Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
39 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Upcoming Birthdays: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,377 Year: 18,413/19,786 Month: 833/1,705 Week: 85/518 Day: 11/74 Hour: 3/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus Among Secular Gods
Faith
Member
Posts: 33255
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 76 of 94 (864003)
10-05-2019 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by GDR
10-04-2019 5:34 PM


Re: Biblical Understanding
The problem though is that in actuality you don't read the Bible through the lens of Jesus. You understand the Bible as being inerrant, so that if the Bible says that God commanded His followers to publicly stone people to death or to commit genocide then you believe that to be historical. That though is completely incompatible with Jesus' command to love your enemy, turn the other cheek etc, The enemy at that time was considered to be the Romans, and that specifically at the time was who Jesus would be referring to. Your understanding of inerrancy is also completely incompatible with Jesus telling them to release the woman caught in adultery.

Jesus came to save in His first Advent. He will come in vengeance when He comes the second time. This is very clear in what he read in the synagogue in Isaiah about His mission to comfort, when He left out the line about God's vengeance, which is pushed forward to the Second Coming. We live in the salvation dispensation.

Jesus also does not teach about judgment on whole nations, except for the prophecy of the fall of the temple in 70 AD, but that was a major theme in the Old Testament, one I believe we are to take to heart in relation to our nation and all nations today. I believe the US is under Judgment by God and if we don't repent things can only get worse. But Jesus taught us as individuals, not as nations.

It is a choice. As a Christian you can believe that the "Word" of God is a library of books or it is Jesus. It can't be both.

Yes it can, and it is.

For that matter the Bible says that in Jesus the "Word" was made flesh. Neither the Bible nor Jesus says that the "Word" was embodied by a book.

Both are God's communications to the human race, and they do not contradict each other.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by GDR, posted 10-04-2019 5:34 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31455
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 77 of 94 (864013)
10-05-2019 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Thugpreacha
10-05-2019 12:58 AM


Re: Mr. Bigshot. Who do you think you are?
Phat writes:

Do you believe that He has absolute power?

Do I believe that Jesus will be the individual judging me after I die? Is that the question?

Or are you asking if I believe a GOD has absolute power?

Phat writes:

Who do *you* say that I am?

You always duck and dodge this one, preferring to teach the Bible from a neutral and objectively independent standpoint.

Try to learn to read and then actually remember what you have read.

Have I ever posted that I agree with the Nicene Creed?

Are you aware of how it begins? What are the first two words of the Nicene Creed?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-05-2019 12:58 AM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-05-2019 9:00 AM jar has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12961
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 78 of 94 (864014)
10-05-2019 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by jar
10-05-2019 7:57 AM


Re: Mr. Bigshot. Who do you think you are?
jar writes:

Have I ever posted that I agree with the Nicene Creed?

Not specifically. You once said something to the effect of "If it comes down to going with the Creed or Logic, Reason, & Reality I will have to go with the latter". I assumed that you agreed largely with the Creed in regards to your personal beliefs because, for one, you called yourself a Cradle Creedal Christian. What that means, I'm not clear on. I'm assuming that it means that you are not self-classified as a "Protestant" yet more of an "Anglican" and specifically an "Episcopalian" based upon your school/church days with old Pastor Joe Wood. It seems many of your beliefs originated from those days. Without knowing you, though I always try, I am assuming that because of the story of the Warlord, you developed the belief that God saves everybody. I'm also guessing that somewhere in your family, perhaps one of your parents, you developed the belief that most Biblical Christians were liars, carny sideshow PT Barnumesque hucksters, and dishonest.
So a question to ask you is this: What is the difference between a Biblical Christian (by your definition the CCoI) and a modern-day Anglican,(we used to discuss John Shelby Spong if I recall correctly) and/or Episcopalian Christian.

Just as an aside, I can never get an argument started with you because you keep trying to reframe the discussion into what *you* want it to say. You break up the flow with questions (which is valid, I suppose) and with statements that disrupt the thrust of my argument while boasting about your position being superior to mine by default.

Two prominent examples of such distracting sentences are "Have you ever read the Bible, Phat?" and.."This is just word salad."

( I just want the audience to note your strategy in a debate. Not to say it doesn't work but its rude and condescending. It probably is a lot like the position you took on the porch many years ago...that old porch painted with army surplus battle gray paint.)...

quote:
The evenings were long and the conversations often heated. When the weather allowed we’d sit out on the porch, arguing while we waited for our turn up on the ping-pong table, when bad we’d sit around in the front room, or visit one of the Master’s houses where we could huddle in front of the open fire letting ideas rise like sparks from the logs.

It was there, in those long conversations where some of the questions raised by Father Joe and my parents began to get resolved. It was a period of opening horizons, my every belief being challenged by minds as quick and intensive as my own, by experience far greater than my own and by whole new moral systems, the Works of Mencius, the Gnostic Gospels, the philosophies of Greece and Germany, the writings of Thoreau and Frost and Twain and Lewis and Tolkein and Hemingway and Camus and Seller and Yeatman.
It was when some of the things became clear.
{...}A GOD that chooses who will be saved doesn’t make sense. A GOD that creates all and then goes through and picks and chooses who will be saved is just plain cruel and arbitrary and not something to be worshiped.

A GOD that wants to be worshiped is just too silly a thought. Maybe some picayune God might worry about what folk thought of Her, like the little girl who worries that her corsage might not be right, too big, or too small, or the guy that worries about his tie not being in style or that people think he looks funny, but GOD cannot be so insecure.

The idea of “Once saved always saved” just made no sense. That’s one of those simplistic ideas that gives folk an out. “Anyone who does something really wrong obviously wasn’t saved in the first place”, or so their argument went. That just felt way too much like a copout and just another example of mental gymnastics, a way of cheating and making excuses.

I think maybe the Honor System was beginning to change from just a set of rules to a way of life.


OK, here are my responses had I been on that porch many years ago.

  • Assertion: A GOD that chooses who will be saved doesn’t make sense. A GOD that creates all and then goes through and picks and chooses who will be saved is just plain cruel and arbitrary and not something to be worshiped. I believe that God allows us to choose to be saved. This is based on belief and trust. To me, it makes no sense to simply save everybody right off the bat and then expect them to have to earn credit through what they do versus what they could have done. How would anyone know they had worked hard enough or done enough? It would cause anxiety in life...forever wondering whether to spend money on a Starbucks latte or give it away to yet another homeless person begging outside of the supermarket. Are we called to deprive ourselves of life confident only in the fact that everyone starts out saved rather than damned? Are we to throw God away, ignoring the ever-present judge, jury, and executioner as well as the defense attorney who gets us off the hook?

  • Assertion: A GOD that wants to be worshiped is just too silly a thought. Maybe some picayune God might worry about what folk thought of Her, like the little girl who worries that her corsage might not be right, too big, or too small, or the guy that worries about his tie not being in style or that people think he looks funny, but GOD cannot be so insecure.
    I believe that God wants us to worship Him precisely because it humbles us and takes our mind off of our own flesh and ego. I will agree with you and ringo when you say to obey the message and charge to feed, clothe, and help others rather than just yourself. I believe that God wants us to worship Him because He knows it will help us grow. It's not like the Monty Python clip, after all:
    Monty Python: Oh Lord! You Are So Big!

  • Assertion: The idea of “Once saved always saved” just made no sense.
    All that it means is that once God chooses you, He will be faithful to help you finish the race with dignity. If you simply throw Him away, what good is your religion anyway? You are nothing more than a secular humanist who is not religious nor has any belief in a higher power yet who feeds the poor, thinks of others before himself, and is unchanged except through his daily actions. On the other hand, at least you would have a life of honor.

    jar writes:

    Are you aware of how it begins? What are the first two words of the Nicene Creed?

    I believe...

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

    You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

    “As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.”
    ? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 77 by jar, posted 10-05-2019 7:57 AM jar has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 79 by jar, posted 10-05-2019 9:51 AM Thugpreacha has responded

      
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 31455
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004
    Member Rating: 3.0


    Message 79 of 94 (864015)
    10-05-2019 9:51 AM
    Reply to: Message 78 by Thugpreacha
    10-05-2019 9:00 AM


    Re: Mr. Bigshot. Who do you think you are?
    LOL

    Anglicans and Episcopalians ARE Protestants Phat.

    Phat writes:

    So a question to ask you is this: What is the difference between a Biblical Christian (by your definition the CCoI) and a modern-day Anglican,(we used to discuss John Shelby Spong if I recall correctly) and/or Episcopalian Christian.

    They are different chapters of Club Christian.

    Phat writes:

    You are nothing more than a secular humanist who is not religious nor has any belief in a higher power yet who feeds the poor, thinks of others before himself, and is unchanged except through his daily actions.

    Why would anyone strive to be more than a secular humanist who is not religious nor has any belief in a higher power yet who feeds the poor, thinks of others before himself, and is unchanged except through his daily actions?

    I do not want to be more than any other person, only more than I was yesterday.

    Phat writes:

    To me, it makes no sense to simply save everybody right off the bat and then expect them to have to earn credit through what they do versus what they could have done. How would anyone know they had worked hard enough or done enough? It would cause anxiety in life...forever wondering whether to spend money on a Starbucks latte or give it away to yet another homeless person begging outside of the supermarket.

    As I have repeatedly said, marketing the "Get Outta Hell Card" is a great product that is legal and carries no product liability.

    If you know I subscribe to the Nicene Creed and what the first two words of the Nicene Creed happen to say, why are you asking me what I believe?


    My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 78 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-05-2019 9:00 AM Thugpreacha has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 80 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-05-2019 12:02 PM jar has responded

      
    Thugpreacha
    Member
    Posts: 12961
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 80 of 94 (864016)
    10-05-2019 12:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 79 by jar
    10-05-2019 9:51 AM


    Who Does jar say that I AM? (A Character in a book?)
    jar writes:

    Why would anyone strive to be more than a secular humanist who is not religious nor has any belief in a higher power yet who feeds the poor, thinks of others before himself, and is unchanged except through his daily actions?
    I do not want to be more than any other person, only more than I was yesterday.

    So to one man, belief in the supernatural Jesus (as marketed) is akin to drinking the kool aid, whereas to others it serves as a form of insurance. Blessed Assurance . We want to be saved and we want others to feel special also. Perhaps it is an unhealthy way of looking at the world: The Saved and The Lost.
    jar writes:

    If you know I subscribe to the Nicene Creed and what the first two words of the Nicene Creed happen to say, why are you asking me what I believe?

    Because I find it amazing that for all the times you have read the Bible, you get something different out of it that the apologists, some of whom I respect, can't find.

    And while I respect the Scientific Method and critical thinking to a degree, I feel that you won't allow the God(s) whom you study to be approachable. You always ask how this would be done. I'm beginning to suspect that at least three of you (jar,ringo, and Stile) say that you would be open to any objective methodology, yet wouldn't like God if He were as we believers see Him as. Which means to me that you were indeed meant to be different.


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

    You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

    “As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.”
    ? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 79 by jar, posted 10-05-2019 9:51 AM jar has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 81 by jar, posted 10-05-2019 12:36 PM Thugpreacha has responded
     Message 85 by Tangle, posted 10-05-2019 4:54 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

      
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 31455
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004
    Member Rating: 3.0


    Message 81 of 94 (864019)
    10-05-2019 12:36 PM
    Reply to: Message 80 by Thugpreacha
    10-05-2019 12:02 PM


    Re: Who Does jar say that I AM? (A Character in a book?)
    Phat writes:

    Because I find it amazing that for all the times you have read the Bible, you get something different out of it that the apologists, some of whom I respect, can't find.

    The difference Phat is that I am honest about what is actually in the Bible while the Apologists make stuff up to make the Bible wsay what they want it to say rather than be honest and admit it actually says what is written.

    They are Apologists; people whose sole profession is to find ways to apologize for the fact that the Bible says what is actually written rather than what their fantasy demands.


    My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 80 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-05-2019 12:02 PM Thugpreacha has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 82 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-05-2019 2:36 PM jar has responded

      
    Thugpreacha
    Member
    Posts: 12961
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 82 of 94 (864031)
    10-05-2019 2:36 PM
    Reply to: Message 81 by jar
    10-05-2019 12:36 PM


    No True Apologists Fallacy
    jar and I are going on about Christian Apologists.

    Now I want to focus on Christian Apologetics.

    Wiki writes:

    Some prominent modern apologists are Douglas Groothuis, Frederick Copleston, John Lennox, Walter R. Martin, Dinesh D'Souza, Douglas Wilson, Cornelius Van Til, Gordon Clark, Francis Schaeffer, Greg Bahnsen, Edward John Carnell, James White, R.C. Sproul, Hank Hanegraaff, Ravi Zacharias, Alister McGrath, Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, Peter Kreeft, G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis, William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, Hugh Ross, David Bentley Hart, Gary Habermas, Norman Geisler Scott Hahn and RC Kunst.[17]
    Notable apologists within the Catholic Church include Bishop Robert Barron,[18] G. K. Chesterton,[19] Dr. Scott Hahn, Patrick Madrid, Kenneth Hensley,[20] Karl Keating, Ronald Knox, Peter Kreeft.

    Let's see what the internet definition is:

    Wiki writes:

    Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse.[1][2][3] Early Christian writers (c. 120–220) who defended their beliefs against critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called Christian apologists.[4] In 21st-century usage, apologetics is often identified with debates over religion and theology.


    Websters writes:

    Definition of apologist
    : one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something


    You make it seem like they have to lie to dare interpret the Bible differently than you and a *few* others do.

    Wiki writes:

    Christian apologetics (Greek: ἀπολογία, "verbal defence, speech in defence")[1] is a branch of Christian theology that defends Christianity against objections.[2]

    Christian apologetics has taken many forms over the centuries, starting with Paul the Apostle in the early church and Patristic writers such as Origen, Augustine of Hippo, Justin Martyr and Tertullian, then continuing with writers such as Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham and Anselm of Canterbury during Scholasticism.

    Blaise Pascal was an active Christian apologist before the Age of Enlightenment. In the modern period, Christianity was defended through the efforts of many authors such as G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis, as well as G. E. M. Anscombe.


    Based on what I have researched so far, there were not a large number of apologists. In addition, I can agree that some of them may have been defending a fantasy...what they wanted the Bible to say versus what it said. You always charged that the Apostle Paul was trying to start a new religion. Perhaps he represents the first apologist. Wiki seems to think so. One of Pauls' early arguments concerned Jews themselves.
    Rom 9:1-19 writes:

    I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
    6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac, your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son."

    10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."
    14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

    NKJV
    What criticism do you, whose mother was Jewish, have concerning Paul's apologetics concerning the hardening of Israel's heart? Perhaps the same condition could exist today among Christians who believe that they were chosen (grafted in) and are now in the same boat as the early Jews? Of course, you may save us a step and say that all are called...not just Jews and not just believers. It certainly is something God could set up.

    jar writes:

    The difference Phat is that I am honest about what is actually in the Bible while the Apologists make stuff up to make the Bible say what they want it to say rather than be honest and admit it actually says what is written.

    Let me get this straight. You are essentially claiming that our gun-toting Eisenhower conservative ( Jay from Deep South Texas )is as honest as the day is long in regards to reporting and defending what the Bible actually literally says while the whole mess of Apologists which I just googled a bunch of their names are liars defending a fantasy. Am I right so far? Are you indicting all of them?
    jar writes:

    They are Apologists; people whose sole profession is to find ways to apologize for the fact that the Bible says what is actually written rather than what their fantasy demands.


    Assuming belief to be fantasy,(and coming from a self-professed member of Club Christian: Episcopalian Chapter) you have an apology of your own. Granted it impresses and sways the Atheists, largely because they use the same lines of reasoning that you do. I always called you the Apostle to the Atheists.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

    You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

    “As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.”
    ? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 81 by jar, posted 10-05-2019 12:36 PM jar has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 83 by jar, posted 10-05-2019 3:02 PM Thugpreacha has responded

      
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 31455
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004
    Member Rating: 3.0


    Message 83 of 94 (864034)
    10-05-2019 3:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 82 by Thugpreacha
    10-05-2019 2:36 PM


    Re: No True Apologists Fallacy
    Phat writes:

    What criticism do you, whose mother was Jewish, have concerning Paul's apologetics concerning the hardening of Israel's heart?

    Jesus mother was Jewish, my mother was a Presbyterian.

    Phat writes:

    You are essentially claiming that our gun-toting Eisenhower conservative ( Jay from Deep South Texas )is as honest as the day is long in regards to reporting and defending what the Bible actually literally says while the whole mess of Apologists which I just googled a bunch of their names are liars defending a fantasy.

    Phat, Phat, Phat. When have I ever interpreted what the Bible says? I try very hard NOT to interpret and instead say "Look, here is what is actually written. Don't believe what I say, go read what is actually written."


    My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 82 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-05-2019 2:36 PM Thugpreacha has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 84 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-05-2019 3:06 PM jar has responded

      
    Thugpreacha
    Member
    Posts: 12961
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 84 of 94 (864035)
    10-05-2019 3:06 PM
    Reply to: Message 83 by jar
    10-05-2019 3:02 PM


    Re: No True Apologists Fallacy
    well, it still puzzles me. I cant see a whole religion lying to itself. I think its more likely that there actually is some sort of spiritual war and that very few people see the truth.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

    You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

    “As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.”
    ? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 83 by jar, posted 10-05-2019 3:02 PM jar has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 86 by jar, posted 10-05-2019 4:56 PM Thugpreacha has responded
     Message 87 by ringo, posted 10-06-2019 2:08 PM Thugpreacha has responded

      
    Tangle
    Member
    Posts: 7085
    From: UK
    Joined: 10-07-2011
    Member Rating: 3.8


    Message 85 of 94 (864037)
    10-05-2019 4:54 PM
    Reply to: Message 80 by Thugpreacha
    10-05-2019 12:02 PM


    Re: Who Does jar say that I AM? (A Character in a book?)
    Phat writes:

    I'm beginning to suspect that at least three of you (jar,ringo, and Stile) say that you would be open to any objective methodology

    Five. But also the entire scientific world.

    yet wouldn't like God if He were as we believers see Him as.

    And just how would that be? Of just the 4 'orthodox' Christian believers here, there are four radical different ideas of what those gods are.

    It seems to me that because you all make god up in your own heads there are as many Christian gods as there are Christians.

    Which means to me that you were indeed meant to be different.

    Actually all atheists don't believe in exactly the same god. There is no difference between our non-belief.


    Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

    "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

    "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
    - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 80 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-05-2019 12:02 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

      
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 31455
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004
    Member Rating: 3.0


    Message 86 of 94 (864038)
    10-05-2019 4:56 PM
    Reply to: Message 84 by Thugpreacha
    10-05-2019 3:06 PM


    Re: No True Apologists Fallacy
    What's there to puzzle you? You can check anything I say simply by going a reading what is actually written in the Bible stories or Creeds.

    Phat writes:

    I cant see a whole religion lying to itself.

    Does the Book of the Dead exist? Were their several religions that were convinced and in fact implemented the provision outlined in the Book of the Dead? Were there not Priests that taught the actuality of the need to have an intact body in the afterlife?

    Do the Vedas exist? Is there not a whole religion based on the stories in the Vedas being actual accounts of what has and will happens?

    Does the Glorious Qu'ran exist? Are there not several religions based on the stories in the Qu'ran being actual accounts of what has and will happens?

    Religions often grow based on marketing and coercion; either "Belong to this religion or you cannot get a job" or "Belong to this religion or die" or "Belong to this religion and you will get saved" or "Belong to this religion and get wealthy".

    FUD (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt) were not developed by NCR & IBM.


    My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 84 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-05-2019 3:06 PM Thugpreacha has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 88 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-06-2019 2:48 PM jar has responded

      
    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 17395
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 2.6


    Message 87 of 94 (864061)
    10-06-2019 2:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 84 by Thugpreacha
    10-05-2019 3:06 PM


    Re: No True Apologists Fallacy
    Phat writes:

    I cant see a whole religion lying to itself.


    It's very simple. Bring the apologetics here and we'll see whether they are lying or not.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 84 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-05-2019 3:06 PM Thugpreacha has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 89 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-06-2019 3:08 PM ringo has responded

      
    Thugpreacha
    Member
    Posts: 12961
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 88 of 94 (864067)
    10-06-2019 2:48 PM
    Reply to: Message 86 by jar
    10-05-2019 4:56 PM


    Re: No True Apologists Fallacy
    jar writes:

    Religions often grow based on marketing and coercion

    And your point? Is this an excuse not to belong to one? Ask yourself if you are skeptical of human nature in general or of Biblical Christians and Apologists specifically. Then ask yourself what you dislike and why and how your criticism was founded.

    The question is really simple. Does Jesus exist? Not "did he at one time exist? Not...a mere human who taught us what it means to be human. Not a story told around a campfire. If you can call yourself a Christian and yet say that humans can learn from the stories and to throw God away, I suggest that you are lying. To yourself. It is honest to say that "I don't know". What is dishonest is telling yourself that you know. It is, in my opinion, also dishonest to call yourself a Christian and yet not know if GOD exists. Jesus had no such problem.

    Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

    You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

    “As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.”
    ? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 86 by jar, posted 10-05-2019 4:56 PM jar has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 92 by jar, posted 10-06-2019 5:56 PM Thugpreacha has responded

      
    Thugpreacha
    Member
    Posts: 12961
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 89 of 94 (864070)
    10-06-2019 3:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 87 by ringo
    10-06-2019 2:08 PM


    Re: No True Apologists Fallacy
    ringo writes:

    Bring the apologetics here and we'll see whether they are lying or not.

    Jesus Among Secular Gods writes:

    Humanism, secular humanism at least, is inextricably tied to the relativization of truth and of ethics. Humans are the measure of all things. Well, then, this measure is relative to which human person? Which human culture? Which human age? No answers are forthcoming. In this way, the failure of humanism and the failure of relativism are inextricably intertwined. All value is reduced to value according to the preferences and biases of this or that person, culture, or age.

    EvC Critics will argue that the thrust of the argument challenging Christianity is mainly scientific facts and/or lack of apologetic facts. jar often argues that one can learn from the stories themselves and that one can learn equally from other stories and other cultures. He also argues that there is no way to know God apart from the characters in the book...which ringo also eagerly agrees with.

    The basic argument of the apologists Zacharias and Vitale is this:

    Jesus Among Secular Gods (p. 162). writes:

    Amid the confusion of the relativism mandated by secular humanism, Jesus makes an absolute claim about what it means to be human.(...) I see four clear distinctives that bring the chronological and the logical together:
    Creation
    Incarnation
    Transformation
    Consummation
    This sequence defines the Christian message of what being human really means.
    (...)The fact is that even scientists simply do not make a convincing case for an “earthbound” theory of origins. I do not speak of processes. I speak of the starting point. Science has to remain silent on it at this point, and that is why we see differences within the disciplines. Here, for example, are Hoyle and Wickramasinghe as they calculated the odds that all the functional proteins necessary for life might form in one place by random events—a staggering 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000th power. They conclude, “It is an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.”2

    Hoyle concludes in his book Intelligent Universe: Life could not have originated here on earth nor does it look as though biological evolution can be explained from within an earthbound theory of life. Genes from outside the earth are needed to drive the evolutionary process. This much can be consolidated by strictly scientific means, by experiment, observation, and calculation.3 He goes on to posit instead the possibility of a panspermia theory of origins. If science is willing to suspend judgment on ultimate origins, is it too much to ask that a Designer also be in the mix of possibilities?


    Essentially, the apologetic arguments focus on the need to acknowledge God as part of what it means to be human. They argue that throwing God away or going on as if he doesn't exist will not lead to complete life.
    Zacharias, Ravi. Jesus Among Secular Gods (p. 165). FaithWords. Kindle Edition. writes:

    King Solomon, who knew enough about the law though he flaunted it, said, “The path of the righteous is like the morning sun, shining ever brighter till the full light of day” (Proverbs 4:18). He went on to say that the “whole duty” of man was to “keep God’s commandments” (Ecclesiastes 12:13 KJV). He spoke from the perspective of someone who struggled with a derelict lifestyle, finding out he had been “chasing after the wind” (Ecclesiastes 1:14).

    The very word law evokes rebellion within our hearts. When you look at the Mosaic Law, there are 613 laws given in total. They were divided into the moral, ceremonial, and civic codes. As the Hebrew Scriptures unfold, you see other prophets distilling them down to their core and essence. In Psalm 15, David reduces them to eleven. Isaiah in 1:16–18 brings them down to six. Micah in 6:8 narrows them down to three: to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly before your God. Habakkuk in 2:4 sees the law in its core relationship between man and God and states it in one law—that the “just would live by his faith” (KJV).

    If you remove the third of Micah’s three imperatives (to walk humbly before your God), you are left with the same terminology as humanism espouses: justice and compassion. The foundational difference between the two is the third imperative, walking humbly before God.

    How do we know this?

    When Jesus was teaching on the law, two trick questions were placed before Him. The first was whether it was right to pay taxes to Caesar. Jesus brilliantly asked the questioner for a coin. When the man produced the coin, Jesus asked him whose image he saw on the coin. The answer unhesitatingly given was that it was Caesar. Jesus promptly said, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Matthew 22:21). This was truly a defining moment. The taxation burden on the Jew was huge, and he resented having to pay it. But then came the silence that ought not to have been. The man should really have asked, “What belongs to God?”

    That question would have underscored what lies beneath all political and economic responsibility. And Jesus’ answer would have been, “Whose image is on you?” That all-defining essence is at the heart of what it means to be human. We are made“imago Dei.” We are made in God’s image.

    This is even further underscored in the next trick question placed before Jesus: “Which is the greatest commandment?” (Matthew 22:36). Having failed to trip Him up on “God against Caesar,” they tried “God against God.” With 613 laws to choose from, Jesus was asked to choose one. Amazingly, He didn’t fall for it and put two together as inextricably bound. He said, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’… The second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” Matthew records the ending of the conversation with Jesus’ words, “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:37–40). Mark then adds, “There is no commandment greater than these” (Mark 12:31).

    In other words, loving God and the resulting love for humanity are not only inextricably bound, but apart from that all else of morality has no other ground on which to stand. This is the only noble truth. All else is an ignoble lie. There is no foundation without these and nothing greater than these. Truth-telling, sanctity of sex, sanctity of life, sanctity of ownership, etc., none is greater and none can be legitimate except based on the vertical relationship with God. There you have what humanism simply does not have and is avowedly against. The logic of Jesus is compelling in what He has joined together. There is no absolute basis for loving your fellow human being without the first commandment. There is no way to claim to love God while being inhuman to your fellow human being. That which God has joined together, let no one put asunder. That is why even the Ten Commandments hang on the hinge of redemption.

    When man is released from bondage to self, he or she sees the glory of the other person. You cannot be a genuine human without acknowledging the intrinsic worth given to every other human being.

    You cant find a lie in any of this. The apologist speaks a basic truth.

    Which gets us back to our debate.

    Edited by Thugpreacha, : spacing


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

    You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

    “As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.”
    ? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 87 by ringo, posted 10-06-2019 2:08 PM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 90 by ringo, posted 10-06-2019 3:32 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded
     Message 91 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2019 3:37 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

      
    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 17395
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 2.6


    Message 90 of 94 (864075)
    10-06-2019 3:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 89 by Thugpreacha
    10-06-2019 3:08 PM


    Re: No True Apologists Fallacy
    Phat writes:

    You cant find a lie in any of this.


    Don't underestimate me.

    Ravi Zacharias writes:

    King Solomon, who knew enough about the law though he flaunted it....


    The word he is looking for is "flouted" - but that's illiteracy, not a lie.

    Ravi Zacharias writes:

    The very word law evokes rebellion within our hearts.


    That may not be a lie either but it's nonsense.

    Ravi Zacharias writes:

    In other words, loving God and the resulting love for humanity are not only inextricably bound, but apart from that all else of morality has no other ground on which to stand.


    Also nonsense.

    But what has any of that got to do with what I said?

    quote:
    Bring the apologetics here and we'll see whether they are lying or not.

    You quoted Zacharias spouting a lot of rubbish in criticism of secular humanism. What about the actual apologetics in defense of actual doctrines?

    What about God lying in Genesis 3? What about "the Fall"?

    Never mind bragging that there are no out-and-out lies in one brief quote. Bring on the actual apologetics.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 89 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-06-2019 3:08 PM Thugpreacha has not yet 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