Here is what I have found to be true after years & years on the worldwide web. Activist thread-atheists {and Secular Humanists} will flat out reject the presentation of Bible truths -- and they have a plan to get that done --more like a "little game" they love to play endlessly. Their plan has steps , , , , Step # 1 is to try and intimidate you to NOT post Bible verses as your proof to back up your propositions. Step # 2 is to DEMAND that you supply Empirical proof and evidences to prove your Christian propositions. Step # 3 is to ALWAYS declare whatever evidence you present, to be insufficient to prove your Christian propositions. Net results? The net results is no matter what you present to activist thread atheists, and Secular Humanists, they will ALWAYS tell you that you have failed to provide sufficient evidences to support your Christian propositions. My view is that if you allow them to "jerk you around" with the above impossible 3-step situation, they will do exactly that. Best Regards. JAG Thoughts For Today {1} "Oh my soul , , , be prepared for Him who knows how to ask questions." {at The Judgment} T.S. Eliot {2} "Earth has no sorrow that Heaven cannot heal." Thomas Moore "Come Ye Disconsolate {3} Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." __The Apostle Paul Romans 5:1 ``
Atheist's Step # 4 The atheist unanimously declares he has defeated you. Thought {4} "Be the change you wish to see in others."
Maybe you yourself don't really know what you're looking for. There are precedents for that you know. I think you would find the novel The Shack to be fascinating. It sold 20,000,000 copies and its still going , , , Its been translated into several languages. They made a film based upon the novel -- both the novel and the film are titled The Shack. The film is very good quality. The casting makes good sense. ■ Sam Worthington {who played Jake Sully in Avatar} is cast in the role of Mackenzie Allen Philips {Mack for short} ■ Octavia Spencer as "Papa" {God The Father} ■ Avraham Aviv Alush as Jesus ■ Sumire as Sarayu {the Holy Spirit} The script is very good. It moves along interestingly. Both the novel and the film are excellent. We {my wife & I} have been through the film 4 times and plan to go through it again -- at least twice a year. Read the novel and see the film -- you will find some NEW ides to chew on. Best Regards. JAG Thought For Today The Bible has 66 books written over 1500 years by 40 different writers from different backgrounds on 3 continents in 3 different languages yet it consistently tells the same story of God's plan to redeem and heal and fix the mess that humanity chose to make when it chose to be independent of the God that created us. For God so loved you that He gave His one and only Son that if you believe in Him as your Savior, you will never die, but enjoy eternal life forever and ever. ``
@Swensson Typo correction Read the novel and see the film -- you will find some NEW ideas to chew on. JAG ``
Well, part of a correct answer to the question would involve sorting that out. An omniscient being would know, so why waste my question to Jesus on something I might find unconvincing? The info I would need would differ depending on what the "best way of improving the world" was. If the "best way of improving the world" was to devote my life to Jesus, then I would need something that shows that Jesus is real and worth following. If the best way of improving the world is to argue for human rights on the internet, then I would need a completely different type of information. Normal epistemology likely applies. It is similar to how we form knowledge about any other aspect of life (slightly more complicated since our intuition about things like God is shaky at best). I would need to understand how the logic works, and how competing logics categorically fail. I would need to see common/obvious objections dealt with. I'm sure there is more details, but I think they depend on what kind of answer we're talking about.
Your followers claim that god has planned everything....then in the same breath they state that there is "free will". You can't have both. Either everything is scheduled on his plan and everything is assigned a predestined life, or we are all able to do as we please. Which is it?
According to the biblical fairy tale the focus is on eternal life and eternal destruction/death. There is only one one (1) verse in the New Testament that speaks about eternal torture (punishment) and that is Matthew 25:46 = https://classic.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew 25:46 In contrast, 44 verses speak about eternal life.
The name Jesus didn't exist until 1632 A.D. It was dreamed up by a couple of con men who were publishing fake Bibles. The Geneva Bible version started using the new name and everyone else followed suit.
When you say "following" Jesus, are you referring to "following" his example? Why would you "need something" to follow his teachings?
In particular, I'm referring to following his advice in regard to what best improves the world (i.e. this is still about a question that I would be able to ask Jesus, so this has to do with me being able to believe the answer he gives). Why wouldn't I? How would you think about this if we were considering a snake-oil salesman or a Nigerian prince who wants to give me money? We need some indication that the information isn't a lie or simply mistaken. Wouldn't you need something before you just follow what they said? This is normal epistemology, where did you even get the idea that I wouldn't need that?
Let's say for example you moved to a new town and needed to find work. You ask around and find out one place in town is the only one that's hiring.... You're hungry and need a place to live. What else would you need to know before you go put in an application? What exactly is it you think is so risky about following the advice of this Jesus person? What have you got to lose?
I used to think that also...but then someone here told me that the Bible doesn't say anything about "free will."
Well, I would probably need to know that the company existed. If asking around revealed people that worked there, that would be decent evidence, if its presence is enough to sustain a town, that would be some evidence. Likely, I would be able to see buildings which were maintained by the company and perhaps products produced by the company. In addition, chances are I would need to interact with something, such as a job advert or a recruiter, which would in turn be evidence of the existence of the company. If I were to put in an application, I would probably need to know that it would have the desired effects, for instance, I would have to insist on there being a contract by which I get paid, I would have to be convinced that I'm not employed to actively kill someone or do something else that I would object to, etc.. In both cases, I'd likely have huge amounts of evidence. I would also be pretty confident that if I wanted to, I could generate more evidence (for instance, there may be financial records, or I could visit a site where the company is supposed to operate). Not only could I do those things myself, but I could be pretty confident that if it was possible, I would know (for instance, if there was a company that supposedly was the only hiring place in town but it was actually a sham, I would expect the people I meet by "asking around" to be aware and suspicious of the fact that they didn't actually know of anyone who ever worked there). Since we're comparing this to religion, I should also add that I understand how the information comes about and how it reaches me, and I am pretty confident that there aren't any other processes that could give rise to the same evidence. For instance, I struggle to see how a fake company could (or why it would) maintain fake buildings, but I don't struggle to see how a religion might maintain itself (and its churches) by indoctrination (indeed, churches are evidence that Christianity exists, not that it is right). Depends on which advice you refer to. I might lose a tithe, or I might contribute to worse conditions for gay people, or I might get used to poor epistemology. However, at the end of the day, I would consider living in a lie or a mistake to be a loss in itself.
Don't you know that Jesus demands that a magic number of believers MUST be killed for their faith before he returns? That number hasn't been reached in 2,000 years but the next one could be the winner. Revelation 6:9-11 https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation6:9-11&version=ERV;CEB;CEV;TLB;NKJV edit typo
Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't resolve the issue I brought up. I doubt it. It seems to me that it will fail in all the same ways as your other arguments, they're very feel-good or whatnot, but they don't actually provide a good reason to buy into the ideas they present. That's the idea that would be absolutely revolutionising, and that you act as if you have it, but instead of giving it, you deflect to movies etc.. If the idea stood up to scrutiny, it wouldn't need a 2h film to convey it. So? Do you think that is a sufficient reason to believe it? Harry Potter has sold very well, and been translated etc., it doesn't make Harry Potter true. You keep diluting your arguments with stuff that doesn't address the question at hand. At the end of the day, you do not seem to have a grasp of what makes conclusions valid and sound, and that is obvious to me as well as probably all the atheists who have called you on it before. Atheists and sceptics come in a wide array of opinions, interests and incentives, the common factor that leads them all to criticise the sufficiency of your arguments is that that's where the flaws of your argument are. When a lot of people say that you don't have sufficient support, isn't the conclusion to determine what makes something sufficient, so you can point at that when anyone brings it up? (And if you can't find show that your arguments are sufficient, isn't the conclusion that the arguments were in fact not sufficient and not good reasons to believe?) If someone gave you an unconvincing argument (like "Hello stranger, give me access to your bank account, I will totally pay you for funnelling some money"), wouldn't the natural conclusion be that the evidence is not sufficient, and therefore you don't believe it? How is this different? More like deflection of the day.
You are no authority on what constitutes a fail or a success. What makes you believe that YOU are an authority on what is, or is not, a fail? One man's fail is another man's success. And there is no such thing as , , , The International Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, a Fail Or A Success. So? So whadda ya gonna do? Take a vote on it? Majority Vote settles nothing. So that leave YOU, but YOU are no authority on what is, or is not, a FAIL. Whadda ya gonna do? Consult your friends here at PF? And ask them to "side with you"? Say, do you even have any friends here at PF? Friends that will be at your side when your medical doctor shakes his head and walks away -- and you're left to face Death? You are no authority on what constitutes a "Good Reason." What makes you believe that YOU are an authority on what Is, or is not, a Good Reason? One man's Good reason is another man's Poor Reason. And there is no such thing as , , , The International Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, a Good Reason. So? So whadda ya gonna do? Take a vote on it? Majority Vote settles nothing. So that leaves YOU, but YOU are no authority on what is, or is not, a Good Reason. scrutiny -- critical examination Whose critical examination? You? Are YOU the authority on what is or is not needed to convey truth. Prove/demonstrate with scientific empirical evidence that a 2 hour film is not needed to convey truth. My view: you can not do it. YOU are no authority on what makes conclusions valid and sound. YOU, like everybody else, have your opinions on that -- but they have no more weight than being your opinions. What? You think there is some International Authority that decides what makes conclusions valid and sound? And that you are backed by that International Authority? You are not. It is obvious to me that you are loaded down with your opinions that are based in your faith beliefs as you practice your favorite religion the Religion Of Secular Humanism with it's god, in this case the god named Swensson. You are the highest entity in your world, right? There is no other entity in the Universe that you look to {above Yourself} as the sole decider of truth, isn't that right? You function, de facto, as your own god, isn't that right? Best Regards. JAG
Deflection? Deflection? I will be glad to give you my answer to any question you have. Speaking of questions, what is your opinion of this video? Its Billy Graham, as an old man, delivering his last message. to the world. Billy was heard by over 2 billion people and preached all over the world. Give this video a view -- its only 8.53 minutes. What are your thoughts about this video? Best Regards, JAG ``
My view is that you are not at all familiar with the evidences supporting the truth of Christianity. My view is that you assume that you are --when you're really NOT. You continually talk on and on about "no valid evidences" for Christianity as though you had personally investigated all the huge volumes of evidence and had delivered a refutation of them -- when you have NOT -- moreover my view is that you have not even so much as read them, much less refuted them. Wait! My view is that you do NOT even know they exist. Yet you talk on and on about no valid evidences for the truth of Christianity as if you actually knew what you are talking about. Its a safe bet that you are not even aware of N.T. Wright's massive 3 volumes in support of the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus. The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3): N. T. Wright: 9780800626792: Amazon.com: Books N.T. Wright is the Bishop Of Durham and is a highly respected Christian scholar. I'm betting that you have never even heard of N.T. Wright or his 3 volumes in defense of the truth of the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus -- yet you still talk on and on about no valid evidence for the truth of Christianity. Not very academic of you, is it? Best. JAG ``
I try to be careful to only say things about my own experiences, rather than reality itself. That's why I use phrases like "it seems to me" so often. What I'm talking "on and on" about is no such evidences having been presented and verified to me. But yes, I am not familiar with any evidence successfully supporting the supposed truth of Christianity. Of course, I am well aware of many attempts to prove Christianity and similar ideas, but so far, they tend to fail to address key aspects. Embarrassingly often, those aspects are glaring to anyone who hasn't decided that Christianity is true before the argument is made (for instance, they are equally capable of proving several religions). That's certainly true, I was not aware of it. I got a hold of a copy of the third book and had a brief glance. While I can hardly claim to have taken it all in, it doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers. At best, if there are any answers, they're drowned out by specific points on other topics. Feel free to point me to a specific argument in it. Of course, volume of book does not a good argument make. Most arguments (even pertaining to God) can be summed up in a few lines. Having three books about it (a large portion, arguably all, of it pertaining to other issues) just hides the arguments. If you think the arguments are good, let me know what they are. I don't see why "authority" would be the right way to think about it. If I ask myself whether I have an onion in my fridge, and I look in my fridge and see I have an onion. It didn't require any authority, it didn't require an international body, it didn't need a popular vote or any friends on PF. It did however require adherence to some common rules (for instance, if I had seen an onion and concluded that there wasn't an onion, I would have been wrong. Or if I had concluded it without looking in the fridge, based on what felt good, I might have been wrong). Just imagine what you would think of a person who made this kind of argument about something that was actually demonstrably true. Imagine asking someone if they had an onion in their fridge, if they presented some esoteric argument about what authority is required to determine it, rather than looking in the fridge, you might think they're hiding something. What do you think makes something worthy of belief? And how have you determined that your answer is actually good? I don't see that it resolves any of the issues I've brought up. It seems closer to propaganda than anything. What do you propose this adds to the conversation? This looks like even more deflection, because it is not at all clear what (if anything) you think this adds to the conversation.
