Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8950 total)
33 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,083 Year: 22,119/19,786 Month: 682/1,834 Week: 182/500 Day: 10/69 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   People - I /was/ a Christian
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 241 of 307 (421911)
09-15-2007 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by crashfrog
09-14-2007 11:45 PM


Re: Runaway Train of thought!
I clearly have a lot less interest in the eternal struggle than you.

clearly! :P

I'm all for debate but when parties are at loggerheads, I'd like it to come to an end before the really nasty attacks start happening. You know?

i'm sorry, what?

what if god does not intervene in any appreciable way?

Then who gives a shit about him? We might as well all just be atheists if we're saddled with a do-nothing God. What's the difference?

well, objective reality is the difference then, isn't it? "might as well" and "is" are two different statements.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2007 11:45 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 307 (421913)
09-15-2007 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by arachnophilia
09-15-2007 12:22 AM


Re: Runaway Train of thought!
but ockham's razor doesn't say the small variables eliminated for the sake of simplicity don't exist.

I'm not saying that's how it works.

But the things that people make up in their imagination don't tend to exist, as a rule. If the only way to "know" anything about this supposed "God" is to just use your imagination, then that's a pretty strong indication that "God" is simply fantasy.

There's no conceivable way within our power to disprove a teapot orbiting Alpha Centuari. But the fact there's no reason to believe that there is such a teapot is a very strong indication that any teapots so in orbit are simply figments of our imagination.

Nonexistence is the "default" position in such cases. The position of nonexistence is always supported over existence when there's an absolute lack of evidence.

And honestly, you should know better. How many times around here have you heard people say that the burden of evidence is on those who propose the existence of something? Did you just not believe them? Surely this isn't the first time you've heard of this principle. If we're talking about a God who never takes action and is therefore completely undetectable, what possible reason is there to believe in that God? From what possible basis might anyone assert his existence, besides their own imagination? And why would we believe in a figment of someone's imagination? Just making things up is rarely a path to truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by arachnophilia, posted 09-15-2007 12:22 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by arachnophilia, posted 09-15-2007 12:45 AM crashfrog has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 243 of 307 (421914)
09-15-2007 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by crashfrog
09-15-2007 12:32 AM


Re: Runaway Train of thought!
Nonexistence is the "default" position in such cases. The position of nonexistence is always supported over existence when there's an absolute lack of evidence.

yes, it is. but the question is, how does one objectively determine the existence of the supernatural? can it be done?

And honestly, you should know better. How many times around here have you heard people say that the burden of evidence is on those who propose the existence of something? Did you just not believe them? Surely this isn't the first time you've heard of this principle. If we're talking about a God who never takes action and is therefore completely undetectable, what possible reason is there to believe in that God?

well, is it objective reality, or not? it seems that if it is, that's a pretty good reason.

we might liken it to something like sub-atomic particles. the implications thereof are actually so minute that no one in their right mind would have taken quantum mechanics seriously 200 years ago. what effect does it have, exactly, that you could objectively demonstrate given the tools of the 1800's? yet quarks are real, and we can appreciate the effects today, and tests can be formulated and executed. but 200 years ago, it would have just been "imagination."

the burden of proof is on the believer, yes. and that's a mighty fine debate technique -- but the inability to test or deliver evidence in a debate does not change objective reality, does it?

Just making things up is rarely a path to truth.

er, no, on the contrary. it's always the path to truth -- at least one step of it. you have to "just make up" explanations to formulate hypotheses -- which can then be tested. a lot of science (and math) comes from sitting around and daydreaming of possibilities. it is the application of those flights of fancy that matters.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by crashfrog, posted 09-15-2007 12:32 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by crashfrog, posted 09-15-2007 1:02 AM arachnophilia has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 307 (421915)
09-15-2007 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by arachnophilia
09-15-2007 12:45 AM


Re: Runaway Train of thought!
well, is it objective reality, or not?

Not, obviously. Why would we believe that it is if we're talking about something that can only be "known" by making things up about it?

yet quarks are real, and we can appreciate the effects today, and tests can be formulated and executed. but 200 years ago, it would have just been "imagination."

Quarks were not imagined until there was a need for them, to explain observation.

It's like you're thinking backwards on this, Arach. You're starting by just assuming what you want to be true - even if it's just to have the discussion - and then wondering if our positions change reality.

How does that make any sense? The question is, does God exist or not? The way we answer doesn't change his existence; rather, his existence or non-existence should change how we answer.

But that doesn't happen if you're just using your imagination. Unless you're looking at the evidence, God's existence or non-existence would have no effect on whether or not you come to the conclusion he exists.

Do you see what I'm saying? The power of the imagination is that it can imagine anything at all. It's not limited to what is true. Since it's unlimited in that regard, it, by itself, is not a path to truth.

er, no, on the contrary. it's always the path to truth -- at least one step of it.

Uh, I did say "just making things up", as in making things up and stopping, not making things up and then doing hypothesis testing against the physical evidence.

While imagination is clearly integral to the forming of scientific models, it's not a substitute for doing so. Imagination's power must be restrained by hypothesis testing if it's to guide us to truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by arachnophilia, posted 09-15-2007 12:45 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by arachnophilia, posted 09-15-2007 1:21 AM crashfrog has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 245 of 307 (421921)
09-15-2007 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by crashfrog
09-15-2007 1:02 AM


Re: Runaway Train of thought!
well, is it objective reality, or not?

Not, obviously.

well, yes, but you're only saying that subjectively, as there's no objective test handy. similarly, you might have said that about the sound only i could hear -- obviously it doesn't exist, because you can see no effect of it in your subjective perceptions, and i don't own a spectrum analyzer required to prove it to you.

It's like you're thinking backwards on this, Arach. You're starting by just assuming what you want to be true - even if it's just to have the discussion - and then wondering if our positions change reality.

well, not exactly. our positions don't change reality. you might be right. i might be right. one of us is wrong, objectively. the problem is, with only subjective ways to approach the problem, how do you say one way or the other objectively? you can't -- you can only state the logic that the likely position is nonexistence, not that your likelihood is the objective truth. for all you know, the objective measurement just hasn't been invented yet. and your statement does not change the objective reality, one way or the other. nor does mine.

How does that make any sense? The question is, does God exist or not? The way we answer doesn't change his existence; rather, his existence or non-existence should change how we answer.

exactly.

But that doesn't happen if you're just using your imagination. Unless you're looking at the evidence, God's existence or non-existence would have no effect on whether or not you come to the conclusion he exists.

unless, perhaps, my subjective experience is different than yours. i'm not saying it is, of course. but what's to say the crazy person who hears god is actually crazy? maybe he's just hearing something outside everyone else's perception. remember, i was percieved as delusional when i heard something that objectively existed when no one else did.

Uh, I did say "just making things up", as in making things up and stopping, not making things up and then doing hypothesis testing against the physical evidence.

oh, ok then.

While imagination is clearly integral to the forming of scientific models, it's not a substitute for doing so. Imagination's power must be restrained by hypothesis testing if it's to guide us to truth.

indeed. what test can be proposed here? i'll at least hand it to the IDiots, they at least try. even if they're full of shit. :P


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by crashfrog, posted 09-15-2007 1:02 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by crashfrog, posted 09-15-2007 1:46 AM arachnophilia has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 307 (421925)
09-15-2007 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by arachnophilia
09-15-2007 1:21 AM


Re: Runaway Train of thought!
obviously it doesn't exist, because you can see no effect of it in your subjective perceptions, and i don't own a spectrum analyzer required to prove it to you.

It wouldn't be unreasonable of me to disbelieve you until one was produced. And it would be pretty ridiculous not to produce one if the stakes of the argument rose to the level of the theism dispute. And indeed, if the spectrum analyzer showed nothing, that would be a mark against your position. Of course, it could be broken. If a second and third failed to detect the sound, a diagnosis of tinnitus on your part would become increasingly reasonable.

That's what it means to be a "skeptic." These questions aren't rendered undecidable by the subjectivity of experience.

one of us is wrong, objectively. the problem is, with only subjective ways to approach the problem, how do you say one way or the other objectively?

Suppose someone maintains the existence of the teapot in orbit. I maintain the non-existence.

Are you saying that, with absolutely no evidence for that teapot, both positions are equally likely? That doesn't make any sense. The way we determine the answer objectively is to look at the evidence. And the conspicuous lack of evidence supports the atheist's position.

but what's to say the crazy person who hears god is actually crazy?

You mean, besides the fact that he has a medically-diagnosed mental illness? See above where we covered replicating experiences. It's a characteristic of fictional or illusional experiences that individual accounts differ dramatically when people don't have a chance to confer. Don't make me repeat what I said about 30,000 Christian sects, etc.

indeed. what test can be proposed here?

Defining "God" in such a way that no test is possible doesn't help anything. Just because you (you, generally, "theists", not you specifically Arach) invalidate hypothesis testing by gaming the definition doesn't mean that you've established the veracity of pure imagination.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by arachnophilia, posted 09-15-2007 1:21 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by arachnophilia, posted 09-15-2007 5:21 AM crashfrog has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 247 of 307 (421955)
09-15-2007 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by crashfrog
09-15-2007 1:46 AM


Re: Runaway Train of thought!
It wouldn't be unreasonable of me to disbelieve you until one was produced. And it would be pretty ridiculous not to produce one if the stakes of the argument rose to the level of the theism dispute. And indeed, if the spectrum analyzer showed nothing, that would be a mark against your position. Of course, it could be broken. If a second and third failed to detect the sound, a diagnosis of tinnitus on your part would become increasingly reasonable.

not unreasonable, no. however, going around and telling my coworkers that i'm crazy might be.

That's what it means to be a "skeptic." These questions aren't rendered undecidable by the subjectivity of experience.

no, they're not, are they? but they are rendered undecidable by a lack of an ability to be tested.

Suppose someone maintains the existence of the teapot in orbit. I maintain the non-existence.

Are you saying that, with absolutely no evidence for that teapot, both positions are equally likely? That doesn't make any sense. The way we determine the answer objectively is to look at the evidence. And the conspicuous lack of evidence supports the atheist's position.

er, no, i'm saying that the inability to find evidence doesn't mean there isn't a teapot in orbit. that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. it might decrease the viability of an argument for presence -- but it doesn't change the objective facts. if there's a teapot in orbit, then your inability to find evidence for it is irrelevent.

though i think "satellite of alien origin" might be a better analogy than a teapot, which strongly suggests something of human origin, and vastly decreases the likelihood. you may argue that god is a human creation (indeed, the god of the bible almost certainly is), but that's not what i'm talking about at all.

You mean, besides the fact that he has a medically-diagnosed mental illness?

...well, be careful there. there are a lot of medically-diagnosed mental illnesses of yesteryear that are still in the DSM, but are no longer thought of socially as disorders. such as "gender identity disorder" for homosexuality.

See above where we covered replicating experiences. It's a characteristic of fictional or illusional experiences that individual accounts differ dramatically when people don't have a chance to confer. Don't make me repeat what I said about 30,000 Christian sects, etc.

you said you were a former fundamentalist. have you ever been to a pentecostal church? the kind that lays on the hands, and people fall over, and often hallucinate, "speak in tongues" and shake, and such? it's actually quite an interesting point of fact how common those sorts of experiences are. they all have the same basic hallmarks. similarly, alien abductions.

i don't think you'd argue that those are "real" phenomena; just part of the human brain. and they are. so i don't think the ability to replicate an experience is a good test for whether or not it's a delusion. but what is?

Defining "God" in such a way that no test is possible doesn't help anything. Just because you (you, generally, "theists", not you specifically Arach) invalidate hypothesis testing by gaming the definition doesn't mean that you've established the veracity of pure imagination.

er, you mean by defining god as supernatural? isn't that sort of the point of god? is a god that is not supernatural really a god? (not a rhetorical question -- i don't know)

but we don't do it to evade testing for god. that's just the definition of what god is -- i think you'll find many theists these days are more happy to try to define as god as more natural, like the ID crowd who have proposed a (ridiculously moot) test. but the problem comes about because naturalism inherently rejects the supernatural, as there is no way to demonstrate it, and all indication is that it doesn't make much difference. you cannot demonstrate god through scientific means, by definition. why can you demonstrate god in the negative, but not the affirmative? seems rigged to me; a double standard.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by crashfrog, posted 09-15-2007 1:46 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by crashfrog, posted 09-15-2007 1:36 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 307 (422004)
09-15-2007 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by arachnophilia
09-15-2007 5:21 AM


Re: Runaway Train of thought!
not unreasonable, no. however, going around and telling my coworkers that i'm crazy might be.

Well, we might very well diagnose you with a mental disorder that caused auditory hallucinations if we couldn't detect the sound, and if the other characteristics of tinnitus weren't present.

I mean, people have mental illnesses. You might be one of them. I agree that it's generally an insult to call someone "crazy", but there does come a point when a person's behavior and experiences are clearly indicative of mental illness. That's probably not a conclusion to jump to immediately but it's not one that should be ruled out without investigation, either.

er, no, i'm saying that the inability to find evidence doesn't mean there isn't a teapot in orbit.

But that's exactly what it indicates. With absolutely no reason to believe in the teapot, it's much less reasonable to assert existence than non-existence. Non-existence is the much more reasonable conclusion.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, because that's exactly what it looks like when things are absent. Absence of evidence is a successful prediction of absence.

if there's a teapot in orbit, then your inability to find evidence for it is irrelevent.

But that's nonsense. The actual existence of the teapot must be relevant, because its existence should be the determining factor for whether or not we say that it exists. Otherwise we're constructing models that have no basis in reality. And indeed if there is such a teapot, finding evidence of it is only difficult, not impossible. The lack of evidence is not irrelevant; it's the determining factor in regards to whether or not a reasonable person should maintain its existence.

...well, be careful there.

You did specify a crazy person, remember. I can only draw inferences from your examples as you present them.

have you ever been to a pentecostal church? the kind that lays on the hands, and people fall over, and often hallucinate, "speak in tongues" and shake, and such? it's actually quite an interesting point of fact how common those sorts of experiences are.

I feel like you're not reading all that closely. Let me repeat what I said:

quote:
It's a characteristic of fictional or illusional experiences that individual accounts differ dramatically when people don't have a chance to confer.

You're talking about a situation where everybody is doing the same thing because they've all seen each other do the same thing.

That wasn't what I was talking about at all. It's no surprise when people who have a chance to get their stories straight with each other wind up telling the same story. The question is, what do they report on their own?

On their own, nobody's religion seems to agree with anybody else's. That's why there's 30,000 individual denominations of Christianity alone.

they all have the same basic hallmarks. similarly, alien abductions.

Interestingly, people who reported alien abductions only started having the same abductions - grey, almond-eyed aliens, pseudosexual probing/experiments, beams of light, conscious paralysis, etc - once stories of "Greys" abducting people for experiments became popular in culture. Previous to that there was something like 200 different "alien species" - men in black, bat-people, lizard-men, etc - abducting human beings. Now it's just greys, pretty much.

That's what I'm talking about. There are already societal narratives telling people what an abduction is "supposed" to be like. Similarly, people in the Pentacostal church have an established template of what being "filled with the Holy Spirit" or whatever is supposed to look like, and they play the role.

But people whose church doesn't offer that framework don't do the same things. Catholics don't get up and start speaking in tongues in the middle of the benediction. They're rarely slain in the spirit or whatever. You don't see Methodists handling snakes. (Except for Methodist herpetologists, of course.)

so i don't think the ability to replicate an experience is a good test for whether or not it's a delusion.

But that's exactly the best test - in the proper environment. The environment where people are getting cues from each other on how to all act the same way is an invalid environment. When you take people out of the Pentecostal church, they rarely keep speaking in tongues.

That's why replicatability is the hallmark of the scientific method - because that's how you distinguish the real results from the mistaken or delusional ones.

Honestly I'm not sure what to make of the fact that you keep ignoring crucial qualifiers in my statements. Can you help me understand that?

er, you mean by defining god as supernatural?

No, I meant defining God as someone who never takes action, and therefore makes no effect on the universe.

"Supernatural" doesn't have anything to do with it; indeed, that's a word that has no meaning (outside of the Dungeons and Dragons Monster Manual.)

that's just the definition of what god is

I know you're talking about "supernatural", but I'm not. It has nothing to do with God being supernatural. It has everything to do with God being interventionist. If God intervenes, then he has an effect on the universe that can be detected. Answered prayers, etc.

And I would venture to say that only a minuscule number of believers posit a God who takes no interest or intervention in his universe. Most people believe in a God of answered prayer, and that God can be dismissed by the fact that no God is actually answering prayer.

you cannot demonstrate god through scientific means, by definition.

quote:
Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

I don't see where "undemonstratable" is any part of that definition. I know that God is often held to be undemonstratable, but that position is inconsistent with the properties of God as defined by most.

Only the completely non-interventionist God is truly non-demonstratable, and there's sound philosophical reasons to reject his existence, which I have described above.

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by arachnophilia, posted 09-15-2007 5:21 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1388 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 249 of 307 (422009)
09-15-2007 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by crashfrog
09-14-2007 4:22 PM


Re: Trapped By His Own Argument
There's no such thing as a real Christian in real communion with God, because there's no such thing as God.

And 2Thessalonians told us why you believe this to be true: God has deluded your mind as a punishment for scorning His Son.

The writers of the Bible weren't stupid. Naturally, they included verses you could use to mentally inoculate yourself from the testimony of ex-believers.

We have an explanation for your admitted delusion.

Since the verses were written in the First century it explains your self-admitted delusion. The verses correspond perfectly to your testimony and provide the real reason for your present deluded state: you scorned Christ and God has punished you with a "strong delusion."

The textual evidence explains your testimony.

The point is that we have an explanation and it fits the facts of your admissions perfectly, any objective person can see this.

2Thessalonians 2:11, 12

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness {= rejecting faith to relate to Christ until results are achieved}.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2007 4:22 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by crashfrog, posted 09-15-2007 2:09 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 252 by iceage, posted 09-15-2007 2:30 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 286 by LinearAq, posted 10-01-2007 1:56 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1388 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 250 of 307 (422011)
09-15-2007 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by bluegenes
09-13-2007 10:23 PM


Re: Ex-Christians
How many Christians have you ex-communicated on this thread, Ray? If you keep on like this all your life, you'll be the only one in heaven when your time comes. You'll be lonely.

There is no evidence supporting Arach's claim that he is a Christian.

Everything he says corresponds to well known Atheist viewpoint, therefore, logically, he is an Atheist.

Are Catholics Christians?

Of course.

Ray

Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by bluegenes, posted 09-13-2007 10:23 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 251 of 307 (422014)
09-15-2007 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Cold Foreign Object
09-15-2007 1:54 PM


Re: Trapped By His Own Argument
And 2Thessalonians told us why you believe this to be true: God has deluded your mind as a punishment for scorning His Son.

Or, much more likely, it's because there's no God, and the Bible simply says what it says because the writers predicted that ex-Christians would otherwise be a big problem for the success of their religion. I'm certainly not the first atheist who has ever lived.

We have an explanation for your admitted delusion.

And an explanation for yours. I don't expect you to admit it, of course. The Bible writers weren't stupid. Why wouldn't they have provided you, in the Bible, with a convenient way to dismiss the inconvenient testimony of ex-Christians?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-15-2007 1:54 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4255 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 252 of 307 (422021)
09-15-2007 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Cold Foreign Object
09-15-2007 1:54 PM


Re: Trapped By His Own Argument
Ray the context of your quoted scripture of 2 Thessalonians 2 is not the context that you are trying to use against Crashfrog. Try to be honest. His admitted de-conversion and your alleged delusion did not involve signs or wonders.

The context of the 2 Thessalonians 2 is concerned with those admiring and swayed by signs and wonders. The context is that the Antichrist will come with power, with signs and with lying wonders. Somehow I suspect this Crashfrog fellow would not be easily swayed by signs and wonders.

Actually the context of the quoted scripture could be used against the current pentecostal fads and even some moderate Christians that I know. These people are primed for the deception because they want to desperately believe and are ready for a lie. They have abandoned healthy skepticism in exchange of seductive promises. The funny part is that they actively lie and deceive each other that only results in building faith and increasing the strength of their shared delusion.

I recently had an encounter of this in my local area with a latter day rain pentecostal church that claims to be receiving Gemstones from Heaven. Evidently "God will send them a strong delusion".

BTW, I bumped the post of yours in the parasite thread. If you don't mind could you expound further on your references to Satanic creation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-15-2007 1:54 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-15-2007 5:00 PM iceage has responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1388 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 253 of 307 (422051)
09-15-2007 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by iceage
09-15-2007 2:30 PM


Re: Trapped By His Own Argument
Ray the context of your quoted scripture of 2 Thessalonians 2 is not the context that you are trying to use against Crashfrog. Try to be honest. His admitted de-conversion and your alleged delusion did not involve signs or wonders.

Since you questioned my honesty: it is an axiomatic truth that Atheists (like yourself) cannot be honest or objective about the Source which falsifies their worldview.

You are just plain wrong about the context (which supports the axiom argued above). The context of verses 11 and 12 is verse 10:

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

This says persons rejected the love of Christ "that they might be saved." God tells us the penalty of scorning His Son in the next two verses. Crashfrog has admitted delusion, the verses tells us the Source of the delusion and why.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by iceage, posted 09-15-2007 2:30 PM iceage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by jar, posted 09-15-2007 5:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 255 by iceage, posted 09-15-2007 5:39 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 256 by Chiroptera, posted 09-15-2007 5:46 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31772
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 254 of 307 (422058)
09-15-2007 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Cold Foreign Object
09-15-2007 5:00 PM


Re: Trapped By His Own Argument
Do you ever even read the Bible Ray?

2 Thessalonians is short, only three chapters, so folk can read the whole thing IN context.

2 Thessalonians

First it is a letter to a specific church relating to a specific issue that church faced at that specific time.

Second, you are misrepresenting the contents. The whole issue relates to those who might issue specific prophecies.

The readers can look at the whole letter and read it in context.

Does your constant Blaspheming of the Holy Spirit bother you?

Edited by jar, : fix spelling and add info on chapters


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-15-2007 5:00 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-16-2007 6:27 PM jar has responded

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4255 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 255 of 307 (422060)
09-15-2007 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Cold Foreign Object
09-15-2007 5:00 PM


Bible study
Ray writes:

it is an axiomatic truth that Atheists (like yourself) cannot be honest or objective about the Source which falsifies their worldview.

Since you cannot be objective or honest about the "Source" that must mean you are an atheists - by your own logic - axiomatically speaking. :)

Let's have a look at what you say next....

Ray writes:

You are just plain wrong about the context (which supports the axiom argued above). The context of verses 11 and 12 is verse 10

Verse 10 even starts with a conjunction to remove doubt that it connects with verse 9.

2 thessalonian 2 writes:


9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie

I thought maybe my reading of the text was inaccurate so I looked around for other opinions. Here's one....

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/proph/savetrib.htm

MiddleTownBibleChurch writes:

The deceivableness and delusion mentioned in verses 10-11 is linked to verse 9 (note especially the phrase "lying wonders"). I understand this passage to be saying that these people will be deceived by means of the Satanic miracles which will be taking place during the tribulation in connection with the man of sin. Again this is a post-rapture context, not a pre-rapture context.

My emphasis...

The verse does *not* apply in the manner you really really want to apply it.

As in the parasite thread when the text does not support your world view you innovate.

Edited by iceage, : Attribution


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-15-2007 5:00 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-16-2007 6:15 PM iceage has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019