bigthinker
Well-known member
Oh good, I was very concerned.
;-)
There Is A Lot Of Love In Threads On The Internet, Isn't There?
- Thread starter JAG
- Start date
;-)
Furion
Well-known member
That's cool. I'm not concerned about it.
I don't know for certain.
It is debatable.
I once read a fellow Christian's post where he said "I learned my name-calling from
Jesus and he then quoted Jesus in Matthew 23 "You snakes? You vipers. You hypocrites
how will you escape being condemned to Hell?"
And he could have quoted other New Testament passages where Jesus and His
Apostles used harsh language when talking to the wicked.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
On the other hand you can find New Testament passages that appear to say we ought
not to take a harsh tone when talking to the wicked.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
So?
So each Christian will have to decide for himself how harsh to get when talking to the wicked.
As for me? I've been on the web a long time and I've learned over the decades NOT
to get involved in heated exchanges with either the elect or the reprobate. My reason
is that heated exchanges can NOT produce what I want to be a part of producing-
which is Christianizing the world, that is, successfully carrying out Jesus' Great Commission
to Christianize the world BEFORE He comes back.
Here is what I am interested in being a part of: .....↓
Great Christian Crusades that not only increase the size of Jesus' Christian Church
but that also create more and more Christian Conservative VOTERS.
We Christians are in this War For The World as the centuries and millenniums roll along.
Yes, I am interested in the Christian Church winning The War For The World ---
and I don't see how using insults against the unbelievers in threads
will make a significant contribution to Jesus winning The War For The World.
Best
JAG
[]
I disagree. My position is that you are Tetsugaku.
Agree?
Best
JAG
[]
Judges13:18
Well-known member
I already did that.
What did you find lacking in it?
Or is it that you just don't believe there is a spiritual realm?
“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind.
In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely
that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons,
to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the
sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true?
It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give
you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't
trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an
Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought:
so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”__C.S.Lewis
You have any thoughts regarding that Lewis quote up there?
Btw, I did not want the quote to be bolded and I tried to get the bold out with no success.
Best
JAG
[]
bigthinker
Well-known member
I didn't ask you.
bigthinker
Well-known member
being an atheist merely means to lack belief in gods.
We are humans, with brains who can think.
We lack reasons to think there is a supernatural intelligence that exists in some way beyond our understanding.
Lewis' reasoning here is like seeing a shadow and concluding the source must be the sun.
When it could be a lamp or a flashlight or any other light sources.
And we have a decent understanding of how living things can gradually become more complex and unlike non living manufactured objects, a designer or intelligence isn't necessary. At least so far there's no evidence.
I think Lewis was trying to make sense of the world the best he could.
bigthinker
Well-known member
You didn't.
um, the definition part was lacking.
You used the word in the definition.
Perhaps you don't understand that using the word you are defining in the definition is circular and meaningless in terms of defining the word?
I don't think you know what it is and I'm fairly certain you can't (and won't) describe it in any detail other than with undefined, vague words.
But I'm happy to have you prove me wrong.
Whatsisface
Well-known member
What a terrible argument from Lewis, naïve would be a kind way of putting it.
He seems never to have heard of evolution which would account for his thinking in his brain, there being no God. How he describes what would happen in his brain is not how we understand it happened in evolution, hence my charge of naivety.
Let's also consider that many in this world can't trust their thinking as many get things wrong, which is consistent with how things would be under atheism, according to Lewis here. That's a point in favour of atheism.
So, what if he's right that our brains would work as he describes there being no God? Then he can't trust any of his thoughts about anything, because he could never know that atheism wasn't true, because he couldn't trust his thoughts if it was.
Last edited:
Judges13:18
Well-known member
There are things God will not do. And one of those is he does not make people convert against their will. There comes the time for every Christ rejecter that he stops striving with them and turns them, irretrievably, over to their unbelief. So it's not a matter of faith. It's a matter of how long God wants us Christians to strive with the unbelieving.
In the context of the whole counsel of God we know that prayer must be within God's will.
It is not God's will that he make unbelievers believers against their will, and that he does eventually stop calling the stubborn unbeliever to faith in Christ.
Prayer can not change either of these things.
You must pray according to God's will.
That makes you an agnostic, not an atheist.
There is hope for the agnostic.
Outside of the testimony of creation, the only evidence that God gives that the gospel is true is the voice of the Holy Spirit convicting you in your heart about sin, your guilt as a sinner, forgiveness of that sin, and the judgment to come. The word of faith spoken by the Holy Spirit is the evidence of that which you can not see. But if you reject the testimony of God you are rejecting the only evidence that he gives to know the gospel truth.
This is by design. He's sorting the humble from the proud. Proud people can't bring themselves to acknowledge that they sin and are responsible for their sin. And so they reject the sure testimony of the truth he gives them. I've never encountered a determined unbeliever who did not reject the Bible's definition of sin and refused to believe they were guilty of sin. What you think of the matter of sin and your guilt as a sinner, and your desire for forgiveness, is what God uses to redeem a nation and kingdom of his people that will dwell in the land of righteousness at the end of this age.
The Biblical counsel I shared is for hardened Christ rejecters to continue to be what they are to the very end. They are what they are, and that's just the way it is. The purpose for which we are subjected to this life goes on.
You won't get in the boat. That's the problem. Even though the captain of the boat has sent convincing word that he is able and ready to save you. The unbeliever preferring instead to tread water...because they don't like what they have to confess to get in the boat, and the rules they must submit to in the boat. Ultimately, the rejection of salvation demonstrates that you have no potential within you, when persuaded and enabled, to want to put your faith in the boat that's trying to save you.
Yes.
God does not make anyone get in the ark, I mean boat.
He sends out the warning, and let's those enter who want to enter, and leaves those behind who don't want to get in.
So he should save you against your will?
That makes you an agnostic, not an atheist. There's hope for the agnostic who's still interested in the truth.
The redemption and salvation of God is not worthless.
It appears worthless to unbelievers because they don't value it, not because it's worthless.
They value the pleasures of sin more than the pleasures of righteousness.
Last edited:
Judges13:18
Well-known member
You asked me for the meaning of a phrase, not a word - "spiritual realm".
Judges13:18
Well-known member
I think you just want to deny the existence of spirits in a spiritual realm.I don't think you know what it is and I'm fairly certain you can't (and won't) describe it in any detail other than with undefined, vague words.
But I'm happy to have you prove me wrong.
Even if you don't want to believe spirits exist, it's still defined for what it is, whether real or not. You know what is meant when someone refers to the things of the spiritual realm. I think you're contentious, but I don't think you're stupid.
Lastdaysbeliever
Well-known member
Often I've witnessed people with John 3:16 signs, and that verse is good news but incomplete. When we act on Jesus' command, to spread the Gospel, we must not leave out that to rejct Him is condemnation. Even then, when sharing the gospel as has happened on this particular forum, those who have hardened their heart or have rejected God so completely God hardened their heart as He did the Pharoah, the message is foolishness in their minds and not possible for them to receive His unmerired favor through His grace. That said, though. That does not mean we shouldn't treat everyone with respect. Irrespective of our personal feelings towards them. To do otherwise in not Christlike.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. 18 Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
1 Corinthians 1: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.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. 18 Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
1 Corinthians 1: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.
Let's start with some basic facts.
We are all different.
We are individuals.
We have certain rights.
For example, You have the right to believe the earth is flat.
You have the right to believe that somehow 2 + 2 can = 7
You have the right to lock down om an academic position.
You have the right to not give a rat's butt about what I believe.
I too have all those rights.
And here is my LOCKED-DOWN position:
I am locked down on the fact 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
Best
JAG
[]
Furion
Well-known member
It's a funny thing, posting on the internet.I don't know for certain.
It is debatable.
I once read a fellow Christian's post where he said "I learned my name-calling from
Jesus and he then quoted Jesus in Matthew 23 "You snakes? You vipers. You hypocrites
how will you escape being condemned to Hell?"
And he could have quoted other New Testament passages where Jesus and His
Apostles used harsh language when talking to the wicked.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
On the other hand you can find New Testament passages that appear to say we ought
not to take a harsh tone when talking to the wicked.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
So?
So each Christian will have to decide for himself how harsh to get when talking to the wicked.
As for me? I've been on the web a long time and I've learned over the decades NOT
to get involved in heated exchanges with either the elect or the reprobate. My reason
is that heated exchanges can NOT produce what I want to be a part of producing-
which is Christianizing the world, that is, successfully carrying out Jesus' Great Commission
to Christianize the world BEFORE He comes back.
Here is what I am interested in being a part of: .....↓
Great Christian Crusades that not only increase the size of Jesus' Christian Church
but that also create more and more Christian Conservative VOTERS.
We Christians are in this War For The World as the centuries and millenniums roll along.
Yes, I am interested in the Christian Church winning The War For The World ---
and I don't see how using insults against the unbelievers in threads
will make a significant contribution to Jesus winning The War For The World.
Best
JAG
[]
I have literally had to do Matt 10:14 in person, it was far more traumatic than here. This here is nothing.
It's instructive when I told them I've banned atheists, not here though. Immediately they became unglued.
When Christian meets atheist on the Internet, a bomb will go off, it just does. When you tell someone about hell, watch the sparks fly, with insults aplenty. The message guarantees the reaction, despite some Christians wishing otherwise.
bigthinker
Well-known member
positive atheist
Well-known member
The Freewill Defense is the cornerstone of most christians belief. I don't know if you have ever heard of it or believe it, regardless, as I quoted you previously, you do use the FWD, wether you know it or not. If the FWD is false christianity is false. If the FWD is false god has no sufficient reason for allowing human suffering, this contradicts his alleged moral goodness, and no such god exists. I don't need to know your entire christian belief system. All I need to do is prove your god cannot exist. I could have made "Argument 11: Only Freewill Good Is Logical Possibility By John Mackie" into a "god doesn't exist" argument. In hindsight I should have. But anyway, here is the supplemental argument. It is fairly obvious.
Argument 11 Supplement: Christian God Does Not Exist
1. Christians claim God is perfectly morally good.
2. A perfectly morally good being would always choose to do the most perfectly morally good thing possible.
3. The Christian God engaged in an action that was less than the most perfectly morally good thing possible.
4. 1 contradicts 3.
C. The Christian God does not exist.
1 and 2 are both claimed to be true by christians. 2 also logically follows from 1 unless you believe a perfectly morally good being takes imperfect evil actions. 3 is proven true by the conclusion of "Argument 11: Only Freewill Good Is Logical Possibility By John Mackie". 4 is obvious. And that is it, the christian god does not exist.
It can work out that way. But in order for the sparks to fly, one has
to stay with the thread and "play the game" -- I don't generally do that.
What I do is I make the points I want to make and mostly respond only
to the polite responses. I put all the snot-nosed repliers on Ignore and
keep them there forever and ever. Life is to short and the Internet has
TENS OF THOUSANDS of people to choose from to chat with -- my view
is I don't need to waste my time with the grumpy ones and I don't.
I'd rather spend my time writing another piece than to bicker back and
forth with insulting "atheists" here inside Thread World on the Internet
at Large.
Best
JAG
[]
positive atheist
Well-known member
In post #299 you asked
if you are asking me what the point is it seems unlikely you addressed my argument.
The argument was this
1. Christians claim god must allow human evil because he wants humans to have freewill, called the Freewill Defense
2. Christians claim God omnisciently knowing people’s future choices does not remove their freewill.
3. Sometimes humans freely choose to do good and no Christians claims when a human chooses to do good that his freewill was violated
4. If it is logically possible that humans can freely choose to do good on several occasions then it is logically possible that humans can freely choose to do good on all occasions
5. God could have omnisciently created a world where all humans freely choose to do good on all occasions
C. The Freewill Defense fails
1-3 you didn't disagree with. 4 you said "No" several times but didn't give any reasons. And 5 you simply never addressed. You did repeat numerous times something about why don't I only do good but that is irrelevant to the argument.
This and the Argument 11 Supplement prove the christian god does not exist. Thus your entire christian belief system is false.