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?

[TheRedneckProfessor 4,765]

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.

[LuthAMF 12]

7 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

That's a good point, there, Prof.

No, this is playing hypothetical mind games.

[adelena4luv 5]

4 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

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.

Then why are so trying so hard to prove that god is real through debating with us?

[adelena4luv 5]

4 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

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.

Although there are evidences from books that are written in the past,it doesnt mean that it is real. People can just make up a believable story.Just like other make up fairy tales as well as other gods of other religions. There are also evidence from the gods from other religion so why are you certain that christianity is the only true religion? There are hundred and hundreds of religions out there and have similar values.  I honestly think that christianity is made to comfort people of the sufferings we face and it is a copping mechanism for people

[LuthAMF 12]

41 minutes ago, adelena4luv said:

Then why are so trying so hard to prove that god is real through debating with us?

Where do you see me trying to prove God? I just told you I do not.

[adelena4luv 5]

2 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Where do you see me trying to prove God? I just told you I do not.

Ok ok,so you want to convince us that our believe that the god in the bible does not exist ,is false through disproving our views? How is that not trying to prove that god is real by disproving god is not real?It is inference dude.

[adelena4luv 5]

5 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Where do you see me trying to prove God? I just told you I do not.

If you are not trying to prove that god is real,are you trying to disprove that god is not real?

[TheRedneckProfessor 4,765]

Another form of black and white thinking is stubbornly holding on to a claim or position, even after it has been demonstrated to be incorrect.  Rather than entertaining the notion that one is wrong, one summarily dismisses the counter-claim, perhaps describing it as "hypothetical mind games", "semantics", or some other such fuckery. 

 

This is a subtle form of self-righteousness; and it limits one's own options as much as any other form of closed-mindedness, because it renders the only options in the form of "I'm right and you're wrong".  In truth, both parties could be right; both parties could be wrong.  And there are 50 shades of gray in between.

[LuthAMF 12]

14 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Another form of black and white thinking is stubbornly holding on to a claim or position, even after it has been demonstrated to be incorrect.  Rather than entertaining the notion that one is wrong, one summarily dismisses the counter-claim, perhaps describing it as "hypothetical mind games", "semantics", or some other such fuckery. 

 

This is a subtle form of self-righteousness; and it limits one's own options as much as any other form of closed-mindedness, because it renders the only options in the form of "I'm right and you're wrong".  In truth, both parties could be right; both parties could be wrong.  And there are 50 shades of gray in between.

 Self righteousness? That's rich. Atheists are the most self righteous people on the planet.

 

Your attempts at psychoanalysis are silly. We're still referring to he number of jelly beans in a jar. Yet you can say "In truth, both parties could be right; both parties could be wrong.  And there are 50 shades of gray in between."

That is incoherent. 

[☆ sdelsolray ☆ 2,061]

6 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

...

There are massive volumes and centuries-old appeals of sound argument that we can call upon.

...

Just not in any way you can demonstrate, Mr. Mere Assertion.

[midniterider 4,235]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

That's a good point, there, Prof.

 

Half of a jelly bean apparently is an impossibility.

And God appearing to people in 2019 is an impossibility. Though he appeared to many people (supposedly) 2000 years ago. And as a burning bush.  

[midniterider 4,235]

3 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

No, this is playing hypothetical mind games.

 

Sounds like Christianity in a nutshell.

[LuthAMF 12]

55 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Sounds like Christianity in a nutshell.

Atta boy.

 

57 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Half of a jelly bean apparently is an impossibility.

And God appearing to people in 2019 is an impossibility. Though he appeared to many people (supposedly) 2000 years ago. And as a burning bush.  

And that (half a jelly bean...) is jumping to erroneous conclusions. Oh, RNP!.... One of yours is breaking your rules. Tsk tsk.

[midniterider 4,235]

9 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

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.

 

Why ARE you here? So you can tell us how predictable we are? To tell us how wrong we are without explaining why? To ignore arguments that refute your God's reality (or call it into question) ? Maybe something else? 

 

Why would a Christian visit an Ex-Christian forum? Hmmmmm. 

[LuthAMF 12]

18 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Why ARE you here? So you can tell us how predictable we are? To tell us how wrong we are without explaining why? To ignore arguments that refute your God's reality (or call it into question) ? Maybe something else? 

 

Why would a Christian visit an Ex-Christian forum? Hmmmmm. 

Thank you! Seriously, thank you for asking. I am, at this very moment, giving you all here the courtesy and formulating my "Introduction". Contrary to how it may appear thus far, it is not my goal to come here and stir up trouble. I honestly do wish to engage in productive dialogue, if you will allow. After all, this IS your site, not mine. 

[★ LogicalFallacy ★ 3,126]

2 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Contrary to how it may appear thus far, it is not my goal to come here and stir up trouble. I honestly do wish to engage in productive dialogue, if you will allow. After all, this IS your site, not mine. 

 

Mate, at this point I'm going to say if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... you know the rest.

 

Part of the reason you are getting a lot of frustration coming through in our posts is because from your very first post you've beaten about the bush, avoided questions, then got quite shitty at us for pointing this out. Now if you are willing to extend and olive branch, I'm willing to accept it, but that means when you make assertions or have a problem with something someone says you don't just say this is true, or you're wrong.

 

 

Now I've done some thinking in the shower this morning and I realised my jellybean jar example is not comparable. The reason for this, is as some bright spark pointed out, we could simply take my jelly bean jar and count the beans. Now we can't do that with Jesus so I propose a revised example of what's going on in this thread:

 

Someone (Could be you, could be anyone) is claiming a jelly bean jar existed. (Some 2,000 years ago in this case). What's more it is claimed that the jar is full of tasty jellybeans, and the number of jellybeans is even, AND if you don't believe that the jar existed and the jelly beans number is even then you will burn in hell. (Or get diabetes if we stick to our sugary theme).

 

Some of us come along and say that these assumptions are faulty. We don't know if your jelly bean jar existed, let along that the number of beans is even. What's more, unlike the jar on my desk, we can't actually check the number of beans. We are time blocked from investigation, evidence for the Jar is very thin and relies heavily on a source motivated to say said jar existed.

 

So we say that we don't believe that the jar existed or that the number was even. And this brings us back to the problem I first pointed out, this does not mean we are claiming the jar never existed.

[LuthAMF 12]

23 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Mate, at this point I'm going to say if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... you know the rest.

 

Part of the reason you are getting a lot of frustration coming through in our posts is because from your very first post you've beaten about the bush, avoided questions, then got quite shitty at us for pointing this out. Now if you are willing to extend and olive branch, I'm willing to accept it, but that means when you make assertions or have a problem with something someone says you don't just say this is true, or you're wrong.

 

 

Now I've done some thinking in the shower this morning and I realised my jellybean jar example is not comparable. The reason for this, is as some bright spark pointed out, we could simply take my jelly bean jar and count the beans. Now we can't do that with Jesus so I propose a revised example of what's going on in this thread:

 

Someone (Could be you, could be anyone) is claiming a jelly bean jar existed. (Some 2,000 years ago in this case). What's more it is claimed that the jar is full of tasty jellybeans, and the number of jellybeans is even, AND if you don't believe that the jar existed and the jelly beans number is even then you will burn in hell. (Or get diabetes if we stick to our sugary theme).

 

Some of us come along and say that these assumptions are faulty. We don't know if your jelly bean jar existed, let along that the number of beans is even. What's more, unlike the jar on my desk, we can't actually check the number of beans. We are time blocked from investigation, evidence for the Jar is very thin and relies heavily on a source motivated to say said jar existed.

 

So we say that we don't believe that the jar existed or that the number was even. And this brings us back to the problem I first pointed out, this does not mean we are claiming the jar never existed.

Do ducks eat jelly beans?

[florduh 4,774]

4 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

I honestly do wish to engage in productive dialogue

How long do we have to wait?

[Astreja 1,044]

15 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

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

 

Nor to yours.  The Bible, however, is chock full of unmitigated nonsense and is sufficiently far from any recognizable truth that it simply isn't worth taking seriously.

[Astreja 1,044]

4 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Thank you! Seriously, thank you for asking. I am, at this very moment, giving you all here the courtesy and formulating my "Introduction". Contrary to how it may appear thus far, it is not my goal to come here and stir up trouble. I honestly do wish to engage in productive dialogue, if you will allow. After all, this IS your site, not mine. 

 

If you want productive dialogue, then demonstrate that in your future posts.  What I've seen from you so far is not in the least bit encouraging in that regard.

[★ LogicalFallacy ★ 3,126]

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

Do ducks eat jelly beans?

 

This ladies and gentlemen is what LuthAMF calls "productive dialogue".

 

I feel like I'm playing chess with a pigeon again.

 

Deja vu etc

[LuthAMF 12]

30 minutes ago, Astreja said:

 

Nor to yours.  The Bible, however, is chock full of unmitigated nonsense and is sufficiently far from any recognizable truth that it simply isn't worth taking seriously.

Of course mine neither. Never claimed otherwise. Thank you for your opinion, though. It's a common assessment but not a threat.

[LuthAMF 12]

8 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

This ladies and gentlemen is what LuthAMF calls "productive dialogue".

 

I feel like I'm playing chess with a pigeon again.

 

Deja vu etc

It was an attempted joke on the heels of trying to be cordial. Please.

[LuthAMF 12]

36 minutes ago, Astreja said:

 

If you want productive dialogue, then demonstrate that in your future posts.  What I've seen from you so far is not in the least bit encouraging in that regard.

How could it be otherwise than future posts?

[LuthAMF 12]

55 minutes ago, florduh said:

How long do we have to wait?

Oh I doubt anyone here is on the edge of their seat. One post at a time, I guess.