The logical truth and reality of God.

[JAG]

Great. Another thing I've learned that is also worthy of thought, and I'm saying this in a general manner, is that the world is more complicated than we as individuals might think. Knowing that you don't know it all is a good thing, at the very least it should make you not be too quick to dismiss what others think.

I will go along with that principle as long as the subjects
are not related to what the Bible clearly teaches. If I apply
that principle to what the Bible clearly teaches then that
is just a "backdoor path" to getting rid of the Bible as a
trustworthy guide for the Christian -- that I will never do.

At least my position is mainstream Christianity and not some
weird fringe belief. I mean the vast overwhelming majority of
Christians believe in an inspired Bible that is "God-breathed"
which means "God inspired" {see 2 Timothy 3:13-17} Most
Christians have 2 Timothy 3:13-17 highlighted in their Bibles
and are very familiar with the passage and believe it with all their
hearts.

I will say this: When I am discussing the Bible with fellow Christians
who are serious Christian scholars and who also believe the Bible is
true, I do not take a know-it-all attitude but merely present my views
as my views. What does that mean? It means I do not claim to "speak
for God" with regard to what is the correct interpretation of any given
passage of Holy Scripture. I present my views and my opponent can
present his views and we can have a gentlemen's discussion. If we can
agree then fine -- if not we agree to disagree and still follow the
principle of LOVE and part as friends.

However unbelievers, and especially activist atheists, are looking for
ways to destroy the integrity of the Bible -- so we Christians have to
be constantly on guard against that kind of thing because its quite
present everywhere in Social Media on the Worldwide Web these days.

Activists atheists make it their business to study the Bible with a view
to destroying it's credibility -- for example Bart Erhman has done all
he could to destroy the historical integrity of the Bible -- he has failed
because Bart does not understand that Christianity is a supernatural
faith that is beyond his reach. Secularized Empiricism and Secularized
Rationalism cannot defeat the Person of the Holy Spirit a nd the Person
of God Almighty and the Person of the Lord Jesus. To defeat Christianity
one has to defeat God Almighty and that cannot be done by anyone.

Best.

JAG

``

 

[Tetsugaku]

You do not dictate to me what I must do or what I need to do.
You do not set and establish the rules of discourse.
You do not have the Authority to issue a proclamation saying that dictionaries are
the authority on the definitions of words and make your proclamation binding
upon me I explained up-thread why that is true.
You do not have the authority to declare faith off limits in discourse.
You do not have the authority to tell me that I cannot quote Bible verses as the
basis for my beliefs. I will do that and I will continue to do that.
If you do not like it, you do not have to read my posts.
Is there some Force drawing you to read my posts?

Is there some reason you are overreacting so absurdly to my posts?

 

[JAG]

Is there some reason you are overreacting so absurdly to my posts?

Miscellaneous Points:

{1} I am not overreacting absurdly to your posts.

{2} Rather I am refusing to allow you to set the terms and the rules of discourse.

{3} I will NEVER allow you to establish the terms and rules of discourse. You are YOU
and I am ME. You live in your world and I will live in my world. Clone? Do you desire
for me to be you?

{4} I do NOT accept dictionaries as authorities I have explained why and I am capable
of much more detailed explanations about that. Dictionaries reflect popular usage
and that means that I JAG (and you too) have the power and the opportunity to make
our small CONTRIBUTIONS to making CHANGES in the definitions of words. We
do this by publicly speaking and writing English words and sentences. For example
if we can get enough people to use the word "NRA-Atheist" then all the dictionaries
will include the definition of that word in their dictionaries.

People who write and speak English coin new words all the time.

I also coin words and phrases {you can too} -- I can coin a phrase right now if I
want to -- and I do want to -- here it is >>> "NRA-Atheist" , , ,

What does "NRA-Atheist" mean? It means Not Really An Atheist and it can be used
all the time in place of the word "atheist" , , , {I probably will not use it all the time
but I could if I wanted to}

Why would I coin the word "NRA-Atheist"? Because there is no such thing as an atheist
because all men know there is a God and here is what God Almighty said about that:

  - There Is No Such Thing As An Atheist

My view is that all men KNOW there is a God that created them. I have strong Biblical reasons for believing this to be true. Here they are , , , Romans 1:19-20 Romans 1:19-20 says "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation...

forums.carm.org

{5} I have zero ill feelings and zero hostility towards you as a person. I do not know you
and do not recall ever having chatted with you before.

{6} I do know that you and I are ideological enemies. Do not waste my time pretending
that we are not ideological enemies -- you argue for the atheist worldview and you argue
against the Christian worldview -- and there is no point in putting the pseudo thin veneer
of "I'm just a disinterested seeker that will follow the evidence anywhere it goes"
phony covering over the REALITY that you and I are in FACT ideological enemies.

{7} So enemies.
Do you understand the concept of enemy?
Do you understand what the following means?
Batman vs. The Joker
Superman vs. Lex Luthor
Patton vs. Rommel
Pelosi vs. Trump
Democrats vs. Republicans
Don't waste my time {and yours} pretending that you are not my ideological enemy.
You ARE my ideological enemy.


(8} Do you understand the following?

JAG Writes:
he enemies of Faith have concocted and invented names for their
ideas designed to shut down and stop the presentation of Bible based
truths -- one such concoction and invention is what they call the
"circular reasoning fallacy." They say you cannot use the Bible to
prove the Bible is true because we say you doing that is the "circular
reasoning fallacy."

My reply to that is this: The word of God trumps the concoctions
and inventions of mere men and the word of God says that "all
Scripture is God-breathed" which means all Scripture is inspired
by the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.

If we Christians took seriously the concoctions and inventions of
mere men on their "no circular reasoning" is allowed that would
mean we would not even be able to present John 3:16 without
first presenting Empirical Evidences demonstrating that John 3:16 is
true -- Empirical Evidences that personally satisfied them.

I can assure you that Christendom will NEVER bend the knee to the whims
and biases and prejudices of the enemies of Christianity and we will continue
to present the truth of John 3:16 and other Bible truths based upon what the
Bible says and we will continue to do that regardless of what is said by the
enemies of Christianity in posts here inside Thread World on the Internet At
Large.

"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. For God did not send his
Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe
stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of
God's one and only Son. John3:16-18

John 3:16
{1} believe and get Eternal Life
{2} refuse to believe and perish


{9} Do you understand the following?

JAG Writes:
Unbelievers, and especially activist atheists, are looking for ways
to destroy the integrity of the Bible -- so we Christians have to
be constantly on guard against that kind of thing because its quite
present everywhere in Social Media on the Worldwide Web these days.

Activists atheists make it their business to study the Bible with a view
to destroying it's credibility -- for example Bart Erhman has done all
he could to destroy the historical integrity of the Bible -- he has failed
because Bart does not understand that Christianity is a supernatural
faith that is beyond his reach. Secularized Empiricism and Secularized
Rationalism cannot defeat the Person of the Holy Spirit and the Person
of God Almighty and the Person of the Lord Jesus. To defeat Christianity
one has to defeat God Almighty and that cannot be done by anyone.


{10} You seem like a decent chap and you are probably a good fellow.
Remember I have nothing against you personally -- however {1} through
{9} up there presents my locked down position and I will NEVER budge
off that position even 1/800 of an inch.

Best Regards.

JAG

``

 

[Tetsugaku]

{1} I am not overreacting absurdly to your posts.

I beg to differ. You've really gone off the deep end here.

My point remains that you aren't entitled to call your unsupported religious beliefs 'facts', and that you won't get anywhere with atheists by pretending they don't exist.

These should not be controversial points.

 

[Lighthearted Atheist]

Can you know or experience the truth or reality without a believing mind? No you cannot.

I'm sorry - this makes no sense to me and I cannot reply. I am not trying to be rude. I simply have earthly idea what a 'believing mind' is or how that can prove Jesus rose from the dead.

Take care.

PS: Quantum Entanglement does not prove 'a believing mind' - I understand quantum entanglement quite well and you are very, very wrong.

 

[JAG]

I beg to differ. You've really gone off the deep end here.

My point remains that you aren't entitled to call your unsupported religious beliefs 'facts', and that you won't get anywhere with atheists by pretending they don't exist.

These should not be controversial points.

You can differ all you want to.
You are not the Authority on who has, or who has not, gone off the deep end.
My view is YOU have gone off the deep end with your NRA-atheist position.
I will call my religious beliefs facts all I want to.
What are you going to do to stop me from doing that?
Let me guess.
You will remove my name from your Prayer List?
You will stop paying my Light & Water bill?
You will stop paying my taxes?
You will stop reading my posts? Please feel perfectly free to do exactly that.
Is there some Force drawing you to read my posts?

_________

It is NOT one my goals to "get somewhere" with NRA-Atheist people.
I proclaim the truth as I see it -- you can do the same.
I wrote you a long post explaining my positions -- you IGNORED it
and merely-restated your position.
I told you we were ideological enemies and we ARE ideological enemies.
Do you understand that?
Do you understand the enemy-principle behind Pelosi vs, Trump?

____________

You are no Authority on what I am "entitled to."
You are no authority on what should be, or should not be, controversial points.
You can live in your world and I will live in my world.

JAG


My view is that all men KNOW there is a God that created them.
I have strong Biblical reasons for believing this to be true.

Here they are , , ,

Romans 1:19-20
Romans 1:19-20 says "since what may be known about
God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to
them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible
qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have
been clearly seen, being understood from what has
been made, so that people are without excuse."

Note the particulars in Romans 1:19-20
{1) There is information that can be known about God.
{2} This information is plain to men.
{3} God Himself has made it plain to them.
{4} It has been plain to them since the creation of the world.
{5} God's eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen
{6} All this in understood from what God created.
{7} Therefore men are without excuse {for not believing in God.}

Romans 1:19-20 is the germ principle of the Teleological Argument
for the existence of God -- the argument from the Intelligent Design
of the Human Person, the Earth-Sun-Moon-Stars, and the Universe.

Psalm 19:1-4 , , ,
Psalm 19:1-4 says , , ,
"The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world."

Note the particulars in Psalm 19:1-4
{1} The Heavens declare God's glory.
{2} The skies above proclaim His works
{3} Day after day they speak of God's creative work
{4} Night after night they reveal God's works
{5} They use no literal word but their voice goes out worldwide
{6} Therefore all men KNOW there is a God

Just because some men claim they lack belief in the existence
of God does not mean that they actually DO lack belief in the
existence of God. On Christian lights, God, in Romans, and in
other Bible verses, says there is no such thing as an atheist.
As a Christian I have a clear choice:
{1} I can believe what God says
{2} I can believe what mere men claim to be true.

I choose to believe {1}


``
``

 

[Tetsugaku]

You are not the Authority on who has, or who has not, gone off the deep end.

I don't know where you are getting this idea that I'm claiming to be an authority just because I'm disagreeing with you.

It is NOT one my goals to "get somewhere" with NRA-Atheist people.

Why are you here in the atheism forum engaging atheists if you don't want to get anywhere with us?

I told you we were ideological enemies and we ARE ideological enemies.

It is very sad that you would take such a view. People with different perspectives do not have to view each other as enemies. They can instead learn from each other and benefit from each other's insights.

 

[Strider324]

Dictionaries reflect popular usage
and that means that I JAG (and you too) have the power and the opportunity to make
our small CONTRIBUTIONS to making CHANGES in the definitions of words. We
do this by publicly speaking and writing English words and sentences. For example
if we can get enough people to use the word "NRA-Atheist" then all the dictionaries
will include the definition of that word in their dictionaries.


JAG

``

You seem confused. Your example is the creation of a new term. Yes, a definition must be applied to NEW words and terms - and cultural use helps determine that original definition. It's completely different to CHANGE the existing definitions of words to suit ones bias, discomfort, or ignorance of a words existing definition. You don't get to change the definition of abortion to "The murder of innocent little babies so that evil atheists can dine on their blood and bodies". To do so would indicate either ignorance, dishonesty, or both.

 

[JAG]

You seem confused. Your example is the creation of a new term. Yes, a definition must be applied to NEW words and terms - and cultural use helps determine that original definition. It's completely different to CHANGE the existing definitions of words to suit ones bias, discomfort, or ignorance of a words existing definition. You don't get to change the definition of abortion to "The murder of innocent little babies so that evil atheists can dine on their blood and bodies". To do so would indicate either ignorance, dishonesty, or both.

No you are confused. {I have not mentioned abortion. YOU did.}

You don't get to tell me what I can or can not do.

You can put any kind of Spin, Twist, and Wiggle on it that you want to.
You can appeal to Merriam-Webster in an effort to void out the clear
teachings of the Bible all you want to. You can make the claim that
Merriam-Webster has the Authority to void out what God says in the
Bible, but I will ignore your FALSE claims and continue to hold my
position.

My view is that all men KNOW there is a God that created them.
I have strong Biblical reasons for believing this to be true.

Here they are , , ,

Romans 1:19-20
Romans 1:19-20 says "since what may be known about
God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to
them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible
qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have
been clearly seen, being understood from what has
been made, so that people are without excuse."

Note the particulars in Romans 1:19-20
{1) There is information that can be known about God.
{2} This information is plain to men.
{3} God Himself has made it plain to them.
{4} It has been plain to them since the creation of the world.
{5} God's eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen
{6} All this in understood from what God created.
{7} Therefore men are without excuse {for not believing in God.}

Romans 1:19-20 is the germ principle of the Teleological Argument
for the existence of God -- the argument from the Intelligent Design
of the Human Person, the Earth-Sun-Moon-Stars, and the Universe.

Psalm 19:1-4 , , ,
Psalm 19:1-4 says , , ,
"The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world."

Note the particulars in Psalm 19:1-4
{1} The Heavens declare God's glory.
{2} The skies above proclaim His works
{3} Day after day they speak of God's creative work
{4} Night after night they reveal God's works
{5} They use no literal word but their voice goes out worldwide
{6} Therefore all men KNOW there is a God

Just because some men claim they lack belief in the existence
of God does not mean that they actually DO lack belief in the
existence of God. On Christian lights, God, in Romans, and in
other Bible verses, says there is no such thing as an atheist.
As a Christian I have a clear choice:
{1} I can believe what God says
{2} I can believe what mere men claim to be true.

I choose to believe {1}
{see list of those 5 Bible references below}

Romans 1:18
Romans 1:18 says that humans "suppress the truth." Atheists
are part of humanity, so Romans 1:18 applies to them also.

Romans 2:15 , , ,
Romans 2:15 says the requirements of the Laws of God are
"written on their hearts." So all men know there is a God that
created them.

Ecclesiastes 3:11 , , ,
Ecclesiastes 3:11 says , , ,
"He has also set eternity in the human heart"

Five Biblical References , , ,
These Bible verses clearly teach there is no such thing
as an atheist.
Romans 1:18-20
Romans 1:18
Romans 2:15
Psalm 19:1-4
Ecclesiastes 3:11

Best.

JAG

 

[Tetsugaku]

My view is that all men KNOW there is a God that created them.
I have strong Biblical reasons for believing this to be true.

IOW, blind faith in scripture. But no actual evidence or reason.

 

[Strider324]

No you are confused. {I have not mentioned abortion. YOU did.}

You don't get to tell me what I can or can not do.

You can put any kind of Spin, Twist, and Wiggle on it that you want to.
You can appeal to Merriam-Webster in an effort to void out the clear
teachings of the Bible all you want to. You can make the claim that
Merriam-Webster has the Authority to void out what God says in the
Bible, but I will ignore your FALSE claims and continue to hold my
position.

My view is that all men KNOW there is a God that created them.
I have strong Biblical reasons for believing this to be true.

Here they are , , ,

Romans 1:19-20
Romans 1:19-20 says "since what may be known about
God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to
them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible
qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have
been clearly seen, being understood from what has
been made, so that people are without excuse."

Note the particulars in Romans 1:19-20
{1) There is information that can be known about God.
{2} This information is plain to men.
{3} God Himself has made it plain to them.
{4} It has been plain to them since the creation of the world.
{5} God's eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen
{6} All this in understood from what God created.
{7} Therefore men are without excuse {for not believing in God.}

Romans 1:19-20 is the germ principle of the Teleological Argument
for the existence of God -- the argument from the Intelligent Design
of the Human Person, the Earth-Sun-Moon-Stars, and the Universe.

Psalm 19:1-4 , , ,
Psalm 19:1-4 says , , ,
"The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world."

Note the particulars in Psalm 19:1-4
{1} The Heavens declare God's glory.
{2} The skies above proclaim His works
{3} Day after day they speak of God's creative work
{4} Night after night they reveal God's works
{5} They use no literal word but their voice goes out worldwide
{6} Therefore all men KNOW there is a God

Just because some men claim they lack belief in the existence
of God does not mean that they actually DO lack belief in the
existence of God. On Christian lights, God, in Romans, and in
other Bible verses, says there is no such thing as an atheist.
As a Christian I have a clear choice:
{1} I can believe what God says
{2} I can believe what mere men claim to be true.

I choose to believe {1}
{see list of those 5 Bible references below}

Romans 1:18
Romans 1:18 says that humans "suppress the truth." Atheists
are part of humanity, so Romans 1:18 applies to them also.

Romans 2:15 , , ,
Romans 2:15 says the requirements of the Laws of God are
"written on their hearts." So all men know there is a God that
created them.

Ecclesiastes 3:11 , , ,
Ecclesiastes 3:11 says , , ,
"He has also set eternity in the human heart"

Five Biblical References , , ,
These Bible verses clearly teach there is no such thing
as an atheist.
Romans 1:18-20
Romans 1:18
Romans 2:15
Psalm 19:1-4
Ecclesiastes 3:11

Best.

JAG

Quoting scripture and preaching is a poor substitute for reasoning. I used an abortion example. You ever have the intellectual capacity to refute the example or you don't. You still don't get to change definitions to suit a bias or a belief.

 

[JAG]

I don't know where you are getting this idea that I'm claiming to be an authority just because I'm disagreeing with you.


Why are you here in the atheism forum engaging atheists if you don't want to get anywhere with us?


It is very sad that you would take such a view. People with different perspectives do not have to view each other as enemies. They can instead learn from each other and benefit from each other's insights.

You're just repeating yourself.

If you want my response to your latest post up there re-read
all my posts to you in this thread.

I am not budging 1/800 of an inch on what I wrote to you.

You're back on your "sad" thingy again.

If you find my positions to be sad, then why are you continuing
to read my posts?
Is there some Force drawing you to read what I write?

I went to the trouble to explain my positions to you
in detail -- you IGNORE what I wrote and re-state your
complaints.
The solution to your "sad problem" is to stop reading
what I write.

JAG

 

[Whatsisface]

I will go along with that principle as long as the subjects
are not related to what the Bible clearly teaches. If I apply
that principle to what the Bible clearly teaches then that
is just a "backdoor path" to getting rid of the Bible as a
trustworthy guide for the Christian -- that I will never do.

At least my position is mainstream Christianity and not some
weird fringe belief. I mean the vast overwhelming majority of
Christians believe in an inspired Bible that is "God-breathed"
which means "God inspired" {see 2 Timothy 3:13-17} Most
Christians have 2 Timothy 3:13-17 highlighted in their Bibles
and are very familiar with the passage and believe it with all their
hearts.

I will say this: When I am discussing the Bible with fellow Christians
who are serious Christian scholars and who also believe the Bible is
true, I do not take a know-it-all attitude but merely present my views
as my views. What does that mean? It means I do not claim to "speak
for God" with regard to what is the correct interpretation of any given
passage of Holy Scripture. I present my views and my opponent can
present his views and we can have a gentlemen's discussion. If we can
agree then fine -- if not we agree to disagree and still follow the
principle of LOVE and part as friends.

However unbelievers, and especially activist atheists, are looking for
ways to destroy the integrity of the Bible -- so we Christians have to
be constantly on guard against that kind of thing because its quite
present everywhere in Social Media on the Worldwide Web these days.

Activists atheists make it their business to study the Bible with a view
to destroying it's credibility -- for example Bart Erhman has done all
he could to destroy the historical integrity of the Bible -- he has failed
because Bart does not understand that Christianity is a supernatural
faith that is beyond his reach. Secularized Empiricism and Secularized
Rationalism cannot defeat the Person of the Holy Spirit a nd the Person
of God Almighty and the Person of the Lord Jesus. To defeat Christianity
one has to defeat God Almighty and that cannot be done by anyone.

Best.

JAG

``

Ok, what I will say in reply is, I think you and Bart Erhman actually have something in common, you are both interested in the truth of things. Bart started out a born again fundamentalist Christian. He was certain that the Bible was the inerrant word of God. It was study of the Bible that began to create doubts, and as is typical of people who de-convert it took a long time and a lot of struggle to finally become an agnostic atheist. About 15 to 17 years is my understanding. He hasn't cynically set out to destroy, he's just telling it as he sees it, as are you.

 

[JAG]

Quoting scripture and preaching is a poor substitute for reasoning. I used an abortion example. You ever have the intellectual capacity to refute the example or you don't. You still don't get to change definitions to suit a bias or a belief.

Why do you think I have an obligation to refute an example just because you posted one?
NRA-Atheist means Not Really An Atheist.
You say I don't get to coin the word NRA-Atheist? How are you going to prevent me from
coining that word?

JAG

 

[Tetsugaku]

You're just repeating yourself.

If you want my response to your latest post up there re-read
all my posts to you in this thread.

I am not budging 1/800 of an inch on what I wrote to you.

You're back on your "sad" thingy again.

If you find my positions to be sad, then why are you continuing
to read my posts?
Is there some Force drawing you to read what I write?

I went to the trouble to explain my positions to you
in detail -- you IGNORE what I wrote and re-state your
complaints.
The solution to your "sad problem" is to stop reading
what I write.

I did not repeat myself, and I did not ignore what you wrote - I directly addressed it.
You just ignored what I wrote and evaded my question.
What happened to you? You used to be far more reasonable than this.

 

[Tetsugaku]

Why do you think I have an obligation to refute an example just because you posted one?
NRA-Atheist means Not Really An Atheist.
You say I don't get to coin the word NRA-Atheist? How are you going to prevent me from
coining that word?

No-one's saying you can't coin the term. Getting it to catch on and be used by others is another matter.
What you don't get to do is redefine 'fact' to mean 'religious opinion that you hold on faith rather than evidence'.
Have you considered how you might react if atheists were to say you weren't really a Christian, and then offer nothing more in support of this than an old book written by atheists and for atheists? Would you consider that reasonable or productive?

 

[JAG]

Ok, what I will say in reply is, I think you and Bart Erhman actually have something in common, you are both interested in the truth of things. Bart started out a born again fundamentalist Christian. He was certain that the Bible was the inerrant word of God. It was study of the Bible that began to create doubts, and as is typical of people who de-convert it took a long time and a lot of struggle to finally become an agnostic atheist. About 15 to 17 years is my understanding. He hasn't cynically set out to destroy, he's just telling it as he sees it, as are you.

WIF, I respectfully disagree with you on that up there.

Yet I realize what you wrote makes good sense to you
given your presuppositions.

Nonetheless I have to stick with my understanding of what the
Bible teaches on these issues.

Here at this point you can get your "No True Scotsman" alleged fallacy
dusted off and ready to post.

My view is that there is no such thing as a born again Christian that
quits Christianity -- Bart was NEVER a true Christian -- and the Bible is
crystal clear on that , ,

"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the
antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is
how we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they
did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they
would have remained with us; but their going showed that none
of them belonged to us."
1 John 2:18-19


Then the Lord Jesus specifically and clearly said about His sheep, this:

"Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do
in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe because
you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and
they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no
one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given
them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of
my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
John 10:25-30

Bart was NEVER a sheep.
Bart NEVER belonged to God.
Bart was NEVER a Christian.
And the "No True Scotsman" alleged fallacy was concocted and invented by
activists in an effort to silence the idea that no true Christian will ever quit
on the Lord.

The "No True Scotsman" thingy is just one more attempt by Secularists to shut
down and prevent Biblical truths that would apply to the likes of Bart Erhman.

WIF, I have got to hold the line here. I am not prepared to agree that Bart is just
one more "honest seeker of truth" who is simply "telling it like he sees it" --- Bart
has been very active in pushing and and hawking his attacks on the historicity of the
Bible -- Bart has an axe to grind against Christianity and he has proved to be an enemy
of Christianity. If we listen to Bart there would ne no Christianity. Bart's message is to
wreck Christianity. Bart does NOT want to "live and let live_ -- Bart is out to wreck the
Christian Faith and his plan is to first wreck the Bible as a trustworthy historical guide.
Bart is an enemy.
Bart puts out "fine sounding arguments" that deceive many who are not well-versed in what
the Bible says about enemies like Bart Erhman.

"My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments. For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how disciplined you are and how firm your faith in Christ is."___ Colossians 2:2-5

Best.

JAG

PS
I wish I could agree with you, but I gotta hold the line on theses issues.


``

 

[JAG]

No-one's saying you can't coin the term. Getting it to catch on and be used by others is another matter.
What you don't get to do is redefine 'fact' to mean 'religious opinion that you hold on faith rather than evidence'.
Have you considered how you might react if atheists were to say you weren't really a Christian, and then offer nothing more in support of this than an old book written by atheists and for atheists? Would you consider that reasonable or productive?

You can put any kind of Spin, Twist, on it that you want to, but his below is
what God says in His Holy Bible and I am going to stick with what He said
REGARDLESS of your Spin and Twist.

My view is that all men KNOW there is a God that created them.
I have strong Biblical reasons for believing this to be true.

Here they are , , ,

Romans 1:19-20
Romans 1:19-20 says "since what may be known about
God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to
them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible
qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have
been clearly seen, being understood from what has
been made, so that people are without excuse."

Note the particulars in Romans 1:19-20
{1) There is information that can be known about God.
{2} This information is plain to men.
{3} God Himself has made it plain to them.
{4} It has been plain to them since the creation of the world.
{5} God's eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen
{6} All this in understood from what God created.
{7} Therefore men are without excuse {for not believing in God.}

Romans 1:19-20 is the germ principle of the Teleological Argument
for the existence of God -- the argument from the Intelligent Design
of the Human Person, the Earth-Sun-Moon-Stars, and the Universe.

Psalm 19:1-4 , , ,
Psalm 19:1-4 says , , ,
"The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world."

Note the particulars in Psalm 19:1-4
{1} The Heavens declare God's glory.
{2} The skies above proclaim His works
{3} Day after day they speak of God's creative work
{4} Night after night they reveal God's works
{5} They use no literal word but their voice goes out worldwide
{6} Therefore all men KNOW there is a God

Just because some men claim they lack belief in the existence
of God does not mean that they actually DO lack belief in the
existence of God. On Christian lights, God, in Romans, and in
other Bible verses, says there is no such thing as an atheist.
As a Christian I have a clear choice:
{1} I can believe what God says
{2} I can believe what mere men claim to be true.

I choose to believe {1}
{see list of those 5 Bible references below}

Romans 1:18
Romans 1:18 says that humans "suppress the truth." Atheists
are part of humanity, so Romans 1:18 applies to them also.

Romans 2:15 , , ,
Romans 2:15 says the requirements of the Laws of God are
"written on their hearts." So all men know there is a God that
created them.

Ecclesiastes 3:11 , , ,
Ecclesiastes 3:11 says , , ,
"He has also set eternity in the human heart"

Five Biblical References , , ,
These Bible verses clearly teach there is no such thing
as an atheist.
Romans 1:18-20
Romans 1:18
Romans 2:15
Psalm 19:1-4
Ecclesiastes 3:11

Best.

JAG

PS
You keep saying "What you don't get to do is , , , "
How are you going to stop me from doing that? You gonna
stop paying my taxes for me?


``

 

[Tetsugaku]

You can put any kind of Spin, Twist, on it that you want to, but his below is
what God says in His Holy Bible and I am going to stick with what He said REGARDLESS of your Spin and Twist.

I didn't spin or twist anything. And you again ignored my question: Have you considered how you might react if atheists were to say you weren't really a Christian, and then offer nothing more in support of this than an old book written by atheists and for atheists? Would you consider that reasonable or productive?

My view is that all men KNOW there is a God that created them.
I have strong Biblical reasons for believing this to be true.

As I already pointed out, blind faith in scripture isn't a reason. I want to know why you think that scripture is correct.

You keep saying "What you don't get to do is , , , "
How are you going to stop me from doing that? You gonna stop paying my taxes for me?

I meant you don't get to redefine 'fact' as 'unsupported religious belief' and still be taken seriously.

 

[Whatsisface]

WIF, I respectfully disagree with you on that up there.

Yet I realize what you wrote makes good sense to you
given your presuppositions.

What presuppositions?

Nonetheless I have to stick with my understanding of what the
Bible teaches on these issues.

Here at this point you can get your "No True Scotsman" alleged fallacy
dusted off and ready to post.

My view is that there is no such thing as a born again Christian that
quits Christianity -- Bart was NEVER a true Christian -- and the Bible is
crystal clear on that , ,

Then you don't know if you're a true Christian, until the day you die that is.

"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the
antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is
how we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they
did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they
would have remained with us; but their going showed that none
of them belonged to us."
1 John 2:18-19


Then the Lord Jesus specifically and clearly said about His sheep, this:

"Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do
in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe because
you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and
they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no
one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given
them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of
my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
John 10:25-30

Bart was NEVER a sheep.
Bart NEVER belonged to God.
Bart was NEVER a Christian.
And the "No True Scotsman" alleged fallacy was concocted and invented by
activists in an effort to silence the idea that no true Christian will ever quit
on the Lord.

The "No True Scotsman" thingy is just one more attempt by Secularists to shut
down and prevent Biblical truths that would apply to the likes of Bart Erhman.

WIF, I have got to hold the line here. I am not prepared to agree that Bart is just
one more "honest seeker of truth" who is simply "telling it like he sees it" --- Bart
has been very active in pushing and and hawking his attacks on the historicity of the
Bible -- Bart has an axe to grind against Christianity and he has proved to be an enemy
of Christianity. If we listen to Bart there would ne no Christianity. Bart's message is to
wreck Christianity. Bart does NOT want to "live and let live_ -- Bart is out to wreck the
Christian Faith and his plan is to first wreck the Bible as a trustworthy historical guide.
Bart is an enemy.
Bart puts out "fine sounding arguments" that deceive many who are not well-versed in what
the Bible says about enemies like Bart Erhman.

"My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments. For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how disciplined you are and how firm your faith in Christ is."___ Colossians 2:2-5

Best.

JAG

PS
I wish I could agree with you, but I gotta hold the line on theses issues.


``

Oh dear. This doesn't sound like you.