|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Misconceptions of Atheists
« Back to club forum
| |||||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
coram_deo 07-Nov-21, 06:32 |
 m.gameknot.com |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 07-Nov-21, 14:44 |
As I’ve said before, you can’t explain the creation of the universe so you postulate an entity whose creation is ignored as unnecessary.>> The arrogance of atheists is stunning. They actually think God’s existence is dependent on humans needing Him. So if humans don’t need Him, He doesn’t exist. It’s incredible. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If every human being on earth was an atheist, God would still exist. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 07-Nov-21, 16:02 |
Hm, Gallup does break it apart by faith. Only 34% of Catholics reject evolution. Nearly 60% of Protestants. Pretty close to the older Reuters poll, and again coinciding with the trend of science skepticism.>> Wait a second. stalhandske said only religious fanatics and extremists reject the theory of evolution. So, in America, 34% of Catholics and nearly 60% of Protestants are fanatics and extremists? I guess stalhandske’s definition of fanatic and extremist is different than most people’s. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 07-Nov-21, 17:00 |
The future isn’t bright.>> Yeah, let’s put atheists in charge. That worked so well in the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea and Cuba. How many murders were committed by atheists running communist governments in the 20th century? Well over 100 million, right? And they were murdering their own countrymen. Why those countries are such paradises fully 100 percent of citizens praise their Dear Leader. Just ask Dear Leader. He’ll tell you. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 08-Nov-21, 06:08 |
Every religion claims the Truth but they all differ from each other and even within religions. The only honest answer is we do not know.>> Evidence for the veracity of each religion is not the same, and a lot of false religions exist - just like they did in Biblical times. More than a few atheists who investigated whether the Resurrection of Jesus Christ actually happened have come away convinced that the Resurrection of Christ is true. And some were experts in evaluating evidence. But they had an open mind and took the time to do an investigation. Some atheists’ minds are completely and irreversibly closed and they just want to repeat the same mantras over and over and over again. Even when they’ve been disproved, they keep repeating them. It’s so sad. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 08-Nov-21, 06:18 |
From allaboutthejourney.org: Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He authored the authoritative three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which is still considered "the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure." Greenleaf literally wrote the rules of evidence for the U.S. legal system. He was certainly a man who knew how to weigh the facts. He was an atheist until he accepted a challenge by his students to investigate the case for Christ's resurrection. After personally collecting and examining the evidence based on rules of evidence that he helped establish, Greenleaf became a Christian and wrote the classic, Testimony of the Evangelists. Let [the Gospel's] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth. Sir Lionel Luckhoo (1914-1997) is considered one of the greatest lawyers in British history. He's recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "World's Most Successful Advocate," with 245 consecutive murder acquittals. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II -- twice. Luckhoo declared: I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt. Lee Strobel was a Yale-educated, award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. As an atheist, he decided to compile a legal case against Jesus Christ and prove him to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. As Legal Editor of the Tribune, Strobel's area of expertise was courtroom analysis. To make his case against Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of Christian authorities, recognized experts in their own fields of study (including PhD's from such prestigious academic centers as Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis). He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism. Remarkably, after compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Stunned by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book entitled, The Case for Christ, which won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader - remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. www.allaboutthejourney.org m.gameknot.com |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 08-Nov-21, 08:23 |
Your opinion on the subject of Christianity is meaningless because you know not whereof you speak (as is so often the case, even in matters pertaining to science - as one example, you believed the false 98-99% similarity between chimps and humans until I showed you how you were mistaken. Then you pretended to be outraged about something and ended the discussion - your usual exit strategy when losing a debate.) But I suspect you base your opinion on this Christian on his belief in the theory of evolution because you’re a fanatic on that subject. It’s why you so willingly swallow false information and hoaxes (such as gill slits on human embryos) so completely. But let this Christian be subject to a 10-week campaign of hate from you and your herd and see how “truly pure” his Christian faith is. And Jesus Christ wasn’t all meek and mild all the time, stalhandske. He had plenty of righteous indignation for pompous hypocrites. Read Matthew chapter 23. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 08-Nov-21, 10:07 |
And this existence of evil dilemma is a major factor behind disbelief in God.>> Evil exists because God gave man free will and man chose to rebel against God (and is still rebelling against Him.) It’s really not complicated. It only becomes complicated when you think humans are as innocent and pure as the wind-driven snow. And bad things happen to good people because the consequences of sin and rebellion against God don’t confine themselves only to bad people. That’s one reason why sin is so terrible. The book of Job (imo) was meant to show the Jews that the truly righteous could suffer and that such suffering was not always a consequence of sin. The Jews had to learn this because Jesus Christ, many centuries later, would undergo terrible suffering though He was more righteous than anyone and completely sinless. Anyway, check the post in this thread timestamped Aug. 31 07:39 m.gameknot.com |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 08-Nov-21, 10:48 |
m.gameknot.com |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 08-Nov-21, 21:35 |
Are you really not aware of the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ or are you trolling? If you’re interested in the evidence (I know you’re not, but maybe you will be someday,) check this thread: m.gameknot.com <<The bible proves the bible true. If not for circular reasoning, he’d have no reason at all!>> You’re just repeating the same mantras over and over. The Holy Bible is comprised of 66 books written by 40 men over 1,500 years on three continents. So if one of the books that contains numerous prophecies of where and when the Messiah would be born and how and why He would die weren’t in the Bible, suddenly that book would have legitimacy because it’s a non-Biblical source? You seem to think the Bible is one book written by one person over at most a couple of years. The reality that it’s 66 books written by 40 men over 1,500 years on three continents apparently is too difficult for you to comprehend. Is it because the Bible is often called a book and not a series of books - is that why you’re confused? You honestly don’t seem interested in learning or even having a discussion on this subject. It makes me wonder why you even bother talking about it. I mean, what’s the point? You’ve been repeating the same mantras for literally years. It’s sad and bizarre. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 09-Nov-21, 05:13 |
No it isn’t. Human nature hasn’t changed. The same things people did in Biblical times, people are doing today. Sure, the technology’s changed. And our understanding of the world has changed. But human nature hasn’t changed. That’s why the Holy Bible is as relevant today as when it was written. More importantly, the Bible remains the most important book of all time because it was written under the inspiration, guidance and control of God’s Holy Spirit. No other book can claim that. That’s why the prophecies are so accurate and why the Bible has such great power to change people’s lives. <<I’m not saying the authors of the bible were all lying, although some certainly were.>> What lies? You were there and saw differently? <<But what they say they saw cannot be trusted.>> Of course it can! The author of most of the New Testament (the Apostle Paul) was a former Pharisee and very learned and devout man; Luke, who wrote one of the Gospels, was a physician. John and Peter were commercial fishermen. David, a king of Israel, wrote about half of the Psalms. Solomon, considered by some to be the wisest man who ever lived, wrote Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. Your claim (in the distant and recent past) that the authors of the Bible were ignorant goat herders is just another of your silly mantras that you repeat over and over and that reveals your anti-Christian bigotry. <<Most especially when they describe impossible things.>> Impossible for man is not impossible for God. You think a God who created the universe would be scratching His head over how to multiply loaves and fishes? You think a God who created life wouldn’t know how to raise someone from the dead, as Jesus Christ did three times, and as a prophet in the Old Testament also did? <<Much of the history is likely fairly accurate.>> “likely fairly accurate?” And on what do you base this opinion? Can you cite history that is not accurate? <<None of the magic, superstition or mumbo-jumbo is true.>> “And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.” (Luke 18:27) <<No resurrection.>> How do you explain all the evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection? <<No transmutation.>> Sure there is - at least for Christians. Believers get brand-new bodies in the Rapture. “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” (1 Corinthians 15:53-55) <<No virgin birth.>> The Virgin birth of Jesus Christ was prophesied 700 years beforehand and was yet another prophecy that was fully accurate and came true. See Isaiah 7:14. <<No god.>> I agree no god or gods with a lowercase g. ‘Cause there’s only one God! ✝️ 👍👍 |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 09-Nov-21, 05:19 |
Of course we don’t know. I’ve never claimed otherwise. I figure Andrew’s fevered imaginings have a 0.0000000001% chance of being true.>> If you got rid of the decimal point and all the 0s before the 1 and put two of those 0s after the one, you’d be right! But still, what you did write is exponentially greater of a chance than the complexity of life we see today (or that existed in Biblical times) arising from random mutation and natural selection. You know what the chances of that are? 0%! |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 09-Nov-21, 07:50 |
All religions are equally wrong.>> All but one. Can you guess which one? ✝️ 👍👍 <<Except the ones that admit they’re just guesses - i.e. none of them.>> This sentence makes no sense. <<The more certain they are, the wronger they are. Certainty is the enemy of truth.>> Sounds like a cute saying, but you seem certain there is no God and Jesus Christ wasn’t Resurrected - despite all the evidence to the contrary. Sounds like you just called yourself wrong and an enemy of the truth. <<Live life, that’s all we do!>> Sure, Christians do that and have very meaningful and fulfilling lives. “The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” (John 10:10) <<Nobody’s gonna live their lives for you!>> Mindset of the typical atheist - me, me, me. Mindset of the typical Christian - “Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.” (Galatians 6:2) <<We’re responsible for our own actions.>> Agree. <<No original sin.>> Then why is every human being a sinner? We’re not sinners because we sin. We sin because we’re sinners. All that money you waste on drugs and getting high could actually help the less fortunate - if you cared about them. <<No divine forgiveness.>> Sure there is. But only through Jesus Christ. <<No heaven No hell No afterlife>> If you don’t want to believe the Holy Bible, how to explain all the people who died, went to Heaven or hell and were brought back to life? <<No god.>> You sure talk a lot about God for someone who doesn’t believe in Him. I don’t believe in the flying spaghetti monster (to use one of your mantras,) but I don’t spend hours every day saying he doesn’t exist. <<Just this spectacular life on this spinning ball of green in an infinite universe.>> This life is indeed spectacular and a gift from God. And afterward, Christians spend an eternity in Heaven. “Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory.” (Psalm 73:24) “Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.” (Psalm 23:6) <<Everything is star stuff. The one life we get is precious... living for a nonexistent afterlife is an arrogant insult to this life.>> Where do you get the idea that Christians aren’t living their lives? They’re living meaningful lives that help other people. What kind of life are you living? Getting stoned all day and trolling people on the Internet. How is that a meaningful life, Jeff? How is that helping people? What are you accomplishing with your drug use and trolling? <<If I’m wrong, and there is a god, and an afterlife, I look forward to smoking the best herb ever - god made intoxicating cannabis for a reason - with the big guy.>> I wouldn’t count on that, Jeff. Atheists aren’t in Heaven. Forgiven sinners are. Atheists don’t think they need forgiveness and reject God. So God gives them what they want after they die - eternal separation from Him. You’ll just get what you want. <<We’ll roll a phattie, pass it back and forth and laugh and laugh... >> Maybe God can introduce you to all the people you could have helped with the small fortune you’ve spent on selfishly getting high *most of the time* (your words) for the past 45 years. Maybe God can introduce you to the people who died needing help while you wasted all that money on drugs. <<god musta been higher than a kite when he designed the giraffe, platypus and echidna.>> Those animals reveal God’s creativity and sense of humor. Why do you bring drugs into everything? |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Nov-21, 07:56 |
Weren’t you the guy who said, just a few days ago, that the only way to know if a woman has had sex is to ask her? Mary said she didn’t. Are you calling her a liar? You were so busy virtue signaling (as so many on here do) a few days ago that you didn’t realize you were contradicting yourself. As I told you at the time, By your standard, you’ve proven the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ because Mary said she had not known a man. Or are we supposed to believe some women but not others? Figure a way to virtue signal your way out of that one! |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Nov-21, 08:16 |
You miss my point entirely! Even if there were no lies, the Bible still isn’t not true.>> “still isn’t not true?” Sounds like you’re saying via a double negative that it is true. I knew you’d come around! But I know what you meant, and that’s obviously your opinion. You’re entitled to your opinion and you’re entitled to be wrong, just like everyone else (except God.) But stop acting as though you’re the arbiter of what’s true and what isn’t. You know far less about the Holy Bible and God than a believer, and the major reason why is you don’t have God’s Holy Spirit indwelling you. And you don’t have God’s Holy Spirit indwelling you because you reject Jesus Christ. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14) <<I was merely stating that there are ALMOST certainly lies in the Bible because humans lie.>> They sure do. That’s original sin for you. But the Holy Bible was written under the inspiration, guidance and control of God’s Holy Spirit and God does not lie. <<You’re nitpicking on a point that doesn’t even matter. And anyway, if you’re arguing against that, than, in effect, you’re saying you believe everything in the Bible was said in good faith - an absolutely crazy idea that demonstrates a astounding total lack of understanding of human nature.>> Well at least you’re no longer arguing against original sin. But again, the Holy Bible was written by men but men under the inspiration, guidance and control of God’s Holy Spirit. That’s why it’s such an amazing and important book. Just as God’s Holy Spirit visited prophets and directed them what to say (which is why Biblical prophecies are so accurate) God’s Holy Spirit visited men who wrote the Bible and what they wrote was under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, guidance and control. <<I don’t believe the Bible because it’s not accurate. It’s mythology>> Again, your opinion. And you’re entitled to it. But you can’t back it up. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Nov-21, 08:43 |
Thank you, stalhandske. I’d offer, though, that “intentional lies” is kind of a redundancy because lies are told knowingly and willingly and with the intention to deceive (as I have understood the definition.) <<Mary's case is particularly interesting. Does the Bible claim that SHE denied having had sex with Joseph?>> Yes, she denied having sex with any man by saying she had not known a man. <<I don't know the Bible to the last detail, but I seem to recall that it just states that she was engaged to Joseph and pregnant. The writers of the Bible write that she was a virgin, but I don't recall having read that SHE said that.>> She said that. <<THEY did!>> And she did. You have to understand, stalhandske, the Virgin birth of the Messiah was prophesied 700 years earlier in Isaiah 7:14. The place and timing of the Messiah’s arrival was also prophesied. The writers of the Holy Bible would have no interest in promoting a false Messiah when they believed - based on the Old Testament - that the real Messiah was coming as the Old Testament prophets had prophesied. And He did. And His Name was Jesus Christ. <<Now, why make a big issue of this in the first place, except for some formal reasons? After all, she gave birth of a human boy. Why is it important in Christianity to have Christ born in a biologically impossible way?>> It has to do with original sin and the sin nature that exists in humans from and before birth. “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (Psalm 51:5) “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)” (Romans 5:12-17) The Messiah and Saviour of the world had to be without sin. <<Almighty God could surely put in His Holy Spirit into the little boy at any time later?>> If the little boy was born the conventional way, he would have had a sin nature. <<And Christ would be just as much the Son of God as He is believed to be.>> No, He wouldn’t. Because God is without sin. And humans have a sin nature from and before birth. Why do you think little boys have to be told to share and not be disobedient and not throw temper tantrums, even at a very young age? It’s their sin nature. We’re all born with it. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Nov-21, 09:06 |
Your opinion counts for more than nothing, stalhandske. I would say much more. But I think you’re imputing 21st- and 20th-century morals onto a Biblical Jewish community in which virginity at the time of marriage was of paramount importance. And when Joseph learned Mary was pregnant, he planned not to marry her so it’s unlikely he impregnated her and then planned not to marry her because she was pregnant. Here’s the passage from the Holy Bible: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.” (Matthew 1:18-25) And here is the account in the Gospel of Luke: “And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.” (Luke 1:26-38) <<I really think it is quite possible that this 'virgin idea' came much later when others started to describe the situation and had to give Christ some 'godly' character.>> People back then had no reason to promote a false Messiah when they were expecting, based on Old Testament prophets, the real Messiah to come. And Jesus Christ was that Messiah. He Himself said so. “The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.” (John 4:19-26) <<I don't think even that was necessarily a lie by those who claimed it, but a strong conviction.>> Again, if you view the world and everything that happens in it purely through naturalistic means and reject the existence of a supernatural realm, the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ of course makes no sense. But the existence of a supernatural realm has manifested itself, though rarely, in the natural world through paranormal activity and NDEs among other ways. If you only believe and think possible what you can ascertain with your five senses, why do scientists consider and think possible the idea of extra dimensions and multiple universes? Can they ascertain those with their five senses? |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Nov-21, 09:23 |
So who first proposed the idea that Mary conceived sans intercourse?>> I believe that’d be the angel Gabriel, followed by Mary, based on the Gospel of Luke. Luke, who wrote that Gospel, was a physician. <<Someone had that idea first. I suggest that this person likely lied. These were pragmatic people. They knew where babies came from... someone had to conceive (pun intended) the idea of a virgin birth in counter position to Mary got it on with Joe (or some other dude who wasn’t god).>> Why, using your purely naturalistic argument, would people be so concerned about Mary that they’d invent a Virgin birth to cover up her having had sex before marriage? Why not just shun her? Joseph thought not to marry her based on her pregnancy but married her anyway after being told how she had become pregnant. But it’s really not productive to discuss this with atheists because they completely reject the existence of a supernatural realm. Until atheists acknowledge that the existence of a supernatural realm is *possible,* having discussions on the Virgin birth, Jesus Christ’s miracles and Jesus Christ’s Resurrection are pointless. So rather than argue about those, try to defend your position that the existence of a supernatural realm is not possible. Try to dismiss *every* instance of documented paranormal activity, including UFOs, which violate the laws of physics. Then, explain why you think extra dimensions and multiple universes are possible when you can discern neither with your five senses. Be consistent. If you only believe *and only think possible* what you can ascertain with your five senses, then state you reject the idea of extra dimensions and the idea of multiple universes since neither can be ascertained with your five senses. Be consistent. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Nov-21, 09:39 |
Either Mary lied or someone else lied. She obviously didn’t conceive without getting it on. Jesus was conceived in love manifested as lust. She was young and nubile. Joe was a typical man, horny. They had sex. Mary lied to save her reputation and Joe’s. It’s an old story.>> Again, that’s your opinion, and you’re entitled to it - and you’re entitled to be wrong, just as all humans are. You don’t believe the Virgin birth because you reject the *possibility* of a supernatural realm and reject the *possibility* that God exists. You only believe what you can ascertain with your five senses. So explain why you think multiple universes and extra dimensions are possible. Are you prepared to explain by naturalistic means every instance of paranormal activity? How do UFOs violate the laws of physics? Do you know about wormholes? What do you think of them? Where do they go? Do you agree with the statement, “The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it’s stranger than we can imagine?” Explain quantum physics. Reconcile the behavior of subatomic particles in quantum physics with what we can observe and know in the natural world. Your idea that current science has the answer for everything and nothing is possible that cannot be explained by current science is ludicrous and based more on a hatred of God than anything else. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Nov-21, 09:48 |
God is way (way, way!) beyond human nature and politics. You reject the Truth of the Holy Bible because you reject that it was written by men under the inspiration, guidance and control of God’s Holy Spirit. And you reject that the Bible was written by men under the inspiration, guidance and control of God’s Holy Spirit because you reject the existence of God. Don’t you see that discussions on this subject are pointless? And they’re pointless because you reject the *possibility* that God exists and the *possibility* of a supernatural realm. You only believe what you can ascertain with your five senses (as I believe you stated in a previous post.) Yet you believe extra dimensions and multiple universes are possible even though you can ascertain neither with your five senses. You’re not consistent. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Nov-21, 09:59 |
Again (and again and again) only impossible if you reject the existence of God. <<I believe women. If a woman tells me she was assaulted, i believe her.>> You found a way to continue virtue signaling. Congratulations! What if a woman said *you* sexually assaulted her. Would you believe her then? What if a woman said one of your relatives sexually assaulted her. Would you believe her then? What if a woman said one of your close friends sexually assaulted her. Would you believe her then? Or does your virtue signaling only go so far? <<But if she tells me she was assaulted by a centaur, I won’t believe her.>> Not a legitimate comparison. You’re trying to equate something (a centaur) for which there’s no evidence to something (God and a supernatural realm) for which there is a great deal of evidence. <<Believing women doesn’t imply believing nonsense>> It’s only “nonsense” in your view because you reject the *possibility* that God exists and the *possibility* that a supernatural realm exists. What makes you so certain neither exists? Are you aware of all the evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection? And that it convinced atheists who are experts in evaluating evidence that Jesus Christ’s Resurrection actually happened? |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Nov-21, 10:04 |
She said it right here: “And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” (Luke 1:30-34) |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Nov-21, 10:32 |
Why? Because I want to lol. <<You’re simply rationalizing what you believe to be true. No matter what I present, since God can do anything, you can explain it.>> I don’t think any Christian says “God did it” whenever he or she is confronted with a mystery or something unexplainable. What happened to my car keys? I distinctly remember placing them on this table. Oh I know - God took them! Get serious. <<That’s the problem with supernatural thinking. It’s not that the supernatural can’t exist. It does exist in the form of things we can’t explain naturalistically YET. But, and here’s the crux, It’s not an acceptable explanation for the unknown simply to subscribe to a specific supernatural explanation. One can say “I don’t know.” One can say “I believe theres a supernatural explanation.” Both fine imo.>> Huh?! So you’re saying a supernatural realm exists but never manifests itself in the natural world or interacts with the natural world? You’re saying a supernatural realm “does exist in the form of things we can’t explain naturalistically” but the supernatural realm is not an explanation for specific things we can’t explain naturalistically? You’re twisting yourself into a pretzel! <<But when you point to a SPECIFIC supernatural explanation, you’ve gone off the deep end.>> So you think a supernatural realm “does exist in the form of things we can’t explain naturalistically” but one who ascribes a specific unexplainable event to the supernatural has “gone off the deep end?” I’d say someone’s gone off the deep end, but it’s not a believer. Happy swimming! 🏊♂️ 💦 💦 <<The various ‘sacred texts’ of humanity contain much moral and social wisdom. But NOT AN EXPLANATION FOR THE WORLD OR UNIVERSE!!>> That’s opinion and you’re entitled to it. But you should realize your opinion is not necessarily fact. It’s your opinion. And in this case, it isn’t fact. And you’re not consistent because you claim (or at least claimed in the past) that you only believe what you can ascertain with your five senses. Yet you entertain the possibility of multiple universes and extra dimensions - neither of which you can ascertain with your five senses. And you reject the *possibility* God exists because God is not discernible by your five senses. 🥨 |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Nov-21, 12:48 |
In this post, he’s claiming with zero evidence (not exactly uncommon for him) that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was sexually assaulted. <<Doesn’t matter what she said if what she claimed is impossible. I believe women. If a woman tells me she was assaulted, i believe her. But if she tells me she was assaulted by a centaur, I won’t believe her. Believing women doesn’t imply believing nonsense>> Of course, God did not sexually assault Mary. But the atheist cleverly implies that if the account in the Holy Bible is true, He must have. Here is the account in the Bible. Notice nowhere does Mary say she does not want to give birth to the Messiah. In fact, she’s overjoyed at the idea. “And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord. And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.” (Luke 1:26-49) Does anything in that passage indicate or imply that Mary was sexually assaulted? Of course not! Here are the key verses which reveal Mary’s reaction to giving birth to the Messiah: “And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.” (Luke 1:38) Sounds like consent to me! “And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.” (Luke 1:46-49) Sounds like consent to me! Happy to correct the atheist’s blasphemy against God ✝️ 👍👍 |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Nov-21, 15:55 |
Here is the statement: <<Doesn’t matter what she said if what she claimed is impossible. I believe women. If a woman tells me she was assaulted, i believe her. But if she tells me she was assaulted by a centaur, I won’t believe her. Believing women doesn’t imply believing nonsense>> Here’s why this statement is so disingenuous and dishonest. This atheist’s first claim was that the only way to know if a woman has had sex is to ask her. I pointed out that Mary, the mother of Jesus, said she hadn’t had sex (had not known a man) so by the atheist’s own standard, he had proved the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Then this atheist shifted his position from saying the only way to know if a woman has had sex is to ask her to women who claim to have been sexually assaulted should be believed. Two things about this: • Mary never claimed to have been sexually assaulted. She claimed she did not have sex - consensual or forced. And that’s all she claimed. • Mary never claimed something that was impossible or that was nonsense. All she claimed was that she hadn’t had sex. So the shift in argument by this atheist is very devious and dishonest, but is not without precedent. He tried a similar (though cruder) trick with a moderator of FIAT LUX III, saying the moderator had to prove there were no lies in the Holy Bible.The atheist declined to identify lies in the Holy Bible that he claimed “almost certainly” existed; instead, he said the moderator had to prove there were no lies. Huh?! I say you robbed a bank. You say you didn’t. Prove you didn’t! |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Nov-21, 17:44 |
Here again is the atheist’s statement: <<Doesn’t matter what she said if what she claimed is impossible. I believe women. If a woman tells me she was assaulted, i believe her. But if she tells me she was assaulted by a centaur, I won’t believe her. Believing women doesn’t imply believing nonsense>> At the time Mary, the mother of Jesus, said she hadn’t had sex (had not known a man) she *wasn’t pregnant.* Which means her statement was neither impossible nor nonsense. Here is the relevant passage from the Gospel of Luke: “And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:30-35) When Mary says, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” the angel is describing what *is going to happen.* So think of this after setting aside your bias against the supernatural: If you’re a woman and a virgin and you’re told that you’re going to give birth to the Son of God, is your natural inclination to run out and have sexual intercourse with a man before that happens? Or is your natural inclination to wait and see what happens? Only wanted to state that when Mary said she had not known a man, she wasn’t pregnant, which means what she said was neither impossible nor nonsense. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Nov-21, 19:40 |
Thank you for the kind reply, I really appreciate it. The feeling is mutual my friend. I appreciate you sharing that and your feelings with me.>> Hey Robert, Has this guy (zorroloco) ever called you Satan? Ever called you Jim Jones? Ever said you’re an idiot and a moron and pathetic? Yeah, I didn’t think so. ‘Cause I think your opinion of him would be quite different if he had. But you agree (or claim to agree) with the theory of evolution and so you’re considered a viable Christian in the opinion of atheists. What I find hilarious - genuinely hilarious - is this guy (zorroloco) thinks his opinion of me matters to me. zorroloco is a troll and totally illogical in his beliefs. His beliefs contradict themselves and make no sense. And his willingness and eagerness to viciously attack people who disagree with him reveal him for the scum he is. You, Bob and zorroloco can engage in a circle jerk all you want. You’d have left this site long ago, Robert, if you posted criticisms of Darwin’s garbage theory and received the attacks I’ve received. But no offense, “brother.” |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 11-Nov-21, 09:52 |
<<I respect all people and treat them with respect. I obey the rules of their household. I do not judge others for their beliefs. When I greet a Muslim it is with assalamu alaikum, meaning peace to you. As it is proper to do so. We are to treat people as they want to be treated as long as it is morally correct. I am completely secure in my belief, no one is a threat to me. I just wanted to share this, for information purposes. So that my heart and intent can be known.>> That sounds very good, Robert. But how do you react when your faith is put to the test? How would you have reacted if you were Shadrach, Meshach or Abednego in Biblical times? Here’s the account from the book of Daniel if you’ve forgotten or are not familiar with it: “They spake and said to the king Nebuchadnezzar, O king, live for ever. Thou, O king, hast made a decree, that every man that shall hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, shall fall down and worship the golden image: And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth, that he should be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; these men, O king, have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up. Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage and fury commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Then they brought these men before the king. Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up? Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands? Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” (Daniel 3:9-18) How would you have responded, Robert? Would you have “obeyed the rules of their household” and gotten on your knees to worship the golden statue? It’s very easy to treat people with respect when they treat you with respect, Robert. But what if they don’t? What if they lie about you, personally attack you and smear you in an orchestrated campaign of hate? How do you react then, Robert? I hope your faith is never put to the test the way it was for Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. But you might want to think about how you’d react if it was. How strong is your faith, Robert? |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 11-Nov-21, 10:26 |
Anger is a strange thing. It’s natural. But a danger to the owner, as well as others. Mark Twain said, “Hanging on to anger is taking poison and waiting for the other fellow to die.” I got angry this morning when some fool went racing through our neighborhood. I carried it around, muttering, for a few minutes. Buddha said “Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned.” Giving up anger is liberating. My students used to come to me SO angry at some other kid. I’d always ask them the same thing (once I’d determined it was nothing needing intervention) “you don’t even like that person. Why are you giving them control over your life? “I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift. Settle matters quickly with your adversary” (Matthew 5:22-25).>> Gotta love when atheists read and quote Scripture. But not when they misquote it by intentionally removing words. But hey, an atheist is reading one of the Gospels 👍👍 Here’s what that passage from the Gospel of Matthew in the King James Version says: “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.” (Matthew 5:22-25) |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 11-Nov-21, 13:10 |
I don’t mean to respond to everything atheists say, but when they misrepresent believers, as they so often do, it’s hard not to. No Christian I’m aware of behaves decently based on expectations of rewards or punishment after they’ve passed on. There is no punishment for the Christian. Christians go to the Judgment Seat of Christ, but that’s not to determine if they’re saved (they already are saved and were eternally and irrevocably saved once they accepted and believed in Jesus Christ and in His Resurrection.) Nor do they go to the Judgment Seat of Christ to receive punishment - Christ took their punishment on the Cross. They go to the Judgment Seat of Christ for a life review and rewards. See here: www.gotquestions.org Atheists and non-Christians (those who rejected Christ) go to the White Throne Judgment but not to determine if they’re saved (they’re not) but to receive punishment for all the sins they committed in their lives because those sins are unforgiven. See here: www.gotquestions.org A believer, when he behaves decently, particularly in trying times, does so through the power of God’s Holy Spirit, which indwelt the believer at the time he or she accepted Christ. The “fruit of the Spirit” as identified in Galatians manifests itself in a believer’s life when he or she is close to God through reading and meditating on His Word and prayer. “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.” (Galatians 5:22-23) The same principle of relying on and trusting God and not self-effort applies to material possessions as well. “Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek.) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” (Matthew 6:31-33) Will a believer always exhibit the fruit of the Spirit? Obviously not. Many believers go through difficult times and it’s not hard to react carnally when attacked or in a trying situation. But a believer will react *much* better than he or she would have reacted prior to accepting Christ and receiving His Holy Spirit. “These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33) And the “default mode” of the believer won’t be anger and hostility as it so often is with atheists who try (usually in vain) to control their hatred for God and people who believe in Him. |
||||||||||
| |||||||||||
