What Should We Expect During A Time Of Grace

[mymistake]

Well, so let's say that God gave the people the rules to live cleanly....which couldn't be successfully accomplished. So then comes Jesus and now a time of Grace.

 

So given that none are omniscient and also that humanity could not follow the law for weakness, what would Grace look like other than silence? In other words, why would God try to re-explain or do anything other than he did to save humanity.

 

Giving the Bible and Jesus, and then silence seems rather straightforward. I mean, is God supposed to explain it again with hopes that humanity will be able to live clean lives?

 

To me, this answers the silence and simultaneously separates the sheeples and goats. Btw, you are all goats. I "kid" of course. Get it, kid, kid goats?? Lol.

 

 

 

 

 

Your argument is invalid.

 

 

 

By the way I am dead serious about this.  Your imaginary friend isn't real because he makes as much sense as Chewbacca riding a giant squirrel while fighting Nazi Germans.

[sdelsolray]

 

Well, so let's say that God gave the people the rules to live cleanly....which couldn't be successfully accomplished. So then comes Jesus and now a time of Grace.

 

So given that none are omniscient and also that humanity could not follow the law for weakness, what would Grace look like other than silence? In other words, why would God try to re-explain or do anything other than he did to save humanity.

 

Giving the Bible and Jesus, and then silence seems rather straightforward. I mean, is God supposed to explain it again with hopes that humanity will be able to live clean lives?

 

To me, this answers the silence and simultaneously separates the sheeples and goats. Btw, you are all goats. I "kid" of course. Get it, kid, kid goats?? Lol.

 

 

(pic snipped) 

 

Your argument is invalid.

 

 

 

By the way I am dead serious about this.  Your imaginary friend isn't real because he makes as much sense as Chewbacca riding a giant squirrel while fighting Nazi Germans.

 

 

 

 

P1:  End3's imaginary friend is a little shit.

P2:  End3's imaginary friend is a projection of End3's internal emotional, psychological and intellectual makeup.

C1:  End 3 is a little shit.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

We have heard the old adage....you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

 

 

Your continued belief in jesus, despite our repeated refutations, supports this claim.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Even in all of our knowledge we don't hold a thimbleful with regard to the whole. Grace would be acknowledgement by men that this is true....not making excuses for it being the truth.

 

 

For the most part, humanity is constantly aware that we don't know everything.  We are, moreover, willing to admit that we don't know everything.  This lack of knowledge is PRECISELY why science exists.  And science constantly admits it doesn't know everything and everything science learns raises even more questions.  Science is also self-correcting, which means that, in addition to not knowing everything, it can also weed out knowledge that proves to be inaccurate or incorrect.  Lastly, science makes no excuses for anything... ever.

 

If you would only accept science as your personal lord and savior, you'd see the "grace" you've been missing your entire life.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

And let's not forget our own practical behaviors with our children and friends. At some point, regardless of the repeated explanations, we just get a little more quiet and provide and love them anyway. Can we say Holy Spirit?

 

Providing for offspring is part of the evolutionary imperative for the survival of any given species; we are no different simply because we are aware of this and it becomes more than an instinctual behavior for us.  Many animal species instinctively provide for their young even at their own peril, either because they give all the food to their offspring and keep none for themselves, or because they must risk their own lives to provide for the safety and protection of the next generation.  The most dangerous animal one might ever encounter is a mother protecting her young... and it doesn't matter if it's a she-bear protecting her cubs or a domestic cat who thinks her kittens are in danger.  They will all turn into vicious beasts driven by the imperative of survival.

 

This has nothing to do with anything holy or spiritual; unless you are suggesting that an orangutan producing milk for her kids at the expense of her own nutritional needs is operating under the anointing of the holy ghost.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Get a grip people...you're like Adam and Eve....in the beginning.

Yes.  We are completely innocent and lack understanding of the difference between good and evil.  Moreover, god has been lying to us this entire time, telling us that if we do such and such, we will surely die (and go to hell, and spend eternity outside of his presence, and eventually get thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone... in his mercy).  We also take advice from talking snakes and, not speaking for anyone else here, but we cruise around naked without feeling shame.

 

We are exactly like Adam and Eve... in the beginning.

 

Except that we do know the difference between "good" and "evil" because we have morals.  god isn't lying to us; god is a lie.  There is no such thing as "sin" and hell doesn't exist.  And snakes don't talk.  But the naked thing is totally true.

 

Other than that, we are exactly like Adam and Eve... in the beginning.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Well, so let's say that God gave the people the rules to live cleanly....which couldn't be successfully accomplished. 

As has already been pointed out, THIS is exactly where your argument falls apart.  Firstly, before we can say that god gave anything, we first have to accept that god exists.  We don't.  And even if we concede that the existence of a god or gods is possible, that does nothing to demonstrate that your god is it. 

 

Secondly, before we can acknowledge that the rules were to allow us to "live cleanly" we have to establish what is meant by "clean"; and likely, our definition would be radically different from the definition of a god whose purpose was deceit and, to use BAA's term, entrapment.  Naturally, one might expect "god" to make up his own definitions of words and pretend his meaning is the correct one; but we don't know anyone else who does such a thing, now do we, End3?

 

Thirdly, if "living cleanly" couldn't be successfully accomplished, by people who were created by a "perfect" god, in his own image, living by the rules established by said deity, then obviously the flaw lies within either the design or the designer (or, most likely, both).  The root cause of the dilemma falls upon the one who did the "creating"... of the people and the rules. 

 

In the End3, (see what I did there?), the "problem" here is with god and his brilliant "plan"; not with people.

[bornagainathiest]

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

 

Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence.

 

1. End3's explanation for 'the silence'.

 

2. God is silent because there is no God.

 

In this case the simpler one is usually better.

 

Therefore, option # 2 is better.

 

Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is.

 

End3 has to make the following assumptions.

 

That there is a God.

That this is the God of the Bible.

That the account of creation given in Genesis is true, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that it isn't.

That Hebrews 11 : 3 clearly states there is NO evidence for Genesis and that the creation must be accepted by faith. 

 

Given that End has to make at least four assumptions, the simpler option (that there is no God) is the one best suited to explaining 'the silence' 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

 

Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence.

 

1. End3's explanation for 'the silence'.

 

2. God is silent because there is no God.

 

In this case the simpler one is usually better.

 

Therefore, option # 2 is better.

 

Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is.

 

End3 has to make the following assumptions.

 

That there is a God.

That this is the God of the Bible.

That the account of creation given in Genesis is true, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that it isn't.

That Hebrews 11 : 3 clearly states there is NO evidence for Genesis and that the creation must be accepted by faith. 

 

Given that End has to make at least four assumptions, the simpler option (that there is no God) is the one best suited to explaining 'the silence' 

We could also apply Brasington's Corollary: http://www.leighb.com/corollary.htm

 

And, if we are being kind, Hanlon's Razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor) would, at least, give End3 the benefit of serving an incompetent god instead of a malicious one.

[Shinzon]

Speaking broadly im more inclined to believe a book written even say a century ago vs say a book written 2000 years ago.

[florduh]

[Guest end3]

Thx for the humor.... Appears I touched a nerve.

[florduh]

Thx for the humor.... Appears I touched a nerve.

Don't flatter yourself, my friend. 

[Guest end3]

 

Thx for the humor.... Appears I touched a nerve.

Don't flatter yourself, my friend. 

 

If you would wish to argue, we could argue. The point being, whether you choose to accept some basic truth through different explanations is optional.

 

You take the good professor and BAA and the rest of you for the most part.....Each of you has bolstered your egos through science so much that you can't realize you have a bolstered ego. The Bible states this pretty well, but you would rather say it's some corollary or razor, i.e. an named explanation for a truth that's already been named. And y'all call me whatever.

 

Eject me as you wish....it's not going to change a goat to a sheep......through a corollary.

[mymistake]

 

 

Thx for the humor.... Appears I touched a nerve.

Don't flatter yourself, my friend. 

 

If you would wish to argue, we could argue. The point being, whether you choose to accept some basic truth through different explanations is optional.

 

 

 

And End continues to flatter himself.   He isn't shoveling bullshit.  No no, it's basic truth.  It isn't unfounded.  No, it's through a different explanation.

 

 

 

. . . Each of you has bolstered your egos through science so much . . . 

 

That isn't how science works.  It doesn't bolster the ego at all.

 

 

The Bible states this pretty well . . . 

 

Ah, the basic "truth" through "different explanations".

 

Very funny!

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Thx for the humor.... Appears I touched a nerve.

Don't flatter yourself, my friend. 

 

If you would wish to argue, we could argue. The point being, whether you choose to accept some basic truth through different explanations is optional.

 

You take the good professor and BAA and the rest of you for the most part.....Each of you has bolstered your egos through science so much that you can't realize you have a bolstered ego. The Bible states this pretty well, but you would rather say it's some corollary or razor, i.e. an named explanation for a truth that's already been named. And y'all call me whatever.

 

Eject me as you wish....it's not going to change a goat to a sheep......through a corollary.

 

 

Your argument is flawed, End.

 

You begin from the faith-based assumption that the Bible is true.

 

But how would you show us the Bible is true?

 

Not by evidence.

 

But by faith.

 

So you use faith to support faith and you have no way (outside of faith) of testing if your faith is real and true.

 

You are locked into a self-perpetuating circular argument.

 

And all such arguments are flawed.

 

A Hindu, a Muslim or a Jew could use exactly the same thing and be no closer to testing what they believe either.

 

The only way to test is by evidence.

 

But if you do that... you step out of faith and into our territory.

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

The point being, whether you choose to accept some basic truth through different explanations is optional.

 

You take the good professor and BAA and the rest of you for the most part.....Each of you has bolstered your egos through science so much that you can't realize you have a bolstered ego. The Bible states this pretty well, but you would rather say it's some corollary or razor, i.e. an named explanation for a truth that's already been named. And y'all call me whatever.

 

Eject me as you wish....it's not going to change a goat to a sheep......through a corollary.

I've noticed that when they fail to demonstrate the truth of what they assert, religionists often attack the other person's character. They told us to do that, in fact, back when I was in the cult - "don't get into intellectual arguments, just show them they are sinners", they told us.

 

Accusing the other person in some way of being prideful is always easy, and usually always irrelevant.

[Margee]

 

 

 

.Each of you has bolstered your egos through science so much that you can't realize you have a bolstered ego. 

 

Or how about, each of you has studied and have gained intelligence.........

[Guest end3]

 

The point being, whether you choose to accept some basic truth through different explanations is optional.

 

You take the good professor and BAA and the rest of you for the most part.....Each of you has bolstered your egos through science so much that you can't realize you have a bolstered ego. The Bible states this pretty well, but you would rather say it's some corollary or razor, i.e. an named explanation for a truth that's already been named. And y'all call me whatever.

 

Eject me as you wish....it's not going to change a goat to a sheep......through a corollary.

I've noticed that when they fail to demonstrate the truth of what they assert, religionists often attack the other person's character. They told us to do that, in fact, back when I was in the cult - "don't get into intellectual arguments, just show them they are sinners", they told us.

 

Accusing the other person in some way of being prideful is always easy, and usually always irrelevant.

 

I understand the argument. And for the record, go back and count the attacks both ways there F.

[Guest end3]

 

.Each of you has bolstered your egos through science so much that you can't realize you have a bolstered ego. 

 

Or how about, each of you has studied and have gained intelligence.........

 

Intelligence is relative. "I have intelligence so I am right". Let me go pull the verse. I shall return.

[Margee]

 

 

.Each of you has bolstered your egos through science so much that you can't realize you have a bolstered ego. 

 

Or how about, each of you has studied and have gained intelligence.........

 

Intelligence is relative. "I have intelligence so I am right". Let me go pull the verse. I shall return.

 

I already know the verses you are going to pull End....... Doesn't mean diddly coming from the 2000 year old manual that was written by man....

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

.Each of you has bolstered your egos through science so much that you can't realize you have a bolstered ego. 

 

Or how about, each of you has studied and have gained intelligence.........

 

Intelligence is relative. "I have intelligence so I am right". Let me go pull the verse. I shall return.

 

I already know the verses you are going to pull End....... Doesn't mean diddly coming from the 2000 year old manual that was written by man....

 

Your behavior is very much like Matthew 11. Y'all have rejected God for "intelligence"....i.e. ego. JUST like a 2000 year old manual.

 

So the question is, how is this NOT true?

 

And there is nothing wrong with intelligence. It's the ego that seems to make the difference. Intelligence can be a wonderful thing.

[yunea]

Sometimes I wonder if Christians here read our extimonies at all.

[Margee]

 

 

 

 

.Each of you has bolstered your egos through science so much that you can't realize you have a bolstered ego. 

 

Or how about, each of you has studied and have gained intelligence.........

 

Intelligence is relative. "I have intelligence so I am right". Let me go pull the verse. I shall return.

 

I already know the verses you are going to pull End....... Doesn't mean diddly coming from the 2000 year old manual that was written by man....

 

Your behavior is very much like Matthew 11. Y'all have rejected God for "intelligence"....i.e. ego. JUST like a 2000 year old manual.

 

So the question is, how is this NOT true?

 

And there is nothing wrong with intelligence. It's the ego that seems to make the difference. Intelligence can be a wonderful thing.

 

 

End, if you see evidence for a powerful, loving kind god...power to you my friend.

 

I don't.

[florduh]

Your behavior is very much like Matthew 11. Y'all have rejected God for "intelligence"....i.e. ego. JUST like a 2000 year old manual.

 

Okay. One more time.

 

The men who fashioned a new religion from ancient Abrahamic myth created an unassailable position for themselves. In order to embrace the beliefs, one MUST discount much of reality and abandon any critical thought process. We are told that if we observe the universe and find it at odds with the ancient teachings then we are rejecting God in favor of facts. That some of the religious text acknowledges that those who think may reject the reality of the mythology is taken as some sort of proof that the authors were really onto something clever. But remember, faith is touted a requirement for the religion, and faith is believing without evidence since with evidence no faith is needed; faith is the antithesis of reasoned thought.

 

Intelligent people can arrive at differing conclusions, but adopting Christianity is typically an emotional decision, not an intellectual one. If faith is the cornerstone of a belief then there is no place for logical argument of facts since facts and evidence are irrelevant from a faith perspective. Facts and evidence can mount an argument against a religion of faith, but the religious can only honestly claim "I believe because I want to."