things we can agree are right/wrong no matter our religions/beliefs what can we agree on?

[Realist]

1 hour ago, Joefizz said:

Well I already was around religion and doctrine long before I became an adult but that actually didn't hold really much weight concerning actually "Trusting" in God,when I was about 5 or so I just simply "Knew" God and satan existed from the calling on me to do something that each did concerning me over the years the further I went in life,the more I became aware "without human help"that I had to choose which entity to serve though for many years I thought I could either serve both or simply just do what I wanted but nothing ever worked out for me in either case.

See my problem was that I wanted to "Help people" you know like just ordinary stuff help people with money who were in need things of that nature,but each time I tried doing good I ended doing bad instead,whether verbally or physically,it was so annoying because I really wanted to help others but more often than not I would do something hurtful instead of helpful,many times unintentionally and kept wondering why for so long.

I already knew plenty about Church before going to my church I later became a member of and how I would hear much of the same stuff that was so boring or seemed so "Phony" to me but it wasn't really the "Message" that changed me,it was the "actions" and "behaviours"that I witnessed that baffled me!

I kept asking myself questions like,"why do they speak so authoritively yet kindly with teaching or preaching the bible"?

"how can they believe in a God that they cannot see"?

"why do some cry when speaking on sin"?

"how can they be so caring despite so many people treating them so badly"?

"How can they be so happy when financially they are so poor"?

such things kept piling up in my mind making me wonder,"what have I been doing with my life"?

"Is it possible to join God now after putting him on the backburner for so long"?

"Will God be alright with me choosing to serve him all of a sudden"?

"Have I waited too long to be able to serve God"?(18 years or so)

So it's not that Christianity dragged me back in,it's that I wanted to know what it was to believe for real,one of my favorite relatable moments in the movie Polar Express reminds me of what it was like trying to believe when I didn't exactly know how,the kid wanting to hear Santa's reindeer bells,but he couldn't,because he was putting off what he believed it was only once he could not only say the words but actually believe in the words as well"I believe" that he could hear even one reindeer bell ring,and that's how I was,analyzing everything and everyone,thinking on so much that everything had an explanation,that I never really asked myself the honest question"Do I believe in anything"?

Because I never really thought on that just because I see something doesn't mean I believed in it,and then some things I couldn't always see like my own breath and yet it didn't mean that I believed in it,just like God and satan, never once did I ever receive a discernably accurate picture of either one yet would I have believed upon either one even with "evidence" of any sort,sure I in a sense knew they were there,but what of myself?

I kept wondering could I ever believe in anything?

could I even ever understand what "Love" was considering that for so long I had yet to experience affection?

I never had to really "Find" God,I just simply couldn't "believe upon him for help and comfort" because I had yet to understand what "belief" was and even "how to care"because I really was a cold hearted,and uncaring person even as a child at times,so it was finally when I actually decided to open up my doubting mind and stone cold heart to possibilities that I began to believe in God and overtime entirely,because I wanted more than my repetitive going no where lifestyle,I really wanted to learn "how to care" and if it was possible for me to "believe in anything".

 

... that was an awfully long winded reply just to say were were indoctrinated from earlier years or from birth!

 

So it was the last scenario I suggested!

 

So equally if you had been brought up INDOCTRINATED in ANOTHER religion .... that would be the religion you would now be spouting to us!

 

It is not rocket science, is it?

 

 

 

 

[Joefizz]

1 hour ago, Realist said:

... that was an awfully long winded reply just to say were were indoctrinated from earlier years or from birth!

 

So it was the last scenario I suggested!

 

So equally if you had been brought up INDOCTRINATED in ANOTHER religion .... that would be the religion you would now be spouting to us!

 

It is not rocket science, is it?

 

 

 

 

Actually No,I have always been my own individual person if for example I was raised in Hinduism or Judaism,no matter the religion I would have simply perhaps kept up appearances just as I did with Christianity for so long,but I still would have determined "For myself" what was right and what was wrong just as I have in Christianity,no matter how I could have been raised the outcome would still be similar,I would have simply had perhaps a tougher time on my path of belief,would I have ended up a Christian,perhaps not,would I have ended eventually for the God of Israel,it's very likely I would in a different path,because I am not so easily drawn into anything.

I most likely would have debunked things in whatever religion I began in and decipher which makes more sense and doesn't go against itself.

We can all say so easily that if certain things had been different then we would have ended up different but considering how we are now "individually" shows alot about what path we could have taken but it's rather irrelevant,we are who we are and how we are not simply because of how we were raised and what we've been through but also from our own "Individual choices".

[Realist]

26 minutes ago, Joefizz said:

Actually No,I have always been my own individual person if for example I was raised in Hinduism or Judaism,no matter the religion I would have simply perhaps kept up appearances just as I did with Christianity for so long,but I still would have determined "For myself" what was right and what was wrong just as I have in Christianity,no matter how I could have been raised the outcome would still be similar,I would have simply had perhaps a tougher time on my path of belief,would I have ended up a Christian,perhaps not,would I have ended eventually for the God of Israel,it's very likely I would in a different path,because I am not so easily drawn into anything.

I most likely would have debunked things in whatever religion I began in and decipher which makes more sense and doesn't go against itself.

We can all say so easily that if certain things had been different then we would have ended up different but considering how we are now "individually" shows alot about what path we could have taken but it's rather irrelevant,we are who we are and how we are not simply because of how we were raised and what we've been through but also from our own "Individual choices".

 

 

... that you DO NOT know ... simply because you WERE indoctrinated in christianity ... so that is where your argument falls flat! A little bit of honesty is called for here ... often not too forthcoming from christians unfortunately!

 

[Realist]

48 minutes ago, Joefizz said:

Actually No,I have always been my own individual person if for example I was raised in Hinduism or Judaism,no matter the religion I would have simply perhaps kept up appearances just as I did with Christianity for so long,but I still would have determined "For myself" what was right and what was wrong just as I have in Christianity,no matter how I could have been raised the outcome would still be similar,I would have simply had perhaps a tougher time on my path of belief,would I have ended up a Christian,perhaps not,would I have ended eventually for the God of Israel,it's very likely I would in a different path,because I am not so easily drawn into anything.

I most likely would have debunked things in whatever religion I began in and decipher which makes more sense and doesn't go against itself.

We can all say so easily that if certain things had been different then we would have ended up different but considering how we are now "individually" shows alot about what path we could have taken but it's rather irrelevant,we are who we are and how we are not simply because of how we were raised and what we've been through but also from our own "Individual choices".

.. you actually ended up back in christianity by the way simply because that was your "fallback" position .. caused by what you had previously been taught as a child.

 

You did not fall back into any other religion because probably like myself the other religions held no fear or persuasion over you. You probably even have NO great knowledge of them ... once again because of one word ... INDOCTRINATION. In your case of course it was christianity, which has been the poison of choice of Western Countries for some decades!

 

 

[Joefizz]

24 minutes ago, Realist said:

.. you actually ended up back in christianity by the way simply because that was your "fallback" position .. caused by what you had previously been taught as a child.

 

You did not fall back into any other religion because probably like myself the other religions held no fear or persuasion over you. You probably even have NO great knowledge of them ... once again because of one word ... INDOCTRINATION. In your case of course it was christianity, which has been the poison of choice of Western Countries for some decades!

 

 

Well there are worse choices of religion,that require sacrificing children or some form of evil idiocy,but at least Christianity though not surprisingly divided,it holds value in that it simply doesn't require too many ridiculous things,for the ones who are in the religion,sure the whole preaching hell thing sounds bad to mean but as I said it could be worse,but it's not it has sustained it's place through good natured intentions and comprised upon "Real events and people" instead of a carved  image and a random idea.

[Realist]

6 minutes ago, Joefizz said:

Well there are worse choices of religion,that require sacrificing children or some form of evil idiocy,but at least Christianity though not surprisingly divided,it holds value in that it simply doesn't require too many ridiculous things,for the ones who are in the religion,sure the whole preaching hell thing sounds bad to mean but as I said it could be worse,but it's not it has sustained it's place through good natured intentions and comprised upon "Real events and people" instead of a carved  image and a random idea.

... once again that is a statement coming purely from a subjective mind ... one that is indoctrinated in one religion!

 

... was it not you by the way that was trying to nullify the sacrificing of Isaac as an act of "testing" of Abraham's faith and obedience? Same shit ... different religion heh??!!

[LogicalFallacy]

10 hours ago, Joefizz said:

What is sin to me?

 

 Well I know sin to be something one must be "aware of" in order to do such a wrong doing,as in one know's what it means to sin from a reasonable stand point,I suppose the best way to clarify sin is as wrong doings that are done by anyone whether intentionally or unintentionally.

 

 

So what are you classifying as wrong doings? What about people with mental disorders that prevent them from being able to distinguish right from wrong? They are not aware of doing wrong so are they sinning? And how do you classify what is wrong?

 

Your thoughts above seem to conflict with your idea below that sin is a new way of thinking - above you seem to be saying sin is "wrong doing" (However you quantify that), below it is "new ways of thinking".

 

10 hours ago, Joefizz said:

 

 

 

And how did this sin come about?

 

As to how such sin came about,it came  about from one who was "aware of sin" and "had sinned",lucifer the former ark angel introduced sin into the world by intentionally giving Eve a new abundance of thoughts to think on that were opposite of what God had taught Adam  his purpose being to divide God Adam and Eve,in the same manner can sin come about by someone intentionally seeking an individual to do wrong so they introduce a new way of thinking to the individual to seem "Wise" yet instead being "Foolish".
So in my view to summarize,sin is a new way of thinking that leads to doing wrong that is contrary to our original mind sets as children or particularly unaware of sin,and so is known as wrong doings by God and especially when one seeks to introduce sin to others intentionally.

 

 

And how do you know this? I have read the Eden story many times. No where is Lucifer, the devil, or Satan mentioned once. In fact Paul in Romans 5:12 says that "sin entered into the world through one man," That one man he is referring to is Adam, not Lucifer so you are in direct contradiction to your own scriptures. Paul also said that if any angel comes from Heaven and preaches different let him be accursed. So are you sure you are on firm ground in your understanding of how sin came about?

 

However, let us assume for a moment that what you have written is accurate.

 

Do you believe that God is all powerful and all knowing and all good?

 

If you do do agree with the above, is  it possible for Lucifer to act against an all powerful god without the all knowing god knowing what would happen, and without the all powerful gods permission for Lucifer to act?

 

Furthermore how did Lucifer come into being and how did Lucifer become aware of sin before there was sin?

[Joefizz]

2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

So what are you classifying as wrong doings? What about people with mental disorders that prevent them from being able to distinguish right from wrong? They are not aware of doing wrong so are they sinning? And how do you classify what is wrong?

 

Your thoughts above seem to conflict with your idea below that sin is a new way of thinking - above you seem to be saying sin is "wrong doing" (However you quantify that), below it is "new ways of thinking".

 

 

And how do you know this? I have read the Eden story many times. No where is Lucifer, the devil, or Satan mentioned once. In fact Paul in Romans 5:12 says that "sin entered into the world through one man," That one man he is referring to is Adam, not Lucifer so you are in direct contradiction to your own scriptures. Paul also said that if any angel comes from Heaven and preaches different let him be accursed. So are you sure you are on firm ground in your understanding of how sin came about?

 

However, let us assume for a moment that what you have written is accurate.

 

Do you believe that God is all powerful and all knowing and all good?

 

If you do do agree with the above, is  it possible for Lucifer to act against an all powerful god without the all knowing god knowing what would happen, and without the all powerful gods permission for Lucifer to act?

 

Furthermore how did Lucifer come into being and how did Lucifer become aware of sin before there was sin?

Yeah I know that Adam is held accountable for sin because as much as lucifer tried to get Eve and Adam to both do wrong he was able to get Eve to do wrong through her lack of knowledge but Adam was the one out of the two that of a certainty knew better than to eat of the tree of good and evil and so God laid it to his charge for one in the bible it is written that God "will not justify the wicked" as in that as much as it is clear that lucifer was the one working iniquity through Eve,God would not in essence give lucifer credit for his wrong doing above Adam's,seeing as that Adam unlike lucifer at that time was more "Respectable" so God punished all 3 diffently according to their role in sin,but Adam was held accountable for sin because Adam was Righteous and the understanding of why Adam took of the fruit Eve gave him was because he loved her and therefore his act could be justified,where as Eve blamed the serpent and the serpent gave "no reason" for his actions and so neither one's actions could be justified,because neither admitted any wrongdoing where as adam did,speaking upon that Eve gave him the fruit and "he did eat".

Pretty much out of the 3 God found Adam to be more honest therefore God justified his action of sin holding him accountable for that sin and could "Respect" his reason for sinning,that reason being "Love" because if he had refused the fruit then Eve would have been divided toward him and he could not bear to be divided with her.

So to summarize once again in lamens terms lucifer brought sin into the world but since he himself would not admit his wrong doing God did not justify him and accounted Adam with the first sin because only he was "honest" toward God where as Eve and the serpent lucifer were less than honest,with Eve blaming the serpent not admitting what she had done,and the serpent lucifer when asked why he had done wrong did not respond,so Adam being the only one with an honest explanation of his actions and as well a justifiable reason for his sinning,was held accountable for the first sin despite lucifer being the one setting sin in motion.

[midniterider]

7 hours ago, Joefizz said:

Well there are worse choices of religion,that require sacrificing children or some form of evil idiocy,but at least Christianity though not surprisingly divided,it holds value in that it simply doesn't require too many ridiculous things,for the ones who are in the religion,sure the whole preaching hell thing sounds bad to mean but as I said it could be worse,but it's not it has sustained it's place through good natured intentions and comprised upon "Real events and people" instead of a carved  image and a random idea.

 

Bible child sacrifice:

Hosea 13:16

Psalm 137:9

 

Maybe some Ex-cers could provide a list of idiocy that Christianity requires. I have to run errands.

 

Destroying the world in a flood, making bets about Job's life with Satan and Abraham/Isaac story are 3 ridiculous evil stories.

[Joefizz]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

 

Bible child sacrifice:

Hosea 13:16

Psalm 137:9

 

Maybe some Ex-cers could provide a list of idiocy that Christianity requires. I have to run errands.

 

Destroying the world in a flood, making bets about Job's life with Satan and Abraham/Isaac story are 3 ridiculous evil stories.

Hosea 13:16 has no mention of children sacrifice,it only speaks of the consequences Samaria would face for their rebellion against God.

Psalm 137:9 upon rereading the verses this it is at first glance tough to figure out,but I now understand this verse is pertaining to the people of Babylon,for the verse directly before it speaks of an entity rewarding the people of Babylon as the people of Jerusalem had been treated by the people of Babylon,"Reward" actually meaning God doing to them as they did to the people of Jerusalem,verse 9 speaks of "dashing little ones against stones" it's not talking about "Children" as in kids it's talking about the people of Babylon that that follow after Babylon's ways,just as in verse 8 the verse states,"Daughter of Babylon" it doesn't mean an in fact daughter as in real person,it is referring to most likely a manmade goddess or the feined innocence of Babylon,so verse 9 speaking of God being happy "to taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones" is speaking of everyone whom follows after Babylon whom is also referred to as a great whore in Revelation ,that God when he would punish them that he would do so happily because they decided to do wrong against him for so long and they would be  getting what consequences were due them.

No children sacrifice in either verse presumed to be of children sacrifice.

 

[Joefizz]

2 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Bible child sacrifice:

Hosea 13:16

Psalm 137:9

 

Maybe some Ex-cers could provide a list of idiocy that Christianity requires. I have to run errands.

 

Destroying the world in a flood, making bets about Job's life with Satan and Abraham/Isaac story are 3 ridiculous evil stories.

This is rather nice reflecting on scriptures,glad you brought this up midnite rider you have 3 more accounts yet to be answered so here goes...

1.Flood of the world:to say such an event was ridiculous is to not understand the situation for the flood,God did warn people of the flood by telling Noah and sought not only to destroy his creation of man but some other creatures as well,because it repenteth him that he made them because of their wickedness,it wasn't ridiculous it was God ridding the world of sin and giving an opportunity for particularly man to start over because they had become so sinful that their every imagination thoughts of the heart were evil continually,all except Noah and his family,so he kept Noah and his family safe from the flood,for the future of man.

2.Job's being tempted and well spoken of by God:Many have had their outlooks concerning Job including comedians of  sorts,another account that wasn't ridiculous,God simply spoke boldly of Job that there was none like him on earth,and really it satan doing the betting,God simply stood by that Job was devout,satan was the one unconvinced and wanting to prove God wrong even declaring that if Job had blessings taken awau from him that he would curse God to his face there after but he didn't,there is no betting when you "Know" the outcome,and God simply knew the outcome of satan's temptings to try and get Job to curse God,that Job would endure and continue being devout,where as satan just couldn't accept that truth.

3.Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac:hardly an account to call ridiculous,after all since when has it ever been wrong to see where someone's allegiances lie?

In fact if one read's in Genesis Abraham told the young men to abide nearby while he and his son went to worship and would both return afterward saying"and I and the lad will go yonder and worship,and come again to you" showing that he was sure that he and Isaac would return alive,and then he did all that God asked him to do making ready to sacrifice Isaac,but when he reached forth his hand with a knife to slay Isaac,an angel of the lord called to him,saying Abraham Abraham,Abraham replieing"here I am"

and the angel telling him"Lay not thine hand upon the lad,neither do thou anything to him:for now I know that thou fearest God,seeing thou hast not withheld thy son,thine only son from me".

Then he saw a ram was caught in a thicket by it's horns behind him,he offered it as sacrifice in place of Isaac,and for his devotion God blessed him for obeying him telling him that he and his seed(children and generations) would be blessed,thereafter he and Isaac came down from the place of sacrifice and went with the young men to Beer-sheba,and dwelt there,then afterward he was informed that his brother's wife had children,showing that not only he would be blessed but his family as well,all due to that one moment of devotion,that's not ridiculous that's what is known as "Being Honorable".

[bornagainathiest]

Posted 21 hours ago

  On 03/09/2017 at 6:42 PM, bornagainathiest said:

 

Then you cannot demonstrate the validity of your personal belief to me with evidence that I can see, examine and be persuaded by, Joe.

 

In the same way, I cannot demonstrate my personal belief in an invisible teapot that orbits the Moon, ten times every day.

 

I can't show you any evidence for it that you can see, examine or be persuaded by.

 

Each of us is stuck in our own belief systems, each asking the other to believe by faith what the other cannot see, examine or be persuaded by.

 

So, can you you see any way out of our impasse?

 

 

I suppose we can't be out from this,but we can always be as many people through the centuries,very sure individuals continueing to establish "Reasons" for why we believe our beliefs to be true,and overtime perhaps one shall simply hold more evidence in some form or more observations to prove one's view on beliefs to be more accurate.

Long has humanity had to eventually believe in something or someone in order to overcome the fear of certain things"not seen" like in Columbus's day,people feared the earth to be flat and full of terrible creatures in it's waters,with eventually only the part about terrible creatures in the waters being true where as the part about the earth being flat being in time proven to be not true,with the idea sparked and later proven that the entire earth is round instead,perhaps one of us may accept the other's views in beliefs as entirely true,but such things take time.

 

Actually, there is a way out of our impasse, Joe.

 

There is way forward that can work equally well for both of us.

 

Would you like to know what it is?

 

Additionally, would you like to know what it isn't?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[Joefizz]

45 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

Posted 21 hours ago

  On 03/09/2017 at 6:42 PM, bornagainathiest said:

 

Then you cannot demonstrate the validity of your personal belief to me with evidence that I can see, examine and be persuaded by, Joe.

 

In the same way, I cannot demonstrate my personal belief in an invisible teapot that orbits the Moon, ten times every day.

 

I can't show you any evidence for it that you can see, examine or be persuaded by.

 

Each of us is stuck in our own belief systems, each asking the other to believe by faith what the other cannot see, examine or be persuaded by.

 

So, can you you see any way out of our impasse?

 

 

I suppose we can't be out from this,but we can always be as many people through the centuries,very sure individuals continueing to establish "Reasons" for why we believe our beliefs to be true,and overtime perhaps one shall simply hold more evidence in some form or more observations to prove one's view on beliefs to be more accurate.

Long has humanity had to eventually believe in something or someone in order to overcome the fear of certain things"not seen" like in Columbus's day,people feared the earth to be flat and full of terrible creatures in it's waters,with eventually only the part about terrible creatures in the waters being true where as the part about the earth being flat being in time proven to be not true,with the idea sparked and later proven that the entire earth is round instead,perhaps one of us may accept the other's views in beliefs as entirely true,but such things take time.

 

Actually, there is a way out of our impasse, Joe.

 

There is way forward that can work equally well for both of us.

 

Would you like to know what it is?

 

Additionally, would you like to know what it isn't?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Sure if you have a suggestion then state it.

[Realist]

This is not aimed at the OP of this topic as he has no desire to see through his brain washing, but this article below is on "why bad beliefs do not die." 

 

For those reading this dialogue who have not read this, it is worth the read.

 

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/why_bad_beliefs_dont_die

 

[sdelsolray]

3 hours ago, Joefizz said:

This is rather nice reflecting on scriptures,glad you brought this up midnite rider you have 3 more accounts yet to be answered so here goes...

1.Flood of the world:to say such an event was ridiculous is to not understand the situation for the flood,God did warn people of the flood by telling Noah and sought not only to destroy his creation of man but some other creatures as well,because it repenteth him that he made them because of their wickedness,it wasn't ridiculous it was God ridding the world of sin and giving an opportunity for particularly man to start over because they had become so sinful that their every imagination thoughts of the heart were evil continually,all except Noah and his family,so he kept Noah and his family safe from the flood,for the future of man.

2.Job's being tempted and well spoken of by God:Many have had their outlooks concerning Job including comedians of  sorts,another account that wasn't ridiculous,God simply spoke boldly of Job that there was none like him on earth,and really it satan doing the betting,God simply stood by that Job was devout,satan was the one unconvinced and wanting to prove God wrong even declaring that if Job had blessings taken awau from him that he would curse God to his face there after but he didn't,there is no betting when you "Know" the outcome,and God simply knew the outcome of satan's temptings to try and get Job to curse God,that Job would endure and continue being devout,where as satan just couldn't accept that truth.

3.Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac:hardly an account to call ridiculous,after all since when has it ever been wrong to see where someone's allegiances lie?

...

 

 

Infantile apologetics with a Stockholm Syndrome dessert.

[midniterider]

"Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac:hardly an account to call ridiculous,after all since when has it ever been wrong to see where someone's allegiances lie?"

 

It's always wrong for any authority figure to tell someone to go kill their own child.

 

I'm glad I'm a non-believer. My brain would hurt having to come up with shit like this to protect some psycho God's reputation.

[Joefizz]

35 minutes ago, midniterider said:

"Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac:hardly an account to call ridiculous,after all since when has it ever been wrong to see where someone's allegiances lie?"

 

It's always wrong for any authority figure to tell someone to go kill their own child.

 

I'm glad I'm a non-believer. My brain would hurt having to come up with shit like this to protect some psycho God's reputation.

Well after looking over the passage again,it says God tempted Abraham,not that he told Abraham upon the lines of that he had to or else,concerning any child being sacrificed in the bible or almost sacrificed to God in the bible,not one time does God say anything threatening concerning any child sacrifice to him,Sure one could say that Abraham had to out of obedience but God didn't say he "Had" to do so,he said"Take now thy son,thine only son Isaac,whom thou lovest,and get thee into the land of Moriah;and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."

See what I mean not one word of consequence if he didn't do as he was told,nor even threatenings,he simply "Said" for him to do so,and left it at that,there is only one other time that children sacrifice for God is mentioned,with that sacrifice actually being gone through with,only this time a "Person" named Jephthah making a Vow to God to burn offer whatsoever would come out from the doors of his home to  meet him when returning from battle in peace, if God would make it so that he could utterly overtake the people of Ammon,and God did so but "Jephthah" was not thinking on that he had his daughter at home,and was very mournful because of his Vow when she came out from the doors of his house,his only child,and explained what he had to do according to his Oath quite sorrowfully declaring that he had spoken the Vow to God and he couldn't go back from it seeing as that God did as he had desired.

His daughter understood and she requested to bewail her virginity for two months alongside other fellow women virgins,and Jephthah,he said "Go",and God did not interfere and never once said that Jephthah had to go through with what he vowed,but after 2 months no man did she find to lie down with and so she returned to Jephthah and he did as he had vowed to God.

It is perhaps the most heart wrenching part of the bible but the point is that concerning children sacrifice to him he does not force it for he never seeks it,but in both accounts he will not encourage it,for with Isaac he spoke because it was of his own doing,but with Jephthah's daughter it was not of his doing so he left the matter to Jephthah.

On a personal note though it bothers me more that in the passage after Jephthah burn offers his daughter to God,that you find out that if the men of Ephraim had answered Jephthah's calls for help against Ammon that there would have been no need for Jephthah to make such a big Vow to God and his daughter would have not been burnt offered,which still burns me up because they actually get upset with Jephthah for supposedly not sending messages of help to them,flat out lieing and threatening him with burning his house down,when they could have helped instead of being lazy and full of themselves and preventing such a struggle for Jephthah in the first place.

 

[sdelsolray]

More infantile apologetics.  This one is deeply infected and, unfortunately, doesn't even realize it.

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, sdelsolray said:

More infantile apologetics.  This one is deeply infected and, unfortunately, doesn't even realize it.

 

God could appear at Joe's church and incinerate all his friends and family with a flame thrower and Joe would say, "Oh thank you Lord for killing everyone!"

 

Like they say in Shark Tank, 'For that reason, I'm out.'

[bornagainathiest]

 10 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

Posted 21 hours ago

  On 03/09/2017 at 6:42 PM, bornagainathiest said:

I suppose we can't be out from this,but we can always be as many people through the centuries,very sure individuals continueing to establish "Reasons" for why we believe our beliefs to be true,and overtime perhaps one shall simply hold more evidence in some form or more observations to prove one's view on beliefs to be more accurate.

Long has humanity had to eventually believe in something or someone in order to overcome the fear of certain things"not seen" like in Columbus's day,people feared the earth to be flat and full of terrible creatures in it's waters,with eventually only the part about terrible creatures in the waters being true where as the part about the earth being flat being in time proven to be not true,with the idea sparked and later proven that the entire earth is round instead,perhaps one of us may accept the other's views in beliefs as entirely true,but such things take time.

 

Actually, there is a way out of our impasse, Joe.

 

There is way forward that can work equally well for both of us.

 

Would you like to know what it is?

 

Additionally, would you like to know what it isn't?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Joefizz wrote...

 

Sure if you have a suggestion then state it.

 

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

 

Ok Joe, I'll begin with what  isn't our way forward.  

 

Some time ago another Christian wrote this in the Lion's Den.  "I believe the bible & I'm hoping that some lions would reason with me based on scripture."

Here this Christian was asking us to accept (by faith alone) that the Bible is true and then reason with them on that basis.  So they were asking us to yield control of the discussion and accept their terms.  They believed by faith that the Bible is true and they wanted us to do the same before going any further.  

 

Now, can you see how this doesn't work equally well for everyone?

If you and I did this either you or I would have to yield to the beliefs of the other.  Either I would have to accept your Christian beliefs from the outset or you would have to accept my Invisible Teapot beliefs from the outset.  In either case, one person dominates the discussion and calls the shots from get go.  This is clearly unfair.

 

So, before I go on to talk the other option (a fair and balanced way of discussing things that works equally well for everyone) please answer these questions.

 

1.  Can you see that what I've described is unfair?

2.  Do you agree that it is unfair?

3.  Do you agree that it would be better for us to find a fair and balanced way of discussing things?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

[LogicalFallacy]

@Joefizz You didn't actually answer any of my questions. You merely asserted your particular doctrinal beliefs. I pose my questions again, I'll try and make the format clear as I can:

 

So what are you classifying as wrong doings (What you call sin)?

What about people with mental disorders that prevent them from being able to distinguish right from wrong ? They are not aware of doing wrong so are they sinning?

And how do you classify what is wrong?

 

 

 

Do you believe that God is all powerful and all knowing and all good?

 

If you do do agree with the above, is  it possible for Lucifer to act against an all powerful god without the all knowing god knowing what would happen, and without the all powerful gods permission for Lucifer to act?

 

Furthermore how did Lucifer come into being and how did Lucifer become aware of sin before there was sin?

[Joefizz]

 

 

12 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

 10 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

Posted 21 hours ago

  On 03/09/2017 at 6:42 PM, bornagainathiest said:

I suppose we can't be out from this,but we can always be as many people through the centuries,very sure individuals continueing to establish "Reasons" for why we believe our beliefs to be true,and overtime perhaps one shall simply hold more evidence in some form or more observations to prove one's view on beliefs to be more accurate.

Long has humanity had to eventually believe in something or someone in order to overcome the fear of certain things"not seen" like in Columbus's day,people feared the earth to be flat and full of terrible creatures in it's waters,with eventually only the part about terrible creatures in the waters being true where as the part about the earth being flat being in time proven to be not true,with the idea sparked and later proven that the entire earth is round instead,perhaps one of us may accept the other's views in beliefs as entirely true,but such things take time.

 

Actually, there is a way out of our impasse, Joe.

 

There is way forward that can work equally well for both of us.

 

Would you like to know what it is?

 

Additionally, would you like to know what it isn't?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Joefizz wrote...

 

Sure if you have a suggestion then state it.

 

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

 

Ok Joe, I'll begin with what  isn't our way forward.  

 

Some time ago another Christian wrote this in the Lion's Den.  "I believe the bible & I'm hoping that some lions would reason with me based on scripture."

Here this Christian was asking us to accept (by faith alone) that the Bible is true and then reason with them on that basis.  So they were asking us to yield control of the discussion and accept their terms.  They believed by faith that the Bible is true and they wanted us to do the same before going any further.  

 

Now, can you see how this doesn't work equally well for everyone?

If you and I did this either you or I would have to yield to the beliefs of the other.  Either I would have to accept your Christian beliefs from the outset or you would have to accept my Invisible Teapot beliefs from the outset.  In either case, one person dominates the discussion and calls the shots from get go.  This is clearly unfair.

 

So, before I go on to talk the other option (a fair and balanced way of discussing things that works equally well for everyone) please answer these questions.

 

1.  Can you see that what I've described is unfair?

2.  Do you agree that it is unfair?

3.  Do you agree that it would be better for us to find a fair and balanced way of discussing things?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

1.Yes

2.Yes

3.Yes

Which is why I started out here,not making a Christian profile right away and speak with people as people,then after seeing how things were here I decided to be open about my being a devout believer on God,as I've stated a few times now I am open to the possibility of course of someone here possibly being for God either again or for the first time,but I am not going to force what I believe on someone,because as I've said before whether biblically or morally it is wrong to do and also in my own personal view it is wrong to do so,so yes if you have a way that we can converse without either of us submitting to each other's beliefs,then state it and we'll see how it goes together,though I assume your idea might be to be mutually respectful and not butt heads so to speak about which of our beliefs is correct,and speak in such a way that both of us understand each other without so much emphasis on the how's and why's to our beliefs but what we can establish by way of facts instead of what has been told us or what can only be assumed without prior evidence,it would be challenging in it's own way so if this is possibly your suggestion then sure we can talk in that way,whatever the suggestion I'll certainly pay attention and think on it.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Ok Joe, I'll begin with what  isn't our way forward.  

 

Some time ago another Christian wrote this in the Lion's Den.  "I believe the bible & I'm hoping that some lions would reason with me based on scripture."

Here this Christian was asking us to accept (by faith alone) that the Bible is true and then reason with them on that basis.  So they were asking us to yield control of the discussion and accept their terms.  They believed by faith that the Bible is true and they wanted us to do the same before going any further.  

 

Now, can you see how this doesn't work equally well for everyone?

If you and I did this either you or I would have to yield to the beliefs of the other.  Either I would have to accept your Christian beliefs from the outset or you would have to accept my Invisible Teapot beliefs from the outset.  In either case, one person dominates the discussion and calls the shots from get go.  This is clearly unfair.

 

So, before I go on to talk the other option (a fair and balanced way of discussing things that works equally well for everyone) please answer these questions.

 

1.  Can you see that what I've described is unfair?

2.  Do you agree that it is unfair?

3.  Do you agree that it would be better for us to find a fair and balanced way of discussing things?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

1.Yes

2.Yes

3.Yes

Which is why I started out here,not making a Christian profile right away and speak with people as people,then after seeing how things were here I decided to be open about my being a devout believer on God,as I've stated a few times now I am open to the possibility of course of someone here possibly being for God either again or for the first time,but I am not going to force what I believe on someone,because as I've said before whether biblically or morally it is wrong to do and also in my own personal view it is wrong to do so,so yes if you have a way that we can converse without either of us submitting to each other's beliefs,then state it and we'll see how it goes together,though I assume your idea might be to be mutually respectful and not butt heads so to speak about which of our beliefs is correct,and speak in such a way that both of us understand each other without so much emphasis on the how's and why's to our beliefs but what we can establish by way of facts instead of what has been told us or what can only be assumed without prior evidence,it would be challenging in it's own way so if this is possibly your suggestion then sure we can talk in that way,whatever the suggestion I'll certainly pay attention and think on it.

 

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

 

Ok... so far, so good Joe.

 

We seem to agree.

We seem to agree that when it comes to your Christian beliefs and my Invisible Teapot beliefs, we should try and be fair and balanced in our discussion.  That neither of us should insist that the other accept our beliefs, on our terms.  You won't insist that I accept your beliefs and I won't insist that you accept mine.  So, what's the way forward that can work equally well for us?   The answer to that question can be summed up in one word.   Evidence.

 

Now, for me that's a bit of a problem from get go.

When it comes to my Moon-orbiting teapot, I can't produce any evidence that you can see, hear, examine or check out for yourself.  None at all.  I happen to believe (by faith alone) that the teapot is not just invisible to human eyes, but that it's also made of stealth materials, using stealth technology.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_technology  So, it can't be detected by radar, infrared detectors, ultraviolet sensors, radio telescopes or any kind of instrument known to man.  Here are some images of what it's believed to look like - but these are just artist's impressions.  Nobody has ever seen it.

 

 

This is obviously a photo-shopped image, but true believers (like me) know by faith that the teapot cannot be seen (it's invisible) and that it orbits the Moon and not the Earth.

 

 

This pic is computer-generated too, but here the teapot is shown as being made of ceramic and not metal.

True believers in the teapot don't actually know if it's made of stealth metal or stealth ceramic, because it's invisible, undetectable and nobody has ever seen it.   Also, there's no evidence for it's existence in lunar orbit.  We just believe by faith (and not evidence) that it goes around the Moon ten times in a 24 hour period.  So, if you were to ask me to present evidence to support my belief in the teapot Joe, I just can't oblige you.  Sorry about that!   You just have to have faith - to believe that it's there.

 

But, that's also a problem for me.

Since we've agreed that it's unfair for either of us to force our beliefs on the other, I can't ask you to 'just believe in the teapot, by faith alone'.  So, I'm doubly stuck.  I can't give you any evidence about the teapot existence and I can't ask you to just accept that it's real.  Anyway, enough of my problems.  Since you won't be asking me to accept your beliefs by faith either, perhaps you'd like to present your evidence for your Christian beliefs?  

 

Btw, there are some ground rules, when it comes to what is acceptable evidence.

Would you like to know what these rules are first, or would you like to just present your evidence and find out what the rules are as you go?  It's your call and I'm happy either way.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

[Joefizz]

13 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

 

Ok Joe, I'll begin with what  isn't our way forward.  

 

Some time ago another Christian wrote this in the Lion's Den.  "I believe the bible & I'm hoping that some lions would reason with me based on scripture."

Here this Christian was asking us to accept (by faith alone) that the Bible is true and then reason with them on that basis.  So they were asking us to yield control of the discussion and accept their terms.  They believed by faith that the Bible is true and they wanted us to do the same before going any further.  

 

Now, can you see how this doesn't work equally well for everyone?

If you and I did this either you or I would have to yield to the beliefs of the other.  Either I would have to accept your Christian beliefs from the outset or you would have to accept my Invisible Teapot beliefs from the outset.  In either case, one person dominates the discussion and calls the shots from get go.  This is clearly unfair.

 

So, before I go on to talk the other option (a fair and balanced way of discussing things that works equally well for everyone) please answer these questions.

 

1.  Can you see that what I've described is unfair?

2.  Do you agree that it is unfair?

3.  Do you agree that it would be better for us to find a fair and balanced way of discussing things?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

1.Yes

2.Yes

3.Yes

Which is why I started out here,not making a Christian profile right away and speak with people as people,then after seeing how things were here I decided to be open about my being a devout believer on God,as I've stated a few times now I am open to the possibility of course of someone here possibly being for God either again or for the first time,but I am not going to force what I believe on someone,because as I've said before whether biblically or morally it is wrong to do and also in my own personal view it is wrong to do so,so yes if you have a way that we can converse without either of us submitting to each other's beliefs,then state it and we'll see how it goes together,though I assume your idea might be to be mutually respectful and not butt heads so to speak about which of our beliefs is correct,and speak in such a way that both of us understand each other without so much emphasis on the how's and why's to our beliefs but what we can establish by way of facts instead of what has been told us or what can only be assumed without prior evidence,it would be challenging in it's own way so if this is possibly your suggestion then sure we can talk in that way,whatever the suggestion I'll certainly pay attention and think on it.

 

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

 

Ok... so far, so good Joe.

 

We seem to agree.

We seem to agree that when it comes to your Christian beliefs and my Invisible Teapot beliefs, we should try and be fair and balanced in our discussion.  That neither of us should insist that the other accept our beliefs, on our terms.  You won't insist that I accept your beliefs and I won't insist that you accept mine.  So, what's the way forward that can work equally well for us?   The answer to that question can be summed up in one word.   Evidence.

 

Now, for me that's a bit of a problem from get go.

When it comes to my Moon-orbiting teapot, I can't produce any evidence that you can see, hear, examine or check out for yourself.  None at all.  I happen to believe (by faith alone) that the teapot is not just invisible to human eyes, but that it's also made of stealth materials, using stealth technology.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_technology  So, it can't be detected by radar, infrared detectors, ultraviolet sensors, radio telescopes or any kind of instrument known to man.  Here are some images of what it's believed to look like - but these are just artist's impressions.  Nobody has ever seen it.

 

 

This is obviously a photo-shopped image, but true believers (like me) know by faith that the teapot cannot be seen (it's invisible) and that it orbits the Moon and not the Earth.

 

 

This pic is computer-generated too, but here the teapot is shown as being made of ceramic and not metal.

True believers in the teapot don't actually know if it's made of stealth metal or stealth ceramic, because it's invisible, undetectable and nobody has ever seen it.   Also, there's no evidence for it's existence in lunar orbit.  We just believe by faith (and not evidence) that it goes around the Moon ten times in a 24 hour period.  So, if you were to ask me to present evidence to support my belief in the teapot Joe, I just can't oblige you.  Sorry about that!   You just have to have faith - to believe that it's there.

 

But, that's also a problem for me.

Since we've agreed that it's unfair for either of us to force our beliefs on the other, I can't ask you to 'just believe in the teapot, by faith alone'.  So, I'm doubly stuck.  I can't give you any evidence about the teapot existence and I can't ask you to just accept that it's real.  Anyway, enough of my problems.  Since you won't be asking me to accept your beliefs by faith either, perhaps you'd like to present your evidence for your Christian beliefs?  

 

Btw, there are some ground rules, when it comes to what is acceptable evidence.

Would you like to know what these rules are first, or would you like to just present your evidence and find out what the rules are as you go?  It's your call and I'm happy either way.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

Very well,ground rules please.

[LogicalFallacy]

Bump - @Joefizz Don't forget my questions to answer below.

 

So what are you classifying as wrong doings (What you call sin)?

What about people with mental disorders that prevent them from being able to distinguish right from wrong ? They are not aware of doing wrong so are they sinning?

And how do you classify what is wrong?

 

 

 

Do you believe that God is all powerful and all knowing and all good?

 

If you do do agree with the above, is  it possible for Lucifer to act against an all powerful god without the all knowing god knowing what would happen, and without the all powerful gods permission for Lucifer to act?

 

Furthermore how did Lucifer come into being and how did Lucifer become aware of sin before there was sin?