Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lyra

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?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Certainly not surprising given this current forum. Authority must come from God who has spoken. If that is flatly and outright denied, the vicious cycle begins and ends with you saying "Prove God." Since we cannot physically "show" you God, which is what you all demand, what good does it do to discuss authority with You?

 

That is not a concession, by the way. 

 

 

'God has spoken.' But is he enforcing his authority? It doesn't appear so. It's really hard to tell. I think a good show of authority (or force)  would be to appear and do something. Otherwise you end up with people like us that are going to take God's silence as God's non-existence. I mean if God is silent/invisible/absent for 80 years of my life, why would I think he exists at all. And why would I be inclined to think someone who is non-existent is going to take me to Heaven or send me to Hell? 

 

So where is God, anyway? He was a burning bush once that spoke with Moses. He walked around as Jesus. Why doesn't he do any of these things now?

 

I understand that none of us will change your mind and you won't change my mind, but  it's still interesting to talk about belief. Maybe someone else who is reading this will gain some insight from one of us. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Im sorry but this 

There's some inferences to having power over death and metaphors to raising the temple but nowhere does jesus actually raise himself.  God (the father) is the one who performs this (and perhaps the spirit elsewhere).  But nowhere is jesus ever credited with the act.  It takes a bit of gymnastics to have jesus raise himself.

is attributed to me as giving you answer. That statement came from mwc.

 

Well it's not my fault that you don't know how to quote properly. If you go take a look at the original post where you quote me, you will see that below that you provide what you now claim is MWC's quote below it. To anyone reading it would appear that that is your answer.

 

So what you are saying in the end, is that in order to answer me you quoted MWC... ok, because that makes total sense... not.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

But the "what if" game is endless and generally only serves to confuse. We have a straightforward question  and a straightforward answer can be given:

No, LogicalFallacy, you have not made an outright  positive claim that the number of jelly beans is odd. But it seems to me to be weaseling for no apparent purpose. How this equates to Jesus? You tell me.

 

It serves a purpose. It shows the logical error you make when you try and equate TRP pointing out that you have faulty assertions upon which you base your argument, that he therefore takes the position that Jesus never existed.

 

One can say that the premises are faulty without making the claim that the opposite is therefore true. That's how the jellybean example equates to Jesus, and I have told you.

 

You are not going to convince anyone here using faulty arguments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Certainly not surprising given this current forum. Authority must come from God who has spoken. If that is flatly and outright denied, the vicious cycle begins and ends with you saying "Prove God." Since we cannot physically "show" you God, which is what you all demand, what good does it do to discuss authority with You?

 

That is not a concession, by the way. 

 

Well, if you can't demonstrate to our satisfaction that your god even exists, it's pointless for you to talk about its alleged authority -- that would be an existential fallacy.

 

I suppose we could discuss whether any of the proclamations in the Bible (human-generated from our POV, divinely generated from yours) have any place in modern society...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Well it's not my fault that you don't know how to quote properly. If you go take a look at the original post where you quote me, you will see that below that you provide what you now claim is MWC's quote below it. To anyone reading it would appear that that is your answer.

 

So what you are saying in the end, is that in order to answer me you quoted MWC... ok, because that makes total sense... not.

     I think our quotes being screwed up to be used to answer random bits and pieces kind of make more sense than the supposed answers we're getting.

 

          mwc

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2017 at 3:07 AM, nutrichuckles93 said:

Ah, yes. But how can we, as mere mortals, chose to define the Christian god as a sadistic psychopath? Our feeble minds cannot comprehend. Only He can determine what is right, so maybe our definition of sadism is actually what is good!!

 

Sorry, had to play Yahweh's advocate for a moment (love that term!) Couldn't resist. :)

god can just pull something out of thin air and everyone have their own idea of what is right and what is wrong. What let him make the rules of what is the definition of right and wrong.By just saying he is god and what he claim is right and wrong? The prove that he is god is from the bible saying that he is god and from prophecies we never witness ourselves which probably is made up. Do you have any solid evidence that can be proved that the entire thing from the bible is right?Do you just blindly believe what it says because you CHOOSE to believe but it is not real?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

jesus said that he who is not for me is against me.  This kind of black and white thinking leads people in general, and religionists in particular,  to falsely dichotomize scenarios that often have multiple possibilities.  More circumspect people are immediately aware of the potential for more than two options.

 

In truth, a person could be for Buddha without being against jesus, as their teachings are often in harmony with each other.  In the jellybean example, someone could have cut one jellybean in half and put only half of it in the jar along with the rest of the jellybeans.  This would render the total number of jellybeans as a fraction, which would be neither odd nor even.

 

There is more than black and white in this life.  It is important to open one's mind to the multiplicity of potential outcomes in every situation, as a closed mind consistently limits one's own options.  Put succinctly, there are no gray matters for those with no gray matter.

I agree that life is no black and white and is sometimes in a gray area or neutral. For example,if i feel neutral about jesus,does that mean i hate him?No right,it could just mean that i dont necessarily like him nor dislike him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

'God has spoken.' But is he enforcing his authority? It doesn't appear so. It's really hard to tell. I think a good show of authority (or force)  would be to appear and do something. Otherwise you end up with people like us that are going to take God's silence as God's non-existence. I mean if God is silent/invisible/absent for 80 years of my life, why would I think he exists at all. And why would I be inclined to think someone who is non-existent is going to take me to Heaven or send me to Hell? 

 

So where is God, anyway? He was a burning bush once that spoke with Moses. He walked around as Jesus. Why doesn't he do any of these things now?

 

I understand that none of us will change your mind and you won't change my mind, but  it's still interesting to talk about belief. Maybe someone else who is reading this will gain some insight from one of us. 

As I said, "the vicious cycle begins and ends with you saying 'ProveGod.'"

like you just did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Certainly not surprising given this current forum. Authority must come from God who has spoken. If that is flatly and outright denied, the vicious cycle begins and ends with you saying "Prove God." Since we cannot physically "show" you God, which is what you all demand, what good does it do to discuss authority with You?

 

That is not a concession, by the way. 

 

You cant just say that god is real and thus has authority and everything he is right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

As I said, "the vicious cycle begins and ends with you saying 'ProveGod.'"

like you just did.

Then what is the point of debating about god? To let us become christians or prove that god is real?If you cant prove god is real,i will use my debate to prove that god from the bible isnt real

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Well it's not my fault that you don't know how to quote properly. If you go take a look at the original post where you quote me, you will see that below that you provide what you now claim is MWC's quote below it. To anyone reading it would appear that that is your answer.

 

So what you are saying in the end, is that in order to answer me you quoted MWC... ok, because that makes total sense... not.

Dude, that is insane. Whether your error or mine, it was a mistake. I DID NOT use mwc to answer you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

It serves a purpose. It shows the logical error you make when you try and equate TRP pointing out that you have faulty assertions upon which you base your argument, that he therefore takes the position that Jesus never existed.

 

One can say that the premises are faulty without making the claim that the opposite is therefore true. That's how the jellybean example equates to Jesus, and I have told you.

 

You are not going to convince anyone here using faulty arguments. 

Alleged "faulty assertions".

The jellybean example is bogus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Astreja said:

to our satisfaction 

As though this is the ultimate standard. Truth isn't subject to your "satisfaction".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mwc said:

     I think our quotes being screwed up to be used to answer random bits and pieces kind of make more sense than the supposed answers we're getting.

 

          mwc

 

Well, I had to do some digging to figure out what the hell he was talking about and apologized for the confusion. Is that acceptable? No. He continues to lambast. Screw that. If self preservation is the main interest here, I may as well converse with compulsive liars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, adelena4luv said:

You cant just say that god is real and thus has authority and everything he is right

I (we) don't "just say it". There are massive volumes and centuries-old appeals of sound argument that we can call upon. You all want quips and sound bites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, adelena4luv said:

Then what is the point of debating about god? To let us become christians or prove that god is real?If you cant prove god is real,i will use my debate to prove that god from the bible isnt real

You frame the issue and "debate" that, for me, it's about "proving God". It is not. I am not here to ultimately "prove" God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Well it's not my fault that you don't know how to quote properly. If you go take a look at the original post where you quote me, you will see that below that you provide what you now claim is MWC's quote below it. To anyone reading it would appear that that is your answer.

 

So what you are saying in the end, is that in order to answer me you quoted MWC... ok, because that makes total sense... not.

What DID I say that you overlooked? 

I said "That is a category error."

That's ALL I said at the time.

 

midniterider accused  me of thinking I'm right and all others are wrong. I replied, *"Im right and  you're wrong"??? Hardly. Have you actually read what is said to the "religious" who enter here?"That is the default opinion and there ought to be a banner atop each page stating that. I was warned "Enter At your own risk!""*

 

Case in point right here. You ARE wrong in this particular instance but can't admit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Well, I had to do some digging to figure out what the hell he was talking about and apologized for the confusion. Is that acceptable? No. He continues to lambast. Screw that. If self preservation is the main interest here, I may as well converse with compulsive liars.

     I was having a bit of fun over an obvious mistake.

 

     My only involvement is being mentioned in the quotes.  I guess I was told that I don't know what a metaphor was (which wasn't really true) and then I suppose since the quotes were misplaced nothing was really done with them.

 

     But beyond that I'm just sitting around watching some TV and seeing what shows up here from time to time.  So it's not like I'm going to take this all that seriously.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mwc said:

     I was having a bit of fun over an obvious mistake.

 

     My only involvement is being mentioned in the quotes.  I guess I was told that I don't know what a metaphor was (which wasn't really true) and then I suppose since the quotes were misplaced nothing was really done with them.

 

     But beyond that I'm just sitting around watching some TV and seeing what shows up here from time to time.  So it's not like I'm going to take this all that seriously.

 

          mwc

 

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Alleged "faulty assertions".

The jellybean example is bogus.

 

Another assertion with no attempt to back it up.


Remember this all came about because you claimed in relation to TRP saying that your claim of logic rested upon four assumptions that:

Quote

 

"You (TRP) have already demonstrated that you're very quick to say Jesus never existed so you don't care one whit what ANYONE presents."

 

 

TRP never said Jesus never existed. It seems because he was calling your initial assumptions for your belief into question that you then decided that's what he was claiming and I'm pointing out that your logic is faulty using the jelly bean example.

 

Basically, just because someone says they do not accept, or that they question, or they don't believe any assumption does not mean they hold the opposite to be true. Even vs odd. I don't believe its even, but that doesn't mean I'm claiming its odd. If your claim is it's even then its up to you to demonstrate that. It's not upon me to show that its odd.

 

So far you have done nothing to back up your claims. You are simply running around with semantics, faulty logic and bald assertions. Shit Stranger did better than this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

What DID I say that you overlooked? 

I said "That is a category error."

That's ALL I said at the time.

 

midniterider accused  me of thinking I'm right and all others are wrong. I replied, *"Im right and  you're wrong"??? Hardly. Have you actually read what is said to the "religious" who enter here?"That is the default opinion and there ought to be a banner atop each page stating that. I was warned "Enter At your own risk!""*

 

Case in point right here. You ARE wrong in this particular instance but can't admit it.

 

So I went back over all the posts looking for what you said. Apparently you did say that - in the middle of a quote which I missed because I read the bit below which I assumed was your answer as pointed out previously.

 

Was I wrong? No I missed the damn one liner because you can't use a forum board.

 

Let's take that line though - I think we've been addressing it with the Jelly bean example.

 

But once again all you say is "That is a category error". That's all you've been doing the WHOLE time you've been on this forum. You make a statement and don't bother to back it it.

 

So I think I'll just say "You're wrong". Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander right.

 

Or you can explain what is a category error, and why you think that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Another assertion with no attempt to back it up.


Remember this all came about because you claimed in relation to TRP saying that your claim of logic rested upon four assumptions that:

 

TRP never said Jesus never existed. It seems because he was calling your initial assumptions for your belief into question that you then decided that's what he was claiming and I'm pointing out that your logic is faulty using the jelly bean example.

 

Basically, just because someone says they do not accept, or that they question, or they don't believe any assumption does not mean they hold the opposite to be true. Even vs odd. I don't believe its even, but that doesn't mean I'm claiming its odd. If your claim is it's even then its up to you to demonstrate that. It's not upon me to show that its odd.

 

So far you have done nothing to back up your claims. You are simply running around with semantics, faulty logic and bald assertions. Shit Stranger did better than this.

Why such incredulity?

If we are speaking of truth (and we are) the FACT AND TRUTH is the number of jelly beans IS odd or even. It matters NOTHING whether or not you make a formal claim. IF that number of jellybeans could somehow prove guilt or innocence in some crime, your defense cannot hold to say "I make no claim." 

Dump them out, count them and your game is over.

 

Then you have the gall to say I am the one engaging in semantics? Yours is no more than a courtroom stunt; A ploy to never be pinned down. Well, you've been pinned.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

So I went back over all the posts looking for what you said. Apparently you did say that - in the middle of a quote which I missed because I read the bit below which I assumed was your answer as pointed out previously.

Was I wrong? No I missed the damn one liner because you can't use a forum board.

 

Let's take that line though - I think we've been addressing it with the Jelly bean example.

 

But once again all you say is "That is a category error". That's all you've been doing the WHOLE time you've been on this forum. You make a statement and don't bother to back it it.

 

So I think I'll just say "You're wrong". Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander right.

 

Or you can explain what is a category error, and why you think that.

Yes. Exactly. I overlooked it myself several times. Then apologized for the confusion. It was a mistake.  A MISTAKE. But can you accept that and be gracious enough to say "Oh, OK" and move on? No. Now you have to throw a sucker punch, sniping "...because you can't use a forum board."

 

I need not explain why it is a category error. A category error speaks for itself. I just identified it. You're the freaking logic expert. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

In the jellybean example, someone could have cut one jellybean in half and put only half of it in the jar along with the rest of the jellybeans.  This would render the total number of jellybeans as a fraction, which would be neither odd nor even.

That's a good point, there, Prof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

That's a good point, there, Prof.

No, this is playing hypothetical mind games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.