Question For John Atheist: Don't You Want To Remember Your Good Deeds Forever?

"There is no such thing as an atheist."
Says a person who starts a thread titled:
Question For John Atheist: Don't You Want To Remember Your Good Deeds Forever?

 

There is a very simple explanation for that and I have explained
it before and I will explain it again and again as many times as is
needed.

When I use the word atheist that does not mean that I believe the
claims made by atheists, it only means that I have not gone to the
trouble to coin a new word that carries with it the connotation that
there is no such thing as an atheist.

I could coin a new word that carried that connotation, for example
I could coin the new word "NRA-Atheist" {Not Really An Atheist}
but I choose not to coin that new word ---rather I choose to use
the word atheist and then make my case that there is no such
thing as an atheist.

There are other possibilities beside "NRA-Atheist", for example
"atheist-not"
or even better I could coin this word
aatheist
or I could write it like this
a-atheist
The "a" is a negation prefix which negates the word following the "a"
for example the word Amillennialism is the Christian Eschatological
System that says there is NOT going to be a future Millennial here
on earth -- the prefix "A" negates the idea of Millennial thus we have
Amillennialism.

So then I have several choices for a new coined word that carries with
it the idea that there is no such thing as an atheist.
{1} NRA-Atheist {Not Really An Atheist}
{2} Atheist-Not
{3} aatheist or a-atheist
{4} I could easily come up with more coined words
if I really wanted to.

a-atheist
I sorta like the coined word a-atheist and I am tempted
to start using a-atheist every time I refer to atheists and
I may, one of these days, do exactly that.

Meanwhile , , ,

I will most likely keep on using the word atheist and then
presenting my Biblical case that there is no such thing as an
atheist and by the way, there really and truly is no such thing
as an atheist -- all men KNOW there is a God that created
them.

Best.

JAG

Thoughts For Today.
"All those the Father gives me will come to me, and
whoever comes to me I will never drive away."
___The Lord Jesus John 6;37

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent
me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."
_____The Lord Jesus

``

 

Continue to Spin, Wiggle, and Twist in an effort to keep from having to
admit that you made a simple mistake when you originally said

"The Bible says nothing about individual rights."___WillReadMore

I posted a clear Bible verse that clearly and specifically refuted what you said , , ,

"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees,
to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice
from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the
fatherless."
__Isaiah 10:1-2

, , , but you prefer to use Spin, Twist, and Wiggle rather than admit you were
wrong.

JAG


Thought For Today

“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?

Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe them,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?

Then your light will break forth like the dawn,
and your healing will quickly appear;
then your righteousness will go before you,
and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard.
Then you will call, and the Lord will answer;
you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I."
___Isaiah 58:6-9


___________________


By the way, if you would admit that you made a simple
mistake when you said the Bible says NOTHING about
human rights -- that would be a good thing for you to do.
I will NEVER "throw it at you" rather I would think that you
were doing the right thing. You were wrong when you said
the Bible says NOTHING about human rights.

Why will you not simply admit that you made a simple mistake?


``

 

Points:
{1} 1 Corinthians 8:2 applies to you as well as to me.
{2} I do not claim to know all the answers.
{3} One of my favorite Bible verses is Deut. 29:29 that says "the secret things belong to God"

​

Thank you.

That is incorrect. It is outside the knowledge of unbelievers but not outside the knowledge of believers.
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."___1 Cor. 1:18-19 , , ,

, , , and , , ,

"The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit."___ 1 Cor. 2:14

Incorrect.
That is merely another way of saying that "new knowledge" has the power to convince one that the Bible is not really true. That kind of stuff is in your world and NOT in my world.

2 Timothy 3:13-17 forever settles the issue that God's truths are forever settled and are NOT up for debate to discover if they are, or are not, true.

Christianity is NOT like secularized science that must forever remain OPEN-MINDED to
"new evidence" that can render the previous "scientific" conclusions to be invalid, replaced by the "new evidence" that rendered the previous conclusions invalid.

Christianity is NOT like that. Christianity is a Faith based upon revealed truths directly from God, for example this truth right here >>> "God loved the world" --- This truth that "God loved the world" is NOT subject to "new evidence" that disproves it. "God loved the world" is forever SETTLED truth.

Now to a secularist the idea of a forever SETTLED truth is startling and upsetting, but THAT is what Christianity IS --- it is a Faith that is packed with forever SETTLED truths -- here are some more forever SETTLED Christian truths , , ,
{1} Sin does exist
{2} Sin brings spiritual and physical Death.
{3} Man has a soul
{4} There is a Heaven
{5} There will be a future judgment
{6} There will be a future Resurrection of the good people and the wicked people.

``

Incorrect.
God has revealed Himself to the human race in the Person of His Son the Lord Jesus and all men now have the opportunity to know the God that created them --- "He that has seen me has seen the Father:, said the Lord Jesus in John 14:9

"Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?"___The Lord Jesus {John 14"9}

So?

So start reading the gospels ---- Matthew, Mark, Luke, John --- to to find out what
the Lord Jesus is like so you can find out what God is like --- "he that has seem
me has seen the Father."

That is the same old tired and worn out to a frazzle reply made by every atheist inside Thread World on the Internet at large. It is merely a restatement of the old Zeus and Odin
thingy that seeks to discredit Faith in Christianity by claiming that if one believes in Christianity then that is no different that believing in Zeus or in Odin or in the Easter Bunny
or ghosts and other magical characters of fiction. Secularists will grab at anything that will help then to NOT believe in the God that created them so they can, de facto, remain their own God. {I am not saying that you are an atheist and not saying that I know what your motive is in saying what you said.}

``

"are different"__RoccoR
God wants all men to be saved and to come to know Him as their Father and to come to know His Son the Lord Jesus as their Savior.
Rev. 3:20 is where the Lord Jesus said that He stands at the door knocking and that anyone who chooses to open the door will be saved {that is what it means}

What am I getting at here? I am telling you that God loves you and that he wants you to have Faith in Him and in His Son the Lord Jesus as your Savior. There is nothing higher in this world than "For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have Eternal Life."___John 3:16

``

I am not sure what you mean by "BUT that is NOT because of 'logic' " followed by the names of believers in Theism

Noted.

PS.
Text communication is very difficult. All this would go mush better over coffee.
If I have misunderstood your points, I will be more than happy to adjust my thinking and address what I misunderstood. Just let me know.

Best Regards to you RoccoR

JAG

``

 

So how ya been?
Doing super-great I hope.
Been giving any thought to your eternal soul here lately?
Been giving any thought to such Bible verses as these:

"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the
intelligent will vanish" Isaiah 29:13-14

and , , ,

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean NOT on your own
understanding"?

Or are you still practicing your Religion Of Secular Humanism
with gusto?

Best.


JAG


``

 

Not bad, given the circumstances. How're you?

Not any more than usual, and not with any different conclusions than before. Circular reasoning isn't any more convincing now than it ever was before.

Again, no more than usual. The idea that Bible quotes tell us anything worth trusting (beyond what we can independently verify) is still unsubstantiated. Simply saying "Jesus is never wrong" is a conclusion, not a justification (and without a good justification, it is open to being a false conclusion).

Still secular humanist.

 

This JAG fellow spends a lot of time talking to people that don't exist. Gods, Atheists he says don't exist. Fascinating.

 

Glad to hear you are doing well.
I'm doing super-great thanks be to the Good Lord who
has been my Father and my Friend for decades.
"I will never leave you,
I will never forsake you"
He told me in Hebrews 13;5

Regarding the so-called "circular reasoning"
fallacy:

Here is what I have found to be true after years & years on the
worldwide web. Activist thread-atheists and religionists who
practice the Religion Of Secular Humanism, will do all they can to
"shut down" and/or ridicule the presentation of Bible truths --
and they have a plan to get that done.

Step # 1 was to invent derogatory name-calling for people who
believe and quote the Bible -- they coined the phrase
"circular reasoning."

Step # 2 is to intimidate you to NOT post Bible verses as your
proof to back up your propositions.

Step # 3 is to DEMAND that you supply Empirical proof and evidences
to prove your Christian propositions.

Step # 4 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 the religionists who worship at the altar of Secular Humanism, 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
situation, they will do exactly that.

Best Regards.

JAG

PS

God has a Plan to fix the world that men
messed up using their free wills and God
and His Son the Lord Jesus are the kinds
of Persons that lead from the front and
They will go straight into the pain out
of love for other people. The world is full
of pain and suffering and They both entered
this suffering world in order to fix it -- and
They will fix it. It all ends good. It all ends
with all the pain and suffering eliminated
forever. Revelation 21:1-5

"I am making everything new"___The Lord Jesus
Rev. 21:5


```

 

Actually the argument for Circular Reasoning goes back to Agrippa in the first century CE which was somewhat before you poor Christians were being called names on the internet by Active thread atheists.

Nothing to do with poor persecuted Christians being intimidated, just that the Bible is nothing but a book of claims and provides "proof" for nothing.

Well that is just the way the world works nowadays, if someone wants to sell me something. You want to sell eternal life, excuse us if we want to have some kind of evidence before we buy into it.

Ever thought that might be that no matter how you present it your christian propositions always come up short?

See my answer above!

If by "jerk you around" you mean follow logic and reasoning to show the fallacies and contradictions in your belief you are right, ignoring them and pretending their arguments do not exist will not help because they are there to be read by your target audience who can decide for themselves. The impossible situation is brought about because what you believe cannot be substantiated by evidence and in some cases can be shown to be complete rubbish by evidence. Do not blame others for the paucity of the message!

Flat earthers have the same problem, no matter what claims they make, the evidence shows otherwise. Ever thought why?

 

There are lots of different kinds of irreligious people, with different interests and takes on religions and logic. The reason so many of them congregate on pointing to circular reasoning is that circular reasoning is a very easily identifiable flaw in your logic.

Well, you have to show how they're any more worth paying attention to than quotes from other holy texts, or for that matter any other text (or for that matter, anything that hasn't been written). If you do not, Bible verses isn't "backing up" your propositions.

I couldn't possibly imagine why you would think challenging you on that would be intimidating, unless of course, you don't actually have a leg to stand on.

You need some argument that is epistemologically sound yes. That tends to be empirical or logical arguments (and they should be sound and valid arguments). It just so happens that most (maybe all) arguments that aren't based on these are liable to come to incorrect conclusions.

Yeah, you don't seem to have a very good grasp of what makes things sufficient evidence. I seem to recall having asked you many times, and you have either declined to answer (in favour of asking about my opinions on Sarah Brightman etc.) or given some answer that could easily be shown to lead to incorrect conclusions (i.e. they weren't actually as sufficient as you claim). No wonder lots of people end up telling you your points are insufficient.

They will do that regardless. The only difference between that just happening and you not "allowing them to jerk you around" is that your method takes a lot longer and makes you look like you can't keep a straight thought in your head.

 

You are no authority on what is, or is not a flaw in logic.
Even though its clear, from your posts, that you think you are.
You are not The King Logician Of The Internet Or Of The World.
Just because YOU make the claim that something is illogical does
NOT mean that it actually is illogical -- it means no more than YOU
say it is.

That's pure 100% horse feathers.
You have already made up your mind that the Bible is not true and
you are locked down on that faith belief, and your "you have to show"
thingy is just plain silly. There is NOTHING that anybody can ever say
to you to convince you that the Bible is true because you are your own
god and you like it that way -- and you have zero intentions of ever giving
up your own personal god-hood. You don't want the God that created you
telling you what to do and what not to do --so you pretend that you are
The King Logician as your pseudo defense to protect your own god-hood.
You are in fact, de facto, your own god -- there is NOTHING in your world
that has higher authority that YOU. And you like it that way and you are
determined to keep it that way. Free Will. You have it. And you use it to
keep God out. The Lord Jesus stands at the door of your heart knocking
and your message to Him is NO. Then you put out a smokescreen to hide
that fact -- a smokescreen called Logic. Pseudo-logic is what it really is.

The King Logician has once again spoken. "He hath spoken" -- King Logic
hath spoken even though he is a full blown religionist that practices the
Faith Religion Of Secular Humanism.

False nonsense.
I have always answered all your questions with good solid answers. Its not
my problem that your Religion Of Secular Humanism prevents you from
understanding the answers.

Regarding Sarah Brightman: I was attempting to be chatty and friendly with you
by trying to find some mutual artistic interests. But The King Of The Logicians
was not interested. That's okay and just peachy dandy fine -- its a cold world
and any level of camaraderie, artistic or otherwise, is very hard to establish
and even more difficult to sustain. By the way, The King Of The Logicians
is no longer any fun to chat with _- cold logic, even pseudo cold logic, is
joy-killing. And when the Internet ceases to be fun and enjoyable, its time
to move on to more enjoyable pastures.

More absurd horse feathers.
I was not specifically talking about me. I was speaking in general.

LOL, YOU are not The Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, Keeping A Straight
Thought In One's Head -- even though you think you are

JAG


[]

 

I think in the end atheists as well as all religions will end up believing about the same thing. I believe one day science will begin discovering things that previously could only be explained by religions. I think spirituality is just science that science cannot explain, prove, or comprehend yet.
By the same token, I think most religions have a lot of truth and a lot of crap in them and their texts. The bible has many truths, but so does Buddhism or Islam, or Native American beliefs. I think the key to finding the truth in it all is to look at what a religion is saying, meditate on it, and let your soul, higher self, or whatever you want to call it pick the truths from what you have heard, and discard the rest.

To think that god for some reason inspired one single book or message for one people that is truth, while lying to everyone else seems kind of silly and bizarre to me.

 

To your observation, one of the most interesting books I've ever read is Aldous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy, where the author explores the common thread that runs through many of the world's religions - Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Sufism, etc.. He does this by delving beyond the superficial aspects of these religions (rituals, etc.) and examining the writings of their mystics.

To give you a broader idea of his book, it is somewhat related to perennialism or universalism:

 

I love it! I'm going to look into that book. It sounds similar to other philosophies I've examined. I think the different religions and traditions that have sprung up around the world are different cultures attempts at expressing the universal truth that is out there. They all capture some of it, and wisdom can be found in all of them.

 

You've pretty much described the essence of the book.

I read The Perennial Philosophy about thirty years ago and I remember it had a profound impact on my thinking. It's a very dense read but I suspect you'd enjoy it - your views aren't much different than my own.

 

Well, point me to the area where you think we disagree. I'm not expecting you to take my word for it, I'm expecting you to justify the steps you use (or rather, I expect you to fail to justify them, which seems indeed to be what is happening, but I'm giving you every opportunity).

Using an idea that is conditional on Christianity to justify belief in Christianity (using the idea that the Holy Spirit exists and can give us true beliefs to justify Christianity and using Christianity to justify the Holy Spirit's existence and actions), do you not think that that is circular reasoning as described here? Or do you think that reasoning that is circular cannot come to false conclusions?

How is saying "A person knows Christianity is true because the Holy Spirit tells him it is true" any different from saying "A person knows Islam is true because the angel Jibril wrote down that it is true"?

I have gone out of my way to get as good an argument I can for Christianity. I could have just gone to some atheist site and just read that your ideas are mistaken, but instead, I'm giving you several opportunities to explain. I even pepper my statements with caveats like "it seems to me", rather than just saying that it is so, explicitly because I am acknowledging that others will disagree and may be able to convince me.

If you cannot show that Bible quotes carry any significance, then why refer to them when people ask for your justifications? Would you be persuaded by Buddha quotes or Stalin quotes? Probably not. What makes you think Bible quotes are any different? The Lord Jesus does nothing at the door to my heart that Mohammed, the Buddha, Thor or ancestor worship doesn't also do.

You don't need to be a king to spot poor logic. If I add 1+1 and get 3, I will be wrong, not by virtue of anyone's authority, but by reality.

And yet, I don't know the answers to

• "Do you see that the amount of appeal is irrelevant if it doesn't fulfil criteria of credibility?" (your answer was "How've you been?" and whether I've been thinking about Bible quotes)
• Why should the New Testament and its quotes mean anything to me more than Bilbo Baggins or Spiderman (in lieu of you having shown it being true, reliable etc.) (your answer was "how many LoTR films have I seen, do you enjoy Sarah Brightman etc.")
• etc.

There have been tons of times where I'm trying to get to the bottom of what you think makes things believable (and if you can apply that to your Christianity). I've seen a lot of dodges, half-answers (like referring to the Holy Spirit, when that just pushes the question to what makes the Holy Spirit believable), etc. but at the end of the day, I still don't know why you make the leap to Christianity being believable (when you're clearly not ready to make the same leap about any other religion).

I don't mind chatting about artists or whatever, what I mind is that you use chatting about that to avoid answering the actual questions I ask.

My statement applies to you as well as to a large number of other Christian arguments. If you lean your faith on the Holy Spirit, but can't independently verify that the Holy Spirit exists or tells you anything useful, then your argument is not sufficient. It doesn't matter whether it is you, William Lane Craig, the pope or Christianity in general that makes the claim. Again, you've avoided the point about whether your arguments are sufficient in favour of talking about whether I was talking about you personally or Christianity/theism as a whole (which is not an integral part of my argument).

I agree, I'm not. Yet here I am (and many with me) still without a good answer to the question at the core of all my posts.

 

I read your post.
I will get back to you and answer all your questions as I always have.
Right now its Sunday morning and we're getting ready to go to Church,
but meanwhile know this:

Christianity is a FAITH and NOT a philosophical academic intellectual
system and you will either choose to:
{1} believe it true by faith
or
{2} choose NOT to believe it true by faith
"without faith it is impossible to please God"
"for by grace are you saved through faith"

And IF , , , I said IF . . . you equate FAITH with Circular Reasonings then,
using your definition of faith which you define as circular reasoning {if you
do that} then this is true:
"without circular reasoning it is impossible to please God"
"for by grace are you saved through circular reasoning"

So?

So on your definition of faith which says faith = circular reasoning, we have this:
Christianity is a system of Circular Reasoning and NOT a philosophical academic
intellectual system and you will either choose to:
{1} believe it true by Circular Reasoning
or
{2} choose NOT to believe it true by Circular Reasoning

If, on your lights: faith = circular reasoning & circular reasoning = faith . .
then , , ,
"without Circular Reasoning it is impossible to please God"
and
"for by grace are you saved through Circular Reasoning"

Here it is, in a nutshell:

Christianity's John 3:16 offers you 2 choices:
{1} believe in Jesus as your Savior by faith and get eternal life
{2} refuse to believe by faith in Jesus as your Savior and perish
Its just that simple and you WILL either choose {1} or {2}.

Right now you have chosen {2} and if you remain with {2}
you will at some future point, experience the perish of John 3:16

You would be very wise and you'd acting in your own best interest if
you will make a decision to STOP with the intellectual smokescreen
and come to God in humble child-like faith. The Lord Jesus stands at
the door of your heart knocking, but you must choose to open the door.
How do you do that?
Step # 1 is to choose to STOP with your intellectual *smokescreen and
choose faith in God.

*You don't want the God that created you to be telling you what to do
and what not to do, so you create an intellectual smokescreen of Nigerian
princes and everything else you can think of that will
KEEP FAITH {and God} OUT of your life.

Choose to take Step # 1, and Step # 2 will be a piece of cake for you.

More later . . . .

[][]


``

 

So if I say I did in fact justify my steps and you say I did in fact not justify my steps,
who is going to settle our dispute? You? Me? Some other?
There is no such thing as The International Authority That Settles What Is, Or Is Not, Valid Justification Of Steps Used.
You get one vote, so to speak.
I get one vote, so to speak.
So its a tie. Score: S. 1 . . . JAG 1
You have no authority to tell me what is, or is not, valid justification.
I have no authority to tell you what is, or is not valid justification.

That leaves your friends. Or other people.
Whadda ya gonna do? Count noses? Gonna take a majority vote? To settle our dispute?
Remember I have already REJECTED your claim that I did NOT justify my steps and I say
I DID JUSTIFY them {say for example in my dozens and dozens of posts to you in past threads}.
You say no you did not.
I say YES I in fact DID justify them.

YOU are no authority on the subject of what is, or is not Justified Steps.

So?

So you can live in your world and believe my steps were NOT justified until you croak.
And I will live in my world and believe that my steps WERE JUSTIFIED until I die.

______________________

Be all that as it may , , ,


"For God so loved the world that He gave
His one and only Son that whoever believes
in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."
John 3:16

Jesus made it possible for you to live forever
and never die.

He said "I am the Resurrection and the life, the
one who believes in Me, will live, even though
they die, and whoever lives by believing in Me
will never die" John 11:25-26

But you have to believe that and accept it by FAITH.

JAG

[]

 

Listen carefully.
You. like all unbelievers, are locked in The Prison Of Intellectualism from which
there is no escape in your own strength. You will always . . . always . . find
intellectualisms to throw up as your defense against FAITH -- for example your
"Islam point" up there.

Solution?

You MUST have supernatural help from the Holy Spirit in order to break
free of your prison.

And that help is available to you if you will simply ask Him for it.

Sincerely from the heart ask Him to help you to break free of your prison
and then ask Him to help you believe.

There was a man that asked Jesus to help him to believe, and Jesus did that
for the man and he had a happy ending.
That's in Mark 9:23-24

You life too, can have a happy ending. It does not have to end with you
experiencing the perish of John 3:16
I have come that they might have life and have life to the full, said the Lord
Jesus. And so you can do that. If you want it.

But you have to do your part. Your part is to sincerely ask for His help. You
can NOT come to faith by yourself in your own strength. You must have help
in order to believe -- supernatural help. Its totally impossible for any human
being, on his own, in his own power and strength, to come to saving faith in
God.


JAG


[]

``

 

You can NOT come to faith in God that way.
You are on the wrong road.
That road will never take you to Christianity.
Christianity is a FAITH it is NOT an academic philosophical system based on Empiricism.
And its impossible to force it to be one -- which is exactly what you are trying to do when
you demand what you call "arguments" to demonstrate, with empiricism, that Christianity
is true."
Get this nailed down: Christianity is a FAITH.
"without faith it is impossible to please God"
"for by grace are you saved through faith"

JAG

[]

 

Well I'm doing my best to help you see how to change that situation.
This situation you're in now can be changed. Tomorrow can be
a happy day. There is such a thing as happy endings and your life
can have one too. Happy Day. Happy ending. But you have to ask
for help. And all I can do is point you to the one Person that has the
power to help you. Doing THAT is ALL I have the power to do. I am
a pointer.

Regarding your situation:
If it never is changed, then you are going to experience the perish
of John 3:16 and only you can made a decision to get God's help
in order to avoid that. Eternal life what you want. You don't want to
perish. No sane man desires to perish.

You need to ask God to help you {to help you to believe}
But instead you ask for evidences based in Empiricism --even
though Christianity is a FAITH.
{By the way, that's illogical. Its illogical to ask for empirical evidences
to demonstrate the truth OF A FAITH.}

Best.

JAG

PS

What I have written to you up-thread {5 posts} is my answers to
all the points in your post.

[][]


``

 

I don't think faith is equal to circular reasoning, I think the particular version of using a conclusion of Christianity (the Holy Spirit) to underpin Christianity is circular reasoning. If it turns out that Christianity is indeed circular reasoning, then it is likely that circular reasoning, faith, etc. in fact does nothing to please God, nor does it save you from anything.

On a more general level, faith as a whole, I believe is arbitrary (it doesn't require circular reasoning, although circular reasoning is certainly a common way to get there).

So? The Quran (23:99) suggests a similar choice, as does Section 76 of the Mormon Doctrine and Covenants. The Buddhist and Hindu concept of Nirvana provides a similar choice (although due to greater diversity of beliefs, and less reliance on indexed scripture, it's harder to point at). In all of those religions (and many many more), you're in category 2, but that doesn't seem to bother you.

The idea that we should consider John 3:16 before any of the other ones is not obvious, and seemingly based on nothing at all. It seems to be greatly influenced by your upbringing and social context, rather than anything that has any positive relation to truth.

See, to me, faith seems like the smoke screen. Whatever reason you have for starting with Christian ideas rather than Muslim or Hindu ones is covered in a smokescreen (not only from me, but you seem to have smokescreened even yourself to not understanding your reasoning, and whether you are mistaken).

I think the Nigerian prince example is an analogue to your situation. However, you avoid answering the question, forming a smokescreen around the details. You say you always provide answers, but I feel like I've asked it at least three times, and I have yet to see a yes or a no.

If anything, the intellectual approach is likely to dissipate the smokescreen. It would lay the intellectual and faith based cards on the table, but you seem determined to hide the information.

No, you and I should delve into exactly where the differences of our opinion lie.

If I am right, then if we delve into the details of your view, you will end up contradicting yourself (i.e., it won't be me claiming you are wrong, it will be you). Of course, I invite the same delve into my beliefs, in the interest of fairness, but since they are my beliefs, I believe we will be unable to find any contradictions.

For instance, I imagine you'll end up saying faith is a reliable reason to come to Christianity, but is not a reliable reason to come to Islam.

Why would that be a solution? I would like my solutions to be based in reality, and so far, you've rejected all relations between faith and reality I can think of. It seems to me what you're presenting is not a solution, it is merely a smokescreen around the problem.

We understand how logic leads us to truth, and how empiricism leads us to truth. Consequentially, we can trust logic and empiricism to lead us to truths (as a concept, although there can always be disputed details). Logic and empiricism has earned our trust.

If "FAITH" has done nothing to earn such trust (either via logic/empiricism or on its own), then what does it have to do with truth? You seem to think that Christianity is true, when in fact, you just have faith in it, which so far seems completely unrelated to truth.

Well, if you have only faith in your position why would I trust you over someone pointing towards Buddha or Mohammed? My guess is that you point to Christianity only because that's your upbringing and heritage (brain washing seems too harsh a term), and that seems unrelated to truth. You may have convinced yourself that it is the "Holy Spirit", and that's all well and good, but it is no more related to reality than Buddhist enlightenment or Muslim revelation.

I'm asking you to demonstrate the truth. I don't mind if you use logic or empiricism or something else to do it, but it needs to hold up (and if it fails to tell the difference between Christianity and any other religion, it clearly doesn't).

 

Christianity IS based upon circular reasoning because all its major
beliefs are faith based beliefs that are utterly impossible to demonstrate
true with empirical evidence that rises to the certainty level of 2 + 2 = 4.

And without 2 + 2 = 4 certainty you MUST fall back on subjective plausibility and probability.

Don't let the notion of plausibility/probability slip unnoticed by you.
Face it head on. If you do not have a 2 + 2 = 4 level of certainty -- then all you have is plausibility/probability.
How does that work? Answer: Its a subjective jungle of personal opinions passed off as facts as each
person bickers and squabbles presenting his reasons for grading any argument with some grade of
plausibility or implausibility.

Bob: I find William Lane Craig's argument in support of the historical Resurrection of Jesus at only
a 35% level of plausibility and here are my reasons why I am right and you are wrong.
Tom: No Bob, its at least a 90% level of plausibility and here are my reasons why I am right and you are wrong.

Remember Swennson nobody has a 2 + 2 = 4 level of certainty so all anybody has left is to evaluate
all arguments/reasons based upon their own subjective opinions regarding what they think is plausible
or implausible.

Back to circular reasoning:
So how do we know Christendom's major beliefs are true?
Answer: Because God in the Bible, said they were true.
So?
So that is circular reasoning and that is a good thing>
Why a good thing?
Because Christianity is a FAITH.
Christianity is not a system based on the Scientific Method
Christianity is not based on Empiricism.
Christianity is a FAITH based system.
"without faith it is impossible to please God"
"for by grace are you saved through faith"

And so?

And so you will in fact choose.
You have no choice but to choose.
You will either choose to believe in Jesus by faith or you will choose not to.
The Bible says clearly that if you choose not to believe in Jesus as your Savior
you will in fact personally experience the perish of John 3:16

More later . . .

JAG


[]