Jump to content

Justus

☆ Silver Patron ☆
  • Content Count

    586
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Neutral

About Justus

  • Rank
    Skeptic

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canst say for sure, dam things keeps moving, but at least it keeps coming back to the same spot or I would be totally lost.
  • Interests
    Phasmalogy TM
  • More About Me
    How much does a scientist make per theory? Here's one on the scientific mystery regarding which came first, the chicken or the egg? My theory is the Cock, a doddle dew.... so to speak. TM

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    the Holy Ghost

Recent Profile Visitors

644 profile views
  1. If you claim Truthseeker is a she then I believe you when you say you know she is, that is why I used the 'he' in the syntax of gender neutral because 'man' can be either a male or female. Yet ironically you never had a clue that child born unto a virgin would be a female or do you not believe that parthenogenesis is possible in humans and that a child born from a zygote formed without cell fusion between the gametes of a male and female are only known to produce an xx offspring in humans?
  2. You response is sufficient, if you can pick out what I meant otherwise I will let someone else explain it to you.
  3. If by origin you mean the the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived then my answer would be the beginning.
  4. If the identity of this 'who' is to be found in the Bible, then that's another invalid circular argument, Justus. Nope Justus is not 'who', but do you really think you would be able to find 'who' it is if it is in the Bible without hearing 'who' it is since a person doesn't know they don't even know something until they first learn of that which they didn't know. So how did you come to the knowledge that if you made a claim there was a onus upon you to substantiate your claim with evidence? If you claim that you had no idea that if you made a claim that the onus is upon you to substantiate that claim with evidence, then if the onus is upon you to substantiate a claim you make then where did you get the idea from that the onus was upon you?
  5. Yes it does and not they don't, and neither do they need to because the scriptures called them to repentance, not to faith. You are the one using the scripture to justify your belief that the word of God requires the believer to answer your question about why they believe. My response was merely citing the reason why I believe your circular argument is invalid. I didn't reply because I had to, but because I wanted to.
  6. Oh my bad, since you know the person who wrote the comment then you would obviously know if he was or not without having to rely upon the syntax. I guess that I was hoping that they were saying that if they had been a Christian that their response would have been ....yada yada yada, so I wasn't the only one here it seems who never claimed to be a Christian or subscribed to Christianity theology, my inquiry to his comment was obviously in error.
  7. Someone inferred that I had a lizard brain after I replied to a Christian's question about what was wrong with them since they felt at times they were saved and at other times doubted their salvation. Of course any first year healer would known that it was a case of DM, probably the result of industrial disease, or maybe not, but the ole boy sounded like he was in dire straits. Well, that's all good but it doesn't alter the fact that one can ignore it, but that doesn't make it go away. And for those who the fear of it has under pressure, sometimes giving a person a hand out of their hell can vanquish the hell that the fear of it is giving them.
  8. Yes it does and not they don't, and neither do then need to because the scriptures called them to repentance, not to faith. Do you know who it is that those who are told to sanctify by being ready always to give an answer to every man that ask for the substance of the thing hoped for in them, the evidence of the things unseen. So you aren't an ex-Christian?
  9. Well that might be what you interpret as the full armor of God but I would say it it is like what is written in Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest:
  10. But the reason I mention it is due to a verse in Deuteronomy 32:20 wherein it is written that the LORD said, "I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be...:" Now one can take that he doesn't know what the end shall be since it isn't written that he has seen what their end will be. But then again one doesn't need to actually see what the end shall be in order to know what the end shall be. The reason I became interested in the election regarding Prop 4 is due to the State Constitution at the time the amendment was proposed. Section 24, Article 8 of the Texas Constitution which was repealed by the passage of Prop 4 prohibited any tax on personal income from taking effect until it was approved by a majority of votes in a state wide referendum, it also required that the State obtain the approval of the majority to voters in a state wide referendum on the rate which the personal income would be taxed by the State. While advocates who supported Proposition 4 predicted that it would be approved by 90% of the voters, it has to make you wonder what they believed necessitated the need to amend the necessity of the people of Texas to approve any new tax on personal income, including the rate that would be taxed on the personal income that they had to approve before it could take effect. But it shouldn't gross anyone out that Section 24 was repealed since it was replaced by Section 24(a) which prohibits the State from taxing the net personal income of its residents. In such, I apologize for getting off topic but would be interested in hearing what those who pay a State income tax think about it, but it regards to your topic, since I don't know if the eternal God knows everything or not then I can't say that he doesn't. But as far as free will, I don't consider free will to be the ability to do whatever we want or describes the ability to choose, so IMO free will is that our ability to do what can be done.
  11. Thanx, and happy new year to you and all the members of the forum. Hadn't had much me time since the last time I posted, kinda got involved in the November election in Texas regarding a proposed amendment to the State Constitution known as Prop 4 which was widely represented as an amendment that would permanently ban a State income tax on Texans. For example here is an except of one such article published by the Hill County Community Journal There is no current constitutional bar on imposing or collecting an individual income tax. The proposition is worded on the ballot so that a voter might think that voting “No” means he or she is voting against a state income tax. That would be wrong, in this case. The proposition is, to establish a permanent ban on a state income tax. Voting “yes” means a voter supports that permanent ban. This is what it will say on the ballot: Proposition 4 “The constitutional amendment prohibiting the imposition of an individual income tax, including a tax on each individual’s share of partnership and unincorporated association income.”
  12. That is the difference between the doctrine of Christ and Christian doctrines. Christian doctrines also say that all things are possible with God, but don't ask if it is possible for God to lie. But by two immutable things , it is impossible but not all men abide in the doctrine of Christ. 2 Thess 2:11-12 PS Isn't Eden that planet with all the trees?
  13. So the nature of the universe itself doesn't teach us that it had a beginning or not. Ex nihilo nihil fit seems to indicate by default that the universe would not have a beginning if creatio nihilo fit is impossible. No offense intended but that is complete BS, that which is inside the sphere would be bounded by the exterior of the expanse, more specifically by the curvature of the sphere itself. A finite object by it very nature has a hard, physical edge seeing that it occupies a definite amount of space. However, we know the universe is not a infinite body since an infinite body of space would occupy all space at all time yet the universe is said to be expanding. Since an infinite body of space would already occupy all space therefore if it is expanding I fail to see how the assumption isn't made that the universe is finite.
  14. If you would, could you please clarify what you meant by 'science itself is prohibited' in regards to the issue of the origin of the universe. Who or what prohibits science from making a firm claim? Do you mean God controls science? The reason I ask is because in theology things are prohibited but not by God but the doctrine of the Church. I know in theology your funding ends if you talk about the 'Gods' who created the heaven and the earth. Right, the big bang is the end of the universe from its previous state in which all space, matter and energy was in a highly condensed state at which point it rapidly expanded to form the presently known and observed universe. Personally I don't think that you could condense all space and matter into a single space of an atom, since no two objects of mass can occupy the same space at the same time. However, I don't have a problem perceiving that we are inside that we are looking at from outside.
  15. Just because you can't see the bow in the cloud that covers the earth like a garment doesn't mean that the earth's atmosphere isn't curved nor does the fact that you can look up at the stars at night mean that you can see the light, that's right. Wow, you just gave up their secret like the other guy did. You just admitted that there is no plausible basis for the eternal universe of scientism since the ability to achieve a highly condensed state requires a hard boundary. Don't say you are not claiming the universe is eternal, by default when you reject the 'in-kind' principle that holds that 'from nothing can come nothing" you are making the assumption that the universe had always existed. So the two immutable things of the eternal is that it has always existed and that it does not change in its nature or form. Thus, due to the inability of a condensed state to be achieved without a hard boundary, your scientism doctrine is easily debunked by demonstrating what happens when one attempts to draw a vacuum on a open system. Since it can't, thonly thing to call your eternal universe of the scientism doctrine is a FAIL, unless the falsifiable of drawing a vacuum on an open system is meet. Otherwise it will be said that being called FAIL is going to be perpetual since from nothing comes nothing seeing that they be 'in-kind', but it can only occur once, but when it does it is really something to behold. And that something, being liken to nothing never seen, is the same thing from which all things that be in this world came from.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.