Jump to content

New Christian Visitor


aik

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, aik said:

What was the reason Adam took a fruit and ate it, knowing that he had everything, he had no need in food, he had no lack of health, property, wealth, glory. And God planted so many trees in the garden, and the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of what is good and what is bad. And God forbid eating a fruit from the tree of knowledge. Why Adam was unable to keep the commandment?

 

Actually God told them to eat of all the other trees. So they did have need for food. 

 

But to answer your question:

 

Adam and Eve ate the fruit because they had no knowledge of good or evil. And God predestined it.

 

Here I'll show you why. 

 

God left them in the garden knowing that the serpent was in there with them. The serpent told them that the tree was good for food and to make one wise. He also told them it wouldn't kill them. Which it didn't.

 

They ate the fruit because they didn't even know it was wrong to disobey God. They had no knowledge of good and evil. 

 

All powerful God didn't keep a serpent from beguiling his innocent creations

 

All knowing God knew the serpent was there and what Adam and eve would choose. With there limited knowledge.

 

All loving God didn't stop sin because he predestined it to happen. The Bible says so. 

 

Ephesians 1

1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

 

If God predestined the apostles and Christians before the foundation of the world. That means Adam did not have a choice. God almighty predestined this journey before he said let there be light. Adam had no choice but to do the will of God. If sin never entered the world. The Apostle Paul would have never written those words. 

 

So to answer your question:

 

Adam ate the fruit because he had no knowledge that it was the wrong thing to do. And God predestined that he should. So that his son Christ could die for you. While simultaneously sending billions of people to eternal torment in hell.

 

That is what the Bible says. 

 

Dark Bishop

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

Actually God told them to eat of all the other trees. So they did have need for food. 

 

But to answer your question:

 

Adam and Eve ate the fruit because they had no knowledge of good or evil. And God predestined it.

 

Here I'll show you why. 

 

God left them in the garden knowing that the serpent was in there with them. The serpent told them that the tree was good for food and to make one wise. He also told them it wouldn't kill them. Which it didn't.

 

They ate the fruit because they didn't even know it was wrong to disobey God. They had no knowledge of good and evil. 

 

All powerful God didn't keep a serpent from beguiling his innocent creations

 

All knowing God knew the serpent was there and what Adam and eve would choose. With there limited knowledge.

 

All loving God didn't stop sin because he predestined it to happen. The Bible says so. 

 

Ephesians 1

1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

 

If God predestined the apostles and Christians before the foundation of the world. That means Adam did not have a choice. God almighty predestined this journey before he said let there be light. Adam had no choice but to do the will of God. If sin never entered the world. The Apostle Paul would have never written those words. 

 

So to answer your question:

 

Adam ate the fruit because he had no knowledge that it was the wrong thing to do. And God predestined that he should. So that his son Christ could die for you. While simultaneously sending billions of people to eternal torment in hell.

 

That is what the Bible says. 

 

Dark Bishop

It.s what you said Dear Bishop.

 

Can you tell me did Adam have an option to eat from the tree of life before the sin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, aik said:

It.s what you said Dear Bishop.

 

Can you tell me did Adam have an option to eat from the tree of life before the sin?

 

I already answered. You were supposed to answer mine now. If you can show me where I'm wrong. Please feel free to do so. 

 

We also just had some good threads that talked about that specific subject. If you would like to read through them they are here. 

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/86478-suffering-for-the-sins-of-the-world/

 

And here:

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/86575-faith-logic-and-freedom/

 

@walterpthefirst and @TheRedneckProfessor have a wonderful debate with Edgarcito. 

 

You said:

 

2 hours ago, aik said:

You mentioned the tree of life. So I ask you now the I will give an answer to your investigation. 

 

I gave you my very detailed answer. So what about my investigation on the tower of babel? What is your answer to my investigation?

 

 

Thanks,

 

DB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/13/2022 at 6:49 PM, Hierophant said:

 

доброе утро @aik,

To answer #1, that definition is the most widely held by academics in religious studies, and the dictionary. Here is from Merriam-Webster:

 

1
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2
a(1)
: the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2)
: commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
b
: the state of a religious
a nun in her 20th year of religion
3
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
 
My emphasis added for 1 and a(1).
 
In response to #2, you are stating that no matter what evidence is provided, you are going to default to the Bible, i.e., the Word of God is true. Which means inherently, you are going to be unreasonable. By unreasonable, I mean you are going to adhere to your beliefs, in spite of evidence. That's fine, I can work with that...I am going to show you why believing without evidence does not have any real method of knowing the truth about our reality.
 
Deconversion means that I was as true a Christian as you can get. I was an Evangelical Fudamentalist, meaning I thought the Bible was God's word, or at least inspired by God, and the Bible was a true account of the world's history. Over time, I realized that there is no method we could employ to discover anything about the supernatural or if any of the claims of the Bible were true, that is, a part of our reality.
 
My biggest problem (while I was a believer) is that I did not know if I was really saved. There are thousands of denominations all claiming to know the truth about salvation, but these denominations bicker with others about who is a true Christian, who is a lukewarm Christian, who is a heretic, et cetera, et cetera; therefore, I wanted to absolutely know I was believing the right set of doctrines, and doing the right things. After years of floundering around, I realized that nobody is able to say with any certainty that their view of salvation is correct, because there is no objective way to arrive at an answer. I then realized that this holds true for most every doctrinal and dogmatic stance churches take. It even holds true as to whether or not even a God exist. There is no way to demonstrate, or know such a thing. It is merely speculation at best. And I do not see the purpose of spending my life adhering to what I might ultimately interpret as a set of rules to live my life by, especially if they are in direct conflict with my freedom, character, and personality.
 
At the end of the day, being a Christian means making sacrifices, possibly very severe sacrifices. If I don't know that these sacrifices have any real impact on how a God sees me, or my existence in an afterlife, I therefore consider it a waste of the one life I know I do have to bind myself to an unproven ideology.
 
That is what I mean by deconversion. I refused to believe in any ideology that was beyond the scope of objective evidence provided; therefore, I do not think the evidence bears out that a God(s) exists, which undermines any religion. Personally, I am not even spiritually inclined. I do not have a yearning to meditate, do yoga, or speak to the universe. I am about as pragmatic and rational as you can get as a human. I just don't have a spiritual aspect to my personality, which means that woo woo or emotional appeals to divinity do not sway me.

 

Hey @aik. Are you going to reply to @Hierophant ?

 

I apologize. I took AIK off on a rabbit trail. If he wants to discuss the tower of babel and other biblical fallacies more. After his next reply. ill make another thread.

 

DB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

Hey @aik. Are you going to reply to @Hierophant ?

 

I apologize. I took AIK off on a rabbit trail. If he wants to discuss the tower of babel and other biblical fallacies more. After his next reply. ill make another thread.

 

DB

I gave an answer to him.

 

What does it mean to take off on a rabit trail?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

I already answered. You were supposed to answer mine now. If you can show me where I'm wrong. Please feel free to do so. 

 

We also just had some good threads that talked about that specific subject. If you would like to read through them they are here. 

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/86478-suffering-for-the-sins-of-the-world/

 

And here:

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/86575-faith-logic-and-freedom/

 

@walterpthefirst and @TheRedneckProfessor have a wonderful debate with Edgarcito. 

 

You said:

 

 

I gave you my very detailed answer. So what about my investigation on the tower of babel? What is your answer to my investigation?

 

 

Thanks,

 

DB

Sure i will give an answer. With my question I was leading to the babel tower. But Adam is so much connected with what you said in detail. I am on my work now. Please be patient. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, aik said:

Look my friend. It is not what I was saying. My point was the reason of my connection with Jesus is not the teaching or idea. The reason is what Jesus has done. 

 

Do you understand what I mean?

 

Yes I understand what you mean, aik.

 

But do you understand what I mean?

 

That we have no reason to believe that Jesus has done anything for you.

 

So far you have only asserted that he has and provided no objective evidence that he has.

 

Your assertions mean nothing to us unless you support them with objective evidence.

 

Please read this.  It will explain what we accept as objective evidence.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/83166-a-notice-to-christians-visiting-the-lions-den/#comments

 

So, where is your evidence?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, aik said:

I gave an answer to him.

 

What does it mean to take off on a rabit trail?

Well a rabbit when it runs away from a predator darts from side to side to evade the predator. And usually circles back around to.where the chase started.

 

So when someone is having a conversation about a topic. And while talking about that topic the conversation goes in another direction suddenly. The conversation went off topic. Kind of like a rabbit trail. But the conversation usually circles back around to where you left off. 

 

Does that make sense? It is just a common saying where I'm from I guess.

 

I feel like I may have veered the thread off topic from what you and hierophant were discussing. And out of respect for hierophant I was trying to bring it back on topic. 

 

DB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, aik said:

Sure i will give an answer. With my question I was leading to the babel tower. But Adam is so much connected with what you said in detail. I am on my work now. Please be patient. 

Take your time. I have been sleeping anyway 😆 💤 😴 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
On 11/12/2022 at 10:40 AM, aik said:

it was interesting for me to read about your journey my friend. i am a believer in Jesus and i am not intended leaving Him. All i want to say is that Jesus is freedom. He sets free from a religion. also He sets free from sin, from attack of others' opinion, from fears, from hesitations and the Bible is true, but religion kills the children of God. Now you are free from religion but your journey is still in process my friend. There is no one else who will be able to free you from evil and sin, but Jesus. Jesus is freedom.

 

So if jesus "sets free from religion," christianity is rendered nill and void, correct? 

 

But if christianity is the religion of jesus, and jesus makes religion (christianity) nill and void, then jesus cancels out himself. And then the follow logic reads as follows: 

 

No religion > no jesus > freedom from both. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
On 11/14/2022 at 8:00 PM, aik said:

Hello @Hierophant

 

No.1 Can you show me one place in the new testament where Jesus calls following Him or believing Him a religion? In the new testament there are 4 times mentioned this word: Acts 26:5 pharisean religion, Col. 2:18 worshipping angels. James 1:26 to jews. All this verses use the word in negative meaning, and the only positive mentioning is in James 1:27, here he uses the word just to make a conclusion of what he had said before. The word religion means a system of practices and obligations. Relationship with Jesus has nothing to do with it. 

 

No.2 I never said that I believe in God without evidences. I have stronger evidences to believe than not to believe. But I ask you. When we talk about a natural thing, of course you can get evidences by natural means, experiences, calculations, measurements etc. A human is natural also. But how are you going to get evidences about  supernatural God when you are natural yourself? 

 

Regardless of how the Bible internally defines a religion, Christianity is a religion. I am not going to quibble about it, and I do not see any reason to change my mind; furthermore, I do not know why you want to cross swords over that definition. What is the big deal if broadly speaking, Christianity is a religion?

 

You bring up a good point about exploring the supernatural through natural means....we cannot do it. So if we cannot use any natural method to investigate it, then how can we know anything about it? Does it not just become a guessing game? Drawing conclusions and making assertions with no real evidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

Regardless of how the Bible internally defines a religion, Christianity is a religion. I am not going to quibble about it, and I do not see any reason to change my mind; furthermore, I do not know why you want to cross swords over that definition. What is the big deal if broadly speaking, Christianity is a religion?

My friend, if you speak in this manner, how do you fit with an open mind debate? I bear proof that your definition has nothing to do with what the Bible teaches. The Bible invites you to believe Jesus in the way He teaches not the dictionaries. Only this is a condition. 

 

You say christianity is a religion, I say I dont care whoever how names it, the Head of christianity, the Master, the Leader of it, the Christianity Definition Giver does not call it a religion. To whom we should believe, to the headmaster or to guests?

 

Supernatural does not mean unreal. I would say that supernatural is merely as real as natural. For example, a man is going to die, natural world, science, said that he will die soon, very soon, but the supernatural one healed him, and no one can say logicly what happened. but we have a fact. There is evidence for supernatural. But my question still is, how are you going to get evidences about  supernatural God when you are natural yourself. Do you have an answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

But if christianity is the religion of jesus,

the base is a wrong claim. the following is a misconclusion therefore.

 

Christianity is not a religion of Jesus. Jesus was a jew by flesh. But the Bible says He is God incarnate, so He is the Master of life, the Life Source (Bush uses the word "decider" i heard, i will use the word "giver" if you don't mind. lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
On 11/14/2022 at 8:27 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

The Buddha never said following him was a religion, either; he only said that following the eight-fold path would lead to enlightenment. 

 

Do you agree, then, that Buddhism is as valid as christianity?

 

21 hours ago, aik said:

No, I don.t

 

20 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Then you will need to provide a better standard for claiming that christianity is not a religion; and also provide a compelling reason as to why a person should choose christianity over any other set of beliefs or philosophy of life.

 

1 hour ago, aik said:

You say christianity is a religion, I say I dont care whoever how names it, the Head of christianity, the Master, the Leader of it, the Christianity Definition Giver does not call it a religion. To whom we should believe, to the headmaster or to guests?

aik, do you see the contradiction you have created here?  According to you, christianity is not a religion because jesus did not define it as one or call it one.  Neither did the Buddha define the Middle Way as a religion or call it one.  Yet, you do not agree that Buddhism is as valid as christianity.  But both christianity and Buddhism measure up to your standard, in that their respective founders did not call them a "religion."  Again, I am compelled to ask, why should a person choose christianity over any other religion, philosophy, or set of beliefs?  Unless you can provide a better standard by which to measure what is, or is not, a religion, you need to concede that either christianity is a religion, or that Buddhism is not a religion, according to the standard you are using.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Neither did the Buddha define the Middle Way as a religion or call it one.  Yet, you do not agree that Buddhism is as valid as christianity.

Corrupted logic @TheRedneckProfessor

 

If Buddha did not define his way as a religion it is his own business. IT does not say anything about truthfulness of the way. It just says that it is not a religion. When I was saying about christianity that it was not a religion, i did not try to proove its truthfullness by the claim, but if one takes it as a religion (bunch of obligations and burdens) he will be splashed under the weight of the burden.

 

If you take the way of Christ as He teaches to do it, you will see that He is life, He says come and learn from me that I am humble, take my burden on you because mine is light.

 

and in contrary He says to the pharisees that they had made heavy burdens (obligations) for people and bear them not. 

 

I am saying that if you choose to follow Jesus the best way to do it is to follow Him by the way He teaches not by your own understanding ro understanding of someone else. That error in service may become a huge problem for life.

 

Generally in conversation for the sake of understanding we use this worldish word "religion", but in faith we don't accept it as a religion. I explained why.

 

Ok then. First you say that you agree with me, then I will continue on the topic of truthfulness with you. Its another topic to be developed, my dear friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

@aikYou are creating a logical fallacy, begging the question. I will not even concede that the Bible accurately contains anything a historical Jesus said or did, if he even existed.

 

I will not even debate if you are not willing to agree to standard definitions. It will just be a waste of my time.

 

Here is my reason why, and others have already said it in this thread, if there is no objective, measurable way to determine if your worldview is correct, then it is not worth considering. There are thousands of different denominations in Christianity, who do not agree with each other, and many believe others are going to Hell for not having the correct doctrine and/or dogmatic practices, such as the holiness movement (do me a favor and go visit the website evangelicaloutreach.org, you will find Dan Corner, who is all wrapped up in the holiness movement. He thinks that if you fart in the wrong direction, you lose your salvation until you repent, and he uses the Bible to justify his position.

 

My point is that the Bible is ambiguous, and even scholars differ on what various passages mean; therefore, stating the Bible gives us direct, clear insight on Yahweh and Jesus is simply not true. The various authors have different opinions on who Yahweh is, who Jesus is, the path to salvation, and basically any other church doctrine you can imagine.

 

Now, unless you have an objective way of reading the Bible, which I know you don't, that anyone could employ to come to the same conclusion about what the Bible means, then you do not have anything to offer.

 

Matter of fact, I know what you are going to do -- claim "special revelation." God has laid it on your heart or something of that nature.

 

In his book, Foundational Falsehoods of  Creationism, Aron Ra does an excellent job in Chapter 3 of breaking down every topic I have brought up here. I encourage you to read or listen to that chapter. I encourage you to read the whole book, because it will expand your understanding.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
7 minutes ago, aik said:

Corrupted logic @TheRedneckProfessor

 

If Buddha did not define his way as a religion it is his own business. IT does not say anything about truthfulness of the way. It just says that it is not a religion. When I was saying about christianity that it was not a religion, i did not try to proove its truthfullness by the claim, but if one takes it as a religion (bunch of obligations and burdens) he will be splashed under the weight of the burden.

 

If you take the way of Christ as He teaches to do it, you will see that He is life, He says come and learn from me that I am humble, take my burden on you because mine is light.

 

and in contrary He says to the pharisees that they had made heavy burdens (obligations) for people and bear them not. 

 

I am saying that if you choose to follow Jesus the best way to do it is to follow Him by the way He teaches not by your own understanding ro understanding of someone else. That error in service may become a huge problem for life.

 

Generally in conversation for the sake of understanding we use this worldish word "religion", but in faith we don't accept it as a religion. I explained why.

 

Ok then. First you say that you agree with me, then I will continue on the topic of truthfulness with you. Its another topic to be developed, my dear friend.

 

If Jesus was a Jew, then he practiced cult worship of Yahweh, that is, Judaism....a religion. This is not a brain buster.

 

Baptism - religious ceremony

Taking Sacrament - religious ceremony

Praying to a deity - religious worship

Believing in a deity - religious ideology

Jesus paid a temple tax - religious duty

Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell everything and give to the poor - religious obligations

Jesus told people to hate their family if they did not follow him and Yahweh - religious obligations

Jesus told a would be disciple to not bury his father - religious ideology/obligation

 

Basically Jesus demands everything for his cult...that is not a light burden. If you think so, you're not doing it right.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

 

If Jesus was a Jew, then he practiced cult worship of Yahweh, that is, Judaism....a religion. This is not a brain buster.

 

Baptism - religious ceremony

Taking Sacrament - religious ceremony

Praying to a deity - religious worship

Believing in a deity - religious ideology

Jesus paid a temple tax - religious duty

Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell everything and give to the poor - religious obligations

Jesus told people to hate their family if they did not follow him and Yahweh - religious obligations

Jesus told a would be disciple to not bury his father - religious ideology/obligation

 

Basically Jesus demands everything for his cult...that is not a light burden. If you think so, you're not doing it right.

If you go back and read again, in the first of my posts I wrote to you that if you take obligations without having true relationship with Jesus they become a heavy burden. But if you care about your relationship with Jesus, the obligations they stop being a burden, they become your life which brings joy. What do you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
30 minutes ago, aik said:

Corrupted logic @TheRedneckProfessor

 

If Buddha did not define his way as a religion it is his own business. IT does not say anything about truthfulness of the way. It just says that it is not a religion. When I was saying about christianity that it was not a religion, i did not try to proove its truthfullness by the claim, but if one takes it as a religion (bunch of obligations and burdens) he will be splashed under the weight of the burden.

I'm not sure you understand logic, or perhaps logic means something different in Russian than it does in the rest of the Western world.  Let me explain the logic that is being applied here.  Если А равно В, а В равно С, то А также равно С.  If A=B, and B=C, then A=C.  In other words, If christianity (A) is not a religion because the founder did not call it one (B), and the founder of Buddhism (C) did not call it a religion (B), then christianity and Buddhism are equally valid (A=C).  Другими словами, если христианство (А) не является религией, потому что основатель не назвал его таковым (Б), а основатель буддизма (С) не назвал его религией (Б), то христианство и буддизм равнодействительны. (А=С).  Panimayesh, moy droog?

 

You are committing the logical fallacy known as Special Pleading.  

Особые состязательные бумаги — это применение стандартов, принципов и/или правил к другим людям или обстоятельствам, в то же время исключающее себя или определенные обстоятельства из тех же критических критериев без предоставления надлежащего обоснования. Особая мольба часто является результатом сильных эмоциональных убеждений, которые мешают разуму.

Логическая форма:

Если X, то Y, но не тогда, когда это вредит моему положению.

Пример №1:

Да, я считаю, что все пьяные водители должны сидеть в тюрьме, но ваша честь, он мой сын! Он хороший мальчик, который только что сделал ошибку!

Объяснение: в этом примере мать применила правило, согласно которому все пьяные водители должны попасть в тюрьму. Однако из-за своей эмоциональной привязанности к сыну она ошибочно полагает, что он должен быть освобожден от этого правила, потому что «он хороший мальчик, который только что совершил ошибку», что вряд ли можно считать достаточным основанием для исключения из правило.

Пример №2:

Суеверие — это убеждение или практика, возникающие в результате невежества, страха перед неизвестным, веры в магию или случайность или ложного представления о причинно-следственной связи, если только это не астрология.

Пояснение: Говорят, что одно суеверие — это вера другого. Эталон суеверия был определен человеком и нарушен астрологией. Однако, в то время как человек в примере отвергает все другие источники суеверий, используя определенные критерии, суеверная вера в их предпочтения освобождается от этих критериев.

Исключение: «адекватное обоснование» является субъективным и может быть оспорено.  https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Special-Pleading

 

In essence, you are claiming that the standards that apply to all other religious claims do not apply to your particular religious claims.  Ti ponyol?

 

 

30 minutes ago, aik said:

If you take the way of Christ as He teaches to do it, you will see that He is life, He says come and learn from me that I am humble, take my burden on you because mine is light.

 

and in contrary He says to the pharisees that they had made heavy burdens (obligations) for people and bear them not. 

 

I am saying that if you choose to follow Jesus the best way to do it is to follow Him by the way He teaches not by your own understanding ro understanding of someone else. That error in service may become a huge problem for life.

 

If you follow the 8-fold path as did the Buddha, you will reach enlightenment and eventually achieve Nirvana.  Even if you follow it according to your own understanding, the process may take longer, but the result will be the same.

 

So, aik, now that both of us have made unsubstantiated claims, which one is Truth?  How can the casual observer or passer-by determine which of us should be believed and which of us should not?

 

30 minutes ago, aik said:

He says come and learn from me that I am humble, take my burden on you because mine is light.

First you need to satisfy the burden of proof in demonstrating that jesus existed as the bible describes him.  Then we can discuss whether it is advisable to take on any further burdens.

 

30 minutes ago, aik said:

Generally in conversation for the sake of understanding we use this worldish word "religion", but in faith we don't accept it as a religion. I explained why.

Generally, we do not accept anything on faith.  We are explaining why.  Moy droog.

 

30 minutes ago, aik said:

Ok then. First you say that you agree with me, then I will continue on the topic of truthfulness with you.

Я с вами не согласен, и моя личная честность не позволяет мне сказать иначе.  Nee skazal, moy droog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
2 minutes ago, aik said:

If you go back and read again, in the first of my posts I wrote to you that if you take obligations without having true relationship with Jesus they become a heavy burden. But if you care about your relationship with Jesus, the obligations they stop being a burden, they become your life which brings joy. What do you say?

 

Sure, I felt that way sometimes when I was a Christian. I started having difficulties when it came to every day decisions. For example, when I used to see homeless people, I really wondered what God wanted me to do. Should I give them money? Do they psychological help? I really wanted God's input on every situation that came up. Then I wondered if I was supposed to sell all I have and give it away. Luke has Jesus saying that, but by and large, Christians don't do it, and have excuses why they shouldn't do it. I then wondered if I was forgiving enough, doing enough, etc., because the Bible has Jesus saying we should be doing....not just believing. I got to a point where I just did not know if I was doing what God demanded of me. I asked God to visit me, just for one hour, so I could know I was on the right path, not just guessing and hoping it was enough. What if it wasn't? What if I lived my life thinking I was honoring God and I just deceived myself the whole time? Then I am in Hell with everyone else who didn't have the right doctrine, or didn't care to begin with.

 

As I said earlier, that is where I wanted to build a theology from the ground up. I soon realized that I couldn't even know if a God existed, let alone anything that follows from that. That is why I ended up walking away. I am not interested in guessing, speculation, assertions, or anything else that could lead me to believing false things. 

 

I followed that with reading what seculars had to say because I was searching for real answers, and I determined that non-believers made way more sense of our world then the Bible or any other supposed holy book ever could. 

 

I doubt you understand what I am saying. Years ago, when I was in the same place you are, it would have sounded crazy to me.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

I encourage you to read or listen to that chapter.

I am reading you, his representative. It is enough for now. lol

 

25 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

I will not even concede that the Bible accurately contains anything a historical Jesus said or did, if he even existed.

You just have thrown the whole history science into a garbish

26 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

There are thousands of different denominations in Christianity,

it is another topic

26 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

many believe others are going to Hell for not having the correct doctrine and/or dogmatic practices

it is second another topic

32 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

and he uses the Bible to justify his position.

it is the third another topic

35 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

Matter of fact, I know what you are going to do -- claim "special revelation." God has laid it on your heart or something of that nature.

How can you make sound judgments when you call a matter of fact what has not yet happen?

 

Man, I am not here to make a bad guy out of you. You can believe in whatever you wish. I am nobody here to tell you what to believe in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
7 minutes ago, aik said:

How can you make sound judgments when you call a matter of fact what has not yet happen?

Do you slow down when the traffic light turns yellow?  Why?  Because based on experience you can predict, with reasonable accuracy, that the traffic light will soon turn red; and if you continue apace at your current rate of speed, you will careen into oncoming traffic and die, or worse, be taken into custody by the Russian police.  You, I, all of us, make sound judgments all the time by predicting what has not yet happened.  Sometimes we're wrong; but we've been right often enough to still be alive, and that's saying something for a good many of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'm not sure you understand logic, or perhaps logic means something different in Russian than it does in the rest of the Western world.  Let me explain the logic that is being applied here.  Если А равно В, а В равно С, то А также равно С.  If A=B, and B=C, then A=C.  In other words, If christianity (A) is not a religion because the founder did not call it one (B), and the founder of Buddhism (C) did not call it a religion (B), then christianity and Buddhism are equally valid (A=C).  Другими словами, если христианство (А) не является религией, потому что основатель не назвал его таковым (Б), а основатель буддизма (С) не назвал его религией (Б), то христианство и буддизм равнодействительны. (А=С).  Panimayesh, moy droog?

 

You are committing the logical fallacy known as Special Pleading.  

Особые состязательные бумаги — это применение стандартов, принципов и/или правил к другим людям или обстоятельствам, в то же время исключающее себя или определенные обстоятельства из тех же критических критериев без предоставления надлежащего обоснования. Особая мольба часто является результатом сильных эмоциональных убеждений, которые мешают разуму.

Логическая форма:

Если X, то Y, но не тогда, когда это вредит моему положению.

Пример №1:

Да, я считаю, что все пьяные водители должны сидеть в тюрьме, но ваша честь, он мой сын! Он хороший мальчик, который только что сделал ошибку!

Объяснение: в этом примере мать применила правило, согласно которому все пьяные водители должны попасть в тюрьму. Однако из-за своей эмоциональной привязанности к сыну она ошибочно полагает, что он должен быть освобожден от этого правила, потому что «он хороший мальчик, который только что совершил ошибку», что вряд ли можно считать достаточным основанием для исключения из правило.

Пример №2:

Суеверие — это убеждение или практика, возникающие в результате невежества, страха перед неизвестным, веры в магию или случайность или ложного представления о причинно-следственной связи, если только это не астрология.

Пояснение: Говорят, что одно суеверие — это вера другого. Эталон суеверия был определен человеком и нарушен астрологией. Однако, в то время как человек в примере отвергает все другие источники суеверий, используя определенные критерии, суеверная вера в их предпочтения освобождается от этих критериев.

Исключение: «адекватное обоснование» является субъективным и может быть оспорено.  https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Special-Pleading

 

In essence, you are claiming that the standards that apply to all other religious claims do not apply to your particular religious claims.  Ti ponyol?

 

 

 

If you follow the 8-fold path as did the Buddha, you will reach enlightenment and eventually achieve Nirvana.  Even if you follow it according to your own understanding, the process may take longer, but the result will be the same.

 

So, aik, now that both of us have made unsubstantiated claims, which one is Truth?  How can the casual observer or passer-by determine which of us should be believed and which of us should not?

 

First you need to satisfy the burden of proof in demonstrating that jesus existed as the bible describes him.  Then we can discuss whether it is advisable to take on any further burdens.

 

Generally, we do not accept anything on faith.  We are explaining why.  Moy droog.

 

Я с вами не согласен, и моя личная честность не позволяет мне сказать иначе.  Nee skazal, moy droog.

In Russia we sell 1 kilo of logic for 20 rubles. 

 

You are a believer also. You believe in human logic.

 

A donkey is not Russian, you are not Russian (are you). So what is the conclusion based on you logic? I am waiting for an answer. Or you agree with me now?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Do you slow down when the traffic light turns yellow?  Why?  Because based on experience you can predict, with reasonable accuracy, that the traffic light will soon turn red; and if you continue apace at your current rate of speed, you will careen into oncoming traffic and die, or worse, be taken into custody by the Russian police.  You, I, all of us, make sound judgments all the time by predicting what has not yet happened.  Sometimes we're wrong; but we've been right often enough to still be alive, and that's saying something for a good many of us.

I agree. You are good. But many of you here say that you skeptics base your saying only on facts, you require that I give you objective evidences. And when it comes to your side, you predict. And call it a fact. Is it fair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
5 minutes ago, aik said:

A donkey is not Russian, you are not Russian (are you). So what is the conclusion based on you logic? I am waiting for an answer. Or you agree with me now?

The only thing that can be said is that neither myself nor the donkey are Russian.  Logic does not really apply here beyond, yet another, example of the Begging the Question logical fallacy.  The implication of your question is that if I am not Russian and the Donkey is not Russian, then I must be the Donkey.  A very polite way of pointing out that I'm an ass; but not really relevant to the progression of logic we are following concerning your religious claims.

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.