Why Earth?

[sylvan3]

#3

You make a big error in saying that independent thinking is the same as rebellion.

Are you the interpreter of truth? What

[Copper Scroll]

Pick and choose from what? In my last two posts, I have stated the essence of my religious beliefs. Ceremony and ritual don't matter to me. For any true Christian, what really matters is accepting Christ as Savior. That's what Christianity is.

That's a very reductive definition of Christianity.

It's what all Christians have in common, as far as I know. Sects and denominations vary in many ways, but not on this point.

Yeah, they are. I mean, what's irrational about a scientific theory and atheism? You may call strong atheism irrational if you want but the truth is that even that variant of atheism is consistent with what we observe around us, indeed there's absolutely nothing at all that requires God to be explained and a load of evidence against the Bible's accuracy. So I don't get what your point is. There's nothing even remotely similiar between my position and yours, e.g. you couldn't point out any inconsistency within evolution or atheism.

I never said that I could. I never called them irrational or inconsistent. But my beliefs are not irrational or inconsistent either. That hasn't stopped you from calling them irrational or inconsistent. You have failed to show me how they are irrational... So you are being irrational.

On the other hand, you say you don't accept the Christian religion completely and you don't reject other religions completely. If that's not picking and choosing I don't know what it is

You don't know what picking and choosing is. An example of that would be I believe that the Buddha sat under the bo tree but I don't believe that he was ever a prince. Don't accuse me of picking and choosing unless you can show me what I am picking and choosing from. Back up what you say.

First of all, next time you say you will pray for me I'm going to kick you with an incredibly neat magic trick. If you don't understand why it's the most irritating thing to say to an atheist, just stop saying it without understanding.

Being accused of being irrational without support is irritating.

Second, when you say there is no inconsistency you're really saying that the inconsistencies do not work with your own personal definition of God and your peculiar idea of what God can and cannot do, which I tried to understand asking you all those questions about the omni- properties.

Well, it wouldn't make sense to say that an omnipotent being must be able to turn an object left and right at the same time... or rather, in that case, omnipotence would be an absurd concept that would only confuse a rational debate. If something flat out can't be done, then not even an otherwise omnipotent being could do it.

As long as it excludes absurdities, omnipotence remains a useful concept. When I say God is omnipotent, that means that He can do anything. That "anything" only includes those things that can be done is implicit. The same could be said for omniscience (knowing all... that can be known) and omnipresence (being everywhere... there is to be). God can't be on the Planet Vulcan if Planet Vulcan doesn't exist. Does this mean that He is not omnipresent? Of course not. As far as I can tell, none of those properties are in conflict or inconsistent.

Point: including absurdities within the domain of the omni-max properties not only renders the omni-max properties absurd... but the debate over the omni-max properties is rendered absurd as well.

[Copper Scroll]

double-post

[sylvan3]

I sure wouldn't tell her, though, that she'd better be Christian or she is going to hell. There is no evidence for that.

There certainly is evidence for the fact that Jesus claimed that He was the unique way to a relationship with God, and if people decide to forgo that way, they are doomed to eternal separation from Him. Jesus spoke more about Hell, than He did about heaven. You have chosen not to accept the record of what He said.

There may be evidence that Jesus may have claimed that. However, there is no evidence that it is actually true. It comes down to faith, once again. And, once again, you are attempting to equate faith and fact, which is not true. They carry different definitions; you can look it up.

[sylvan3]

I sure wouldn't tell her, though, that she'd better be Christian or she is going to hell. There is no evidence for that.

There certainly is evidence for the fact that Jesus claimed that He was the unique way to a relationship with God, and if people decide to forgo that way, they are doomed to eternal separation from Him. Jesus spoke more about Hell, than He did about heaven. You have chosen not to accept the record of what He said.

There may be evidence that Jesus may have claimed that. However, there is no evidence that it is actually true. It comes down to faith, once again. And, once again, you are attempting to equate faith and fact, which is not true. They carry different definitions; you can look it up.

[sylvan3]

I sure wouldn't tell her, though, that she'd better be Christian or she is going to hell. There is no evidence for that.

There certainly is evidence for the fact that Jesus claimed that He was the unique way to a relationship with God, and if people decide to forgo that way, they are doomed to eternal separation from Him. Jesus spoke more about Hell, than He did about heaven. You have chosen not to accept the record of what He said.

There may be evidence that Jesus may have claimed that. However, there is no evidence that it is actually true. It comes down to faith, once again. And, once again, you are attempting to equate faith and fact, which is not true. They carry different definitions; you can look it up.

[Copper Scroll]

You're shifting goalposts again.

Again? When did I do it the first time? How am I doing it now?

I have summarized my religious beliefs for you. I will go a step further and describe God as eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent--having already excluded absurdities for the purposes of a rational discussion. It is your responsibility to tell me what is irrational in what I've presented. When did I shift goalposts?

The inconsistency you talk about is the one about omnipotence. Taking away the logical impossibilities from what God can do doesn't solve the inconsistency between omnipotence and omniscience. To solve that one you need to make a load of absurd assumptions. You don't need to do that because you have a different definition of God then most other Christians, i.e. you don't believe that God stands outside of time.

Once again, I have no idea what you are talking about. You'll have to explain what the inconsistency is before I can address it.

[Copper Scroll]

Once again, I have no idea what you are talking about. You'll have to explain what the inconsistency is before I can address it.

On second thought, forget it. You're obviously making fun of me. Peace.

This is not the first time I've seen you pull this "I'm insulted" card. It's a wack move.

Obviously, I'm not making fun of you. No, I haven't read this whole thread. But if you believe that there is an inconsistency in my beliefs, you can't just say "Your beliefs are inconsistent and you need to resolve them." You have to make the inconsistency known. You can't just say "Your beliefs are utterly irrational." You have to point out where or how they are irrational.

[Copper Scroll]

Peace! You can say i haven't defeated your argument, it's ok.

... a slight change from the last time you ended our correspondence ...

Don't bother arguing further, I'm out of here.

[TheProcess]

The future does not exist, so how can it be known? Now, God can decide to act at a future time, and because He is all-powerful, nothing can stand in His way... Plus, God knows everything that is occurring and everything that has occurred, which makes Him exceptional at predicting future events. But what I will decide in the future cannot be known... unless God decides to make me act in a certain way.

So if a prophecy is given in the Bible about how someone will act in the future, then God has to coerce man to behave in such a way to fulfill the prophecy?

Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet... (Matthew 2:16-17 KJV)

Did God make Herod kill lots of babies to fulfill a prophecy?

(As it happens, it doesn't look as if a prophecy ever existed. Matthew seems to have taken the Old Testament out of context, but that isn't really relevant here.)