Christians: Why would an all-good God base our salvation from Hell on whether or not we believe in a 2,000-year-old supernatural story?

[bornagainathiest]

Stranger,

 

The matter of GR and GPS is hold until you have read the article I linked to.  

You gave me your word on Wednesday (post  # 616) that you would do this and then I gave you my word (post # 617) that I would read something from you.  But since you haven't informed me that you've read the GPS article, that issue is still on hold and has no relevance to the challenge I first made to you on Thursday, in post # 677.

 

Now I am going to quote every one of my posts, starting with 677, to prove that since that moment I have not referred in any way to the Bible - except to point out to you on Saturday (at 10:40) that I have said nothing  in my challenge about disproving the scriptures.

 

Posted Thursday at 08:19 PM · Report post

"What I said was you err because you trust what science says as final conclusions.  And they are not.  They are conclusions at this time only.   Open for change." 

"You err because you trust science to give you final conclusions, which it can't.   It is always still learning."

"You don't trust or expect science to offer final conclusions.    Which means your so called 'evidence' is very 'fluid'."  

Hello again Stranger.

I've cited you three times because I'm interested to find out more about your take on science.  

Of the sciences, mathematics is considered to be the one that deals in absolutes.

Therefore, if I give you an example, perhaps you could demonstrate for me the fluidity of this evidence?  

Or show me why the example isn't a final conclusion?  

Or how this example is open for change?

Here it is.

2 + 2 = 4

Thanks,

BAA.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Posted Friday at 06:18 PM · Report post

"What I said was you err because you trust what science says as final conclusions.  And they are not.  They are conclusions at this time only.   Open for change." 

"You err because you trust science to give you final conclusions, which it can't.   It is always still learning."

"You don't trust or expect science to offer final conclusions.    Which means your so called 'evidence' is very 'fluid'."  

Hello again Stranger.

I've cited you three times because I'm interested to find out more about your take on science.  

Of the sciences, mathematics is considered to be the one that deals in absolutes.

Therefore, if I give you an example, perhaps you could demonstrate for me the fluidity of this evidence?  

Or show me why the example isn't a final conclusion?  

Or how this example is open for change?

Here it is.

2 + 2 = 4

Thanks,

BAA.

 

 

Do you trust science to give you final conclusions about creation or God at this time?

Stranger

 

Would you please be so good as to answer my three questions, Stranger?

I will, of course, answer yours.

But please fulfill my polite request first.

Thanks,

BAA.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Posted Saturday at 12:14 AM · Report post

"What I said was you err because you trust what science says as final conclusions.  And they are not.  They are conclusions at this time only.   Open for change." 

"You err because you trust science to give you final conclusions, which it can't.   It is always still learning."

"You don't trust or expect science to offer final conclusions.    Which means your so called 'evidence' is very 'fluid'."  

Hello again Stranger.

I've cited you three times because I'm interested to find out more about your take on science.  

Of the sciences, mathematics is considered to be the one that deals in absolutes.

Therefore, if I give you an example, perhaps you could demonstrate for me the fluidity of this evidence?  

Or show me why the example isn't a final conclusion?  

Or how this example is open for change?

Here it is.

2 + 2 = 4

Thanks,

BAA.

 

Do you trust science to give you final conclusions about creation or God at this time?

Stranger

 

Would you please be so good as to answer my three questions, Stranger?

I will, of course, answer yours.

But please fulfill my polite request first.

Thanks,

BAA.

 

I have a lot of posts I have responded to.  Repeat your 3 questions.  

My question to you is, do you trust science to give you final conclusions about creation at this time.?

Stranger

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Posted Saturday at 05:31 PM · Report post

"What I said was you err because you trust what science says as final conclusions.  And they are not.  They are conclusions at this time only.   Open for change." 

"You err because you trust science to give you final conclusions, which it can't.   It is always still learning."

"You don't trust or expect science to offer final conclusions.    Which means your so called 'evidence' is very 'fluid'."  

Hello again Stranger.

I've cited you three times because I'm interested to find out more about your take on science.  

Of the sciences, mathematics is considered to be the one that deals in absolutes.

Therefore, if I give you an example, perhaps you could demonstrate for me the fluidity of this evidence?  

Or show me why the example isn't a final conclusion?  

Or how this example is open for change?

Here it is.

2 + 2 = 4

Thanks,

BAA.

 

Do you trust science to give you final conclusions about creation or God at this time?

Stranger

 

Would you please be so good as to answer my three questions, Stranger?

I will, of course, answer yours.

But please fulfill my polite request first.

Thanks,

BAA.

 

I have a lot of posts I have responded to.  Repeat your 3 questions.  

My question to you is, do you trust science to give you final conclusions about creation at this time.?

Stranger

 

Hello Stranger,

My three questions concerned the mathematical formula 2 + 2 = 4.

1.  Can you please demonstrate for me the fluidity of the evidence contained within the formula?

2.  Can you please show me why the answer (4) isn't a final conclusion?

3.  Can you please show me how the answer (4) is open to change?

I'm asking because I'm interested in finding out more about your take on science.

Especially since mathematics is considered to be the science that deals in absolutes.

Whereby, it's conclusions (like 4 is the sum of adding 2 with 2) is absolute and final. 

Thanks,

BAA.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Posted Saturday at 10:40 PM · Report post

Bornagainatheist

If you believe 2+2=4 disproves God or the Scriptures, then show me how.   I am not interested in being led down a pathway.

Stranger

 

I have said nothing about disproving the scriptures.

You have made some claims (which I have quoted) and now I'm simply asking you about them.

Here are my questions again.

Please answer them.

My three questions concerned the mathematical formula 2 + 2 = 4.

1.  Can you please demonstrate for me the fluidity of the evidence contained within the formula?

2.  Can you please show me why the answer (4) isn't a final conclusion?

3.  Can you please show me how the answer (4) is open to change?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Posted yesterday at 09:58 AM · Report post

I have said nothing about disproving the scriptures.

You have made some claims (which I have quoted) and now I'm simply asking you about them.

Here are my questions again.

Please answer them.

My three questions concerned the mathematical formula 2 + 2 = 4.

1.  Can you please demonstrate for me the fluidity of the evidence contained within the formula?

2.  Can you please show me why the answer (4) isn't a final conclusion?

3.  Can you please show me how the answer (4) is open to change?

 

Stranger,

You made these claims about science.

"What I said was you err because you trust what science says as final conclusions.  And they are not.  They are conclusions at this time only.   Open for change." 

"You err because you trust science to give you final conclusions, which it can't.   It is always still learning."

"You don't trust or expect science to offer final conclusions.    Which means your so called 'evidence' is very 'fluid'."  

Please defend them by answering my three questions.

Thank you,

BAA.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Posted yesterday at 02:36 PM · Report post

Stranger,

You made these claims about science.

"What I said was you err because you trust what science says as final conclusions.  And they are not.  They are conclusions at this time only.   Open for change." 

"You err because you trust science to give you final conclusions, which it can't.   It is always still learning."

"You don't trust or expect science to offer final conclusions.    Which means your so called 'evidence' is very 'fluid'."  

Please defend them by answering my three questions.

Thank you,

BAA.

 

If you disagree with my statements then simply show me why.   As I said, I am not interested in answering your three questions.  Just show how your 2+2=4 disproves what I said. 

Stranger

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stranger,

You made these claims about science.

"What I said was you err because you trust what science says as final conclusions.  And they are not.  They are conclusions at this time only.   Open for change." 

"You err because you trust science to give you final conclusions, which it can't.   It is always still learning."

"You don't trust or expect science to offer final conclusions.    Which means your so called 'evidence' is very 'fluid'."  

Please defend them by answering my three questions.

Thank you,

BAA.

 

If you disagree with my statements then simply show me why.   As I said, I am not interested in answering your three questions.  Just show how your 2+2=4 disproves what I said. 

Stranger

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Posted yesterday at 03:44 PM · Report post

 

Very well, Stranger.

The sum of adding 2 with 2 is 4.

This is an absolute and does not change.  This is the final conclusion of that equation.  The evidence that adding 2 and 2 to equal 4 is not fluid.  

Therefore, your claim that science cannot give final conclusions is false.  It can and does.  Every time you use math you vindicate this.

It is now up to you to demonstrate, in this thread, that adding 2 to 2 can change.

It is now up to you to demonstrate, in this thread, that this is not the final conclusion of that equation.

It is now up to you to demonstrate, in this thread, that adding 2 and 2 can yield a different result.

Change these things.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Posted 21 hours ago · Report post

Stranger,

You made these claims about science.

"What I said was you err because you trust what science says as final conclusions.  And they are not.  They are conclusions at this time only.   Open for change." 

"You err because you trust science to give you final conclusions, which it can't.   It is always still learning."

"You don't trust or expect science to offer final conclusions.    Which means your so called 'evidence' is very 'fluid'."  

Please defend them by answering my three questions.

Thank you,

BAA.

 

If you disagree with my statements then simply show me why.   As I said, I am not interested in answering your three questions.  Just show how your 2+2=4 disproves what I said. 

Stranger

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Very well, Stranger.

The sum of adding 2 with 2 is 4.

This is an absolute and does not change.  This is the final conclusion of that equation.  The evidence that adding 2 and 2 to equal 4 is not fluid.  

Therefore, your claim that science cannot give final conclusions is false.  It can and does.  Every time you use math you vindicate this.

It is now up to you to demonstrate, in this thread, that adding 2 to 2 can change.

It is now up to you to demonstrate, in this thread, that this is not the final conclusion of that equation.

It is now up to you to demonstrate, in this thread, that adding 2 and 2 can yield a different result.

Change these things.

I have no problem with 2+2 equaling 4.     Why do you feel it is up to  me to demonstrate.  Your brought up 2+2=4 to make a point.  I didn't.   So explain your point using the questions you are asking.

Stranger

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Posted 18 hours ago · Report post

I have no problem with 2+2 equaling 4.     Why do you feel it is up to  me to demonstrate.  Your brought up 2+2=4 to make a point.  I didn't.   So explain your point using the questions you are asking.

Stranger

 

No problem.

You wrote...

"What I said was you err because you trust what science says as final conclusions.  And they are not.  They are conclusions at this time only.   Open for change." 

If your claims in the above sentence are true then it should be possible for you to demonstrate that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4.  Or, if you'd prefer to select any other numbers with which to show us that math doesn't use final conclusions, please do so. 

Thanks,

BAA.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Posted 10 hours ago · Report post

No problem.

You wrote...

"What I said was you err because you trust what science says as final conclusions.  And they are not.  They are conclusions at this time only.   Open for change." 

If your claims in the above sentence are true then it should be possible for you to demonstrate that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4.  Or, if you'd prefer to select any other numbers with which to show us that math doesn't use final conclusions, please do so. 

Thanks,

BAA.

As I have said, I have no problem with 2+2= 4.   Just as I have said I have no problem with science which does not come against God.  So, does 2+2=4 come against God?

Stranger

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Then you have no problem trusting science to deliver the final conclusion of 4, which is the sum of adding 2 with 2.

Thank you for contradicting yourself, Stranger.

Since you do trust science's final conclusions, you also err, as per your quote.

"What I said was you err because you trust what science says as final conclusions.  And they are not.  They are conclusions at this time only.   Open for change." 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Posted 4 hours ago · Report post

No problem.

You wrote...

"What I said was you err because you trust what science says as final conclusions.  And they are not.  They are conclusions at this time only.   Open for change." 

If your claims in the above sentence are true then it should be possible for you to demonstrate that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4.  Or, if you'd prefer to select any other numbers with which to show us that math doesn't use final conclusions, please do so. 

Thanks,

BAA.

As I have said, I have no problem with 2+2= 4.   Just as I have said I have no problem with science which does not come against God.  So, does 2+2=4 come against God?

Stranger

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Then you have no problem trusting science to deliver the final conclusion of 4, which is the sum of adding 2 with 2.

Thank you for contradicting yourself, Stranger.

Since you do trust science's final conclusions, you also err, as per your quote.

"What I said was you err because you trust what science says as final conclusions.  And they are not.  They are conclusions at this time only.   Open for change." 

 

I am not contradicting myself.   I have always said I have no problem with science learning things of the creation.  The problem comes when they conclude the Bible is wrong in its statements about creation or God.  

So, 2+2=4.   Well and good.  No problem.      But 2+2=4=Bible is wrong=no God.  These are the conclusions I reject.   

As I said, science is always learning, which changes it's conclusions.  

Stranger

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Posted 2 hours ago · Report post

I am not contradicting myself.   I have always said I have no problem with science learning things of the creation.  The problem comes when they conclude the Bible is wrong in its statements about creation or God.  

So, 2+2=4.   Well and good.  No problem.      But 2+2=4=Bible is wrong=no God.  These are the conclusions I reject.   

As I said, science is always learning, which changes it's conclusions.  

Stranger

 

Stranger,

The issue between us is simply this.

You made a claim about science and I have challenged you only on that claim.  You and I are not in dispute about what the Bible says because that subject has not come up between us.  We are in dispute about what you say science cannot do.  The issue of science vs the Bible is not what you and I are discussing.  The issue under discussion between us is only about what you claim science cannot do.  Only that and nothing more.

We are only discussing your claim about the limitations of science.

You claimed that science cannot come to a final conclusion.  This and only this is what I am challenging.  I contend that the science of mathematics does come to final, absolute and unchangeable conclusions.  This is a direct challenge to your claim that science doesn't.  There is nothing to do with creation or learning or the Bible or God in my challenge.  To meet my challenge you must deal only with what I have written and nothing else.  To meet my challenge you must not introduce anything from yourself to do with creation or learning or the Bible or God.  If you do that then you are not meeting my challenge, you are shifting the goalposts to make my challenge what you want it to be and not what it actually is.

Now, to meet my challenge, please demonstrate that the number 4 is not the final, absolute and unchangeable conclusion of adding 2 and 2.

Thanks,

BAA.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[bornagainathiest]

Stranger,

 

I have just proved that my challenge to you did not refer in any way to the Bible or God.

My challenge was solely about your claim about science not giving final conclusions.  It now falls to you to concede that this is so.  Please do so.

 

I can also prove from the record that it was you who shifted the goalposts of my challenge by introducing material into it that was not part of it.

You introduced the creation, God, the scriptures and the Bible and I had not mentioned or referred to any of these things.

 

 

Please confirm that you introduced these things into my challenge, altering the wording and changing the meaning of my challenge.

 

Thank you.

 

BAA.

 

[midniterider]

 

 

 

I don't know of Scripture that says I must believe in the unicorn to be saved.  You?

 

It is contained in the Holy IPU scriptures here. http://www.theinvisiblepinkunicorn.com/

Beware, the Unicorn will not be mocked.

 

 

I believe the Bible.  If you call it circular reasoning, so be it.

 

I believe the scriptures at http://www.theinvisiblepinkunicorn.com/

If  you consider them absurd, so be it.

 

 

[midniterider]

 

 

 

Correct, he has faith, and this is precisely the point I've been making. Faith is a bad pathway to truth, because despite Strangers claim, we can show that God is not Strangers father, and that Stranger was not literally born of him. (I mean what a claim - Stranger is essentially making the same claim Jesus did - that he is the son of god.)

 

We know that Stranger will have a very human father and mother, and that he was LITERALLY born of his mother, and that his DNA will match his parents. Biology and facts suck when you want faith to take precedence. 

 

The great thing about DNA here in 2017 is you can actually test it...well, on physical organisms at least. What do you bet that Stranger shares some common DNA with his earthly mom and dad. Like about 50% per parent? That's how this DNA stuff works. People who are genetically related share some common DNA. And siblings share about 50% (according to my 5 minutes of research on the net).

 

So, I guess, if Stranger has God's DNA because he is born again, yadda yadda, then all Christians who are born again would all have God's DNA. While you probably could not get a swab from God's mouth, you could actually test Christians for a common 'God' DNA. That DNA sequence could be isolated. Has it been isolated? If Christians all had some common DNA I think it might make the news.

 

Surely if there was a simple God DNA test that all Christians could use to make sure they were "Born Again" , I guarantee that every church would have a test kit and lab. They would be drinking the grape juice, eating the cracker and then swabbing for Jesus. Yet , that isn't the case.

 

And when I say common DNA, I mean common as in the parts of DNA that indicate two humans being related to each other. What I'm NOT talking about is the other parts of DNA that show that humans and mice share 90% of their DNA and also humans and apes share 98.8% the same DNA. This has shown to be the case with actual DNA testing.

 

It's interesting to think that Stranger inherited God's DNA yet his (testable) DNA is 98.8% that of an ape. LoL. Does this mean God is an ape? Are apes God?

 

Regarding some mystical response like, "My DNA changed" when I accepted Jesus...that's testable. 'Before and and after' DNA tests. I bet it would be a fail. But hey, you could sample DNA from a baby tooth or hair (someone correct me if I'm wrong) of a Christian prior to asking Jesus for salvation. Then take a current DNA test. Compare. Find 1000 later-in-life Christians, test them, check for common 'God' DNA. What do you bet their DNA hasn't changed much and does not contain genes that are only common to born again Christians. I read that DNA does change over time...but in the same Jesusy direction? Doubtful.

 

But what the heck, you could also take a control group of 1000 nasty old heathens and do the same testing to see if their Godless DNA changes in some similiar or unsimilar way.

 

...

 

Since you cant demonstrate scientifically that Stranger and God share the same DNA...and after considering the logical arguments above that rule out the locating of a God gene, I would say that DNA (especially the ape part) is not a helpful case for God. And if something sciencey goes against God then Stranger has to throw it out, right?

 

DNA shall be stricken from the record! 

 

(edited 10:31 am PDT)

[Stranger]

 

Stranger,

 

I have just proved that my challenge to you did not refer in any way to the Bible or God.

My challenge was solely about your claim about science not giving final conclusions.  It now falls to you to concede that this is so.  Please do so.

 

I can also prove from the record that it was you who shifted the goalposts of my challenge by introducing material into it that was not part of it.

You introduced the creation, God, the scriptures and the Bible and I had not mentioned or referred to any of these things.

 

 

Please confirm that you introduced these things into my challenge, altering the wording and changing the meaning of my challenge.

 

Thank you.

 

BAA.

 

 

Our argument from the beginning has been about science coming against the Bible.  You are not being honest to insinuate it isn't.   See your post #506.  My argument from the beginning has not changed.   I have always said I have no problem with science.  My problem is when science comes against the Bible.  I have moved no goal posts.  You have.   You moved the goal posts hoping I would move with them.   Forget it.   

 

As to the article on GPS, I did read it.   I read it that day.   So?   It certainly didn't change my mind.   I read other articles also which disagreed with your article.  So?

 

As far as your so called 'challenge', I have answered you many times already.   I have not altered the wording of your challenge.   I have explained to you how your challenge to me is not correct.   

 

Stranger

 

 

[Stranger]

 

 

It is contained in the Holy IPU scriptures here. http://www.theinvisiblepinkunicorn.com/

Beware, the Unicorn will not be mocked.

 

 

I believe the scriptures at http://www.theinvisiblepinkunicorn.com/

If  you consider them absurd, so be it.

 

 

 

I don't  mind if you believe other writings.   

 

I believe the Bible.

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

The great thing about DNA here in 2017 is you can actually test it...well, on physical organisms at least. What do you bet that Stranger shares some common DNA with his earthly mom and dad. Like about 50% per parent? That's how this DNA stuff works. People who are genetically related share some common DNA. And siblings share about 50% (according to my 5 minutes of research on the net).

 

So, I guess, if Stranger has God's DNA because he is born again, yadda yadda, then all Christians who are born again would all have God's DNA. While you probably could not get a swab from God's mouth, you could actually test Christians for a common 'God' DNA. That DNA sequence could be isolated. Has it been isolated? If Christians all had some common DNA I think it might make the news.

 

Surely if there was a simple God DNA test that all Christians could use to make sure they were "Born Again" , I guarantee that every church would have a test kit and lab. They would be drinking the grape juice, eating the cracker and then swabbing for Jesus. Yet , that isn't the case.

 

And when I say common DNA, I mean common as in the parts of DNA that indicate two humans being related to each other. What I'm NOT talking about is the other parts of DNA that show that humans and mice share 90% of their DNA and also humans and apes share 98.8% the same DNA. This has shown to be the case with actual DNA testing.

 

It's interesting to think that Stranger inherited God's DNA yet his (testable) DNA is 98.8% that of an ape. LoL. Does this mean God is an ape? Are apes God?

 

Regarding some mystical response like, "My DNA changed" when I accepted Jesus...that's testable. 'Before and and after' DNA tests. I bet it would be a fail. But hey, you could sample DNA from a baby tooth or hair (someone correct me if I'm wrong) of a Christian prior to asking Jesus for salvation. Then take a current DNA test. Compare. Find 1000 later-in-life Christians, test them, check for common 'God' DNA. What do you bet their DNA hasn't changed much and does not contain genes that are only common to born again Christians. I read that DNA does change over time...but in the same Jesusy direction? Doubtful.

 

But what the heck, you could also take a control group of 1000 nasty old heathens and do the same testing to see if their Godless DNA changes in some similiar or unsimilar way.

 

...

 

Since you cant demonstrate scientifically that Stranger and God share the same DNA...and after considering the logical arguments above that rule out the locating of a God gene, I would say that DNA (especially the ape part) is not a helpful case for God. And if something sciencey goes against God then Stranger has to throw it out, right?

 

DNA shall be stricken from the record! 

 

(edited 10:31 am PDT)

 

The only DNA you can test comes from the Adamic race.   I have always said, this body I have is from Adam.  And that is the only DNA  you will be able to test.   Big deal.   I know already the body comes from Adam.    Christians have the DNA of their Father who is God.  Their DNA from Adam will be removed.   

 

Stranger

[TheRedneckProfessor]

The doctrine of the holy trinity is, if I recall, not actually found in the bible (feel free to chime in, if I'm wrong @ficino).  So, bear with me here...  The doctrine of the holy trinity asserts that 3=1 and that 1=3.  Science, more specifically maths, reject and disprove this assertion.  2+2=4. 2+2 will always equal 4. 3+1=4 also.  But 3 does not, and will never equal 1.  3=3 and 1=1.

 

If you base your beliefs strictly in the bible, and the doctrine of the trinity is not supported by the bible, then you should reject the doctrine of the trinity.  However, if you reject that 3=1 because it is neither supported by the bible nor by science, then what, for you, does 2+2 equal?  

 

If it does equal 4; and always equals 4; and there is never a situation in which it would not equal 4; then it is a scientific and mathematical absolute.  In which case you should address BAA's challenge with an admission of that truth.  

 

On the other hand, if you believe that 3=1, always has, always will; then you are rejecting the bible in addition to science.  You believe nothing; you only believe that you believe something while simultaneously not believing that you believe but thinking that you know.  You're much more confused than you realize; and the Dunning-Krugger effect is certainly a major factor in your life.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

The only DNA you can test comes from the Adamic race.   I have always said, this body I have is from Adam.  And that is the only DNA  you will be able to test.   Big deal.   I know already the body comes from Adam.    Christians have the DNA of their Father who is God.  Their DNA from Adam will be removed.   

 

Stranger

Did you know that the field of genetics was established by a devout, god fearing christian by the name of Gregor Mendel?  He would be appalled by your ignorance on the subject.  

[Stranger]

 

The doctrine of the holy trinity is, if I recall, not actually found in the bible (feel free to chime in, if I'm wrong @ficino).  So, bear with me here...  The doctrine of the holy trinity asserts that 3=1 and that 1=3.  Science, more specifically maths, reject and disprove this assertion.  2+2=4. 2+2 will always equal 4. 3+1=4 also.  But 3 does not, and will never equal 1.  3=3 and 1=1.

 

If you base your beliefs strictly in the bible, and the doctrine of the trinity is not supported by the bible, then you should reject the doctrine of the trinity.  However, if you reject that 3=1 because it is neither supported by the bible nor by science, then what, for you, does 2+2 equal?  

 

If it does equal 4; and always equals 4; and there is never a situation in which it would not equal 4; then it is a scientific and mathematical absolute.  In which case you should address BAA's challenge with an admission of that truth.  

 

On the other hand, if you believe that 3=1, always has, always will; then you are rejecting the bible in addition to science.  You believe nothing; you only believe that you believe something while simultaneously not believing that you believe but thinking that you know.  You're much more confused than you realize; and the Dunning-Krugger effect is certainly a major factor in your life.

 

If the doctrine of the Trinity was not found in the Bible then it wouldn't be a doctrine.   The doctrine of the Trinity declares that there is one God, but God who is one is three Persons.   It is not a mathematical equation.  

 

Stanger

[Stranger]

 

Did you know that the field of genetics was established by a devout, god fearing christian by the name of Gregor Mendel?  He would be appalled by your ignorance on the subject.  

 

Why should he be appalled?   He should know that the body is from the Adamic race.   Big deal, as I said.   But Christians are literally born of God and have His DNA.   We are truly sons and daughters of God, of His nature.  Of His DNA.    Sorry you can't monitor it.   

 

Stranger

[LogicalFallacy]

At this point I feel the thread has dissolved to the point of allowing this gif:

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Our argument from the beginning has been about science coming against the Bible.  You are not being honest to insinuate it isn't.   See your post #506.  My argument from the beginning has not changed.   I have always said I have no problem with science.  My problem is when science comes against the Bible.  I have moved no goal posts.  You have.   You moved the goal posts hoping I would move with them.   Forget it.   

 

Not so.

The evidence has been presented and vindicates me.  I made my position quite clear in my challenge to you and you tried to alter it.  

If you had a problem with the words, then why didn't you simply say so, instead of putting your spin on them?  

What was wrong with you politely informing me that you couldn't agree to the wording of my challenge?  

But you didn't do that.  Each time I re-presented my challenge you sought to change it.

 

 

 

As to the article on GPS, I did read it.   I read it that day.   So?   It certainly didn't change my mind.   I read other articles also which disagreed with your article.  So?

 

Ah... so you read it on that day.  On Tuesday 27th June.

If that's so and you had read the GPS article on that day, then why, when I messaged you the following day and asked if you'd read any of the linked info, you wrote... "Not yet."?

 

Posted Wednesday at 05:59 PM · Report post

I'm not going round in circles any more with you today, Stranger.

Read the links.

Then get back to me with your new understanding.

 

 

See you tomorrow.

Stranger

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

 

Have you read the page on this link yet, Stranger?

Not yet.  

Stranger

 

And if you'd already read the article on the day I first posted it, why did also give me your word that you... would read it?

 

Posted Wednesday at 09:11 PM · Report post

Then can I please have your word that you will do so at your soonest opportunity?

Btw, you don't need to be a scientist to understand it.  

The writer has pitched the article for the general public and therefore no specialized knowledge or training is required to understand what is being said.   A high school student could do so.  But, if you need help Stranger, just say so and I will gladly explain.  

Thanks,

BAA.

 

You have been very cordial.  I give you my word I will read it.  Though I do dislike going to links.  I expect if I ask you to read something later, that you will oblige.

Stranger

 

Interesting.

Even though you claimed to dislike going to links, you went and read that GPS article on the day I first posted it.

Then, on the following day, you said that you hadn't read it yet.

And later you gave me your word that you would read it.

 

SO WHY WOULD YOU TELL ME YOU HADN'T READ THE GPS ARTICLE YET ON WEDNESDAY, WHEN YOU NOW SAY YOU READ IT THE DAY BEFORE -  ON TUESDAY?

 

SO WHY DID YOU GIVE ME YOUR WORD ON WEDNESDAY THAT YOU'D READ IT IF YOU'D ALREADY READ IT THE DAY BEFORE - ON TUESDAY?

 

 

 

As far as your so called 'challenge', I have answered you many times already.   I have not altered the wording of your challenge.   I have explained to you how your challenge to me is not correct.   

 

Stranger

 

 

 

And later on Wednesday, I offered to help you with your dislike of following links.

 

Posted Wednesday at 09:27 PM · Report post

You have been very cordial.  I give you my word I will read it.  Though I do dislike going to links.  I expect if I ask you to read something later, that you will oblige.

Stranger

Indeed I will, Stranger.

 

If you'd like to avoid following the link in question, there are two options open to us.

It should be possible for me to copy-and-paste the full content of that page and post it in this thread.  Then you can read it at your leisure, without having to risk following the link.  Or, I could message the full content to you privately (there should be an envelope symbol for this at the top, right hand corner of your screen) so that you can read it in your own time at home.  Please let me know what suits you.

Thanks,

BAA.

 

But, you'd already read the GPS article the day before, hadn't you?

 

SO WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL ME AT THIS POINT NOT TO BOTHER HELPING YOU, BECAUSE YOU'D ALREADY READ THE ARTICLE THE DAY BEFORE - ON TUESDAY?

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Apparently, a "day" with Stanger is as a thousand years... just like it is with "god".

[Guest]

 

 

Please.   Make up your mind.  You ask me for Bible verses.   Then when I give you Bible verses,  you tell me you don't want Bible verses.    What is that called?  Crazy?

 

Explain what you want, and stick with it.    Then I will give you explanation.  

 

Stranger

Ok, I'll repeat my questions :

1. Where in the bible does it say that God wrote the bible?  Citation please.

2. Who wrote the books of the bible, Stranger? Humans or God? Citation please.

3.What evidence do you have besides the bible that the Bible is true?  Citation please

4. You believe that the Bible is of God because the bible says so? In that case, why cant the Quran be of God because the Quran says so?

 

You say you know God's voice. My Muslim friend says she knows God's voice too.

5. Please explain how you distinguish God's voice from your own voice.

6. Please explain why my Muslim friend knows God's voice and yet God has told her something completely different than he has told you.

 

[Guest]

Wow, I just read BAAs last post and it looks like he's clearly demonstrated that Stranger isn't being very honest. I wonder what the Bible has to say about that? 

[bornagainathiest]

I'm logging off now.

 

When I log back on tomorrow, I wonder what I'll find from the Stranger?

 

More 'honesty'?

 

[LogicalFallacy]

 

I'm logging off now.

 

When I log back on tomorrow, I wonder what I'll find from the Stranger?

 

More 'honesty'?

 

 

Yes BAA, and I'll be a billionaire as well!

[Stranger]

 

 

Not so.

The evidence has been presented and vindicates me.  I made my position quite clear in my challenge to you and you tried to alter it.  

If you had a problem with the words, then why didn't you simply say so, instead of putting your spin on them?  

What was wrong with you politely informing me that you couldn't agree to the wording of my challenge?  

But you didn't do that.  Each time I re-presented my challenge you sought to change it.

 

 

Ah... so you read it on that day.  On Tuesday 27th June.

If that's so and you had read the GPS article on that day, then why, when I messaged you the following day and asked if you'd read any of the linked info, you wrote... "Not yet."?

 

Posted Wednesday at 05:59 PM · Report post

I'm not going round in circles any more with you today, Stranger.

Read the links.

Then get back to me with your new understanding.

 

 

See you tomorrow.

Stranger

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

 

Have you read the page on this link yet, Stranger?

Not yet.  

Stranger

 

And if you'd already read the article on the day I first posted it, why did also give me your word that you... would read it?

 

Posted Wednesday at 09:11 PM · Report post

Then can I please have your word that you will do so at your soonest opportunity?

Btw, you don't need to be a scientist to understand it.  

The writer has pitched the article for the general public and therefore no specialized knowledge or training is required to understand what is being said.   A high school student could do so.  But, if you need help Stranger, just say so and I will gladly explain.  

Thanks,

BAA.

 

You have been very cordial.  I give you my word I will read it.  Though I do dislike going to links.  I expect if I ask you to read something later, that you will oblige.

Stranger

 

Interesting.

Even though you claimed to dislike going to links, you went and read that GPS article on the day I first posted it.

Then, on the following day, you said that you hadn't read it yet.

And later you gave me your word that you would read it.

 

SO WHY WOULD YOU TELL ME YOU HADN'T READ THE GPS ARTICLE YET ON WEDNESDAY, WHEN YOU NOW SAY YOU READ IT THE DAY BEFORE -  ON TUESDAY?

 

SO WHY DID YOU GIVE ME YOUR WORD ON WEDNESDAY THAT YOU'D READ IT IF YOU'D ALREADY READ IT THE DAY BEFORE - ON TUESDAY?

 

 

And later on Wednesday, I offered to help you with your dislike of following links.

 

Posted Wednesday at 09:27 PM · Report post

You have been very cordial.  I give you my word I will read it.  Though I do dislike going to links.  I expect if I ask you to read something later, that you will oblige.

Stranger

Indeed I will, Stranger.

 

If you'd like to avoid following the link in question, there are two options open to us.

It should be possible for me to copy-and-paste the full content of that page and post it in this thread.  Then you can read it at your leisure, without having to risk following the link.  Or, I could message the full content to you privately (there should be an envelope symbol for this at the top, right hand corner of your screen) so that you can read it in your own time at home.  Please let me know what suits you.

Thanks,

BAA.

 

But, you'd already read the GPS article the day before, hadn't you?

 

SO WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL ME AT THIS POINT NOT TO BOTHER HELPING YOU, BECAUSE YOU'D ALREADY READ THE ARTICLE THE DAY BEFORE - ON TUESDAY?

 

 

 

 

I have never changed anything.   As I have shown you.   

 

I read the article on the day you asked if I had read it.    So?   The article did nothing for me.   I gave you my word that I would read it.  And i did.  So?  I was not required to tell you when I read the article.  

 

Stranger

 

 

 

 

[midniterider]

 

 

If the doctrine of the Trinity was not found in the Bible then it wouldn't be a doctrine.   The doctrine of the Trinity declares that there is one God, but God who is one is three Persons.   It is not a mathematical equation.  

 

Stanger

 

Where is this 'written' ?

[Stranger]

 

Ok, I'll repeat my questions :

1. Where in the bible does it say that God wrote the bible?  Citation please.

2. Who wrote the books of the bible, Stranger? Humans or God? Citation please.

3.What evidence do you have besides the bible that the Bible is true?  Citation please

4. You believe that the Bible is of God because the bible says so? In that case, why cant the Quran be of God because the Quran says so?

 

You say you know God's voice. My Muslim friend says she knows God's voice too.

5. Please explain how you distinguish God's voice from your own voice.

6. Please explain why my Muslim friend knows God's voice and yet God has told her something completely different than he has told you.

 

 

(2Tim.3:16)  "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..."   (2Peter 1;21)  "...holy men of Goe spake as they were moved byu the Holy Ghost."

 

God is the Author.   As I just showed.

 

The Bible doesn't need your evidence.   It declares itself to be true and the Word of God.

 

Because the koran is against the Bible, the Word of God.

 

Your muslim friend follows her god and knows his voice.  But his voice is not the voice of God.   

 

What does my voice have to do with it?   

 

Because the god the muslim follows is not god.  Thus the difference.

 

Stranger

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

I have never changed anything.   As I have shown you.   

 

I read the article on the day you asked if I had read it.    So?   The article did nothing for me.   I gave you my word that I would read it.  And i did.  So?  I was not required to tell you when I read the article.  

 

Stranger

 

 

 

 

 

Stranger you don't seem to get that you are being dishonest. Why should we believe ANYTHING you say? You can't even admit to giving BAA different stories of when you read the article.

 

You seem to have this terrible metal issue wherein someone posts something (Say the quran says you need faith, or BAA posting your entire exchange showing what you said) and you still hold to your line despite you being shown wrong. The Quran does say you need faith, and you did change things with BAA. Its in black and white... in this thread.

 

Try and be honest, just once.

[Stranger]

 

 

Where is this 'written' ?

 

(Is.48:16), (Matt.3:16-17)

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

Stranger you don't seem to get that you are being dishonest. Why should we believe ANYTHING you say? You can't even admit to giving BAA different stories of when you read the article.

 

You seem to have this terrible metal issue wherein someone posts something (Say the quran says you need faith, or BAA posting your entire exchange showing what you said) and you still hold to your line despite you being shown wrong. The Quran does say you need faith, and you did change things with BAA. Its in black and white... in this thread.

 

Try and be honest, just once.

 

I am not being dishonest.   Whether you believe what I say is immaterial to me.   I have never changed my stance as to science or the time when I read the article.  

 

I have explained the faith of Christianity and that of other religions.  Christianity alone makes faith the key to not only being saved but to go on in their walk as a believer.    

 

I changed nothing with BAA.    

 

Stranger

[LogicalFallacy]

This is halirious. The entire premise of Judaism is that:

 

⁴ Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord Deuteronomy 6:4-15King James Version (KJV)

 

But Stranger is advocating for three gods in one.... which is one of the reasons Jews reject the whole Jesus thing. When you read the Old Testament you can see why.