Let's Talk About Sin

#401
#401
Roustabout said:
And speaking from years of experience, it should shape the way we communicate with non-believers. Do you expect them to understand your experiential faith?

They don't. It can be as real as the hand in front of your face, but that will not convince them. The carnal mind truly is hostile toward God. And like we've already seen, even if the Bible were true, that doesn't mean they would believe it. We are contending with materialistic world views, and that is a major issue. For example, we see someone who is essentially saying that for them to trust Christ, then God and the bible must first comply with their ideology. And when challenged to account for logic and morals in this worldview, they cannot, or will not.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we are the ones challenged to account for logic. You got it.


I laughed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#403
#403
Vol8188 said:
Statements like yours are how people end up flying planes into buildings. "But my said it was fair and just for me to kill them"
Click to expand...

Please elaborate with actual points behind ur statements instead of just attacking me because you don't like what I have to say
 
#409
#409
MercyPercy said:
Yeah, we are the ones challenged to account for logic. You got it.


I laughed.
Click to expand...

You can laugh all you like. Your post is knee jerk and doens't even consider what's already been discussed in the thread. You just assume its some unfounded jab. It isn't.
It is a curious how one accounts for logic, an immaterial, metaphysical concept that governs human thought. Being a theist, I certainly can point you directly towards natural theology (Aquinas, Aristotle) and account for this. You may not agree, but I can at least account for it.

Please understand the difference in USING logic and accounting for it. It's an ontological question. If you do adhere to logical thinking, great, but why? What objective basis do you have for doing so?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#412
#412
Septic said:
Yes but none of my biology books were written by bronze age goat herders. Perhaps this is where our divergence may have occurred.
Click to expand...
That is called chrononlogical snobbery. It's weaker than milk toast. Why don't you come up with something new.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#413
#413
Vol865 said:
Sure is.........Lets play out scenarios. if I'm wrong, what happens? I die like everybody else and thats it (according to some)


What happens if you're wrong?
Click to expand...

This is just for arguments sake. Not trying to be rude.
 
#416
#416
Roustabout said:
That is called chrononlogical snobbery. It's weaker than milk toast. Why don't you come up with something new.
Click to expand...

Whatever... Cutesy quips by Lewis don't change the fact that the understanding of biology now is greater than it was then. Which was the point.

Belaboring the point as "milk toast chronological snobbery", while you're call - is really silly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#417
#417
Septic said:
Blaise Pascal would have been proud of this post.
Click to expand...

I don't take the time to look up theories and probabilities on my faith. I'm just saying are prepared for the consequences if you are wrong?

I'm not going to keep arguing about it. I'm not going to even come back to thread. But ill leave with that thought and I'll be praying for you. Have a great day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#418
#418
Septic said:
Whatever... Cutesy quips by Lewis don't change the fact that the understanding of biology now is greater than it was then. Which was the point.
I
Belaboring the point as "milk toast chronological snobbery", while you're call - is really silly.
Click to expand...

I dont see hoe thats the point at all. That adds zero credence to your objection. The bible isn't unreliable because its old. And the fact you site lewis only confirms my suspicion. Why should the burden be on me to come up with new responses to old and tired objections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#419
#419
Vol865 said:
I don't take the time to look up theories and probabilities on my faith. I'm just saying are prepared for the consequences if you are wrong?

I'm not going to keep arguing about it. I'm not going to even come back to thread. But ill leave with that thought and I'll be praying for you. Have a great day.
Click to expand...

Did you miss my previous statement that hell is even less likely to exist than your god is? Is was never mentioned in the Old Testament, nor do Jews believe in hell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#421
#421
Roustabout said:
I dont see hoe thats the point at all. That adds zero credence to your objection. The bible isn't unreliable because its old. And the fact you site lewis only confirms my suspicion. Why should the burden be on me to come up with new responses to old and tired objections.
Click to expand...

You're right, the bible isn't unreliable because it's old. It's unreliable because it was written over a span of 1,500 years with 40 or so authors (some of which are still unknown and believed to be church 'leaders'). THEN it was edited for content by Constantine and then voted on to be "the word of god". Further, the vast majority of the bibles authors never even new Jesus, instead the relied on stories that were told and retold ad nauseum. Ever played the whisper game around a room - yeah like that except for fifteen hundred years.

The sheer number of current interpretations of "the word" is mind boggling. Are the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts even congruent?

Are you attempting to assert that given the above, the bible is a truly accurate and factual account of the life of Jesus and his claim to be 'the son of god'? If so, hats off to you because that indeed requires faith.

Also, what objection are you referring to? The man said that humans are fallible, I simply noted out that humans wrote the bible.

You are the one who thought it clever to bring up biology books are also written by humans, not I.

You're attempting to belabor points about the leaves, when the argument is about the tree. Whittling away until you hit a spot where you can more comfortably argue and then claiming <insert fallacious argument name here> is transparent and tiresome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#422
#422
Vol865 said:
Sure is.........Lets play out scenarios. if I'm wrong, what happens? I die like everybody else and thats it (according to some)


What happens if you're wrong?
Click to expand...

If I had a nickel for every time Pascal's wager came into play from an unknowing believer in this thread, I could buy a decent harlot to fornicate with out of wedlock.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#423
#423
Septic said:
You're right, the bible isn't unreliable because it's old. It's unreliable because it was written over a span of 1,500 years with 40 or so authors (some of which are still unknown and believed to be church 'leaders'). THEN it was edited for content by Constantine and then voted on to be "the word of god". Further, the vast majority of the bibles authors never even new Jesus, instead the relied on stories that were tyold and retold ad nauseum. Ever played the whisper game around a room - yeah like that except for fifteen hundred years.

The sheer number of current interpretations of "the word" is mind boggling. Are the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts even congruent?

Are you attempting to assert that given the above, the bible is a truly accurate and factual account of the life of Jesus and his claim to be 'the son of god'? If so, hats off to you because that indeed requires faith.

Also, what objection are you referring to? The man said that humans are fallible, I simply noted out that humans wrote the bible.

You are the one who thought it clever to bring up biology books are also written by humans, not I.

You're attempting to belabor points about the leaves, when the argument is about the tree. Whittling away until you hit a spot where you can more comfortably argue and then claiming <insert fallacious argument name here> is transparent and tiresome.
Click to expand...
Wow. You're right. Oh wait you're not. You should be as skeptical of your sources.

40 authors. I guess that the Qur'an is more true because of the number of authors. I'm pretty well read on the Nicean council. It seems you are not.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#425
#425
257_1gilda_b__78_6_41_n8.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top