jesus was a real person who was given important tasks by God, for the benefit of mankind.   Thank you for your time Redneck Professor. You have a good day also.

The first law of logic, known as the law of non-contradiction, states that A cannot be not-A.  In simple terms, this means that a thing cannot be the opposite of what it is.  A sea cannot be a desert.  Ice cannot be fire.  Mr. Non-Grata here has made the claim that hell exists outside of the presence of god.  However, this would mean that hell exists at a location where god is not present.  god cannot be omnipresent if he is not present everywhere, because omnipresence cannot be not-omnipresence.  Mr. Non-Grata's claim violates the first law of logic, which renders the claim unreliable, at best.  In this case, the proper response, according to the rules of logic, is to either acknowledge the contradiction and change one's position on the claim, or find a means of refuting the logic itself.  In the absence of either response, dear reader, decide for yourself what to believe concerning the claim.

Except you're not really doing that, though, are you?  I have asked several times for you to explain how god can be omnipotent if hell exists outside of god's presence.  I asked this based on your claim; but you haven't even attempted to address it.  Instead, you have introduced a number of different topics ranging from trinitarianism to whether or not Neanderthals had souls, which may be fascinating subjects on their own, but do not answer the question put to you.  One key aspect of a respectful debate is staying on topic until a point is sufficiently covered.  Trying to avoid the difficult questions by changing the subject is as dishonest as it is disrespectful, if the goal is to have a mutually beneficial debate.  Simply put, you're not trying to answer my questions; you're just reasserting your beliefs without regard to the questions I have asked.  I'd rather you just admit that you don't know the answer and we both move on about our business.   I'm not in the least surprised that, though ostensibly starting this thread for the specific purpose of arguing about your beliefs, you suddenly find yourself no longer wanting to.  Nor do I blame you.  You're clearly in over your depth here; and, no doubt, by now you've realized that you cannot argue your beliefs without ignoring the very logic you originally claimed to value and respect.  Caught between such a rock and hard place, the best thing you can do is try to back away.  Certainly, you're welcome to your own beliefs; and, in this forum, at least, you're free to patronize others by allowing them the same freedom with such feigned magnanimity.  But, when you initiate the conversation yourself, you really should have the gumption to see it through.  That involves answering the difficult questions or changing your position once you are shown it is in error.  This is also a key aspect of respectful debate.     Since it seems you are no longer willing to continue defending your claims, I will bid you good day.  Though, for the benefit of our audience, I will include one final post in order to clarify for them exactly how your claims are proven wrong by simple logic.  

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/5/16/2241024/-Protect-your-church-with-Jesus-Rifles-and-a-trip-down-MRFF-s-memory-lane    

Sorry Sir, I have made no assertions, but if you think so I apologize since it was not my intent.  I am explaining my beliefs when asked about their detail  for anyone interested in them,  but I will not argue about them since they are my beliefs only. I have said "according to the Bible" and my understandings and beliefs of it. Without the Bible there could be no explanations of religion or a religious path to follow. But the Bible can be misunderstood, mistranslated, misinterpreted, mistakes or man-made modifications or insertions in its parts. God did not have to put his blessing on every word of mouth telling, every penned hand copy of it, and for every single translation for every different language. My purpose is simply to explain my beliefs when asked, not to convert you to any different belief. If my beliefs don't make sense to you, you have the right to judge my beliefs by your own opinions and conversations of them and continue with your own beliefs, since everyone has a right to their own beliefs IMHO as long as they don't harm others. And I believe that any of man's opinions or beliefs are not infallible including their religious or non-religious beliefs.

Some good points.  It looks like shame has taken on a more intense meaning in our culture than it had way back when.