On the Christian board yesterday, someone made a comment that their truth was different from someone else's truth. Just because we believe something.. does it make it truth? How can we know if something is true. Is there such thing as absolute truth?

Isn't truth based on facts not faith?

How is this question suitable for the religious discussion topic area? It's more aof a philosophical topic - there are many school of thought on how to define truth.

Isn't truth based on facts not faith?

Maybe we should discuss - "what is faith" also. You seem to believe that faith and fact are mutually exclusive. If we carry that to its logical, that would mean that if you have faith in your wife being true to you, then it is not factual or you have no basis for believing that to be true.

The Bible says that we should always be prepared to give a reason for our faith. That would suggest that there are indeed facts behin our faith (which their are). Thus I would dispute the suggestion that faith is by necessity not based upon fact.

How is this question suitable for the religious discussion topic area? It's more aof a philisophical topic - there are many school of thought on how to define truth.

This question is also found in the Bible:

John 18:38
Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault [at all].

Tj3,

I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, nk believes there is NO God and Cap is unsure. Then on the Christian board someone came in and stated their truth is different than mainstream Christianity. So maybe the better question should have been, how do I show someone that there is absolute truth?or maybe it is just a dumb question because without faith... I can't. Your thoughts?

If we carry that to its logical, that would mean that if you have faith in your wife being true to you, then it is not factual or you have no basis for believing that to be true.Not so. My 'belief' in my wife being true to me is based on historical data and knowledge of her through her actions.

John 14:6
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
(KJV)

This is a definite, exclusive statement. Jesus did NOT say "a way" "a truth" "a life". You either believe it or you don't, but for anyone who believes the Bible, it is indisputable and it is absolute.

Yes because jesus had all the answers??

yes because jesus had all the answers????

He IS the answer. Now, what was your question?

He was dead, but is now alive, seen by more than 500 at one time, and ascended back to the Father in the sight of (likely) those same 500 believers.

I would say He does have all the answers.

He IS the answer. Now, what was your question?

He was dead, but is now alive, seen by more than 500 at one time, and ascended back to the Father in the sight of (likely) those same 500 believers.

I would say He does have all the answers.

The answer?? So you've met him? Oh wait you prayed to him and a miracle happened right? Oh OK... so like I said in another thread... to prove jesus real first you must prove the Bible real correct? Ok.. Noah's Ark? That is a moral story... are most child moral stories based on actually facts? No. Sorry... but your God and your Jesus are imaginative characters in a book.

The answer??? So you've met him? Oh wait you prayed to him and a miracle happened right? Oh ok...so like I said in another thread...to prove jesus real first you must prove the Bible real correct? Ok..Noah's Ark? That is a moral story...are most child moral stories based on actually facts? No. Sorry...but your God and your Jesus are imaginative characters in a book.

The Bible is true. Everything that it has predicted has come to pass EXACTLY they way the word of God said it would. If you read Daniel he was given a vision of 4 world empires.. before they were empires. History PROVES that the bible is accurate.

4 world empires... yes and this book was written when? Oh yeah that's right... after they had already risen and fallen... History does not prove its accuracy... me saying that in the future I will die is statement that I can accurately make because everything dies... I can also say A new world power is upon us... because yes eventually one day a new world power will come... see what I'm saying... And also you said God said these things in the Bible... Did he speak in words or in prayer to humans? Oh that's right he spoke in prayer... oh wait.. wait.. I think I'm getting something... oh here it comes... nope it was just a fart...

No it wasn't written before the world empires came and left. AND if you read and understood the Bible, Daniel did way more than say psst. Guys, 4 world powers are going to come. He gave details concerning them. NO way anyone could be that accruate. You will note that the 4th empire wasn't overthrown either. No way Daniel could have known THAT! I suppose you are going to tell me that Daniel wrote it AFTER the fall of the Roman empire. And isn't it interesting that there has not been any MORE empires? Oh, Hitler tried but it wasn't to be... why? Because GOD SAID 4.

Jesus put his stamp of approval on Daniel, he called Daniel a prophet not a historian.

On the Christian board yesterday, someone made a comment that their truth was different from someone elses truth. Just because we believe something..does it make it truth? How can we know if something is true.? Is there such thing as absolute truth?
ClassyT : Linguistic the words "true" or "truth" refer to the property of being in accordance with the actual state of affairs.
And as the word "actual" refers to reality, it should refer to Objective Supportive Evidence as its only guideline.

Unfortunately in the religious field the words "true" or "truth" are used in and out of season to SUGGEST a level of accuracy, and in effect are used to provide some BOGUS VALIDITY to personal interpretations that are at best only covered by Subjective Supported Evidence.

So the person making that remark was partly correct : although there can be only one real "truth", in many philosophic fields - including religion - any reference to "truth" refers to a PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of what is BELIEVED to be correct.

And as such different persons can hold different "truths" about one and the same issue.

As to your query on "Absolute Truth" : in science the words "true" and "truth" are never used, as science is based on a system of claim, check, re-check, and support.

In general : NO , there is no "Absolute Truth". Although most people will interpret their own views as "true" or "the truth", any of the essential required Objective Supported Evidence for the validity of that claim is always absent.

:)

.

.

In general : NO , there is no "Absolute Truth". Although most people will interpret their own views as "true" or "the truth", any of the essential required Objective Supported Evidence for the validity of that claim is always absent.

:)

.

.[/QUOTE]


Cred,

Thank you for your OPINION.

Not so. My 'belief' in my wife being true to me is based on historical data and knowledge of her through her actions.

However, you have faith that she will continue to follow the historical precedent. You cannot be certain of it, but based upon what you do know, you have faith that it will continue. So you have faith based upon truth.

On the Christian board yesterday, someone made a comment that their truth was different from someone elses truth. Just because we believe something..does it make it truth? How can we know if something is true.? Is there such thing as absolute truth?

There is only one absolute truth and God is that truth. This is a prerequisite for virtuous morality. Without God there is no absolute authority and without authority there is no objective or absolute truth; hence, no morals. Without morals, there is no distinction between good and evil. Every issue of good versus evil becomes a game of secular moral relativism.

Rationalism and relativism are normally diametrically opposed concepts, but here they form a synergistic merger changing dubious logic morphing into an absolute fact by moral relativists. The concept of objective truth becomes completely foreign. Morality requires a standard or a guide for our actions that is subordinated to an ultimate purpose. In the case of the most basic fundamental rules, all actions are subject to an omnipotent ruler (God). Reasoning in the light of His ultimate purpose is moral order, to govern in the light of His fundamental moral rules produces law and order-social stability.

My experience has been that some believe they have absolute sovereignty and independence of God and His authority; one religion is as good as another. Looking inward for authority, each rationalist holds the necessary individual authority to establish basic cosmic truths. This seems to transform into complete independence from any social morality not otherwise originating from the interior. This degradation continues with the implied right to judge moral and civil law. The argument extended is to say that God’s laws are relative; “what’s true for you, may not be true for me”. Polls and consensus becomes the important indicator for right and wrong; rather than God’s immutable truth. And finally, in the extreme the relativism requires absolute freedom of thought in matters of morality and religion.

Morality requires a standard or a guide for our actions that is subordinated to an ultimate purpose. In the case of the most basic fundamental rules, all actions are subject to an omnipotent ruler (God). Reasoning in the light of His ultimate purpose is moral order, to govern in the light of His fundamental moral rules produces law and order-or social stability.

As with the French in 1792, we see disrespect for an adherence to a moral certitude. God is missing in “rational” daily thought (secularism). Truth becomes “relative” as “reason” becomes justification. Both are opposed to God’s word being truth, and His redemptive forgiveness. The French Revolution is a good example of Rationalism run amuck. Thousands of Catholics were martyred along with their Bishop. The revolution jailed and executed Jesuits, confiscated the property anybody remotely loyal to Rome’s Church.

The Mass was mocked during the French Revolution. The revolutionist thought themselves to be in the ultimate Age of Reason; the “Church of Notre Dame de Paris became a temple of Reason, and the feast of Reason [not the Eucharist] was celebrated on 10 November. The Goddesses of Reason and Liberty were not always the daughters of low people; they frequently came of the middle classes.” What actually came to the French was godless socialism without an absolute truth. They were so successful that Lenin once remarked that he modeled the Communist horror on the French Revolution.


Relativism is a theology holding that all points of view are equally valid – this is the source of the rationalist’s tolerance of immorality. The argument usually takes the form; “one religion is as good as another;” The notion is terribly illogical. Given any two denominations both hold mutually contradictory fundamental truths (or they wouldn’t be different denominations), thus both can’t be true. One or both must be wrong. Being in error can’t represent God’s reveled truth. We can conclude that this particular religion in error and as such not true; after all, God doesn’t teach error, right? It would be equally unreasonable to assume that one God would reveal schizophrenic and contradictory truths to varying groups.


JoeT

In general : NO , there is no "Absolute Truth". Although most people will interpret their own views as "true" or "the truth", any of the essential required Objective Supported Evidence for the validity of that claim is always absent.

Then we should not believe that your views of no absolute truth are true. Nor should we believe your belief that there is no God. Because these are just your own interpretation of your views as true.

I'm going to pipe in.

I believe in God, but I don't believe that the bible is the word of God, it's just a book written by man, that's it.

I don't believe in organized religion, I don't attend church, I don't read the bible, but I do believe in God. So, were do I get my belief from? What is my truth?

My beliefs are personal, from things that I have experienced but cannot prove. It's very possible that the experiences I had were not God related, but I believe that they were, and therefore I believe in God.

I don't think God created the universe, I think he may have helped but that science also had a hand in it.

I don't believe in miracles, if I ever see one then of course I'll change my mind, but up until now, I've never seen one.

Am I right? Is my belief true? To me it is, but obviously most people do not agree with my views, so what is true, who is right?

The answer is what is fact?

the answer is what is fact?


The answer is a question?

I'm going to pipe in.

I believe in God, but I don't believe that the bible is the word of God, it's just a book written by man, that's it.

I don't believe in organized religion, I don't attend church, I don't read the bible, but I do believe in God. So, were do I get my belief from? What is my truth?

My beliefs are personal, from things that I have experienced but cannot prove. It's very possible that the experiences I had were not God related, but I believe that they were, and therefore I believe in God.

I don't think God created the universe, I think he may have helped but that science also had a hand in it.

I don't believe in miracles, if I ever see one then of course I'll change my mind, but up until now, I've never seen one.

Am I right? Is my belief true? To me it is, but obviously most people do not agree with my views, so what is true, who is right?

What is the validation for your beliefs?

However, you have faith that she will continue to follow the historical precedent. You cannot be certain of it, but based upon what you do know, you have faith that it will continue. So you have faith based upon truth.Yep, all true.

John 14:6
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
(KJV)

This is a definite, exclusive statement. Jesus did NOT say "a way" "a truth" "a life". You either believe it or you don't, but for anyone who believes the Bible, it is indisputable and it is absolute.

I totally agree with you Galveston! There are many though, who believe their truth is as good as mine (mine is based solely on the Bible) give me some ways to show them that the Bible CAN be believed. I think the Jew alone should convince people that the Bible is absolute truth.. also prophecy. The Bible is so accurate that it is scary.

What is the validation for your beliefs?


I don't need to validate my beliefs to you. If I was claiming my belief as fact, then I would have to validate, but I know that I just believe, I don't claim that God is indeed a fact.

You are the one that claims that God is fact, so what is the validation for your beliefs?

I don't need to validate my beliefs to you. If I was claiming my belief as fact, then I would have to validate, but I know that I just believe, I don't claim that God is indeed a fact.

No one ever said that you had to validate your beliefs to me or anyone else. If you believe something to be true, then there must be a reason or else that belief, is by definition without reason or not rational.


You are the one that claims that God is fact, so what is the validation for your beliefs?

I would not be able to put all the reasons for believing God is a fact in one message, but I did start several times providing evidence for one of the reasons on another thread. Here is one reason (reposted message from another thread):

----------------------------
As you well know, and as I established very early on in this discussion we have only two options, and that is that God created all that there is, or that it came about naturally. I have asked a number of questions now to which neither you nor your atheist friends could provide a plausible answer. If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is onbly once answer. God created and thus God exists. For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God. And there are many many more proofs that could yet be posted. The usual respond to these issues from non-Christians are insults, ad hominems, and ridicule - but no answer. That is in and of itself an admission that no answer for a natural explanation exists.

EYE : How about the eye. Can anyone give a plausible explanation as to how the eye came to be?

DNA : In every living or previously living cell, we find an operating system (O/S) program written which is more complex than any MAC or PC. In addition to the program, we find that every cell has the built in capability to read and interpret this programming language. And this goes back to the simplest, and, according to evolutionists, most ancient type of cell in existence.
If one found a PC with Windows O/S on it, or even a simple handheld with Windows CE O/S on it, it would automatically be taken to be proof positive of the existence of a capable and intelligent advanced designer. Do any atheists have a plausible explanation for how this advanced programming language, along with reader/interpreter came to be?

SIMPLE SINGLE CELL :
How did the simple cells come to be created?

POND SCUM : Pericles claimed that the answer to the question abive was that the single cells came from pond scum, which is in and itself a form of life - how did it come to be?

AUSTRALIAN BRUSH TURKEY : An interesting animal. It does not sit the eggs to incubate them, but rather creates a compost pile to provide the heat, which must be maintained at aorund 33 degress. The eggs are laid down at the precise depth and in a circle where that exact heat will be maintained. The turkey does not lay the eggs right away, but waits until the compost pile has reached the necessary temperature. The is requires that the brush turkey understand heat and decomposition, as well as how the heat radiates and be able to calculate the precise depth and pattern at which the necessary heat occurs. And it has to understand that this is all required to hatch chicks. To have gained this knowledge by chance would be impossible because there are too many variables to all the brush turkey to figure out the linkage between heat and hatching eggs and then precisely what heat is required and how to obtain it. The existence of God and his creation of this animal explains this.

MACAWS : Macaws are birds that feed on poisonous seeds, and in order to live, after they eat, they must eat a certain type of mud which neutralizes the poison.
How did this evolve? What is the natural explanation for this? The existence of God explains it.
----------------------------------------

No one ever said that you had to validate your beliefs to me or anyone else.You did indeed, in post #23 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/what-truth-277387-3.html#post1359497). You wrote:

What is the validation for your beliefs?

You did indeed, in post #23 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/what-truth-277387-3.html#post1359497). You wrote:

That was a question. I trust that you understand the difference between a question, and a requirement.

That was a question. I trust that you understand the difference between a question, and a requirement.
Do you always speak condescendingly to people?

I don't need to validate my beliefs to you. If I was claiming my belief as fact, then I would have to validate, but I know that I just believe, I don't claim that God is indeed a fact.
You are the one that claims that God is fact, so what is the validation for your beliefs?
Spot on Alty!! You clearly stated that you BELIEVE that, and what you BELIEVE should always be respected !

But not with Tj3, who intolerantly refuses to accept that other people have other ideas about "God", and that these other ideas have identical validity to the idea Tommy has himself.

That is : until someone can provide OSE for any specific idea claim on "God".
But that OSE will never be forthcoming, as it does not exist.
Next to that : belief and OSE are impossible to match anyway.

Tommy BELIEVES in his Christian version of "God", no problem.
You BELIEVE in your Deist version of "God". No problem neither.
But Tommy claims that what he BELIEVES is "true", "true" as in factual.
But when Tommy is asked to support his BELIEF, and is asked to why his views are more valid than your version or any other version, Tommy can only come up with some pseudo OSE by using arguments based on evolution, and than suggest that it is OSE for his views on "God".

Of course that is not correct. He knows it, you know it, I know it, almost everyone here knows it.
The only proof for the existence of "God" is direct OSE for the existence of "God"
The only proof for the Christian version of "God" is direct OSE for the Christian version of "God".
NOTHING ELSE WILL DO !!!

Only Tommy refuses to accept that. Tommy's idea of "true" and "truth" seems to be quite different to the ideas of those who live with ratio, logic, knowledge, understanding, and tolerance.

For any intelligent person the words "true" or "truth" refer to the property of being in accordance with the actual state of affairs.
And as the word "actual" refers to reality, it should refer to OSE as its only guideline.

Unfortunately in the religious field the words "true" or "truth" are used in and out of season to SUGGEST a level of accuracy, and in effect are used to provide some BOGUS VALIDITY to personal interpretations that are at best only covered by Subjective Supported Evidence.

You accept your views as BELIEF. You respect other (and others) views.
Tommy however insists intolerantly that his views are factual, refuses to accept that other ideas are of equal validity, and seems to be ashamed for what he only can BELIEVE but can not can provide OSE for.

What a nice display of the difference between the linguistic meaning and the religious unsupported interpretation of the words "true" or "truth"!!

:rolleyes:;):p:);):rolleyes:

.

.

Cred,

You refuse to even consider you may be WRONG. Let me ask you this... what IF you are wrong. What if there is a God... what happens then?

Then we are wrong. What if the true god is Zeus then we are all wrong. Man has thought of so many religions in the time we have been here how can you dismiss any of them without dismissing all of them.

So I don't live my life in fear of ifs there are just to many.

Besides if you read the history of heaven and hell in Christianity you find that it is was only added when Christianity started to loose favor when other religions at the time offered that service. So I find it really hard to fear something that got added on as value added service to Christianity when it losing favor. That's just me though.

Do you always speak condescendingly to people?

Milk is coming out my nose. :)

. . . we have only two options, and that is that God created all that there is, or that it came about naturally.

Fair enough.


. . .If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is onbly once answer. God created and thus God exists.

This is not a logical argument. By what means did "god" accomplish any of these things? If you cannot answer in detail how god did these things, then it is you who have no argument.

Science DOES have explanations for all the things you list. But the important point is that religion cannot account for how god works. That's the whole point of faith. You, TJ3, can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't pretend to dabble at logic and scientific argument and then duck out with a faith based argument at the critical juncture. With science, you are either in the game or you are out.

Demanding a mechanistic argument from science (which is correct to do) but not demanding a mechanistic argument from the alternate hypothesis (god) is not a scientific argument. It is the opposite of science, logic, and rigor. So while I don't question your faith, you are "out" when it comes to making a rational argument.

Then we are wrong. What if the true god is Zeus then we are all wrong. Man has thought of so many religions in the time we have been here how can you dismiss any of them without dismissing all of them.

So I don't live my life in fear of ifs there are just to many.

Besides if you read the history of heaven and hell in Christianity you find that it is was only added when Christianity started to loose favor when other religions at the time offered that service. So I find it really hard to fear something that got added on as value added service to Christianity when it loosing favor. That's just me though.

What? That is simply not true.

What part are you questioning?

I think she means the bit about heaven and hell being added on later. I'm curious about that too. Can you elaborate?

What part are you questioning?

That heaven and hell are an add on... I have to fix dinner for my kiddies but I will be happy to show you scripture to prove otherwise.

If you do have scripture you would be getting it from the New Testament. Which was written several hundred years after Christianity was formed. So that wouldn't be evidence for Christianity had it in the beginning.

I'll look it up and get back with you on a source.

Jesus gave a vivid description of Hell.

As to absolute truth:

Rejecting any absolute truth is roughly equivalent to attempting to build a house without any standard of measurement or a level. Sure, you could use a knotted string, but nothing you put together would be standard and you will not be able to install bathroom fixtures and other items because they will not fit.

Or rejecting any standard of truth is like trying to cross the ocean in a boat with no compass, sextant, or any other means of navigation. You may wind up somewhere other than the bottom of the ocean, but who knows where?

What you are talking about is spiritual anarchy. Anarchy in any form is a bad thing.

If you do have scripture you would be getting it from the New Testament. Which was written several hundred years after Christianity was formed. So that wouldn't be evidence for Christianity had it in the beginning.

I'll look it up and get back with you on a source.

You have made that claim about the New Testament being written several hundred years after Christianity was formed many times before.

There is absolutely NO evidence of such being the case.

Revelation was written circa 96 AD and it was the LAST NT book written.

I doubt this will stop you from making that claim though. As Cred would say, "where is your OSE for that claim"?

I'll tell you what I'll drop that point for this thread since it really doesn't have much to do with the topic and I know regardless of how much evidence I have it won't convince you otherwise.

Cred, You refuse to even consider you may be WRONG. Let me ask you this... what IF you are wrong. What if there is a God... what happens then?
classyT : note that your comment refers to my post #30 to Altenweg , in which I DID NOT CLAIM ANYTHING !

All I did was review recent communications on this board and reflect on them.
So how may I be wrong then ?

I do not claim that an entity/diety exists some people call "God".
I do not claim that this entity/deity has supranatural powers.
I do not claim that I can prove the existence of this entity/deity.
I do not claim that I can prove the non-existence of this entity/deity.

All I stated was :


Spot on Alty !!! You clearly stated that you BELIEVE that, and what you BELIEVE should always be respected !

But not with Tj3, who intolerantly refuses to accept that other people have other ideas about "God", and that these other ideas have identical validity to the idea Tommy has himself.

That is : untill someone can provide OSE for any specific idea claim on "God".
But that OSE will never be forthcoming, as it does not exist.
Next to that : belief and OSE are impossible to match anyway.

Tommy BELIEVES in his Christian version of "God", no problem.
You BELIEVE in your Deist version of "God". No problem neither.
But Tommy claims that what he BELIEVES is "true", "true" as in factual.
But when Tommy is asked to support his BELIEF, and is asked to why his views are more valid than your version or any other version, Tommy can only come up with some pseudo OSE by using arguments based on evolution, and than suggest that it is OSE for his views on "God".

Of course that is not correct. He knows it, you know it, I know it, almost everyone here knows it.
The only proof for the existence of "God" is direct OSE for the existence of "God"
The only proof for the Christian version of "God" is direct OSE for the Christian version of "God".
NOTHING ELSE WILL DO!!

Only Tommy refuses to accept that. Tommy's idea of "true" and "truth" seems to be quite different to the ideas of those who live with ratio, logic, knowledge, understanding, and tolerance.

For any intelligent person the words "true" or "truth" refer to the property of being in accordance with the actual state of affairs.
And as the word "actual" refers to reality, it should refer to OSE as its only guideline.

Unfortunately in the religious field the words "true" or "truth" are used in and out of season to SUGGEST a level of accuracy, and in effect are used to provide some BOGUS VALIDITY to personal interpretations that are at best only covered by Subjective Supported Evidence.

You accept your views as BELIEF. You respect other (and others) views.
Tommy however insists intolerantly that his views are factual, refuses to accept that other ideas are of equal validity, and seems to be ashamed for what he only can BELIEVE but can not can provide OSE for.

What a nice display of the difference between the linguistic meaning and the religious unsupported interpretation of the words "true" or "truth"!!

===

You post : "what IF you are wrong. What if their is a God...what happens then?"

That refers to Pascal's wager. But that wager has already many years ago been shown to be invalid, and actually turned itself against Christianity and any other specific religion.

What IF there is no "God" at all?
What IF the only supra-natural deity is "Allah" ?
What IF the only supra-natural deity is "Lord Shiva" ?
What IF the only supra-natural deity is "the "Invisible Unicorn" ?
What IF the only supra-natural deity is "the Flying Spaghetti Monster" ?
Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

How would such a deity react to people who refused or failed to BELIEVE in him/her/it ?
You KNOW or could have known (you could have googled) about "Allah", about "Lord Shiva", about the "Invisible Unicorn", about the "Flying Spaghetti Monster", etc.

You insist that the entity/deity called "God" exist, but you can not OSE the existence of that entity at all.
You do your best to provide all kinds of bogus argumentation to provide the illusion that such an entity/deity exists.
All you (and Tj3) have is lot's of hot-aired wild claims.

WHY DON'T YOU SKIP THE BS AND EITHER PROVE YOUR CLAIMS, OR ADMIT THAT ALL YOU CAN DO IS BELIEVE ???

As per the topic : it seems to me that you yourself have no idea what is "TRUE" or the "TRUTH"!!

:D :rolleyes: :p :) :rolleyes: :D

.

.

Cred,

I have already told you I can't prove anything to you. I can tell you that I believe it to my core but I don't have to prove it. It takes faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God, you must believe that he IS. We have given you food for thought but you refuse in even consider it. That is fine. I don't care.

But here IS some truth for YOU... I don't much care what it seems to YOU. Don't like my so called hot air? Don't read my posts. There is a verse in the Bible that sums you up pretty good.
It goes something like this.. professing themselves wise they became as fools. I didn't call you a fool... I'm too shy to do that. GOD did.

And incidentally.. I get sick of you calling people intolerant. Look the word up Cred. Your pic is right beside it.

Why do so many people think... abortion is 100% wrong. And contraceptives are wrong.
And all of those rules and stuff. It's because your parents grow you guys up with this stuff, and fill your head with it, and you get SO used to it, that you think it's 100% facts and true. Nothing is proven, there is NO proof that there is a god or anything etc. It just amazes me all these rules and religions, and stuff. Jeez. It's the u.s have a free happy life. Believe in god, but why all these huge rules and big beliefs, fundamentalists annoy me.

Marriaget,

Because I have a relationship with the Lord Jesus. I don't with Mary and I never claimed to. You are right. I cannot PROVE to you anything but if you read some of these posts AND some of tj3's posts on other threads, You will get a LOT of compelling evidence.

I believe the JEW for one is compelling evidence that GOD does exsists AND that the Bible it TRUTH.

I changed my comment... it's different now.

Fair enough.

Starting with that basis, your next argument falls apart.


This is not a logical argument. By what means did "god" accomplish any of these things? If you cannot answer in detail how god did these things, then it is you who have no argument.

I don't have to. If there are only two ways for something to happen and one is impossible, then the other is true.


Science DOES have explanations for all the things you list.

Then why, in the past couple of years, can no one answer any of these questions on two different boards?

Cred,

You refuse to even consider you may be WRONG. Let me ask you this...what IF you are wrong. What if their is a God...what happens then?

Good question!!

Cred,

I have already told you I can't prove anything to you. I can tell you that I believe it to my core but I don't have to prove it. It takes faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God, you must believe that he IS. We have given you food for thought but you refuse in even consider it. That is fine. I don't care.

But here IS some truth for YOU... I don't much care what it seems to YOU. Don't like my so called hot air? Don't read my posts. There is a verse in the Bible that sums you up pretty good.
It goes something like this.. professing themselves wise they became as fools. I didn't call you a fool... I'm too shy to do that. GOD did.

Right on!!

I have never, not once, in all the years that I have known Cred, see him validate or prove his belief that there is no God. He avoids it like the plague.


and incidentally.. I get sick of you calling people intolerant. Look the word up Cred. Your pic is right beside it.

Absolutely!!

why do so many people think.......abortion is 100% wrong.

Because I believe that murder, no matter who it is or how old, is a criminal act.

Then we are wrong. What if the true god is Zeus then we are all wrong. Man has thought of so many religions in the time we have been here how can you dismiss any of them without dismissing all of them.

So I don't live my life in fear of ifs there are just to many.

Besides if you read the history of heaven and hell in Christianity you find that it is was only added when Christianity started to loose favor when other religions at the time offered that service. So I find it really hard to fear something that got added on as value added service to Christianity when it loosing favor. That's just me though.



I totally agree.

Because I believe that murder, no matter who it is or how old, is a criminal act.


It's not alive yet, it doesn't have a brain or anything.

Like common, so what if a 14 year old gets pregnant? She is in risk of death, and so is the baby.What in the world will she do?
What if you get pregnant each time you have sex? You want 15 babies that you cannot support?

It would REALLY suck, if there was no god or anything & when we die... we're gone... all these years of believing and all that crap we did for god, will be for nothing...

I'm not saying I don't believe in him, don't get me wrong.

why do so many people think.......abortion is 100% wrong. and contraceptives are wrong.
Abortion is wrong because it kills the most innocent of mankind; which is true whether you believe in the facts of God. While some claim that women’s rights need to be protected, who protects the rights of the unborn to be birthed?

and all of those rules n stuff. It's because your parents grow you guys up with this stuff, and fill ur head with it, and you get SO used to it, that you think it's 100% facts n true. Nothing is proven, there is NO proof that there is a god or anything etc. It just amazes me all these rules n religions, and stuff. jeez. it's the u.s have a free happy life. believe in god, but why all these huge rules and big beliefs, fundamentalists annoy me.

So today "to be happy" we kill the unborn, what’s for tomorrow? Do we kill hormonal driven teenagers, maybe the hangers-on 20 something's who don’t know when to move out of the house, maybe the feeble, how about the old folks? Heck, why don’t we go just go around and abort people we don’t like.

JoeT

it's not alive yet, it doesn't have a brain or anything.

Talk to a doctor. You would learn a lot about a fetus.

Fetal development: What happens during the first trimester? - MayoClinic.com (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112)


What if you get pregnant each time you have sex? You want 15 babies that you cannot support?

No one said that preventing pregnancy was wrong. Murdering babies is.

it's not alive yet, it doesnt have a brain or anything.

Like common, so what if a 14 year old gets pregnant? She is in risk of death, and so is the baby.What in the world will she do?
What if you get pregnant each time you have sex? You want 15 babies that you cannot support?

Obviously you are interested in what God hs to say or you wouldn't be in this thread. Exodus 21 vs. 22-23 Under the law, God said that if someone caused a woman to lose her baby ( by unnatural causes) that they too should lose their life.read it

Of course there are other circumstances such as health to the Mother to take into consideration. But if it is for the matter of convience. It is murder. That is NOT a popular opinion and it isn't mine.. it is GOD's.

I'm not going to read that, I don't believe god wrote the bible.

I just believe there is someone up there looking down on me, etc.

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

All right, I don't like the fact that you're killing something that can become a life... but still...

Think about it, if you are in NO shape at all to have a baby, and you have no money or whatever... how could you have a baby? Having a baby should be a beautiful thing, you should be prepared. & if you're in 8th grade and pregnant, what in the world will you DOOOO?

Im talking about, some religions don't believe in contraceptives.
That is... wow not cool to me.

I'm not going to read that, I don't believe god wrote the bible.

I just believe there is someone up there looking down on me, etc.

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

All right, I don't like the fact that you're killing something that can become a life... but still...

Think about it, if you are in NO shape at all to have a baby, and you have no money or whatever... how could you have a baby? Having a baby should be a beautiful thing, you should be prepared. & if you're in 8th grade and pregnant, what in the world will you DOOOO?

Im talking about, some religions don't believe in contraceptives.
That is... wow not cool to me.

I'm not going to read that, i don't believe god wrote the bible.

Whether you believe it or not does not change reality.


I just believe there is someone up there looking down on me, etc.

What do you base that belief upon?


all right, i don't like the fact that you're killing something that can become a life... but still...

You cannot kill someone unless it is alive! And yes, a fetus is alive. It needs and takes in nourishment, it grows, it has living tissue...


think about it, if you are in NO shape at all to have a baby, and you have no money or whatever... how could you have a baby? Having a baby should be a beautiful thing, you should be prepared. & if you're in 8th grade and pregnant, what in the world will you DOOOO?

You can ask a thousand questions, but it wont; change anything. But be careful of the questions that you ask. The last country to promote abortion before the current rush to kill babies was Nazi Germany. They killed unwanted babies, and then thought that the mentally impaired were a burden on society, and they would be better off dead, so they killed them, and then identified other groups that were not convenient to have around, until they got to the Jews.

When you say that killing ANYONE for convenience is acceptable, be careful of who is making the value judgment. They may one day look at you, perhaps when you get older or infirmed and decide that you too are an inconvenience.

I don't like the fact that you're killing something that could be life, but then again you have 250,000 eggs that could be life and you aren't giving them all chances to have life... n stuff. I don't know lol

God writing the bible isn't reality. It's a belief.

I just think that he is up there looking down on me, and I pray to him at times, though I'm not sure if he's really there listening to me. I always hope and wish he is.

I understand what you said about the inconvience stuff.
It's just that, how could you in 8th grade? You could die from it, and the baby could die anyway too, because you are in no physical nor emotional shape to give birth and handel a kid.

i dont like the fact that you're killing something that could be life, but then again you have 250,000 eggs that could be life and you arent giving them all chances to have life....n stuff. idk lol

No I don't have any eggs. :p Perhaps you did not note which sex I am. And I doubt that any woman has 250,000 eggs, but that does not matter. First of all, an egg has only half the chromosones required to be a human. It is a living cell, but it is not a person until it receives the other half of the chromosones.

Second, a fertilized egg is life. Your own statement acknowledge that. You cannot kill something which is not alive and yet you talk about killing the fetus.

No, I didn't literally mean YOU. Haha (:

And yes woman have about 250,000 eggs, I read about it in the Body museum.

Think about it, please tell me... how could you when you're so young. I don't like abortions at all, but sometimes it's the only thing you can do.

People get abortions because they don't want a kid, and why would they have one knowing they didn't want one, and still don't... but they just have it because god wants them too, and it's "right".

god writing the bible isn't reality. It's a belief.

I have evidence to the contrary, but that does not matter right now - your belief is that God did not write the Bible. Can you validate that claim?


I just think that he is up there looking down on me, and I pray to him at times, though I'm not sure if he's really there listening to me. I always hope and wish he is.

So you believe it but have no reason to believe it. The word "rational" means that there are reasons. So if one does not have a reason for believing something, by definition, it is not rational. You can believe it if you wish, but I would rather believe in something which has a basis in fact, a rational faith.


I understand what you said about the inconvience stuff.
It's just that, how could you in 8th grade? You could die from it, and the baby could die anyway too, because you are in no physical nor emotional shape to give birth and handel a kid.

There are options. First, if children in the 8th grade behave properly, then pregnancy does not happen. Second, if they cannot control themselves, as with anything else, there are consequences. If they are not able to look after the baby, there are thousands of people looking to adopt babies.

Murder is not an option.

no, I didn't literally mean YOU. Haha (:

Good!


People get abortions because they don't want a kid, and why would they have one knowing they didn't want one, and still don't...

So because they could not control themselves, and they don't want a kid, a baby must die - is that what you are telling me?

What if they want a baby, but after they give birth and decide that the baby is too much trouble - is it okay to murder the baby then?

Maybe when they reach the "terrible twos" and become too annoying - is it okay to murder them then?

What about when they become annoying teenagers - is it okay to murder them then?

Look, I could keep going on and on, and so can you... but it won't change anything. Obviously, no matter how much you try to get through to a person it never works. You're grown up this way, and so on... anyways... believe what you believe and so will I. If there truly was a god, I wonder why so many bad things are happening... There is no proof that god wrote the bible, no one saw him write it, there is just no proof about things I wish there was proof for.

You're grown up this way, and so on... anyways... believe what you believe and so will I.

I believe in life. I believe in respect for life. I believe that murder is criminal.

Yep I was brought up that way.


If there truly was a god, I wonder why so many bad things are happening...

I wonder why non-Christians always want to blame God for the evil done by men.


There is no proof that god wrote the bible, no one saw him write it, there is just no proof about things I wish there was proof for.

Why do you deny proof without first examining it?

Where is the proof for your beliefs?

But doesn't god control everything? Why can't he control the evil?


I KNOW there is no proof, show me the proof. How do you know 100% god wrote that, did you SEE him do it? We don't even know if there IS a god.

You all have your beliefs, if there is reason behind it or not.

In my head, I just believe there is something up there... hopefully an afterlife.

Why are there SO many rules when it comes to religion? People can follow all the rules, and then get hit by a car and die the next day (god forbid)... and etc. I mean, enjoy life, I don't like people's life being overcome by rules from their religion. These rules are coming from the bible, correct? I'm not sure... and the bible is "written by god"... I doubt it... I feel like some person way back made up a story and everybody just believed it was from god or some all mighty thing up in the skies, or heaven.

but doesn't god control everything? Why can't he control the evil?

He could. But if he was to do away with evil, remember that since everyone has sinned, He would have to get rid of everyone - that includes you.


I KNOW there is no proof, show me the proof.

That would be a separate thread. I am speaking on a related topic next weekend:

Signs of Scripture Conference
http://ldbc.info/SoS.pdf


We don't even know if there IS a god.

Are you breathing? How are you able to do that?

I posted evidence for God on this thread and others.


You all have your beliefs, if there is reason behind it or not.

Yes, I do have beliefs, with good reason behind them.



In my head, I just believe there is something up there... hopefully an afterlife.

As pointed out before, all have sinned, so if God asked you why He should allow you into heaven - what would you say?

Cred, I have already told you I can't prove anything to you.
Let's review my previous post that was a reaction to what YOU POSTED (see the link) !
It was YOU who suggested I could be wrong. But how could I be wrong if I did not claim anything ?


Cred, You refuse to even consider you may be WRONG. Let me ask you this...what IF you are wrong. What if their (sic) is a God...what happens then?
classyT : note that your comment refers to my post #30 to Altenweg , in which I DID NOT CLAIM ANYTHING !

All I did was review recent communications on this board and reflect on them.
So how may I be wrong then ?

I do not claim that an entity/diety exists some people call "God".
I do not claim that this entity/deity has supranatural powers.
I do not claim that I can prove the existence of this entity/deity.
I do not claim that I can prove the non-existence of this entity/deity.

All I stated was :


Spot on Alty !!! You clearly stated that you BELIEVE that, and what you BELIEVE should always be respected !

But not with Tj3, who intolerantly refuses to accept that other people have other ideas about "God", and that these other ideas have identical validity to the idea Tommy has himself.

That is : untill someone can provide OSE for any specific idea claim on "God".
But that OSE will never be forthcoming, as it does not exist.
Next to that : belief and OSE are impossible to match anyway.

Tommy BELIEVES in his Christian version of "God", no problem.
You BELIEVE in your Deist version of "God". No problem neither.
But Tommy claims that what he BELIEVES is "true", "true" as in factual.
But when Tommy is asked to support his BELIEF, and is asked to why his views are more valid than your version or any other version, Tommy can only come up with some pseudo OSE by using arguments based on evolution, and than suggest that it is OSE for his views on "God".

Of course that is not correct. He knows it, you know it, I know it, almost everyone here knows it.
The only proof for the existence of "God" is direct OSE for the existence of "God"
The only proof for the Christian version of "God" is direct OSE for the Christian version of "God".
NOTHING ELSE WILL DO!!

Only Tommy refuses to accept that. Tommy's idea of "true" and "truth" seems to be quite different to the ideas of those who live with ratio, logic, knowledge, understanding, and tolerance.

For any intelligent person the words "true" or "truth" refer to the property of being in accordance with the actual state of affairs.
And as the word "actual" refers to reality, it should refer to OSE as its only guideline.

Unfortunately in the religious field the words "true" or "truth" are used in and out of season to SUGGEST a level of accuracy, and in effect are used to provide some BOGUS VALIDITY to personal interpretations that are at best only covered by Subjective Supported Evidence.

You accept your views as BELIEF. You respect other (and others) views.
Tommy however insists intolerantly that his views are factual, refuses to accept that other ideas are of equal validity, and seems to be ashamed for what he only can BELIEVE but can not can provide OSE for.

What a nice display of the difference between the linguistic meaning and the religious unsupported interpretation of the words "true" or "truth"!!

===

clasyT : than you posted : "what IF you are wrong. What if their is a God...what happens then?"

That refers to Pascal's wager. But that wager has already many years ago been shown to be invalid, and actually turned itself against Christianity and any other specific religion.

What IF there is no "God" at all?
What IF the only supra-natural deity is "Allah" ?
What IF the only supra-natural deity is "Lord Shiva" ?
What IF the only supra-natural deity is "the "Invisible Unicorn" ?
What IF the only supra-natural deity is "the Flying Spaghetti Monster" ?
Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

How would such a deity react to people who refused or failed to BELIEVE in him/her/it ?
You KNOW or could have known (you could have googled) about "Allah", about "Lord Shiva", about the "Invisible Unicorn", about the "Flying Spaghetti Monster", etc.

You insist that the entity/deity called "God" exist, but you can not OSE the existence of that entity at all.
You do your best to provide all kinds of bogus argumentation to provide the illusion that such an entity/deity exists.
All you (and Tj3) have is lot's of hot-aired wild claims.

WHY DON'T YOU SKIP THE BS AND EITHER PROVE YOUR CLAIMS, OR ADMIT THAT ALL YOU CAN DO IS BELIEVE ???

As per the topic : it seems to me that you yourself have no idea what is "TRUE" or the "TRUTH"!!

===


I can tell you that i believe it to my core but I don't have to prove it.
That "I can tell you that i believe it to my core" I accept. No problem. I respect individual views.
But your "I don't have to prove it." is invalid as you frequently CLAIM that what BELIEVE is "TRUE" or the "TRUTH".

Note that your lack of proof confirms what I stated all the time : YOU ONLY BELIEVE THAT !!!

:D :rolleyes: :p :) :rolleyes: :D

.

.

I have never, not once, in all the years that I have known Cred, see him validate or prove his belief that there is no God. He avoids it like the plague.
Another rather hypocrite post by Tj3, who seems to be on a tour of trying to revive old arguments which he all clearly lost before on all points, and will loose again this time.

First of all : I have repeatedly stated on this board in my posts that I am not a strong Atheist who insists that "God" does not exist. Because if I would suggest that, I would have to prove that. And I can't.

Christians are totally unable and uncapable to prove the existence of "God". All they do is BELIEVE that "God" exists.
Than why should I have to prove that "God" does NOT exist ?

Secondly : what is Atheism? / what is an Atheist?

ATHEISM

A THEISM

A = No(t) or Without

THEISM = Belief in "God" or "Gods"

ATHEISM = No or Without Belief in "God" or "Gods"

Atheism is ATHEISM

A THEISM

A = No(t) or Without

THEISM = Belief in "God" or "Gods"

ATHEISM = No or Without Belief in "God" or "Gods"

Atheism is NOT (only) disbelief in the existence of a "supreme being or beings".
Most Atheists have NO opinion on the existence of a "supreme being or beings".
Only a few "Strong" Atheists do that. Most "Soft/Weak" Atheists simply IGNORE the possibility of existence of a "supreme being or beings", as there is no (OSE) proof for that religious claim. (only) disbelief in the existence of a "supreme being or beings".
Most Atheists have NO opinion on the existence of a "supreme being or beings".
Only a few "Strong" Atheists do that. Most "Soft/Weak" Atheists simply IGNORE the possibility of existence of a "supreme being or beings", as there is no (What is truth) proof for that religious claim.

This topic is about "OSE?"
I did state in this topic before , and do again in this post :

Tommy's (and sassyT's) idea of "true" and "truth" seems to be quite different to the ideas of those who live with ratio, logic, knowledge, understanding, and tolerance.

For any intelligent person the words "true" or "truth" refer to the property of being in accordance with the actual state of affairs.
And as the word "actual" refers to reality, it should refer to SUGGEST as its only guideline.

Unfortunately in the religious field the words "true"true"truth" are used in and out of season to BOGUS VALIDITY a level of accuracy, and in effect are used to provide some BELIEVE to personal interpretations that are at best only covered by Subjective Supported Evidence.

Personal views are based on your interpretation of the truth (of the reality).
Tommy however insists intolerantly that his views are factual, refuses to accept that other ideas are of equal validity, and seems to be ashamed for what he only can OSE but can not can provide .

. for.

What a nice display of the difference between the linguistic meaning and the religious unsupported interpretation of the words "true"truth"truth"!!

:D:rolleyes::);):rolleyes::D

Cred,

I was asking you on a personal level.. what if you are wrong? You know like human beings talk in REAL life. I wasn't attacking you..


I don't know whether you quoted me or not.. it says SASSYT. I am CLASSY dude... I ain't sassy. Get it right.

what if you are wrong?

YouTube - Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?" (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg)

Cred,I don't know whether you quoted me or not..it says SASSYT. I am CLASSY dude.....i ain't sassy. Get it right.
Sorry that I missed that. Why did you choose that deliberately confusing handle? Seems something JJD would do...

:D :D :D :D :D :D

.

.

Sorry that I missed that. Why did you choose that deliberately confusing handle? Seems something JJD would do ...

:D :D :D :D :D :D

.

.

Wasn't there another vocal christian member with the name sassyt? This might be where we are getting muddled up.

Yes there was/is. SassyT is the vocal one that claims to have a biology degree.

Obviously you are interested in what God hs to say or you wouldn't be in this thread. Exodus 21 vs. 22-23 Under the law, God said that if someone caused a woman to lose her baby ( by unnatural causes) that they too should lose their life.read it

Of course their are other circumstances such as health to the Mother to take into consideration. but if it is for the matter of convience. It is murder. that is NOT a popular opinion and it isn't mine..it is GOD's.

So ClassyT how much are you selling your daughter for?

7"(D)If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free (E)as the male slaves do.

I'll follow these rules

8"If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.

9"If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters.

10"If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or (F)her conjugal rights.

11"If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

Obviously these rules were not meant for the ages so using them as basis for your argument doesn't make since.

Wasn't there another vocal christian member with the name sassyt? This might be where we are getting muddled up.
That's what I meant : deliberate confusion.

:)

Classyt I love your question, also I'm an old man (85) with no time or inclination to read all 4 pages of answers, so I'll just respond to your original question with my 2 cents worth:
Truth is true whether you happen to believe in it or not. When you think about it, we spend like 25 years or so growing up and learning, maybe 25 years as an independent adult, and the next 25 or so gradually forgetting stuff. So if we are "smart" for maybe a third of our lives, and our "smarts" were provided to us mostly by other people, our mentors and teachers and parents and friends and relatives; what exactly do we have to be so proud of? That we paid attention once in awhile when our dad or mom told us stuff? That we learned how to read so we could read a book or instruction manual or a speed limit sign? We will be remembered for who we were, not what we knew. A person can have a lot of knowledge in this way, and folks can still not listen to him or her, so their knowledge is basically wasted.

Another rather hypocrite post by Tj3, who seems to be on a tour of trying to revive old arguments which he all clearly lost before on all points, and will loose again this time.

Nice try, Cred, but I am simply showing a consistency in your approach and the fact that you never have validated your belief that there is no God. If you believe that you can, then do so here and now.


First of all : I have repeatedly stated on this board in my posts that I am not a strong Atheist who insists that "God" does not exist. Because if I would suggest that, I would have to prove that. And I can't.

But you are a atheist, and have stated that over and over again. To be honest, I have never seen an atheist who believed more strongly that there is no God. Some equal perhaps, not no one more strongly. Your attacks on God are well known on this board.


Christians are totally unable and uncapable to prove the existence of "God". All they do is BELIEVE that "God" exists.

Again, both on this board and over the years, prof has been given to you. On the other board, you kept denying that you could see it, but at least here you acknowledge being able to see it, though you refuse to discuss it, and don't want anyone else to discuss it.


Than why should I have to prove that "God" does NOT exist ?

You keep asking for OSE (even atfter it has been given to you) for the beliefs of others.

I think that it is only fair that we turn the tables now and see your OSE for the belief that there is no God.

Sorry that I missed that. Why did you choose that deliberately confusing handle? Seems something JJD would do ...

Cred,

Why would you assume motives on the part of another person for their userid. I am not confused by the two userids - they use much different avatars and have a completely different style.

Please show that you are able to treat ClassyT and others who disagree with you with due respect.

... But you are a atheist, and have stated that over and over again....
Irrelevant Tommy : I have NEVER denied I am an Atheist.
And I also have frequently stated clearly what an Atheist is, but for you I will do that once again :

What is Atheism? / What is an Atheist?

ATHEISM

A THEISM

A = No(t) or Without

THEISM = Belief in "God" or "Gods"

ATHEISM = No or Without Belief in "God" or "Gods"

Atheism is NOT (only) disbelief in the existence of a "supreme being or beings".
Most Atheists have NO opinion on the existence of a "supreme being or beings".
Only a few "Strong" Atheists do that. Most "Soft/Weak" Atheists simply ignore the possibility of existence of a "supreme being or beings", as there is no (OSE) proof for that religious claim.

Now dear tommy : your attitude here and on all other boards shows one clear attitude : you and the "Truth" (Truth, the subject of this topic) are total opponents of each other.

Your format of "truth" is about religious claims without any OSE.
My format of "truth" is about factual and reality, all supported by OSE.


To be honest, I have never seen an atheist who believed more strongly that there is no God.
Incorrect : I do not believe that "God" does not exist. Neither do I believe that "God" exists. I do not care if that claimed-to-exist entity "God" exists or does not exist. I ignore that possibility. And for the reasons I refer you to my previous reply post of today here, where I already explained that.


Your attacks on God are well known on this board.
Another lie. I note that the rate you are lying seems to be increasing dramatically now.
It only shows that you have "no leg to stand on" as far as your wild claims are concerned!!

How sad!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

Cred is something of a one trick pony, TJ3. He basically has 1 idea and is searching for someone to listen to it. Get off his merrygoround!

Truth is true whether you happen to believe in it or not.
The real point here is : how do we know that something is "true"?
Example : many people BELIEVE that "God" exists. But is that true??
Does "God" exist, and (how) can we prove that ?
Note : proof and OSE : an essential portion in "what is truth?" !


Cred .... basically has 1 idea and is searching for someone to listen to it.
That is your view. But that is not correct.
If I had to select a main view it would be :

BELIEVE what ever you like : you have my blessing for that. But if you CLAIM that what you BELIEVE is "true" or "the truth", you have to SUPPORT that view with OSE.

And as so far nobody has ever done that, I don't expect any change in that REALITY to occure!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


.

.

Irrelevant Tommy : I have NEVER denied I am an Atheist.

I never said that you did.


And I also have frequently stated clearly what an Atheist is, but for you I will do that once again

Are you reminding yourself? Everyone knows what an atheist is. You just choose to reword it to suit your purposes.


Your format of "truth" is about religious claims without any OSE.

So you keep claiming because you cannot refute it.


My format of "truth" is about factual and reality, all supported by OSE.

Really? Where is your OSE for your belief that there is no God?

Cred is something of a one trick pony, TJ3. He basically has 1 idea and is searching for someone to listen to it. Get off his merrygoround!

I have known him for years. Once he makes a claim, whether it makes sense or not, he will defend it. Like atheism, evolution, the belief that magnetic compasses point west, the belief that high schools give out engineering licenses... He has come up with all sort of these claims over the years.

classyt I love your question, also I'm an old man (85) with no time or inclination to read all 4 pages of answers, so I'll just respond to your original question with my 2 cents worth:
Truth is true whether you happen to believe in it or not. When you think about it, we spend like 25 years or so growing up and learning, maybe 25 years as an independent adult, and the next 25 or so gradually forgetting stuff. So if we are "smart" for maybe a third of our lives, and our "smarts" were provided to us mostly by other people, our mentors and teachers and parents and friends and relatives; what exactly do we have to be so proud of? That we paid attention once in awhile when our dad or mom told us stuff? That we learned how to read so we could read a book or instruction manual or a speed limit sign? We will be remembered for who we were, not what we knew. A person can have a lot of knowledge in this way, and folks can still not listen to him or her, so their knowledge is basically wasted.

Wild,

I like that... 'truth is truth whether you happen to believe in it or not". You are 85? Funny how you picture people who post. I figured you to be around 37. NOT because you aren't wise.. just got that impression. Thanks for you thoughts.

THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THERE IS A GOD.
NO PROOF. NO PROOF. NO TRUE REAL PROOF.
HE IS SOMETHING YOU CAN BELIEVE IN.

No one knows how anything started in the world, that's why there is the evolution theory... the Big Bang theory... and the god thing.

No proof of god. I still hope and pray there is a god, if there wasn't it would suck. Sadly there's no proof of a lot of things, too bad.
Stop arguing with me about there is good proof, no there is NO REAL proof.

THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THERE IS A GOD.

I would not be able to put all the reasons for believing God is a fact in one message, but I did start several times providing evidence for one of the reasons on another thread. Here is one reason (reposted message from another thread):

----------------------------
As you well know, and as I established very early on in this discussion we have only two options, and that is that God created all that there is, or that it came about naturally. I have asked a number of questions now to which neither you nor your atheist friends could provide a plausible answer. If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is only once answer. God created and thus God exists. For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God. And there are many many more proofs that could yet be posted. The usual respond to these issues from non-Christians are insults, ad hominems, and ridicule - but no answer. That is in and of itself an admission that no answer for a natural explanation exists.

EYE : How about the eye. Can anyone give a plausible explanation as to how the eye came to be?

DNA : In every living or previously living cell, we find an operating system (O/S) program written which is more complex than any MAC or PC. In addition to the program, we find that every cell has the built in capability to read and interpret this programming language. And this goes back to the simplest, and, according to evolutionists, most ancient type of cell in existence.
If one found a PC with Windows O/S on it, or even a simple handheld with Windows CE O/S on it, it would automatically be taken to be proof positive of the existence of a capable and intelligent advanced designer. Do any atheists have a plausible explanation for how this advanced programming language, along with reader/interpreter came to be?

SIMPLE SINGLE CELL :
How did the simple cells come to be created?

POND SCUM : Pericles claimed that the answer to the question abive was that the single cells came from pond scum, which is in and itself a form of life - how did it come to be?

AUSTRALIAN BRUSH TURKEY : An interesting animal. It does not sit the eggs to incubate them, but rather creates a compost pile to provide the heat, which must be maintained at aorund 33 degress. The eggs are laid down at the precise depth and in a circle where that exact heat will be maintained. The turkey does not lay the eggs right away, but waits until the compost pile has reached the necessary temperature. The is requires that the brush turkey understand heat and decomposition, as well as how the heat radiates and be able to calculate the precise depth and pattern at which the necessary heat occurs. And it has to understand that this is all required to hatch chicks. To have gained this knowledge by chance would be impossible because there are too many variables to all the brush turkey to figure out the linkage between heat and hatching eggs and then precisely what heat is required and how to obtain it. The existence of God and his creation of this animal explains this.

MACAWS : Macaws are birds that feed on poisonous seeds, and in order to live, after they eat, they must eat a certain type of mud which neutralizes the poison.
How did this evolve? What is the natural explanation for this? The existence of God explains it.
----------------------------------------


NO PROOF. NO PROOF. NO TRUE REAL PROOF.
HE IS SOMETHING YOU CAN BELIEVE IN.

Yes, we believe in Him. But you have not told me how you are able to breathe. What is the source of life?

Denying that it is God because you don't believe in Him is circular reasoning. You already told us that you beliefs are entirely on faith with no basis to validate them, and I am willing to show you many different ways to validate that there is a God.

THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THERE IS A GOD. NO PROOF. NO PROOF. NO TRUE REAL PROOF. HE IS SOMETHING YOU CAN BELIEVE IN.
Precisely ! All one can do is BELIEVE and have FAITH in the existence of "God".
So what you stated is TRUE!!

So anyone who states that he/she can prove the existence of "GOD" is wrong.
That is TRUE too!!

And I have always stated that you can only BELIEVE in the existence of "God".
And that is also TRUE!!


Stop arguing with me about there is good proof, no there is NO REAL proof.
And to close : that is TRUE too!!

:rolleyes: :D :rolleyes: :D :rolleyes: :D

.

.

I would not be able to put all the reasons for believing God is a fact in one message....
Reasons??
We always have been talking about proof - about OSE - for the existence of "GOD".
Look who is changing the goalposts here suddenly!

Now why would that be??

:D :D :D :D :D :D

.

.

Reasons ???
We always have been talking about proof - about OSE - for the existence of "GOD".
Look who is changing the goalposts here suddenly ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Don't stop so soon, Cred. The rest of the post that you quote from included some of the questions that provide evidence for God which you have not been able to answer for all these years.

Prove me wrong - post the answers!

Or do what I am others have asked - post your OSE for your belief that there is no God.

On the Christian board yesterday, someone made a comment that their truth was different from someone elses truth. Just because we believe something..does it make it truth? How can we know if something is true.? Is there such thing as absolute truth?

Good question.

First question is why does truth matter?

If I do not believe in a God - and believe in only evolution, or the reductionist principal that we are just part of nature or only the product of organic chemicals, one without a soul, why does truth even matter. I would be the result of random chance - all my words, thoughts, and actions are determined by my genes or whatever culture's or society's genes.

We, even those who do not believe in God, believe that truth is good and lies and falsehoods are bad. Why is that?

Which brings another question. Why do we think of things as good and evil or truth or lies?

Do dogs or cats or monkeys or snails think the way we do? Are they concerned about absolute truth?

Ha, wow.. these christians stick to their guns to the end... just like I do.

There is no proof behind anything, there is just no real proof.

How do we breathe? How is the world created? etc. etc...
No one knows, as I said before. There are many theory's... about these..
You believe god did it, and I believe... I just have no idea. Lol

I HOPE there is a god, and there is an afterlife... I can't believe you could be gone forever.. just gone... no more thinking no more anything. Jeez, that scares me.

Anyway, all I'm saying is there is no proofffff. Stop arguing, it's a belief no proof.

So your saying it all belief. Your truth is your own. No one's is better than another, because there is no proof.

There is no absolute- only relativism?
Just floating in the wind to popular opinion or whatever tickles your fancy?

There is no proof behind anything, there is just no real proof.

All you do is deny.


How do we breathe? How is the world created? etc. etc...
No one knows, as I said before. There are many theory's... about these..
You believe god did it, and I believe... I just have no idea. Lol

That is the point. There are only two ways that are even possible - natural or by means of an intelligent creator. No one has any feasible way by which it could have occurred naturally, so that leaves only one possible option.

There is proof. It is all around you. I posted more earlier.

Reasons ??? We always have been talking about proof - about OSE - for the existence of "GOD".
Look who is changing the goalposts here suddenly ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Don't stop so soon, Cred. The rest of the post that you quote from included some of the questions that provide evidence for God which you have not been able to answer for all these years.
You seriously suggest that I start debating with you on your list of evolution queries in a topic named "what is truth"??
Tommy : are you out of your mind?? You are the one who attacks almost everyone else when he/she posts anything that can be construed to be off-topic. That is done of course only if you disagree with the content of the post. However I note that your own last 10+ posts almost all were off-topic. How hypocrite!!


Prove me wrong - post the answers!
See above. I already suggested you several times to post your list where it belongs : on the evolution board.


Or do what I am others have asked - post your OSE for your belief that there is no God.
My belief? I hold no religious beliefs. And I NEVER claimed that "God" does not exist. You are fully aware of that, and therefore your question is a lie, it is hypocrite, and it is innuendo.

I have stated here and in other topics on this board many times : the existence of "God" has never been proved so far, and I do not think it ever will. Therefore there is no need to prove the negative : the non-existence of "God".
Besides that : I have no need to prove that negative. I accept that people BELIEVE that "God" exists, and respect their views. All I refute are the wild claims that the BELIEF in the existence of "God" is a reality.

This topic is about "what is Truth" ?
Tommy : so far you have provided many examples of hypocrite approach on such an interesting topic. I note that you mismanage and influence topics and try to force your religious views onto other more feeble minds. I hope they slowly start realizing who you really are, and what you try to do to them.

I wish you the best on your upcoming religious conferences and seminars. Do not forget to tell all there about your "performence" here on this board. How you completely fail to pass the Christian message, and how you try to force the Christian message through the troats of people by lying, innuendo, and lambasting those with other views.

===

This topic is about "What is truth?"
I did state in this topic before , and do again in this post :

Tommy's idea of "true" and "truth" seems to be quite different to the ideas of those who live with ratio, logic, knowledge, understanding, and tolerance.

For any intelligent person the words "true" or "truth" refer to the property of being in accordance with the actual state of affairs. And as the word "actual" refers to reality, it should refer to OSE as its only guideline.

Unfortunately in the religious field the words "true" or "truth" are used in and out of season to SUGGEST a level of accuracy, and in effect are used to provide some BOGUS VALIDITY to personal interpretations that are at best only covered by Subjective Supported Evidence.

Personal views are based on your interpretation of the truth (of the reality).
You however insist intolerantly that your views are factual, you refuse to accept that other ideas are of equal validity, and you seem to be ashamed for what you only can BELIEVE but can not can provide OSE for.

What a nice display of the difference between the linguistic meaning and the religious unsupported interpretation of the words "true" or "truth"!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

Your truth is your own.
Indeed : for everyone what appears to be "truth" seems to be different, as it is based on personal (mis) interpretation of reality.
The linguistic meaning of "truth" however refers to the property of being in accordance with the actual state of affairs. And as the word "actual" refers to reality, it should refer to OSE as its only guideline.

Unfortunately in the religious field the words "true" or "truth" are used in and out of season to SUGGEST a level of accuracy, and in effect are used to provide some BOGUS VALIDITY to personal interpretations that are at best only covered by Subjective Supported Evidence.


No one's is better than another, because their is no proof.
Indeed : no one is better because there is no proof. However those who realize this non-existence of proof (for instance for the existence of "God") and try to force their own opinion upon others are in fact dishonest. BELIEF is BELIEF and without DIRECT OSE , religious BELIEF is no more than a wild claim.


Their (sic) is no absolute- only relativism? Just floating in the wind to popular opinion or whatever tickles your fancy?
There is no "absolute". Unless you can provide OSE for the existence of anything that is really "absolute". If so : show us by starting a new topic on "absolute".

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THERE IS A GOD.
NO PROOF. NO PROOF. NO TRUE REAL PROOF.
HE IS SOMETHING YOU CAN BELIEVE IN.

No one knows how anything started in the world, thats why there is the evolution theory.....the Big Bang theory....and the god thing.

No proof of god. I still hope and pray there is a god, if there wasn't it would suck. Sadly there's no proof of a lot of things, too bad.
Stop arguing with me about there is good proof, no there is NO REAL proof.

Hey, here is a thought. While you are HOPING and PRAYING why not ask GOD? THEN why not pick up the Word and ask him to reveal himself to you in HIS word. If I were on a quest to know if he actually existed I would want to read the word of God myself. The bible is such a cool book. It was written by many different men with different backgrounds but all of it was inspired of God. I can't prove to you that it is truth.AND that there is a GOD. But I think the proof is in the pudding. The Bible and its' prophecies are 100 percent accurate. ( there are SOME things still to be fulfilled) but the ones that have been have been on the money. Cred's only explanation is that it was written after the fact but that is because he is ignorant of the Word. And besides he is on a quest... he THINKS he has the market cornered on wisdom and logic... ( yawn) he posts the same ol sorry stuff over and over. He deosn't realize he thinks like a carnal, fleshly man. But that is his problem.

Take the Jew. If you read about what God said would happen to them and their nation it IS 100 percent accurate. Did you know that Word said that Israel would be destroyed and the people scattered... BUT that Jews would come back into the land again? It took almost 2000 years but it happened. Not ONLY that, but the fact that the Jews even know who they are is a miracle. People scattered all over the earth for almost 2000 years and they never lost their identity. WOW. What are the odds? Then the bible says that Israel would become a nation again in ONE day. Check out what happened on May 14, 1948? The Bible is accurate. I can't get into a science and debate because I am not a science kind of girl.. but I can debate the WORD... it is TRUTH... ABSOLUTE TRUTH. God cannot lie.

If you are on a quest for truth... ask God. Whether you believe he exists or not and then Pick up the Word and find out. Don't listen to Cred... don't even listen to me. LISTEN TO GOD. You know... the ONE I can't PROVE exists. He WILL reveal himself if you ask him to. :)

You seriously suggest that I start debating with you on your list of evolution queries in a topic named "what is truth"??

Cred, I don't expect you would even try to engage the topic at all. You never have before (not even when you started on thread on that topic), so why start now.


Tommy : are you out of your mind?? You are the one who attacks almost everyone else when he/she posts anything that can be construed to be off-topic.

What colour is the sky in your world, Cred?


My belief? I hold no religious beliefs. And I NEVER claimed that "God" does not exist.

So you concede that God does exist? Because for years you have argued vehemently against the existence of God.

Good question.

First question is why does truth matter?

If I do not believe in a God - and believe in only evolution, or the reductionist principal that we are just part of nature or only the product of organic chemicals, one without a soul, why does truth even matter. I would be the result of random chance - all my words, thoughts, and actions are determined by my genes or whatever culture's or society's genes.

We, even those who do not believe in God, believe that truth is good and lies and falsehoods are bad. Why is that?

Which brings another question. Why do we think of things as good and evil or truth or lies?

Do dogs or cats or monkeys or snails think the way we do? Are they concerned about absolute truth?

Inthebox,

Interesting. I enjoyed your thoughts.

Do dogs or cats or monkeys or snails think the way we do? Are they concerned about absolute truth?

Cred,

I figured it out... You are a monkey! THAT is why you don't believe in absolute truth. LOL LOL LOL... (yes, I think I am hilarious.) What can I say GOD gave me a great sense of humor!! :D

My belief? I hold no religious beliefs. And I NEVER claimed that "God" does not exist.
So you concede that God does exist? Because for years you have argued vehemently against the existence of God.

More innuendo? More deliberate mis-suggestions ?

As I stated in my previous posts to you :

"My belief? I hold no religious beliefs. And I NEVER claimed that "God" does not exist. You are fully aware of that, and therefore your question is a lie, it is hypocrite, and it is innuendo.

I have stated here and in other topics on this board many times : the existence of "God" has never been proved so far, and I do not think it ever will. Therefore there is no need to prove the negative : the non-existence of "God".
Besides that : I have no need to prove that negative. I accept that people BELIEVE that "God" exists, and respect their views. All I refute are the wild claims that the BELIEF in the existence of "God" is a reality.".

That I never claimed that "God" does not exist does not mean that I concede that "God" exists. As you very well know I ignore the wild religious claim as that "God" exists.

Now please stop posting your BS , start getting on-topic, and react on the topic question : "What is truth"?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

As I stated in my previous posts to you :

"[I]My belief? I hold no religious beliefs. And I NEVER claimed that "God" does not exist. You are fully aware of that, and therefore your question is a lie, it is hypocrite, and it is innuendo.

Cred,

My memory is not so bad as you assume. I have watched and read your messages for years, so we know that you have promoted the belief that there is no God.


I have stated here and in other topics on this board many times : the existence of "God" has never been proved so far, and I do not think it ever will.

I am positive that unless you change your approach, the existence of God will never be proved to your satisfaction because you refuse to look at or consider any evidence put before you. That alone is evidence that you believe that there is no God and refuse to consider the possibility that God exists. Indeed it appears that you fear the possibility that God may exist.

Cred, i figured it out....You are a monkey! THAT is why you don't believe in absolute truth.
It's not that I don't believe in absolute truth : seeing the total lack of OSE there is no "absolute truth" !

As to your suggestion that I am a monkey :

I have no court record that needs to get expunged...
I do not require the use of smartmouth...
I doubt that my ashes will require more than one single urn...
I do not need to slim my butt...
I do not have a problem with twitching...
I did not favor McCaine...
I have nothing against Roman Catholics. I am married to one already 39 years...
I think calling a sewage plant after George W. Bush is an excellent way to remember him...
I am not 15 pounds overweight...

So why should I be called a monkey ?
When was the last time you looked in a mirror ?
And do you like my type of reverse-humor?

:D :D :D :D :D :D

.

.

My memory is not so bad as you assume. I have watched and read you messages for years, so we know that you have promioted the belief that there is no God.
Another one of your lies, Tommy ! Is lying now included in your "package" to force your religious views through other people's throats? Is lying now a standard fixed part of your personal version of "spreading the word"?

Are the people of the Christian Discernment Resources, the Last Days Bible Conference, and the Signs of Scripture Conference aware that lying seems to be a big part of your approach ?
I think I should post to these three organisations and provide them with some information of your "develish" unChristian behavior.

So : for the umpteenth time : will you now return to the topic, to the question : "What is truth" ?

So far all you have shown here is what "truth" is not...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

Another one of your lies, Tommy !

Same old, same old, Cred. Denial and falsely accusing others is the standard line with you.


Are the people of the Christian Discernment Resources, the Last Days Bible Conference, and the Signs of Scripture Conference aware that lying seems to be a big part of your approach ?

Why don't you email then with your accusations? Or are you afraid of being found out.


I think I should post to these three organisations and provide them with some information of your "develish" unChristian behavior.

I think that you should indeed!

Of course I bet you don't because you know what the truth is!

Monkeys and apes are, like us, big into fairness issues. For example, capuchin monkeys will turn down a food treat if they feel they are getting ripped off.


Pairs [of monkeys] were placed next to each other and trained to exchange with human handlers a small granite rock within 60 seconds to receive a reward, in most cases, a piece of cucumber.

... Partners of capuchins who made the swap either received the same reward (a cucumber slice), or a better reward (a grape, a more desirable food), for the same amount of work or, in some cases, for performing no work at all.

... Brosnan said the response to the unequal treatment was astonishing: Capuchins who witnessed unfair treatment and failed to benefit from it often refused to conduct future exchanges with human researchers, would not eat the cucumbers they received for their labors, and in some cases, hurled food rewards at human researchers.
Monkeys Show Sense Of Fairness, Study Says (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0917_030917_monkeyfairness.html)

I'm proud of my primate heritage. :)

It's not that I don't believe in absolute truth : seeing the total lack of OSE there is no "absolute truth" !

As to your suggestion that I am a monkey :

I have no court record that needs to get expunged ...
I do not require the use of smartmouth ...
I doubt that my ashes will require more than one single urn ...
I do not need to slim my butt ...
I do not have a problem with twitching ...
I did not favor McCaine ...
I have nothing against Roman Catholics. I am married to one already 39 years ...
I think calling a sewage plant after George W. Bush is an excellent way to remember him ...
I am not 15 pounds overweight ...

So why should I be called a monkey ?
When was the last time you looked in a mirror ?
And do you like my type of reverse-humor?

:D :D :D :D :D :D

.

.

LOL LOL LOL... ooooh cred. You sure did get the GOODS on me! I DID like your reverse humor! Why should I call you a monkey?. because I think there is OSE that you are. But I won't hold that against ALL monkeys.. just you!

P.s. I'm disappointed you forgot to add the Montezuma's revenge to my list of problems... oh well. I forgive you for not being completely right... you haven't been yet.

That is vary to just because some one believes one thing doesn't mean we all do but I have a question for all of you that see this I live with my mom and I hate it there because I have never had the oprtouedy to be with my dad and I won't to move with him so what would I have to do and how old would I have to be to do this

Jeez people.

Well, how could I ask him to appear before me? I mean, then of COURSE I would believe him... I mean I want to talk to him... and ask questions... and other stuff... this world is so weird, and everything is so amazing. I wish one day, I could see&talk to him... or her or whatever god is lol.

:/

I don't know what to believe...
I guess I don't believe it till I see it.

I'm disappointed you forgot to add the Montezuma's revenge to my list of problems...
The sh*t was already covered in the line about calling a sewage plant after George W. Bush...
No need to overdo it !

:D :D :D :D :D :D

.

.

Same old, same old, Cred. Denial and falsely accusing others is the standard line with you.
The difference between us is that I always support my references. You just lie about it. You just blow hot air...

What a sad person you must be...

:rolleyes:

.

.

jeez people.

well, how could I ask him to appear before me? I mean, then of COURSE I would believe him...I mean I want to talk to him...and ask questions....and other stuff.....this world is so weird, and everything is so amazing. I wish one day, I could see&talk to him...or her or whatever god is lol.

God came to earth as a man, God gave us His word in the form of the Bible, and He has opened a way for all of us to be reconciled to Him and to talk with Him.

What are you waiting for?

The difference between us is that I always support my references. You just lie about it. You just blow hot air ...

Really Cred? The record on this and the last board was the reverse. I will be most interested to see you actually validate a claim.

My suggestion to you - don't talk about it - just do it!

Really Cred? The record on this and the last board was the reverse. I will be most interested to see you actually validate a claim.
Always lying. Always hypocrisy. Always a Pharisee... And all that apparently in the name of "spreading the word"...

No wonder Atheism is growing worldwide...

The topic is named : "What is truth?" What you post Tj3 is certainly NOT the truth...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

Always lying. Always hypocrisy. Always a Pharisee .... And all that apparently in the name of "spreading the word" ....

Hey Cred, in your last post you said that you always validate your claims - I see no validation of your false accusations here. You just proved me right!

BTW, have you sent emails to LDBC and CDR yet?

I see no validation of your false accusations here.
You may BELIEVE that. You may not have seen that.
But everyone else following this lead has seen it.
They have seen who is the bullsh*tter here and who is not.

They also have seen that I repeatedly tried to get the discussion back on-topic, and you are the one who - seeing your posts - refuses to do so.

All that this all shows is that whatever the truth is, it will not come from your posts...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

You may BELIEVE that. You may not have seen that.
But everyone else following this lead has seen it.
They have seen who is the bullsh*tter here and who is not.

As you wish Cred. I am prepared to stand on the facts.


They also have seen that I repeatedly tried to get the discussion back on-topic, and you are the one who - seeing your posts - refuses to do so.

Cred, you change whatever you think the topic is whenever things get uncomfortable for you.

As you wish Cred. I am prepared to stand on the facts.
Nobody cares what you stand on, Tommy.
What is however important is to always tell the truth. Specially in this specific topic...
And THAT you don't. You lie and you know it.

One thing we know : the truth will not be seen in your posts!!

Why do you insist to get classyT's topic closed for running off-topic?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

Nobody cares what you stand on, Tommy.
What is however important is to always tell the truth. Specially in this specific topic ....
And THAT you don't. You lie and you know it.

Cred, I know you don't care what anyone else says, nor clearly about the truth based upon your false accusations.

I still see that you are not posting any validation! Emails sent to LDBC and CDR yet?

Tom, I'm interested in this quote by you;



I have evidence to the contrary, but that does not matter right now - your belief is that God did not write the Bible. Can you validate that claim?

I would love to see the evidence you have that shows that God wrote the bible.

Could you supply that evidence?

Tom, I'm interested in this quote by you;


I would love to see the evidence you have that shows that God wrote the bible.

Could you supply that evidence?

First, have you ever taken the time to study Biblical prophecy?

Yes Tom, I went to Catholic school for 10 years, it was mandatory.

The funny thing is, even they taught us that the bible was at most "inspired" by God, but written by man. You are claiming that God wrote the bible, I'm interested to see your evidence for this, as you did state that you have evidence.

Yes Tom, I went to Catholic school for 10 years, it was mandatory.

Okay, so you will know that that the Bible has about 2000 prophecies fulfilled exactly as given, with over 100 of these dealing specifically with the life of Jesus.

The probabilities have been estimated at 1 in 10 to the power of 2000 of this occurring by chance.


The funny thing is, even they taught us that the bible was at most "inspired" by God, but written by man. You are claiming that God wrote the bible, I'm interested to see your evidence for this, as you did state that you have evidence.

Ah, I did not know that we were going to play with semantics. Let me word it for those who wish to be picky - God through the Holy Spirit provided the content by means of inspiration:

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

Or as scripture puts it - all scripture is "God breathed"

2 Tim 3:15-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

(The word used for inspiration is the Greek word theopneustos which means "God Breathed")

And God's word was penned by men. The word wrote, however remains accurate because even some of those who penned scripture used scribes to put pen to paper and yet it is they, because it is their input, the work is attributed to them by even secular sources, just as those authors today who make use of secretaries to assist in their work.

So, in other words, you're using the bible (which I believe was written by man and largely fictional) to prove that God inspired the bible?

I was hoping for unbiased proof. In other words, something other than the bible to prove the bible.

So, in other words, you're using the bible (which I believe was written by man and largely fictional) to prove that God inspired the bible?

Your validation for these claims is?

BTW, the proof of the fulfillment of prophecy can be shown to be historical - or are you going to reject the historical record because it was written by men also?

Your validation for these claims is?

BTW, the proof of the fulfillment of prophecy can be shown to be historical - or are you going to reject the historical record because it was written by men also?


What's your validation?

Men are fallible, if you ask 10 people that all witnessed the same event, the accounts of that event will all be vastly different, and most will be largely exaggerated or untrue.

In other words, yes, I do reject the "historical records" of prophecy's that have been "fullfilled", because they were written by man.

In other words, yes, I do reject the "historical records" of prophecy's that have been "fullfilled", because they were written by man.

I did not ask that - I asked do you reject the historical record.

If you reject what men have recorded as history, or if you say that you reject anything accepted as historical record because it substantiates the Bible, then we have nothing to discuss because you then are saying that you believe only what you believe.

Of course taken to a logical conclusion, that means that you cannot even believe yourself because you too are human.

Oy vey.

No Tom, you specifically asked if I reject the historical records of fulfilled prophecies.

How about we make this easy, quote the records that you are referring to. Saying "historical records" is a bit vague.

I'm also not saying that everything in the bible is false, I'm just saying that people should use the brains that we have to decide what is true and what is to good to be true, or too outlandish to be true.

The bible is a mishmash of stories told by different men about Jesus. Are we to believe everything that was written? If so, why did all these miraculous events cease to exist? Have you witnessed anyone parting the sea? The great flood, anything that comes close to the miracles described in the bible?

Logically, if it sounds too good to be true, that's usually because it is.

I have a mind, I will not agree with something that doesn't make sense.

I believe in God, but not the bible.

Oy vey.
Hmmmmm Alty : is that why I miss you here every Friday night ? :D

As to Tj3's arguments and demands :

Tommy clearly is a man of double standards :

- from anyone with a non-Christian view he demands OSE for every word and letter of what is posted.
- for his own and peer views he only supplies and/or accepts wild claims and other unrelated arguments and references.

But I think you picked his balloon !
Just keep pushing him for DIRECT OSE for whatever he claims.
And hold back on going off-topic and ending up in an endless argument with Tommy about futilities he finds in your posts with which he tries to change direction in the conversation !

This topic is about "What is truth"?

The meaning of the word "truth" depends on how you approach the word.
The linguistic meaning of "truth" refers to the property of being in accordance with the actual state of affairs. And as the word "actual" refers to reality, it should refer to OSE as its only guideline.

Unfortunately in the religious field the words "true" or "truth" are used in and out of season to SUGGEST a level of accuracy, and in effect are used to provide some BOGUS VALIDITY to personal interpretations that are at best only covered by Subjective Supported Evidence.

In Tommy's posts you see the efffect of this bogus validaity reoccuring time and time again.
He SUGGESTS a lot but does NOT OSE support anything at all.

So do not look for "truth" in Tommy's posts. At least not while he continues in the way he has done here since his arrival.

You know that I respect anyone's personal BELIEF. But the moment people here start posting that what they BELIEVE is the "truth" , I clearly let them know that that is not "true" but an empty claim. For something to be "true" DIRECT OSE has to be provided. Nothing else will do.

:) :) :) :) :)



.

.

Oy vey.

No Tom, you specifically asked if I reject the historical records of fulfilled prophecies.

Read more carefully.

What I said was, and I quote"...are you going to reject the historical record because it was written by men also?"


How about we make this easy, quote the records that you are referring to. Saying "historical records" is a bit vague.

If you are going to reject anything which was written by men that disagrees with what you want to believe, why should I waste my time?

Do you or do yolu not accept the historical record?


I'm also not saying that everything in the bible is false, I'm just saying that people should use the brains that we have to decide what is true and what is to good to be true, or too outlandish to be true.

Then I would have to ask you what the basis is for judging what in the Bible is true and is not true.

As to Tj3's arguments and demands :

Tommy clearly is a man of double standards :

Grow up Cred. I wouldn't let my kids behave like you are when they were toddlers.

As to Tj3's arguments and demands :
Tommy clearly is a man of double standards
Grow up Cred. I wouldn't let my kids act like you are when they were toddlers.
Tommy : so you suggest that we level the playing fields right now?

A simple YES or NO will do !

If you agree, we can discuss the type and level of support from now onwards later.
If you do not agree : why do you question that you are a man of double standards ?

Face it Tommy : you can not have it both ways!!

:D :rolleyes: :) :p :rolleyes: :D

.

.

Tommy : so you suggest that we level the playing fields right now?

A simple YES or NO will do !

If you agree, we can discuss the type and level of support from now onwards later.

I don't know what type of support that you are suggesting that you could give, but I am not looking for support from you, Cred.

Further, if you are saying that I must compromise the truth for you to behave like an adult, no that is not happening either.


If you do not agree : why do you question that you are a man of double standards ?


Because your immature behaviour has nothing to do with whether I am speaking the truth. If you think that you can refute what I say, there is an open and level playing field for you to do so - bring forward some credible information and the sources and we can look at it.

If you plan to throw a temper tantrum at anyone who disagrees with you, that speaks volumes about you, but does nothing to refute what I said.

Tommy : so you suggest that we level the playing fields right now? A simple YES or NO will do !
If you agree, we can discuss the type and level of support from now onwards later.
I don't know what type of support that you are suggesting that you could give, but I am not looking for support from you, Cred.
The question was simple and easy : do we level the playing fields, and do we agree to use the same type and level of support from now onwards ?
Don't you understand that, or do you prefer to stay a man of double standards, Tommy ?

I guess I already know what your answer will be , and what for man you are...
I fear my initial description of you hit the "truth" button...

:D :rolleyes: :) :p :rolleyes: :D

.

.

The question was simple and easy : do we level the playing fields, and do we agree to use the same type and level of support from now onwards ?

And the answer was simple. Since we already have a level playing field, I don't know what type of support that you are suggesting that you could give, but I am not looking for support from you, Cred.

Further, if you are saying that I must compromise the truth for you to behave like an adult, no that is not happening either.


If you do not agree : why do you question that you are a man of double standards ?


Because your immature behaviour has nothing to do with whether I am speaking the truth. If you think that you can refute what I say, there is an open and level playing field for you to do so - bring forward some credible information and the sources and we can look at it.

If you plan to throw a temper tantrum at anyone who disagrees with you, that speaks volumes about you, but does nothing to refute what I said.

Why do you keep trying to distract from the topic? Do you fear dealing the issue?

And the answer was simple. Since we already have a level playing field,
No Tommy : we do NOT have a level playing field.
You demand OSE from every opponent, while you provide only SSE yourself for your claims and suggestions.

Specially in a topic that is about "What is truth" a level playing field is essential.
But this little encounter has clearly shown to all that you refuse to debate on level terms.
I know your way of operation already many years, now all others know it too .

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

No Tommy : we do NOT have a level playing field.
You demand OSE from every opponent, while you provide only SSE yourself for your claims and suggestions.

Cred,

I got a good laugh out of that - no, it is you who keep asking and refuse to answer.

How you manage to distort reality like that is beyond me.

Tom

Tom,


BTW, the proof of the fulfillment of prophecy can be shown to be historical - or are you going to reject the historical record because it was written by men also?

But how do I talk to him? If there really is a god...

Do I just say... god please appear before me... or something? Go somewhere quiet? Or whatttttt, I don't know this stuff.

I just got a call from my cousin, my grandmother is dying, she may not survive the night, definitely won't survive the week.

So, everyone, what is truth? I can tell you one absolute truth. We all live, and we all die. What we do between those two is up to us and only us.

Is there a God watching over us? Is there a heaven, is there a hell? In the end, does it really matter?

My parents prayed, read the bible, sent me to Catholic school, believed in God. When they got sick I prayed every night for a miracle, I wept, I was down on my knees, just one small miracle, let the cancer be gone, let them live.

They both died, then my grandmother, then my mother in law died, then a friends father died, and now my grandmother. In the last 7 years I've seen more death than most people see in their lifetime. I'm done.

If God exists, then why all this suffering? I've lived through more death then anyone else I know at my age. And don't tell me that everything happens for a reason, because the only thing that's happened is my saddness, my heartbreak, the loss of grandparents for my children, the loss of a relationship like no other. The loss of the people who gave me life, taught me love, gave me my backbone. Well, that backbone is getting weaker every time someone else dies.

I don't want to argue anymore. I'd rather shove bamboo sticks under my fingernails, it's more productive.

Good luck everyone, I have to go prepare a eulogy.

I just got a call from my cousin, my grandmother is dying, she may not survive the night, definitely won't survive the week.

I am very sorry to hear about this.


So, everyone, what is truth? I can tell you one absolute truth. We all live, and we all die. What we do between those two is up to us and only us.

How can you be so sure of that?


Is there a God watching over us? Is there a heaven, is there a hell? In the end, does it really matter?

Yes, there is a God and yes it does matter. Indeed if there is even a chance that there is a God, isn't it important to find out and investigate the facts while we are yet alive and able to do so - while there is time? It is okay to say that we don't know, and indeed that is better than to deny that God exists as some do.



If God exists, then why all this suffering?

The suffering is the result of sin. God created us perfectly, but we have all sinned and rebelled against God. When sin entered the world, death entered into nature, causing our bodies to age, die and decay.

That is why God came to earth as a man, to die on the cross that we might be reconciled to Him, and be able to restored by means of a glorified body which we receive when we die. God did not come to condemn, but to save us, and it is up to us to make the decision to receive Him as Lord and Saviour or reject His offer of reconciliation.

My wife has a brother who died without receiving Christ. It causes her grief to think of his fate, but Gopd has given us a promise:

Rev 21:3-4
4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away."
NKJV

For those who have lost friends and relatives who are not saved. knowing that God will wipe away every tear is a great promise.

I hope that someday you will consider the gospel. I am always willing to go off line with you to discuss it anytime that you wish.

In the meantime, I will pray that God will comfort you, and your grandmother.

Yes Tom, I went to Catholic school for 10 years, it was mandatory.

The funny thing is, even they taught us that the bible was at most "inspired" by God, but written by man. You are claiming that God wrote the bible, I'm interested to see your evidence for this, as you did state that you have evidence.

Alty,

The mere fact that the Jews are back in Israel after being scattered for almost 2000 years ( all of that was predicted in the Bible) is a miracle. Not only is it a miracle but God said that they would become a nation again in ONE day. Israel became a Nation again on May 14, 1948. It took ONE day. Can you name any race of people who have been scattered all over the world for over 2000 years who even know WHO they are?. let alone become a Nation again. Why did this happen? Because GOD said it would.

Daniels prophecies are so accrurate! He predicted that 4 world empires will come on the stage. He gave details that NO ONE could possibly know ahead of time. It is amazing. Course sceptics say that Daniel was written after the World empires and they NEED to believe that otherwise they may have to actually consider that the Bible is true. HOWEVER this is false. It is interesting because he described their rise and how they would be overthrown and by whom. Funny thing is... the LAST empire.. the Roman Empire was never overthrown and he predicted it. How could he have known that? I suppose Daniel who lived before Christ wrote it AFTER the fall of the Roman Empire. LOL That of course is impossible. AND Jesus himself called Daniel a prophet.

Those are only a few prohecies... every single thing the bible has recorded has happened or WILL happen. There are few prophecies that still need to be fulfilled. I actual believe they will be in my lifetime. Get this.. the Bible said that in the last days... Russia and Iran would become allies. Now for about 2500 years.. that hasn't been the case. IT IS NOW.

One last thing... men wrote the Bible but we read in Timothy that it was all inspired by God.

It is an awesome book. Don't take my word or tj3's or creed's word. Check it out for yourself and make your own mind up. I understand that you believe in God. Maybe not the way I do... but I'd like you to find out for yourself about the accuracy of the Bible. It is pretty cool book. Sorry this is so long. I get excited talking about it. :)

Alty, I just read your last post... I am SOOO sorry about your Grandmother! I hope you don't see my post as another argument because it was not intended to be.

Tom,
BTW, the proof of the fulfillment of prophecy can be shown to be historical - or are you going to reject the historical record because it was written by men also?

Note that I was indicating that the historical record could be used to valid the fact that the prophecy in the Bible came to pass.

Yes, the secular historical record provides evidences of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy.

You know that I respect anyones personal BELIEF.

:) :) :) :) :)



.

.


Cred,

Yes you have been the PERSONIFICATION of that quote! HA HA HA HA HO HO and a harty har har! You should be on the comedy channel. I enjoyed that!!

You know the bible says a merry heart doeth good like a medicine. :p

Cred, yes you have been the PERSONIFICATION of that quote! HA HA HA HA HO HO and a harty har har! You should be on the comedy channel. I enjoyed that!!!! You know the bible says a merry heart doeth good like a medicine.
Yes classyT : I respect everyone's religious views. What I do not respect are empty personal claims and suggestions that are made based on religion.
You BELIEVE in "God", I say "ok". You CLAIM "God" exists, I say PROVE IT!!

How strange that you can not understand the basic difference between these two positions.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

Yes classyT : I respect everyone's religious views. What I do not respect are empty personal claims and suggestions that are made based on religion.
You BELIEVE in "God", I say "ok". You CLAIM "God" exists, I say PROVE IT !!!

How strange that you can not understand the basic difference between these two positions.



.

.


Really Cred,

Well I didn't see any respect in the statement below. I was wondering what the differences were in catholics and mainstream christianity. My personal belief was they were differenct.. FR_Chuck disagreed. This is what you HAD to say:

Quote by CRED: Why interfere with how other people interpret their Christian belief? Please stop this intolerance and "wise-acring"!

I was just asking a question. You didn't have an answer so you called my question intolerant and "wise-acring". That is YOUR idea of respect.:rolleyes:


Then again on a thread discussing Halloween and why some Christians think it is wrong to celebrate it... this is what YOU said.

Quote by Cred: If Christians in general would spend as much energy and time on improving their own approach towards others as some of them spend here on intolerant behaviour, heaven would exist, just here on a peacefull earth...

You are NOT respectful of Christians or their beliefs. You are NOT just here to get OSE, you are here to pick a fight and prove that you are more intelligent and TOLERANT ( LOL LOL) than the Christians. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

So, I will ask again... just because someone BELIEVES something... does THAT make it true?

The answer is NO. The proof is always in the pudding.:p

I use the Bible to back up my beliefs because it is TRUTH. It is right 100 percent of the time. Whether YOU think so or not. Strange isn't it that you can't get that concept.? Oh well maybe you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are... I don't know? Just throwing that suggestion out there.

http://photos.jpgmag.com/627338_128545_b14e41d48a_p.jpg

Yes classyT : I respect everyone's religious views.

Cred, I have known you for many years, and this is not an attribute that I have seen from you.


You BELIEVE in "God", I say "ok". You CLAIM "God" exists, I say PROVE IT!!

But then you are unwilling to look at the proof when give, nor are you willing to apply that same standard to your own BELIEFS.

Tom,

You haven't provided any proof, you've only provided things that you claim prove God simply because there's no other explanation yet.

Just because we don't know how something came to be doesn't mean it's automatically God. That's not logical.

Tom,

You haven't provided any proof, you've only provided things that you claim prove God simply because there's no other explanation yet.

Just because we don't know how something came to be doesn't mean it's automatically God. That's not logical.That's exactly what I see from him as well.

http://photos.jpgmag.com/627338_128545_b14e41d48a_p.jpg

Oh nk,

Why do you tempt me so?. you know I could say something funny here. I won't. I am going to be nice. You think my humor is mean and sarcastic anyway. Or... no.. I think you called it "passive aggressive.".. LOL. Well, I have decided to be a kinder, gentlier classy T. ( at least until the Holidays are over) I get crabby in January. :p

Just because we don't know how something came to be doesn't mean it's automatically God. That's not logical.

Yup.I agree with Altenweg.

I could argue just as logically that since I can't imagine why trees just happen to have a pigment (chlorophyll) that allows them to harvest solar energy, that proves any idea I can think of, including that the first land plants was the work of Aliens from the star system Sirius who terraformed the Earth 500 million years ago.

X is in the gaps means: "If you can't explain it with your hypothesis, then mine is right, and I don't have to explain how my hypothesis explains anything."

Tom,

You haven't provided any proof, you've only provided things that you claim prove God simply because there's no other explanation yet.

You said that you would reject even the record of history is it valdiated prophecy, so there is no way to meet your standard of truth - once we meet it, you reject the evidence.

If you want evidence, you must be willing to acceptb evidence that may disagree with what you want to believe.


Just because we don't know how something came to be doesn't mean it's automatically God. That's not logical.

No one said that. No one put that forward as an argument. You are therefore using the fallacy of a strawman argument.

No Tom, not true.

Historical documents do not prove God's existence, no matter how much you want it to.

You see what you want to see, not what is factual. If that's what you need in order to justify your belief, then fine.

I'm done arguiing, I have more important things to do, like planning my Oma's funeral as she passed away last night.

Continue fighting this losing battle, I'm done.

Alty out.

No one said that. No one put that forward as an argument. You are therefore using the fallacy of a strawman argument.How is she misrepresenting your argument? You DO believe that that things are so complex that only a god could have created them; is that not correct?

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13569&d=1226356504

[See 1 Cor 15:54]

OeT

JoeT

Well done Joe. There must be a huge multinational conspiracy in your mind.

Well done Joe. There must be a huge multinational conspiracy in your mind.
No conspiracies. I just look at things with an illuminating light.

JoeT

For scientists all over the world to create "legends" as you put it would they have to conspire to hide the truth that God made everything?

For scientists all over the world to create "legends" as you put it would they have to conspire to hide the truth that God made everything?

Where's your sense of humor? Did you leave it in a test tube someplace?

JoeT

No Tom, not true.

Historical documents do not prove God's existence, no matter how much you want it to.

This is the point. Before you even agree to see the evidence, you reject it because it disagrees with you.


You see what you want to see, not what is factual.

How do you know? You judge before seeing it. That is pre-judging, which was shortened to create the word "prejudice".

How is she misrepresenting your argument? You DO believe that that things are so complex that only a god could have created them; is that not correct?

That is not what she said. Go back and read what she said.

And I did not say what you said either. Why don't you go find what I really said.

That what she you said earlier when you said it.

That what she you said earlier when you said it.

Ooh ee ooh ah ah, ding dang walla walla bing bang.

For scientists all over the world to create "legends" as you put it would they have to conspire to hide the truth that God made everything?

Don’t take yourself too seriously; there may come a time when you find that you've put too much faith in yourself.

JoeT

Don’t take yourself too seriously; there may come a time when you find that you've put too much faith in yourself.

JoeTNothing wrong with putting faith in yourself , that's what I'm teaching my kids. The world is what you make of it, not dictated but an unseen being in the sky.

Nothing wrong with putting faith in yourself , that's what I'm teaching my kids. The world is what you make of it, not dictated but an unseen being in the sky.

My comment was that we tend to put too much gravity and too much faith in ourselves. I would suggest that we teach our kids faith, hope, and charity. I wouldn’t say that the world is what you make of it; rather I’d suggest that life is what you make of it. God has already MADE the world, to conform to his purpose, for his plan.

“The difficulty of explaining "why I am a Catholic" is that there are ten thousand reasons all amounting to one reason: that Catholicism is true. I could fill all my space with separate sentences each beginning with the words, "It is the only thing that . . ." As, for instance, (1) It is the only thing that really prevents a sin from being a secret. (2) It is the only thing in which the superior cannot be superior; in the sense of supercilious. (3) It is the only thing that frees a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age. (4) It is the only thing that talks as if it were the truth; as if it were a real messenger refusing to tamper with a real message. (5) It is the only type of Christianity that really contains every type of man; even the respectable man. (6) It is the only large attempt to change the world from the inside; working through wills and not laws; and so on.” C. K. Chesterton


JoeT

Tom, I didn't reject your "evidence", I asked to see it, you haven't provided it. How can I determine whether it's factual if I haven't seen it?

My response to you was based on the fact that you won't supply these Historical documents. I have to assume that if you won't supply them that's because they either don't exist or they will not prove that you're correct.

So which is it?

I will read them with an open mind, but I will not search for them, I don't have the time. Since you already know what they are, it would be far easier for you to provide them so that I can read them.

Really, I don't know why this always has to be so difficult. If you have proof then why are you always so reluctant to share it?

Tom, I didn't reject your "evidence", I asked to see it, you haven't provided it. How can I determine whether it's factual if I haven't seen it?

My point exactly - but yet you did exactly that, in more than one message. For example:

----------------
No Tom, not true.

Historical documents do not prove God's existence, no matter how much you want it to.

You see what you want to see, not what is factual. If that's what you need in order to justify your belief, then fine.
-----------------


My response to you was based on the fact that you won't supply these Historical documents.

Before I had a chance you said that you would reject historical document that supported Biblical prophecy. I never refused.

But on the other hand, I am preparing for a conference, and have a fair amount of work to do. Why would I want to waste time presenting evidence for someone who says that if it agrees with what I claimed, that she will reject it?

I would suggest that we teach our kids faith, hope, and charity.
I do exactly that.

True Tom, I did say that, because even though I asked you wouldn't provide these historical documents, therefore I must assume that they aren't proof, otherwise wouldn't you supply them?

After all, it's your argument, if it's not one thing then it has to be the other, right? So, if you can't supply the proof, then it must not exist.

Tom, I didn't reject your "evidence", I asked to see it, you haven't provided it.
Precisely. Tj3 NEVER provided any "evidence" (i.e. OSE) for any of his religious claims.
Tommy provided query after query, list after list, suggestion after suggestion, wild claim after wild claim, so just lots of Subjective Supported Evidence.
But NEVER has he provided OSE for any of his claims. - and I focus here on * the existence of "God" *.

As this topic is about "What is truth?" :

The Truth (in linguistics) is one and the same as factual data. What most people experience as true and as truth is some format of interpretation of data.
Any religious "truth" is a personal subjective supported view. It is about what people BELIEVE.
So far I have never seen any truth coming from Tj3's posts. If he disagrees with that opinion he is free to provide any evidence that would change my (and many other people's) views on this.

I do exactly that.

But how? Where's the dignity, the humanity, in a soulless man who came from a primordial soup?

JoeT

But how? Where's the dignity, the humanity, in a soulless man who came from a primordial soup?
Soulless ? Can you FIRST provide OSE that humanity has a soul? Soul is a religious claim, not a fact.
Fact as in TRUE or TRUTH.

What have dignity and humanity to do with our common origins out of the first lifeform , which you so euphemistally and negatively call "primordial soup"?
Life is not based on dignity and humanity. Life is based on best fitting the requirements to produce healthy descendants.

And as to religion and dignity and humanity... if these were linked than what went wrong so often in the history of mankind?

;)

.

.

this will go on forever... ^-^

But how? Where’s the dignity, the humanity, in a soulless man who came from a primordial soup?

JoeT

Are you saying atheists have no dignity and no humanity? That your sense of dignity and humanity come only from your belief in god?

You have a lot to learn about the world.

JoeT777, even though I do believe in God, I don't believe that someone who doesn't have that faith is without dignity or humanity or a "soul".

Are you saying that without belief in God, being human isn't possible? That's a very judgemental misinformed opinion.

Tom, I'm done arguiing. Either provide these historical documents or don't, but I won't argue about "wording" anymore. I'm starting to understand you a lot better, you like to fight, and I will not give you what you want. If you want a rational discussion about God, then I'm here, until then I will ignore you.

True Tom, I did say that, because even though I asked you wouldn't provide these historical documents, therefore I must assume that they aren't proof, otherwise wouldn't you supply them?

After all, it's your arguement, if it's not one thing then it has to be the other, right? So, if you can't supply the proof, then it must not exist.

You simply want to waste my time. You want me to waste my time to post all sorts of information so that you can say that if they prove what I said, then you reject them.

If I don't you reject them and then twist and misrepresent what I said (you have already done so).

So Why bother? You will say the same thing no matter what I do.

Precisely. Tj3 NEVER provided any "evidence" (i.e. OSE) for any of his religious claims.

See Altenweg, this is exactly what I mean. Cred has seen mounds of evidence for years from myself and others, and then just denies that he ever saw it.

this will go on forever... ^-^

As long as there are those who reject truth, yes.

Then I guess we have to agree to disagree.

You don't know me Tom, so to say that I wouldn't read this evidence you have with an open mind isn't fair.

Personally, I think that you aren't showing it because it doesn't exist, which proves that what I said from the beginning was accurate.

If you really had proof then your argument with me wouldn't matter, you be up on a roof top screaming this evidence to anyone who would listen. Well, I'm here, and I'll listen, but apparently there's nothing to listen to.

I really don't want to fight with you. But it takes two people to come to an agreement, one can't do it alone.

Good luck and Peace.

See Altenweg, this is exactly what I mean. Cred has seen mounds of evidence for years from myself and others, and then just denies that he ever saw it.

Then show me the evidence. I have yet to see it.

I'm not trying to start something here Tom, I really do want to see this evidence and judge for myself. You can even PM it to me if you want.

Then show me the evidence. I have yet to see it.

I'm not trying to start something here Tom, I really do want to see this evidence and judge for myself. You can even PM it to me if you want.

Again, I am reluctant to waste time on someone who has, I believe that is is three times, said that she rejects the evidence if it disagrees with her.

I am busy right now preparing to speak at a conference, and I am not willing to waste valuable time to go digging up information for someone who only wants to ridicule that which might offend what she wants to believe.

Delete - duplicate

Then I guess we have to agree to disagree.

You don't know me Tom, so to say that I wouldn't read this evidence you have with an open mind isn't fair.

I did not say that you would not read it - but you did say that you would reject it is it proved what I said.

I never understood that attitude. If I were wrong, I'd rather find out and know that truth is rather than take your attitude at rejecting anything which proves that you are wrong. You are just deceiving yourself, and closing your eyes.

If I miswrote my thoughts then I apologize, it happens, I am after all only human. Obviously what I wanted to say and the way I wrote it didn't come across the way I intended.

I would not reject what your proof says. I will read it with an open mind. Will I agree? I can't guarantee that, but it won't be just because you seem to think that I want to disagree with you, no matter what.

Really Tom, if there is evidence that God exists and is not just a belief then I would love to see it, becaue I do believe in God, so why would I reject proof that he does exist without a doubt, that would prove to me that my belief isn't wrong, I have no reason to reject vaild proof.

I too have more important things to do right now, I have to write a eulogy, help plan a funeral, sit with my Aunt and Uncles and discuss what happens now that my Oma is gone.

I guess turn the other cheek, or forgive and forget doesn't apply here.

I tried, but I can't force you to meet me half way, you do have to cover a bit of the terrain as well.

If I miswrote my thoughts then I apologize, it happens, I am after all only human. Obviously what I wanted to say and the way I wrote it didn't come across the way I intended.

I find it hard to believe when you say that it was simply mis-spoken, after all just a few minutes ago, you admitted it, and confirmed it.


you seem to think that I want to disagree with you, no matter what.


Those were your words.


why would I reject proof that he does exist without a doubt, that would prove to me that my belief isn't wrong, I have no reason to reject vaild proof.

I don't know - you surprised me when you stated that you would reject it out of hand, and we know that there are people who really don't want the truth - look at Cred!


I guess turn the other cheek, or forgive and forget doesn't apply here.

I tried, but I can't force you to meet me half way, you do have to cover a bit of the terrain as well.

I don't see this as a matter of offence. I am not offended. I feel sorry for those who take prejudicial stands. It is simply a matter that I must use my time wisely.

Tell you what, if, after this weekend, when I have more free time, if I truly see a change in your attitude and some willingness to consider the facts, I may re-consider.

But how? Where’s the dignity, the humanity, in a soulless man who came from a primordial soup?

JoeT


Are you saying atheists have no dignity and no humanity? That your sense of dignity and humanity come only from your belief in god?

You have a lot to learn about the world.

JoeT777, even though I do believe in God, I don't believe that someone who doesn't have that faith is without dignity or humanity or a "soul".

Are you saying that without belief in God, being human isn't possible? That's a very judgmental misinformed opinion.

I am saying that without God the human species is denied its dignity and its humanity. My statement was not intended as judgment; nor was my statement misinformed opinion.

Virtuous morals or ethics are those things found good in the eyes of God. Without God, right and wrong become subjective; morality and integrity become matters of positive law as opposed to natural law. An autonomous authority requires “freedom from” morals as well as “freedom to” implement a proxy ethic independent of God’s will. As such the standard of right and wrong become subjective and differ from individual to individual (or from group to group); thus we hear the refrain "it might be wrong for you but its right for me." Morality in a godless world becomes a social construct based on the whim of the community, changing based on the will of the fittest. The fault seems to be that conclusions drawn are autonomous intellectual exercises; judgments are subjective reasoning not founded on absolute moral truths that only Christianity brings. Thus it can be said that agnosticism becomes the program of rationalism; where “Free thought begets free morals, or immorality- Restraint is thrown off and a free rein given to the passions. WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES (sic).”

Without virtuous morality, mankind is stripped of its dignity and humanity. Therefore you can see that by removing God, you remove virtuous morals and ethics which in turn deny dignity and humanity.

JoeT

I know many people who do not believe in God, and the are some of the most virtuous people I know. The have wonderful morals and ethics, they know right from wrong.


WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES

You think what you please, and that is that God exists, and you do as you please, you just justify it because you claim it's "God's will".

Believing in God has nothing to do with being a good person. I've know many believers that are the worst people that humanity has ever seen, but they think that going to church, praying for forgiveness is enough, because they believe in God. So, they beat their wife and children, molest their 5 year old daughter, cheat in business and on their taxes, but go to church every Sunday.

I have a friend who is an atheist. He volunteers at the Humane Society every week, he gives money to charity, he loves his children, and his wife.

So, who is better? The man who believes in God, or the man who believes in being a good person?

Double post

Indeed : for everyone what appears to be "truth" seems to be different, as it is based on personal (mis) interpretation of reality.
The linguistic meaning of "truth" however refers to the property of being in accordance with the actual state of affairs. And as the word "actual" refers to reality, it should refer to OSE as its only guideline.

Unfortunately in the religious field the words "true" or "truth" are used in and out of season to SUGGEST a level of accuracy, and in effect are used to provide some BOGUS VALIDITY to personal interpretations that are at best only covered by Subjective Supported Evidence.


Indeed : no one is better because there is no proof. However those who realize this non-existence of proof (for instance for the existence of "God") and try to force their own opinion upon others are in fact dishonest. BELIEF is BELIEF and without DIRECT OSE , religious BELIEF is no more than a wild claim.


There is no "absolute". Unless you can provide OSE for the existence of anything that is really "absolute". If so : show us by starting a new topic on "absolute".

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.



So you feed into the moral relatavism. The same moral relatavism that one tribe may use [ they are inferior, or not like us or don't think like us ] to justify committing genocide against another?

I am saying that without God the human species is denied its dignity and its humanity. My statement was not intended as judgment; nor was my statement misinformed opinion.

Virtuous morals or ethics are those things found good in the eyes of God. Without God, right and wrong become subjective; morality and integrity become matters of positive law as opposed to natural law. An autonomous authority requires “freedom from” morals as well as “freedom to” implement a proxy ethic independent of God’s will. As such the standard of right and wrong become subjective and differ from individual to individual (or from group to group); thus we hear the refrain "it might be wrong for you but its right for me." Morality in a godless world becomes a social construct based on the whim of the community, changing based on the will of the fittest. The fault seems to be that conclusions drawn are autonomous intellectual exercises; judgments are subjective reasoning not founded on absolute moral truths that only Christianity brings. Thus it can be said that agnosticism becomes the program of rationalism; where “Free thought begets free morals, or immorality- Restraint is thrown off and a free rein given to the passions. WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES (sic).”

Without virtuous morality, mankind is stripped of its dignity and humanity. Therefore you can see that by removing God, you remove virtuous morals and ethics which in turn deny dignity and humanity.

JoeT

Certainly you're entitled to your opintion, but I fully, 100% disagree with you.

Morality is not only found in religion. It's found in community and society, not the will of the fittest. You make it sound like a dictatorship - the man in charge sets the morals - but that's not how things work in functioning societies. For example, it's not good for society if we go around squashing people's rights and killing people who wear red shirts. Those things make society bad. So, we don't do them. Are morals subjective? Sure, some of them are. Many Christians think premarital sex is wrong, I think there's nothing wrong with it. But the BIG morals - the one's that legislate the world we live in; those come about through humanity - "god" is not required.

You might think your statements aren't misinformed opinion, but I still say they are. You are essentially saying without god one can't be moral. If that's not your intention, you might want to revise your thoughts - because that's how it's coming out. Non-Christians are capable of being good, moral, law-abiding, fantastic people, all without the fear of god/hell/the devil. In fact, many Christians commit horrible atrocities, indicating that even though they have that fear, and they have that inherant morality you imply, they ignore it and do what they want.

I know many people who do not believe in God, and the are some of the most virtuous people I know. The have wonderful morals and ethics, they know right from wrong.



You think what you please, and that is that God exists, and you do as you please, you just justify it because you claim it's "God's will".

Believing in God has nothing to do with being a good person. I've know many believers that are the worst people that humanity has ever seen, but they think that going to church, praying for forgiveness is enough, because they believe in God. So, they beat their wife and children, molest their 5 year old daughter, cheat in business and on their taxes, but go to church every Sunday.

I have a friend who is an atheist. He volunteers at the Humane Society every week, he gives money to charity, he loves his children, and his wife.

So, who is better? The man who believes in God, or the man who believes in being a good person?

Altenweg, jillianleab, et al:

Morality includes those things natural and those things supernaturally revealed by God. In addition it includes those truths necessary for man's salvation. Ethics may be thought of as the science of morality's implementation. In short, morality is all actions that move man towards God's good. Since Christians seek good from God, those truths given from God, must be absolute. What they shouldn't seek is that good that is described by Epicurus, what feels pleasurable or avoids pain is good (see first paragraph of link.) (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/objective-supported-evidence-gods-existence-271164-11.html#post1349606). God doesn't say to one group seek goodness in feeding the poor, and say to another eat all the apple pie you can. Thus, in response to the opening question, yes there is an absolute truth, which in turn relates to an absolute moral guide. (c.f. St. Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica)

"Now human law is ordained for one kind of community, and the Divine law for another kind. Because human law is ordained for the civil community, implying mutual duties of man and his fellows…

But the community for which the Divine law is ordained, is that of men in relation to God, either in this life or in the life to come. And therefore the Divine law proposes precepts about all those matters whereby men are well ordered in their relations to God. Now man is united to God by his reason or mind, in which is God's image. Wherefore the Divine law proposes precepts about all those matters whereby human reason is well ordered. But this is effected by the acts of all the virtues: since the intellectual virtues set in good order the acts of the reason in themselves: while the moral virtues set in good order the acts of the reason in reference to the interior passions and exterior actions. It is therefore evident that the Divine law fittingly proposes precepts about the acts of all the virtues: yet so that certain matters, without which the order of virtue, which is the order of reason, cannot even exist, come under an obligation of precept; while other matters, which pertain to the well-being of perfect virtue, come under an admonition of counsel." St. Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica Part II, I, Q 100

Consequently, it is precisely because its “God's will” that I attempt to work out my salvation with fear and trembling. (cf Phil 2:12). (Also see the following link.) (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/what-truth-277387-2.html#post1359406) Furthermore, whether people beat “their wife and children, molest their 5 year old daughter, cheat in business and on their taxes”, doesn't change the virtues in morality - absolute truth remains absolute.

More important, this is a poor attempt to excuse the rule by the exception – which of course isn't done in this particular example. With this kind of moral rationalization we can excuse indiscriminate murder because your friend didn't fill out his taxes properly, which we know to be flawed reasoning. And, we see the reverse of this logic in your atheist friend; because he does a few good things to deny God is deemed right. Virtuous morals, like God's truth, are absolute and to throw off that tenet is to say “WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES” It seems that both your friends are in error.

JoeT

So you feed into the moral relatavism. The same moral relatavism that one tribe may use [ they are inferior, or not like us or don't think like us ] to justify commiting genocide against another?
What a BS reply : is that all you could manage ?
You did not even react to the drift of my post...
You SUGGEST (of course without any OSE or other support) that I feed on "moral relativism", and than start referring that claimed relativism to inferiority and genocide.
What a total nonsensical rubbish!!

You showed with your post that you have no inkling of "what is truth?"
While you posted this drab in this specific topic.

How sad, how very sad...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

The absolute truth, Cred, is that you attack those you disagree with, and your post is OSE of it.

Hitler truly believed in a superior race, eugenics, which fits in with the theory of evolution. Is Hitler's truth any more true than yours or mine? Who is to judge who is misinterpreting when there are no absolutes?

Morality is not only found in religion. It's found in community and society, not the will of the fittest.

I agree with you that morality can be found outside of Christianity.

But the question is not whether morality can be found but how is it defined. Within Christianity, there is an unmovable standard. Some people may add their own bits to it, but that does not change the standard.

If you go by the community and society, the standard can and will change. We see that over time and we see that when we look at different societies and communities in the world today.

That's right if we go by the unchanging morals of the bible we would have such great morals as
2 If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
3 If he come in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he be married, then his wife shall go out with him.
4 If his master give him a wife and she bear him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
5 But if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
6 then his master shall bring him unto God, and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.
7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath espoused her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a foreign people he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
9 And if he espouse her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
11 And if he do not these three things unto her, then shall she go out for nothing, without money.

So yea boo changing community morals. Boo not having slaves. Boo treating women as equal.

We would obviously be better of with the bible morals than with changing community ones.

Do you really buy into your own rhetoric or are you just joking with us TJ3?

Hey, mich, how about fast forwarding to the teachings of Christ?

So that is why Christians ended slavery in 30 AD. Oh wait they didn't. In fact they continued to claim that god gave them the right to own slaves right up to the 1860s and continued to treat women as property until the 1950s.

How about Luke 12:47?
47And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

NT says if your servant doesn't do your will it's okay to beat him. Good thing you Christians base your moral on these non-changing morals. We wouldn't want our servants not doing our will and think that they wouldn't get a beating.

Certainly you're entitled to your opintion, but I fully, 100% disagree with you.

Yes, I have an entitlement to an opinion. I'll avail myself of that opinion whether you agree. To me it's like the science of mathematics, the correctness being black and white.


Immorality: “The result is inevitable; a corrupt generation necessarily begets a revolutionary generation…Freethought begets freemorals or immorality. Restraint is thrown off, and a free rein given to the passions. Who thinks what he pleases will do what he pleases… intellectual order is license in the moral order. Disorder in the intellect begets disorder in the heart, and vice versa. 1886, Dr. Don Felix Sarda Y Salvany, El Liberalismo es Pecado


Morality is not only found in religion. It's found in community and society, not the will of the fittest. You make it sound like a dictatorship - the man in charge sets the morals - but that's not how things work in functioning societies. For example, it's not good for society if we go around squashing people's rights and killing people who wear red shirts. Those things make society bad. So, we don't do them. Are morals subjective? Sure, some of them are. Many Christians think premarital sex is wrong, I think there's nothing wrong with it. But the BIG morals - the one's that legislate the world we live in; those come about through humanity - "god" is not required.

Yes, theological morality is founded only in our religious faith. Catholics hold morality based on Divine law to be objective in nature. Morality needs a standard or a guide for intelligent action; putting forward an end, a right order, and defines inferior principles to achieve the stated end.

There is a secular sense of morality, but it not quite what I'd call morality; instead it's what is found in the positive law (laws made by men). Those laws we sometimes think of as being different from natural law (those laws set by nature) and the tenets of our Catholic faith, God's law. Positive law is made for the common good in regard to some individual work to otherwise rule and measure. In addition, positive law is for the purpose of directing a community's affairs. Human law is ordained by man, not God, and pertains to justice between men and as such is subjective in nature. Thus we find morals based solely on positive law to be mutable and subjective.

Conversely, virtuous morals derived from the Divine law, ordained by God for His relation with men in this world and the next. “The moral virtues set in good order the acts of the reason in reference to the interior passions and exterior actions.” St. Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica Part 2, I Q100, 2. We find some of these moral virtues in our Declaration of Independence as “certain inalienable rights.” Divine law is an order of law higher than that of positive law and as such we find the derived morals immutable, unchangeable, and as such are objective.


You might think your statements aren't misinformed opinion, but I still say they are.

I know my statements are not malformed. I've taken the time to become informed, limited only by my abilities.


You are essentially saying without god one can't be moral.

I'm saying without God one cannot have virtuous morals as I've tried to define above.


If that's not your intention, you might want to revise your thoughts - because that's how it's coming out.

I hope it came out as I intended. Based on your objections I'd say I came reasonably close.

JoeT

That's right if we go by the unchanging morals of the bible we would have such great morals as
2 If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
3 If he come in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he be married, then his wife shall go out with him.
4 If his master give him a wife and she bear him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
5 But if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
6 then his master shall bring him unto God, and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.
7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath espoused her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a foreign people he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
9 And if he espouse her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
11 And if he do not these three things unto her, then shall she go out for nothing, without money.

So yea boo changing community morals. Boo not having slaves. Boo treating women as equal.

We would obviously be better of with the bible morals than with changing community ones.

Do you really buy into your own rhetoric or are you just joking with us TJ3?


Michael:


Look up abolition and Wilberforce or the Quakers.

Slavery is a human invention that crosses all cultures. You can't just attribute it to Christians and the bible, because it is a widespread phenomenon.

Were not the Jews slaves to other peoples like the Eygptians?

The absolute truth, Cred, is that you attack those you disagree with, and your post is OSE of it.
Hitler truly believed in a superior race, eugenics, which fits in with the theory of evolution. Is Hitler's truth any more true than yours or mine? Who is to judge who is misinterpreting when there are no absolutes?
I note that you exceed Joe's comments with an even higher level of BS!!
You managed to drag even Hitler into the "discussion".
And that in a topic that asks itself the question "What is Truth ?"

Well : one thing is completely sure now : neither you nor Joe are - by your actions in this topic - capable of posting an honest anwer to that question.

How sad !!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

That's only a greater argument that we get our morals from culture not from the bible.

Thank you for agreeing with me, that people have always gotten their morals from the culture they are in not the bible.

Cred:

When there is no absolute truth - Hitler / eugenics / genocide cannot be viewed as good or bad / true or false - because it is up to fallible individuals to interpret their reality as you have put it.

Again

The absolute truth, Cred, is that you attack those you disagree with, and your post is OSE of it

I'll welcome a discussion on Hitler being a good Catholic if you want to post it. We shouldn't take up ClassyT's thread with it though.

Cred: When there is no absolute truth - Hitler / eugenics / genocide cannot be viewed as good or bad / true or false - because it is up to fallible individuals to interpret their reality as you have put it....
I NEVER even suggested that. You can rephrase your words. But you can't take back that you referred what I stated to something that had nothing to do with what I posted.

All I posted was that in Linguistics truth is something that is linked to reality, and therefore it requires OSE for what is stated.

And in contrast we have "religious "truth" : a wild claim that seems to support whatever is suggested, but that lacks completely any format of OSE.

Without any reason you have connected the content of my original post to Hitler, to eugenics, and to genocide.
Talk about morals and ethics !!!
If you were anything of an example of a standard for an average Christian, I am glad not to be a Christian.

And that dear box is the TRUTH !

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

That is what you believe Cred - your own interpretation of your own reality - Enjoy

That is what you believe Cred - your own interpretation of your own reality - Enjoy
Box : it's not here about what I believe. It is about what everyone can see you have been doing here...

:D :D :D :D :D :D

.

.

Yes, I have an entitlement to an opinion. I’ll avail myself of that opinion whether you agree. To me it’s like the science of mathematics, the correctness being black and white.

Why are you getting snippy? I said you are entitled to your opinion, we don't have to agree on your thoughts.


Yes, theological morality is founded only in our religious faith. Catholics hold morality based on Divine law to be objective in nature. Morality needs a standard or a guide for intelligent action; putting forward an end, a right order, and defines inferior principles to achieve the stated end.

Theological morality? You're going to throw that out there so you can "win"? Well, duh, non-Christians don't have theological morality.


There is a secular sense of morality, but it not quite what I’d call morality; instead it’s what is found in the positive law (laws made by men). Those laws we sometimes think of as being different from natural law (those laws set by nature) and the tenets of our Catholic faith, God’s law. Positive law is made for the common good in regard to some individual work to otherwise rule and measure. In addition, positive law is for the purpose of directing a community’s affairs. Human law is ordained by man, not God, and pertains to justice between men and as such is subjective in nature. Thus we find morals based solely on positive law to be mutable and subjective.

If this is what you believe, you must live in a constant state of fear. What with all the people who have only secular morals running around. You do know Christians are outnumbered, in this world, right?


I know my statements are not malformed. I’ve taken the time to become informed, limited only by my abilities.

There's a key word in that statement...


I’m saying without God one cannot have virtuous morals as I’ve tried to define above.

You're saying that unless someone fits your very narrow definition of "moral" they are immoral.


I hope it came out as I intended. Based on your objections I’d say I came reasonably close.

Yup. Sure did. I'm not sure that would be something I'd be proud of though. Whatever. You "win", this coversation isn't likely to go anywhere. I'm done.

Duplicate

That's right if we go by the unchanging morals of the bible we would have such great morals as

I have seen all these before, but what is interesting is that I never see any atheists who take the time to look at these in context and often they quote things which are either not even in the Bible, or are mis-quoted, or partial verses.

So that is why Christians ended slavery in 30 AD. Oh wait they didn't. In fact they continued to claim that god gave them the right to own slaves right up to the 1860s and continued to treat women as property until the 1950s. [/quotes]

It is interesting that atheists always point to those who mis-use Christianity rather than deal honestly with the Bible. Like this one:

[quote]How about Luke 12:47?
47And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

NT says if your servant doesn't do your will it's okay to beat him. Good thing you Christians base your moral on these non-changing morals. We wouldn't want our servants not doing our will and think that they wouldn't get a beating.

Notice how carefully this deception is? He says that the NT says it, but what he doesn't say is that this describes what happens in the secular world. And indeed the context is not what such deceptive people claim:

Let's read the context:

Luke 12:45-48
45 But if that servant says in his heart, 'My master is delaying his coming,' and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, 46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47 And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.
NKJV

Note that it is speaking of the punishment which would typically be meted out in the secular world to a servants who beat other servants.

So why don't you enlighten us then. Please explain how the those aren't rules on how to treat your slaves or tell everyone that they aren't really in the bible. It's unlikely that most of the believers will look it up if you say they aren't there.

Tom, you're so fond of bible verse. What about these;

"If any man takes a wife, and goes in on her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, 'I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin..." (Deuteronomy 22:13,14)

"But if ... evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones..." (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)
-----------------------------------------
"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched." (Mark 9:43)
---------------------------------------------
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel. " (1 Peter 2:18)
------------------------------------------

This is the book that I'm supposed to follow, to obey? This is "God's word"?

Not my God.

And more about slavery.

"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money."

—Exodus 21:20-21 (RSV)
--------------------------------------------------

Why are you getting snippy? I said you are entitled to your opinion; we don't have to agree on your thoughts.

I don’t know how to soft peddle; so if my arguments came off only as snippy, I must’ve done something wrong.


Theological morality? You're going to throw that out there so you can "win"? Well, duh, non-Christians don't have theological morality.

Moral Theology (link) CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Moral Theology (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14601a.htm)

My contest isn’t with you, so you don’t have to worry about winning or losing.


If this is what you believe, you must live in a constant state of fear. What with all the people who have only secular morals running around. You do know Christians are outnumbered, in this world, right?

Let’s see, I’ve seen war first hand, I’ve seen terrorism first hand, and I’ve seen a host of disasters first hand, and I may see worse in the future. But, I've learned that one of my major concers is what could be in the next life if this one isn’t done right. Since you don’t believe in religious mumbo jumbo you don’t need to worry about the next life. Just think, when your time is up, well, it’s just lights out, isn’t it? Just like a switch; lights out. No more anything whatsoever. Now that’s a terrifying thought!


I'm done.

You may be finished with me. But you’re a long way from finishing this fight. I hope you win.

JoeT

Tom, you're so fond of bible verse. What about these;

Alty,

I know where this lengthy list of so called contradictions and problems exists on internet and that is another timewaster. I used to spend days and weeks refuting these one at a time, but you know it is a complete waste of time. Here is why:

- Those who are really interested and care, read the context and in 99% of the cases, refuting these requires no more than to read one verse before or after. A few others requires a bit more reading. Those who care will usual;ly read the context because they are interested.

- Those who are not interested will just keep tossing these out a few at a time to waste the time of those who fall for it.

BTW, this very thing is one of the topics that I speaking on and I plan to use the example that michael posted to show those attending how these verses are taken out of context for this purpose.


Not my God.

We agree. The God that you follow is NOT the God of the Bible. But I hope that some day, you will really open the Bible to read it for what it says, not what websites tell you it says, not what the Catholic Church, or indeed any denomination told you to believe, but what the Bible really says.

Tom,

I have read the bible. When I was young, before Catholic school put a bad taste in my mouth, I read the bible with an open mind and an open heart. My mother believed in the bible, so did my father, and I was encouraged to read it as well.

I would ask questions about the things I read, why there were so many hateful and hurtful things in a book that was supposedly written by God. My parents didn't have any answers.

When I went to confirmation classes (I was Lutheran, you must attend 2 years of confirmation classes, I started at age 12 and yes, I was confirmed in the Lutheran religion) I asked my pastor, a man that I still trust and adore to this day, the same questions that I asked my Mom and Dad. He said that the bible was just a base, that he didn't believe that God wrote it, just men who had their own idea about what is right and wrong. There are good lessons in the bible, but it's not to be taken literally.

Why write it then? Why use it as the basis for your belief? If it's not to be taken literally, then how are we to take it?

Just so you know, that pastor was kicked out of our church because he didn't agree with what the higher ups wanted him to preach.

The quotes I posted, well, reading one verse before or after isn't really going to change what was said. Or am I to believe that the verses before and after will actually make what I posted not as bad as it sounds? They didn't stone women to death if they weren't virgins on their wedding night? They didn't beat their slaves? I don't think anything could make those words that I posted okay.

I don't have an english written bible in my house anymore, only the German one that was handed down from generation to generation on my mothers side. The script is very old and illegible, I keep it for sentimental purposes.

I have no wish to spend money on a bible just to re-read it for the 100th time. I doubt very much that I'd have a different reaction to it this time around.

As for your God and my God. I think they are one and the same, only I don't think he's the cruel unforgiving God that the bible depicts, because I don't think that he had a hand in the bible.

Why put so much credence in a man written book? I never did understand that.

Did you miss the part
- Jesus talking to the Samaritan
- Jesus intervening on the behalf
Adulterous woman
- Jesus dying on the cross for our sins
- Jesus "forgive them" while dying on the cross
- God, through Moses, bringing the Jews from Egyptian slavery.

If you question God about "cruelty" in the Bible, do question man's own cruelty to each other through out the ages?

Tom,
I would ask questions about the things I read, why there were so many hateful and hurtful things in a book that was supposedly written by God. My parents didn't have any answers.

First, obviously you mis-understood what you were reading, probably because you were a child, and your parents for whatever reason did not know the Bible well enough, either.


When I went to confirmation classes (I was Lutheran, you must attend 2 years of confirmation classes, I started at age 12 and yes, I was confirmed in the Lutheran religion) I asked my pastor, a man that I still trust and adore to this day, the same questions that I asked my Mom and Dad. He said that the bible was just a base, that he didn't believe that God wrote it, just men who had their own idea about what is right and wrong. There are good lessons in the bible, but it's not to be taken literally.

Clearly not a man who knew his Bible either.


Just so you know, that pastor was kicked out of our church because he didn't agree with what the higher ups wanted him to preach.

Based upon what you said, I would agree that he was not qualified to be a pastor.


The quotes I posted, well, reading one verse before or after isn't really going to change what was said. Or am I to believe that the verses before and after will actually make what I posted not as bad as it sounds? They didn't stone women to death if they weren't virgins on their wedding night? They didn't beat their slaves? I don't think anything could make those words that I posted okay.

And Michael false claimed that the Bible endorsed beating servants for merely not being prepared, when the truth was virtually the exact opposite when the surrounding verses were read. So yes, taking a verse or words out of context can make it say the exact opposite.

I would have to ask - why would anyone do so, especially posting long lists of such misquotes on a website unless it was to deceive or mislead?


I don't have an english written bible in my house anymore, only the German one that was handed down from generation to generation on my mothers side. The script is very old and illegible, I keep it for sentimental purposes.

I have no wish to spend money on a bible just to re-read it for the 100th time. I doubt very much that I'd have a different reaction to it this time around.

No need to buy - Blue Letter Bible - Homepage (http://blb.org)


As for your God and my God. I think they are one and the same, only I don't think he's the cruel unforgiving God that the bible depicts, because I don't think that he had a hand in the bible.

My God and your god are clearly much different. And you do not know my God if you think that He is cruel. That is why I say that it is important that you read the Bible. Why would God come down from heaven as a man for the sole reason to die at the hands of, and for those who were in rebellion against Him, including those who wanted to kill Him?


Why put so much credence in a man written book? I never did understand that.

Why do you say that it is man written? Oh yeah, you refuse to accept any evidence which disagrees!

Obviously, the Biblical God is cruel and jealous, e.g. demanding that Abraham kill his own son. Why put cruelty in quotes?

Natural cruelty (among humans and in nature) has nothing to do with this. God is the one who is supposed to be all powerful and merciful and yet obviously is not. Nobody ever said that being ripped apart by African hunting dogs was not a cruel death.

But God is supposed to be perfect and all powerful. An all powerful being has no reason to be cruel to helpless humans or, for that matter, his specially created zebras eaten daily by hyenas or dogs, or caterpillars eaten alive by birds. It's like beating a infant. Only the weak are deliberately cruel to the helpless. Any being who could stop that and did not, is cruel, without a doubt.

Obviously, the Biblical God is cruel and jealous, e.g. demanding that Abraham kill his own son. Why put cruelty in quotes?

Where did God demand that Abraham kill his son? Read the whole story, don't just take out the bits that you like. That is not dealing honestly with the Bible. How would you like what you write to be treated in like fashion?


Natural cruelty (among humans and in nature) has nothing to do with this. God is the one who is supposed to be all powerful and merciful and yet obviously is not. Nobody ever said that being ripped apart by African hunting dogs was not a cruel death.

What has this got to do with anything?

BTW, you do know that death and killing entered the world only when man sinned, don't you? Why blame God for the actions of men?

First, obviously you mis-understood what you were reading, probably because you were a child, and your parents for whatever reason did not know the Bible well enough, either.

The last time I read the bible I was 24 years old. I did read it cover to cover with an open mind. Trust me, I was old enough and wise enough to understand the words therein.

As for my parents, my father was born and raised Catholic, the only reason he became Lutheran was because the Catholic church wouldn't allow them to marry unless my mother converted to Catholicism. She refused, they sent my parents away telling them that if they weren't married in the Catholic church then they weren't really married, that they'd be living in sin and all their children would be bastards.

So they married in the Lutheran Church. My father didn't become Lutheran until years later because he had lost respect for the Catholic Church. So why send me to a Catholic school? I asked to go, all my friends were going to that school and I didn't want to be separated from them.

My parents knew the bible, just like you. They were raised to believe in the words written in the bible. When I questioned it they couldn't give me answers because there are none. They had been told all their lives that the bible was the word of God, even though they read the words in the bible, they never thought to question it because it was firmly ingrained into them that the Bible was not to be questioned, only obeyed.


Why do you say that it is man written? Oh yeah, you refuse to accept any evidence which disagrees!

40 men wrote the bible. Men, not God. So how am I wrong in saying that it's a man written book?

Dear Alty :



Tom, you're so fond of bible verse. What about these ....I know where this lengthy list of so called contradictions and problems exists on internet and that is another timewaster. I used to spend days and weeks refuting these one at a time, but you know it is a complete waste of time. Here is why:
- Those who are really interested and care, read the context and in 99% of the cases, refuting these requires no more than to read one verse before or after. A few others requires a bit more reading. Those who care will usual;ly read the context because they are interested.
- Those who are not interested will just keep tossing these out a few at a time to waste the time of those who fall for it.
Typical Tj3... He quotes his interpretations of the Bible. But if another person provides his or her interpretation of the same, Tommy comes with this type of BS, about context, about wasting time, etc. etc.

All it confirms is that the text that is SUPPOSED to be (guided?) by the claimed-to-exist "creator" can not be understood by normal human beings without the explanation of a self-proclaimed specialist (priest, rabbi, viccar, "Tom Smith" alias Tj3, etc.)
A "creator" that is so limited that it can not ensure that its own words can be understood by humanity is not worth to be BELIEVED in, and brings doubt to the religious claims that it is supernatural, omni-scient, omni-potent, and/or supra-powerful.

Conclusion : the entity 'God" can be seen as "the creator" that just "created" , but any support for the additional claims as made by the various individual religions is completely lacking.

Ergo : Deism is a good choice if one BELIEVES in the existence of a deity called "God", is just as VALID as any other deity format, and is much less loaded with all the empty wild and unsupported additional claims as provided by the various mono-theistic religions, while it does not need that army of self-proclaimed specialists , translators, and interpretators that is needed to explain the mono-theistic format of "God's word" to mankind at all .

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

Obviously, the Biblical God is cruel and jealous, e.g., demanding that Abraham kill his own son. Why put cruelty in quotes?

Natural cruelty (among humans and in nature) has nothing to do with this. God is the one who is supposed to be all powerful and merciful and yet obviously is not. Nobody ever said that being ripped apart by African hunting dogs was not a cruel death.

But God is supposed to be perfect and all powerful. An all powerful being has no reason to be cruel to helpless humans or, for that matter, his specially created zebras eaten daily by hyenas or dogs, or caterpillars eaten alive by birds. It's like beating a infant. Only the weak are deliberately cruel to the helpless. Any being who could stop that and did not, is cruel, without a doubt.

Is the God of the Bible, you know, the one who loved us sinners so much as to sacrifice His only son to die for the salvation of sinners cruel?

It is humanity that is cruel - take a look around : abortions [ talk about helpless ], the Congo, Darfur, Tibet, Sadamm, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin,.

If there is no God and we are the product of chance and evolution, what should it matter that the fittest survive and reproduce?

I don’t know how to soft peddle; so if my arguments came off only as snippy, I must’ve done something wrong.

Apology accepted?


Moral Theology (link) CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Moral Theology (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14601a.htm)

My contest isn’t with you, so you don’t have to worry about winning or losing.

I didn't say Moral Theology didn't exist; my point is it's a religious term, and a Christian one at that. So naturally, non-Christians are unable to be moral in the theological sense.


Let’s see, I’ve seen war first hand, I’ve seen terrorism first hand, and I’ve seen a host of disasters first hand, and I may see worse in the future. But, I've learned that one of my major concers is what could be in the next life if this one isn’t done right. Since you don’t believe in religious mumbo jumbo you don’t need to worry about the next life. Just think, when your time is up, well, it’s just lights out, isn’t it? Just like a switch; lights out. No more anything whatsoever. Now that’s a terrifying thought!

It's not terrifying at all, actually. I spend my life trying to enjoy every moment because this is the only chance I get. I try to make a difference in the lives of others so my memory will be carried on. I'm not worried about ticking off a temperamental supernatural being - I'm worried about doing the right thing because it's the right thing. There's a sign of the busses in my area - "There is no God. So be good for goodness sake". That's what I do. Nothing terrifying about it at all. I'd think you must be terrified constantly, never knowing if you did something wrong and you might burn in hell for eternity. Hell is made out to be a pretty terrifying place, after all. I never worry about it.


You may be finished with me. But you’re a long way from finishing this fight. I hope you win.

JoeT

Gee... thanks.

The last time I read the bible I was 24 years old. I did read it cover to cover with an open mind. Trust me, I was old enough and wise enough to understand the words therein.

As for my parents, my father was born and raised Catholic, the only reason he became Lutheran was because the Catholic church wouldn't allow them to marry unless my mother converted to Catholicism. She refused, they sent my parents away telling them that if they weren't married in the Catholic church then they weren't really married, that they'd be living in sin and all their children would be bastards.

So they married in the Lutheran Church. My father didn't become Lutheran until years later because he had lost respect for the Catholic Church. So why send me to a Catholic school? I asked to go, all my friends were going to that school and I didn't want to be seperated from them.

My parents knew the bible, just like you. They were raised to believe in the words written in the bible. When I questioned it they couldn't give me answers because there are none. They had been told all their lives that the bible was the word of God, even though they read the words in the bible, they never thought to question it because it was firmly ingrained into them that the Bible was not to be questioned, only obeyed.



40 men wrote the bible. Men, not God. So how am I wrong in saying that it's a man written book?

Men from all walks of life from different times fromdifferent continents.

How can they be any more wrong than your own interpretation of who God is?
Are not we all fallible, and no human has all the answers.

What do you think of God's explanation to Job?

The last time I read the bible I was 24 years old. I did read it cover to cover with an open mind. Trust me, I was old enough and wise enough to understand the words therein.

Good. Well then please do not take what someone tells you on internet about the Bible. Check out the context for yourself.


As for my parents, my father was born and raised Catholic, the only reason he became Lutheran was because the Catholic church wouldn't allow them to marry unless my mother converted to Catholicism. She refused, they sent my parents away telling them that if they weren't married in the Catholic church then they weren't really married, that they'd be living in sin and all their children would be bastards.

The Catholic church does not hold to the Bible as the standard of doctrine. They have additional sources thrown in and then insist that only they can interpret it, rather than following the Biblical approach of allowing scripture to interpret itself.


40 men wrote the bible. Men, not God. So how am I wrong in saying that it's a man written book?

We were there a few days ago when I told you that I had evidence to the contrary and you said that you would reject any evidence which disagreed with your perspective on the Bible being written by men.

So until I see evidence that has changed, then clearly there is no way that you are going to believe otherwise. You have chosen to close yourself off from accepting any other possibility.

Without this evidence Tom I have no choice but to believe what I believe, and to be fair, you're correct, I probably won't change my views, but I would read your evidence with an open mind, that I can promise you.

If you choose not to post this evidence, I won't lose any sleep over it. I have my beliefs and they're good enough for me and my family. If my children grow up and express an interest in studying the bible, then I'll make sure that they get the chance. If my children grow up and decide that God doesn't exist, I will support them in that choice. If they wish to study Wicca, all the more power to them. I'm not raising sheep, how could I, I'm not a sheep either.

If what you believe makes you feel whole, gives you peace within yourself, then that's good enough. I'm not here to try to make you give up your faith, I'm here to share my faith with all of you, to try to make you all understand why I believe the things I do.

I'm not less than you just because I'm a Deist, and assuming that I am because the bible isn't a part of my faith, well that's not only silly, but an insult as well.

Without this evidence Tom I have no choice but to believe what I believe, and to be fair, you're correct, I probably won't change my views, but I would read your evidence with an open mind, that I can promise you.

Well, you said several times that you would reject any historical evidence that proved that Biblical prophecy was fulfilled. That is different than simply saying that it would or would not change your mind. However I have a comment on that point. I do not view discussions on truth to be a battle or a contest to change minds. Those who love truth always strive for truth wherever it may lead. It should not be a matter of hardening one's mind against chnaging what they believe. If one takes the view that they are prepared to follow truth wherver it leads, they never lose.


If you choose not to post this evidence, I won't lose any sleep over it. I have my beliefs and they're good enough for me and my family.

It depends upon your objective. If your objective is to feel good about your beliefs, and youi are concerned only about your temporal comfort in this life, you are probably right - they are good enough. If you are thinking about your eternity, then only one truth can be right and to follow a different one is not good enough.

If my children grow up and express an interest in studying the bible, then I'll make sure that they get the chance. If my children grow up and decide that God doesn't exist, I will support them in that choice. If they wish to study Wicca, all the more power to them. I'm not raising sheep, how could I, I'm not a sheep either.


I'm not less than you just because I'm a Deist, and assuming that I am because the bible isn't a part of my faith, well that's not only silly, but an insult as well.

You are right, it would be silly and it would be an insult, but it is a strawman insult because no one that I have seen even suggested such a thing.

Where did God demand that Abraham kill his son? Read the whole story, don't just take out the bits that you like.

Um. Here?


2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you."

6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?"
"Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.
"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"

8 Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.

9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.

Poor Isaac! Nowadays, Abraham and God would both be busted for child abuse, even if they didn't actually carry out the dirty deed. Yeah, (1) making a father kill his own son is cruel and (2) tying a kid up and preparing to slit his throat is cruel. Yes, I'm leaving out the part where God loses his nerve and decides to (1)let Isaac live and (2) let Abraham not kill his son. But it's not because I don't "like" that part. It's because you asked, "Where did God demand that Abraham kill his son?" See above.

It's hair raising and cruel.

BTW, you do know that death and killing entered the world only when man sinned, don't you? Why blame God for the actions of men?

Well, according to the Bible, death and sinning entered the world when women were invented by God and then "disobeyed" God's injunction not to eat fruit (which is really interesting given that primates are fruit eaters). But I (personally, just for myself) don't happen to believe the Garden of Eden is a true account of the origin of sin. It's just a reflection of the weak tendency of many people to blame someone else for their troubles. "It's my wife's fault." "It's my husband's fault."

Even if you accept the facts in this story as literally true, they are a condemnation of God, not human beings. In this story, "God" is blaming humans for the sin and death HE inflicts on them. God is totally controlling and arranges for "men" to be tempted and then punishes them for a trivial transgression of no significance with a cruel and unusual punishment.

If I put a box of candy in my children's room and said, "don't open that box and don't eat the third candy on the right," and then my two beautiful and otherwise well-behaved children did open the box and eat that candy, and if I then I punished them by abandoning them in a bad part of town and also condemning them and all their descendants to a life of suffering, with real and exquisite pain, most people would say I was crazy and abusive.

It depends upon your objective. If your objective is to feel good about your beliefs, and youi are concerned only about your temporal comfort in this life, you are probably right - they are good enough. If you are thinking about your eternity, then only one truth can be right and to follow a different one is not good enough.

What makes you think that you're "truth" is the correct path? You haven't studied my beliefs, do you even know what they are? Do you know what being a Deist entails?

What you're saying is it's your way or the highway. Are the jews wrong too, or the Buddhists, are The Catholics right but the Baptists are wrong? There's more than one belief system in this world. Why are you so sure that you're right and everyone else is wrong?

The truth is that due to the fall of man in the Garden Of Eden, we all have the Serpents blood of Satan flowing through our viens and until we overcome our evil nature completely, we will never agree on anything. Satan is the father of all lies.
So, let us argue. Hit me witit.

Um. Here?



Poor Isaac! Nowadays, Abraham and God would both be busted for child abuse, even if they didn't actually carry out the dirty deed. Yeah, (1) making a father kill his own son is cruel and (2) tying a kid up and preparing to slit his throat is cruel. Yes, I'm leaving out the part where God loses his nerve and decides to (1)let Isaac live and (2) let Abraham not kill his son. But it's not because I don't "like" that part. It's because you asked, "Where did God demand that Abraham kill his son?" See above.

It's hair raising and cruel.

Abraham and Issac became a type (picture) of The Father and Jesus Christ.

God never intended for Abraham to kill Issac, so He didn't "lose His nerve".

To allow Issac to die at that time would have cut of the lineage of Christ, the promised "seed" of Eve.

God doesn't make mistakes and never has to change His plan. It is up to us to ask for understanding, and He will give it to us.

After Noah, the linage of Christ was lost due to the linage of Cain. We "ALL" have that DNA to some extent or another. Not as the white sepremist try to push-that they are the true lineage of Adam. Let me make that perfectly clear. That is a lie.
That is the sole reason for the virgin birth. The Christ child was of GOD's lineage and GOD's only. God only used the virgin to carry the child. The human DNA had been corruped. That is the original sin, the fall of man. Only Christ can redeem it. GOD's Blood for corrupted blood.

What makes you think that you're "truth" is the correct path? You haven't studied my beliefs, do you even know what they are? Do you know what being a Deist entails?
Even IF that was done, your religious truth is just as good as anyone else's truth, as no VALID evidence exist for any particular religious view!!

All one can do is BELIEVE and HOPE that his/her religious view is the truth.

:)

.

.

Um. Here?

Too bad that you did not read the whole story of Abraham and his son. You quoted it - read it.

Well, according to the Bible, death and sinning entered the world when women were invented by God and then "disobeyed" God's injunction not to eat fruit (which is really interesting given that primates are fruit eaters).

Really, you should read the Bible and not just go by what someone told you. The Bible nowhere says not to eat fruit and that was not the sin that caused mankind to fall. Rather they wanted to be ask God, following the lie that satan gave them.

Read it!

What makes you think that you're "truth" is the correct path?

I don't. Never have. I submit what I believe to the word of God. It is His truth and His path that is the correct path.


You haven't studied my beliefs, do you even know what they are? Do you know what being a Deist entails?


Yes, I do, and you will note that so far I have said very little about it, either positive or negative, other than to agree with you that you follow a different god than I do.

Abraham and Issac became a type (picture) of The Father and Jesus Christ.

God never intended for Abraham to kill Issac, so He didn't "lose His nerve".

To allow Issac to die at that time would have cut of the lineage of Christ, the promised "seed" of Eve.

God doesn't make mistakes and never has to change His plan. It is up to us to ask for understanding, and He will give it to us.

Exactly!

On the Christian board yesterday, someone made a comment that their truth was different from someone elses truth. Just because we believe something..does it make it truth? How can we know if something is true.? Is there such thing as absolute truth?

God and Truth are convertible; St. Thomas says, “Whence it follows not only that truth is in Him, but that He is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth. “ Summa Prima Q, 15 a5” Consequently we can say that there is an absolute infallible truth.

St. Thomas what is known of God and thus in all cases we can say that it is what is known of truth:

God exists (see Summa Prima Q,2,3). Truth exists.

God is Immutable (see Summa Prima Q,9, 1). Truth is immutable.

God is Eternal. “Now God is His own uniform being; and hence as He is His own essence, so He is His own eternity.” (see Summa Prima Q,10 2). Truth is eternal.

God is Spiritual (see Summa Prima Q,3,3 & 6). “…it follows that there is no accident in God.” Truth is spiritual.

God is not contained in Space, Time or Matter. “It is therefore impossible that in God there should be any potentiality. But every body is in potentiality because the continuous, as such, is divisible to infinity; it is therefore impossible that God should be a body… its animation depends upon some other thing, as our body depends for its animation on the soul. Hence that by which a body becomes animated must be nobler than the body. Therefore it is impossible that God should be a body. “(See Summa Prima Q,3,1). Truth is not constrained by time, location, or the matter it resides in.

God’s law (Divine law) is superior to man’s law. (see PRIMA SECUNDÆ PARTIS Q,91,4) Besides the natural and the human law it was necessary for the directing of human conduct to have a Divine law. And this for four reasons. First, because it is by law that man is directed how to perform his proper acts in view of his last end. And indeed if man were ordained to no other end than that which is proportionate to his natural faculty, there would be no need for man to have any further direction of the part of his reason, besides the natural law and human law which is derived from it. But since man is ordained to an end of eternal happiness which is inproportionate to man's natural faculty, as stated above , therefore it was necessary that, besides the natural and the human law, man should be directed to his end by a law given by God. Truth is superior to man’s law.

After a long discusion St. Augustine concludes God=Truth.

O soul pressed down by the corruptible body, and weighed down by earthly thoughts, many and various; behold and see, if thou canst, that God is truth. For it is written that "God is light;" not in such way as these eyes see, but in such way as the heart sees, when it is said, He is truth [reality]. St. Augustine, On the Trinity, 8,2

We see in the Psalms a dissertation of Truth leading to the same conclusion, God is Truth:

I have chosen the way of truth: thy judgments I have not forgotten. Psalm 118:30

And take not thou the word of truth utterly out of my mouth: for in thy words, I have hoped exceedingly. Psalm 118:43 (Truth is from God)

I know, O Lord, that thy judgments are equity: and in thy truth thou hast humbled me. Psalm 118:75 (Truth is humbles our intellect)

All thy statutes are truth: they have persecuted me unjustly, do thou help me. Psalm 118:86 (Truth is dogmatic Truth)

Thy truth unto all generations: thou hast founded the earth, and it continueth. Psalm 118:90 (Truth is eternal)

Thou hast commanded justice thy testimonies: and thy truth exceedingly. Psalm 118:138 (God’s justice is Truth)

Thy justice is justice for ever: and thy law is the truth. Psalm 118:142 (God’s law is Truth)

Thou art near, O Lord: and all thy ways are truth. Psalm 118:151 (God’s ways are Truth)

The beginning of thy words is truth: all the judgments of thy justice are forever. Psalm 118:160 (God’s words are Truth)

John 14:6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. 7 If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him. And you have seen him.

Thus we can conclude that to know Christ is to know God which is to know the Truth. All of which is convertible from one to the other. Neither precedes the other. Truth is timeless and immutable.

JoeT

Joe, you are trying to prove God with bible scripture. Many of the people on this thread do not view the bible as proof of God's existence. I am one of those people.

You may believe that this is indeed truth, but you haven't proven it.

Even IF that was done, your religious truth is just as good as anyone else's truth, as no VALID evidence exist for any particular religious view !!!

All one can do is BELIEVE and HOPE that his/her religious view is the truth.

As you BELIEVE and HOPE that there is no God!

Alty,

I know where this lengthy list of so called contradictions and problems exists on internet and that is another timewaster. I used to spend days and weeks refuting these one at a time, but you know it is a complete waste of time. here is why:

- Those who are really interested and care, read the context and in 99% of the cases, refuting these requires no more than to read one verse before or after. A few others requires a bit more reading. Those who care will usual;ly read the context because they are interested.

- Those who are not interested will just keep tossing these out a few at a time to waste the time of those who fall for it.

BTW, this very thing is one of the topics that I speaking on and I plan to use the example that michael posted to show those attending how these verses are taken out of context for this purpose.



We agree. the God that you follow is NOT the God of the Bible. But I hope that some day, you will really open the Bible to read it for what it says, not what websites tell you it says, not what the Catholic Church, or indeed any denomination told you to believe, but what the Bible really says.


Exodus 20:13
Thou shalt not kill
Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live
Trust me I've read before and after both verses extensively...