FooManChoo

Interesting how the Democrats ally themselves with all that is good and holy according to His word.

quote:

---

All of it can be explained without a hint of religion entering the conversation.

---

No, it can't. You can't go from an "is" to an "ought" without justification.

What you are saying is that because most societies share similar moral codes, that it must have evolved that way, and therefore that's what morality ought to be.

That's irrational.

You need to explain why majority opinion creates a moral obligation to go along with the majority, rather than the minority. For most of history, chattel slavery was (and still is, in some societies) considered morally permissible if not morally noble. To say that we've evolved past that is to say that there is some objective standard out there that states that chattel slavery is morally wrong, since you have to have a standard in order to compare an action against to say it's "good" or "bad".

When you say "why are y’all like this?", it tells me that you actually haven't thought much about this.

quote:

---

You literally do it right here.

I have told you over and over EXACTLY why I find your version to be evil.

---

You didn't provide reasons for it. You just said you didn't like it. You didn't ground your dislike in anything other than, what I can only assume is, your opinion.

Simply saying God is evil for doing something doesn't mean He is. I can call you evil for having the user name Boom33, but unless I ground that in something concrete, it's just me giving my opinion. That's what you're doing: giving your opinion. That's all.

quote:

---

You just started to trying to pretend like I had no morals or any foundation to make such judgements on.

---

I didn't say anything about you not having morals. I said you had no foundation for your morals. That's a big difference.

I've noticed that you are becoming increasingly sloppy in your attempts to state my positions.

quote:

---

You then constantly assume that my disagreement is in that everyone is going to heaven and what not and I just don't like it.

---

I don't think your disagreement is in the number of people going to heaven. It's in the basis for anyone going to heaven.

quote:

---

So let me say it plainly - Most people ARE NOT going to heaven. You are NOT going to heaven.

---

That's your belief, or your "dogma", if you will. You believe that to be true based on what else you believe to be true. Perhaps you should explain why you believe that.

quote:

---

That doesn't mean you are going to hell either (at least not for eternity), a concept which is pure ignorance and for the sole purpose of fear mongering.

---

You seem to be admitting here that something called "hell" exists in some form or fashion, and that I'm either not going there or not going there for forever, which means I could go there. If I could go there, then how might one avoid that? And if it does exist, and it is unpleasant, and it is something to be avoided, then how is you telling me how to avoid it not also a concept of pure ignorance and fear mongering?

Christians telling others about hell is not "fear mongering". A "fearmonger" is someone who needlessly spreads fear and alarm. "Needlessly" is the key word there, since a person shouting that a house is on fire and all occupants should leave immediately or risk death isn't a fearmonger, but is sharing caution out of concern. That's what Christians do. We are telling you that you're in a burning building and you need to get out, and you are saying we're fearmongers.

quote:

---

But let me repeat, you do NOT get automatic forgiveness, you are NOT going to heaven.

---

Why are you upset at God not automatically granting forgiveness to people all over the world who have not heard the gospel message and believed it, then? You also believe that people are barred from some sort of good (?) eternal state for something that they aren't aware they are supposed to do or learn. You said before that this life is about learning, but how does anyone know that, or what the right things are to learn? Is it not unfair for people to be denied heaven because they haven't had the same revelation from "god" that you have?

quote:

---

You worship the God of this world, Satan.

---

I do not. I worship God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Your father is Satan because you reject Christ the Son of God.

quote:

---

This is a lie. There are many different versions that different Christians believe. If you weren't attacking me, you'd be attacking them.

Why do you need to pretend like they all agree?

---

I don't pretend like they all agree with everything, but total agreement isn't necessary.

Why do you say I'm attacking you? You said things I thought were wrong, and I went about correcting you. That isn't an attack. I've been providing reasoned responses to your claims.

quote:

---

You are a follower of Paul, not Jesus

---

Paul confirmed what Jesus taught, and Peter agreed that Paul's writings were "scripture". What is Scripture is God-breathed, and that includes Jesus' words that have been recorded. So in that sense, Jesus' words and Paul's words are of equal authority, because they are both "scripture".

Paul said to imitate him just as he imitates Christ. Jesus is the standard, but Paul was an apostle of Jesus. Your rejection of Jesus' apostles is a rejection of Jesus, Himself.

quote:

---

General Message:

Jesus: The Kingdom of God. Jesus focused on a radical restructuring of society here on earth, uplifting the poor and flipping social hierarchies.

Paul: The Theology of Christ. Paul focused almost exclusively on Jesus' death, resurrection, and how an individual gets to heaven through faith.

---

Wrong. Jesus' primary message was about Him being the Messiah, coming to set free those who are enslaved by sin. What you described is what many call a "social gospel", which is focused on the here and now. Jesus' primary focus was on repentance of sin and faith in Him for forgiveness for sins. Jesus taught consistently with the Old Testament law, particularlly summarizing the 10 commands with loving God and loving neighbor. Paul taught the same thing.

quote:

---

View of the State:

Jesus: Subversive & Resistant. Jesus mocked King Herod (calling him "that fox") and was ultimately executed by Rome as a political rebel for claiming to be a King

Paul: Submissive & Obedient. Paul commanded believers to submit to the government, stating that "the authorities that exist have been established by God" (Romans 13:1).

---

Jesus said that people should pay their taxes, giving to Caesar what belongs to him. He was executed by Rome for a false charge of political rebellion, and Jesus, Himself, said that His kingdom is not of this world.

quote:

---

Religious Law & Practice:

Jesus: Flipping the Rules. Jesus constantly broke Sabbath rules, touched the unclean, and fiercely condemned the Pharisees for being rigid, hypocritical rule-makers.

Paul: Pharisaic Structure. Paul brought back intense rules regarding church hierarchy, modesty, head coverings, and how women should behave in assembly.

---

Jesus didn't flip the rules. He upheld the law perfectly. What He rejected was the sinful application of the law. He healed on the Sabbath but referenced the Old Testament law regarding rescuing an animal on the Sabbath, among other things.

quote:

---

Paul, who never met the living Jesus, completely shifts the focus

---

No he doesn't. And yes, he did meet the living, resurrected Jesus (Acts 9, 1 Cor 15).

quote:

---

Paul almost never quotes Jesus’ earthly teachings, parables, or ethical commands.

---

"Almost never".. that's quite the qualifier. He most certainly does quote, summarize, or reference Jesus' earthly teachings and commands, such as Jesus' teaching on divorce, paying gospel ministers, and the institution of the Lord's Supper.

Even so, Paul's purpose was instruction to the churches, not a biography of Jesus. His teachings are consistent with Jesus'.

quote:

---

Instead, Paul focuses entirely on Jesus as a cosmic, divine sacrifice.

---

Are you friends with Squirrelmeister? I didn't think I'd ever meet someone who took a mythicist position, much less two on the same forum.

If you are taking that position, that's simply false. I've spent a lot of time and energy refuting that with Squirrelmeister, so I'd rather not start over with you, but Paul refers to Jesus' birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension to the right hand of the Father. Jesus is very human in Paul's teaching, as well as very God.

quote:

---

Further proof you worship Satan:

Jesus says:

John 12:31: "Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince (ruler) of this world will be driven out."

John 14:30: "I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no claim on me."

John 16:11: "...the ruler of this world stands condemned."

Paul says Satan is the god of this age and teaches submission to the state - which he claims God has placed.

Romans 13:1: "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

---

You clearly misunderstand what Paul was saying. He was saying that God is sovereign over all authorities, no matter if they are earthly or spiritual.


To summarize: you are wrongfully pitting Jesus and Paul based on cherry-picked verses that don't actually say in context what you want them to say, and you are ignoring other verses that actually show alignment between Jesus and Paul.

You aren't a Christian, don't have an understanding of Christian teaching, and are claiming things about the Christian religion that are simply false.

And no, I don't worship Satan, but you clearly have been deceived by him.

quote:

---

Then why have the basic tenets of morality been seen near universally with populations that have never interacted with each other, with the vast majority never interacting with this "objective truth" to consume the content of that truth?

And don't quote the Bible, because this question presupposes those populations have never consumed that particular content.

---

The Bible explains why: as image-bearers of God, He has give mankind a conscience that testifies to the moral law of God. We inherently know good and evil because we were created to know it. We often times pervert it and suppress it in our sinful rebellion, but it's still there.

In summary: humans generally share the same moral outlook because we share the same moral creator.

quote:

---

Not according to the evidence and not according to the consensus of experts.

---

You know, you can't just ignore evidence that doesn't support your narrative and then claim that "the evidence" supports your narrative. That's deception, like I said. You are a deceiver.

quote:

---

The author of “Luke” adapted the gospel of the Lord which had been published by Markion of Sinope and edited and appended to it into the version we have today.

---

:lol: no... you, again, take the minority position because it best suits your anti-Christian beliefs.

Early patristic writers, Irenaeus and especially Tertullian, say that Marcion butchered the existing text, as he did in other places, including leaving out the entire Old Testament because Marcion didn't like the OT God compared to the NT God. It's more consistent to see Marcion pruning the text than someone else adding to it.

The supposed "additions" follow the same style as the rest of the book (and Acts), which also lends itself to a rejection of them being additions compared to Marcion subtractions.

Luke and Acts form a literary unit, and most scholars already date Acts prior to Marcion due to things like the absence of Paul's death or the fall of Jerusalem.

So again, there is plenty of evidence that Luke predates Marcion, but you would rather go with the theory that discredits the Bible. Shocker.

quote:

---

We call that hearsay. The telephone game. The author of canonical Luke wrote that he had compiled what “really” happened because none of the other gospels before his got it “right”. Canonical Luke is a compilation of a collection of stories - bottom line.

---

When you interview eye-witnesses and then write down their collective testimony, that isn't the telephone game.

Luke's gospel also doesn't read like a correction, but a confirmation. He states that eyewitnesses were already teaching these things, and that Luke wanted to write an "orderly account" of them. That tells us that the narratives were already there, but in order to due them justice as a historical account, Luke wrote them down to support the claims of the eyewitnesses, since Luke wrote as a historian. It doesn't give any hint that he was correcting false narratives at all.

quote:

---

I got a book that records that a very small chicken witnessed the sky was falling. It doesn’t make it historical or true, even though such a book does align with biblical cosmology of a hard dome of sapphire comprising the top of the sky.

---

Now you're pivoting.

Christians don't claim every book that makes a truth claim must be accepted as true. Christians had good reason to accept Paul's claims.

quote:

---

Not Paul then. Paul wrote before the gospels. The gospel of Luke and Acts is fan fiction based on Paul.

---

Paul wrote before the 4 gospels were written, yes, but as Luke said, many others had undertaken to write down what had happened before, so there were likely accounts circulating even before the gospels writings were. Until that point, the stories were mostly oral in nature, which is why they were eventually written down. It's also why both Paul and Luke (and John) appeal to eyewitnesses of public ministries to support their writings.

quote:

---

It’s the consensus of secular biblical and historical and textual scholars. I didn’t figure it out.

---

Whatever the consensus of critical scholarship thinks of 2 Peter, you consistently find ways to reject biblical writings. Either they are fraudulent (as you claim for 2 Peter, in spite of critical review of it by the early church before accepting it), or they are edited copies from other writings, or they are just made up "fan fiction".

quote:

---

In the same sense the modern Arian cult Jehovah’s Witnesses are witnesses. A witness in the biblical sense comes from the Greek “martyrs” but of course you know that - you’re just being dishonest. It simply means one who gives testimony. In English, and it’s the same sense of 1 Peter and of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the word “witness” is one who testifies to a belief while a “martyr” is simply a witness who died defending their belief.

---

What you just said is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not Peter claims to be an eyewitness of the actual events, such as 1 Peter 5:11, and 2 Peter 1:16–18. He's speaking of witnessing (past tense) the things he's speaking of.

quote:

---

1 Peter makes no mention of a Jesus on planet earth or of his “public ministry”.

---

1 Peter 5:1. He witnessed the sufferings of Christ. 1 Peter 2 describes events tied to the earthly trial and crucifixion narrative accounted in the gospel writings. 1 Peter 3 mentioned Jesus' resurrection and ascent into heaven (not the 7th heaven, mind you).

For you to think 1 Peter makes no mention of Jesus on planet earth is to assume that ridiculous view that you think the AoI teaches.

quote:

---

Be honest for once. Josephus ain’t writing that Jesus was more than a man and was the christ and rose from the dead, idiot. Just come out and embrace it. Christians edited Josephus’ work and forged it. It’s what Christians did - make shite up.

---

I admit that the specific line you referenced may have been edited later, but the mentions of Jesus by Josephus are not really disputed. You are taking a potential later emendation and applying it to his entire writing about Jesus, which is two separate passages. His mention about Jesus being the brother of James is not disputed much at all. You are the one who isn't being honest when you reject the entirety of Josephus.

quote:

---

There isn’t a consensus. I don’t get the ones who claim there’s a kernel, like Bart Ehrman. He’s like “none of this shite ever happened and none of it is remotely reliable, but there still must’ve been a dude named Jesus that it’s based on.” It’s an assertion, a belief, and nothing more. Maybe he’s right, but there’s no way to know if he was right, and there is plenty of doubt, and there is plenty of evidence Christians were worshipping Jesus when he was just a heavenly figure before the gospel stories were invented.

---

Thank you for your opinion on the matter :lol:

quote:

---

You’re mistaken if you aren’t being deceptive.

---

Show it, then.

quote:

---

He also had access to Christian tradition. By the time Tacitus wrote in about 120CE, early versions of the gospels probably existed or at least the oral tradition of a historical Jesus had developed and was widely known. Tacitus isn’t a contemporary independent source for the historical Jesus.

---

You're wrong about this. The reason scholars like Tacitus as an independent source is precisely because he is speaking factual about the account of the crucifixion. He expresses personal disdain for Christian superstition, but then goes on to provide a factual account of what seems to be based on Roman records.

No, he wasn't a contemporary of Jesus, but he was writing within living memory of it, based on official records, not some rumors or beliefs. His document wasn't intending to give accounts of minority religious beliefs, which is why most scholars agree that he is an authentic, independent, and historically reliable source.

quote:

---

True… one’s morality is arbitrary by definition… doesn’t mean it irrational…

---

Arbitrariness is irrational. However, if one's morality is based on an objective truth, then it is not arbitrary. The problem with moral subjectivity is that it is necessarily irrational, because there is no necessary reason to be moral at all, much less to adhere to any particular brand of morality. All the "reasons" all boil down to person preference, which is necessarily arbitrary. Having a moral standard that is grounded in objective truth is not arbitrary, however.

quote:

---

I disagree with this premise… consequences in a society doesn’t come from an action being deemed moral or immoral rather right or wrong… no one considers not being taxes “immoral “ per se … yet we all pay our taxes because of the consequences of no paying them

---

Right and wrong are synonyms for moral and immoral in the context of morality, though. Right and wrong are judgements according to some standard. In the context of morality, they are moral judgements which correspond to moral and immoral.

Even paying taxes has a moral component to it. First, there is the moral question of due submission to lawful commands by authorities. Then, is the moral question of taxation at all, and whether one should pay taxes for the good of society. Whether or not there is a penalty associated with not paying taxes, there is still a moral question about whether one has a moral obligation to do so.

quote:

---

No… a murderer getting away with murder doesn’t mean that said murderer believes murder is moral…

---

I mentioned this in response to you saying a child acts according to consequences, not some notion of God's command. The point I was making was that what is moral or immoral is not based on whether or not an action has negative consequences, as you can certainly have negative consequences for doing "good" things ("nice guys finish last" and "no good deed goes unpunished" are phrases that exists for a reason), just as many people prosper due to selfishness and lack of ethical/moral behavior (like politicians that get wealthy off the backs of their constituents without repercussions).

But to your statement, it doesn't matter whether or not a murderer believes murder is moral or not for it to be moral if consequences are all that matters. But even if consequences are irrelevant to the morality of an action, moral subjectivity requires that if a person thinks an action is morally good, that said action must be actually morally good.

There's also the notion that what one decides to do is what is the most moral choice, and if that's true, then if a murderer desires to murder and believes that is the best choice for them, then that action must be moral by default. After all, the murderer believed, even if for a moment, that it was the "right" (moral) thing to do over and against the alternative (not murdering).

quote:

---

I’m saying the exact opposite actually… I don’t believe the Nazis or slave owners you mention believed they were standing on the moral high ground… and if they did that proves my point even more of morals being arbitrary…

---

You'll need to clarify for me, then, because you initially said, "society determines if the action is right or wrong", to which I responded that Nazi Germany must have been "right", since they decided that genocide was right as a society. Therefore, I don't understand what you mean if not that society can determine moral right and wrong.

Regardless, what you've described so far is not that "morals [are] arbitrary", but that subjective morals are arbitrary. I think you're trying to lump all morality in with subjective morality. You can disagree that there is a God, and therefore there is no objective moral law-giver, but you have to recognize that if God exists, then He would necessarily be an objective moral law-giver. My contention is that Christianity should be preferred to atheism because of that fact alone, as Christianity provides a rational basis for what people already assume to be true (at least in practice), namely that there is an objective moral standard of right and wrong that all people should be accountable to.

quote:

---

Of course morals are arbitrary at their core … what’s exactly the objective standard ???… right and wrong are innate qualities… morality is not

---

No, morals are not arbitrary at their core. Subjective morals are arbitrary at their core, for the reasons I mentioned.

I defined the objective standard earlier: God's moral law that all people are required to obey. Specifically, the 10 commandments as a summary of that law.

Right and wrong are not innate qualities, but are judgements. "Right" compared to what standard? "Wrong" compared to what standard? What is "right" depends on the standard you use to measure it, and has no meaning apart from a standard.

quote:

---

I have over and over in this thread. Your refusal to accept it is your problem.

---

Give me an example of one explanation you've provided. You have only asserted things and provided no reasoning for your assertions. So no, you have not shown that anything I said is false. As I said previously, you've basically said "nuh uh", without providing any reasoning for why that is. You have just emoted, saying you don't like what has been said. You don't like the God of the Bible. You reject His justice. You reject His mercy. You reject eternal life through Jesus Christ. However, you have not said why He's actually unjust or unmerciful, but have rather resorted to straw man arguments, misrepresenting what the Bible teaches in order to paint God in a bad light. You aren't engaging with what the Bible teaches, even while you reject what you claim the Bible teaches.

quote:

---

I don't need you to believe me, what I believe or understand. I'm not trying to pretend I can "save" you.

I'm not trying to start a religion. I'm not looking for followers. This idea that I somehow owe you something or am required to do something for you simple does not exist. I have no religion for you to subscribe to.

---

I don't believe you and you have given me no reason to do so.

I'm not trying to start a religion or looking for followers, either. However I do want you to be saved.

If you thought I were wrong, wouldn't you want me to know what is right? If there is no salvation in whatever it is you believe, then there's no point in me, or even you, believing it. If we can just wander our entire lives and learn whatever we want until we die, then what's the point of your beliefs?

There are eternal consequences to sin, though, which is why it's important for you to turn from your sins right now and believe in Jesus Christ for forgiveness and eternal life. There is no second chance once you die.

quote:

---

You are the one trying to convert me into yours. You made claims, I questioned them.

---

All you did was make claims of your own in response. You're acting as if you made some good, probing questions to lead me to a rational position away from what I believe, but you did no such thing. You didn't question God, you rejected Him. You said He was evil. Don't downplay what you've been doing.

quote:

---

But you are completely unable to defend my critiques and now you've just started to look for anything you can find or assume about me so you can attack that in response.

---

Unable to defend your critiques? :lol: You haven't even supported your critiques. You don't understand the definitions of the words you are using and have not engaged in good faith with the biblical teachings as I've presented them. You've gone after straw men with mere assertions and no logical support. You haven't explained why what I believe is wrong, but have only asserted that I'm wrong. You haven't engaged with my argumentation as it is, but have had to twist it into something else. You are a bad-faith actor in this, and I hope I've exposed that to others.

It's also interesting that you seem to be an alter, and others are now seeing you for what you are, as well.

quote:

---

As such, I don't see much use in continuing.

---

That's on you, then. I think I've exposed you as a fraud who tried really hard to keep your beliefs out of the public, but you slipped up and let them come out, confirming you are an alter. You have no support for your own beliefs (or haven't provided them), and have not even supported your criticisms of Christianity. You merely assert your emotions and do not provide logical argumentation for why you are to be believed and why what I believe should be rejected. It just boils down to your own discomfort, which doesn't matter to me or others.

Next time you want to pick a fight, try to support your position.

quote:

---

I did apply it accurately.

---

You did not apply it accurately, and I have been explaining to you exactly how. You need to pay attention.

quote:

---

You claim the people are burning in hell glorifies his mercy/love for those that aren't.

---

This part is true. How you described it before is not true.

Yes, God is just, so punishment is Hell is what we all deserve. He pardons billions of people so that they do not receive the punishment that they deserve, and in pardoning them, He should be glorified for His mercy and love.

What you keep getting hung up on is this notion of moral neutrality or innocence, and that you think God owes everyone eternal life. Him punishing anyone for eternity, then, is cruel. I say that your understanding is not accurate, so therefore your conclusions are not accurate, either. You don't understand God's holiness nor the seriousness of sin.

quote:

---

Literally nothing changed in what I said.

It has 2 different orders and neither of them is correct.

---

It doesn't have two different orders of creation, and that's what I've tried to explain to you. Genesis 1 is focused on the big picture narrative, and Genesis 2 and 3 are focused on the events in the garden of Eden.

Here is another article that explains the situation. As long as a reasonable explanation exists, you cannot call it a logical contradiction.

And in regard to the event as a whole being incorrect, that would be a difference in belief about the age of the universe, earth, and how the earth was created. You are merely asserting the Bible is wrong there. You're free to believe what you want in that matter, but disagreeing doesn't mean the Bible is incorrrect.

quote:

---

You mean I'm not citing some other book and claiming it's the word of God?

---

No, I mean you aren't support your claims at all, with reason. You can connect your claims to a personal belief if you want, but so far, you've only just made assertions.

quote:

---

Sure, let's see it.

---

Here's an example of one for objective morality:

P1. Objective moral obligations must bind universally and unconditionally, regardless of any individual's or group's beliefs, desires, or consensus.

P2. Human experience (individual or collective) is contingent, variable, and non-binding beyond itself, as it can describe what people do value, but not establish what they must value.

C. Therefore, if moral obligations are truly objective, their ground cannot be human experience; it must lie outside and above it.

You have yet to ground any of your moral judgements in anything beyond your own opinions, which means they are necessarily subjective until proven otherwise. If they are subjective, then they are only really meaningful to you, and no one else has any rational obligation to accept them any more than you condemning someone's favorite flavor of ice cream.

quote:

---

I don't force you to resort to dogma when pushed. It's not my fault when pointing out how you would feel about a person who created billions of people, giving them senses and things to feel pain, just so I could then use that pain to torture them for eternity you claim it's justified because "God".

---

Aside from your misuse of the word "dogma" again, you used the word "feel" here. That's an appeal to emotion, not reason, which further illustrates what I've been saying about and to you. You are not being reasonable, but merely emoting your frustrations about the God of the Bible. You can dislike Him all you want, but you haven't supported your dislike rationally.

quote:

---

You could respond and show justification for it, if such a thing is possible, but you can't actually justify it with reason or anything else. So it just becomes "God can do it because he's God". And you can't even question if such a thing is even true about God because you claim, "The bible is the word of God".

---

I've made truth claims, provided where those claims originate from, and provided coherent, consistent argumentative support for those claims. You just don't like the source. However, if the source of a truth claim was an eye-witness account, you couldn't dismiss it outright because you don't like the supposed eye-witness. You'd have to provide justification for dismissing the person and the claim. You've done neither so far, other than trying to show that Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other. I've demonstrated that they are not logically contradictory, so you have failed to discredit neither the claim nor the source. You can reject them if you choose, but you should provide justification for it beyond that you simply don't like them. That's not a rational position to take for any truth claim: preferences don't determine truth.

quote:

---

I'm just pointing out why what you believe is dog shite. There has been no real debate on my understandings because you aren't capable of it.

---

I stand corrected, and agree with your point here: there has been no real debate. I'm providing arguments and you are providing emotions. You aren't debating anything, but are only making emotional appeals.

My point stands regarding your engagement, though: you are spending a lot of time and effort to say that you aren't actually engaging in a debate, even though you are expressing disagreements over and over again. Perhaps I should say, you are "venting". Is that better?

quote:

---

One minute you're telling how much of a sinner you are and how much you need Jesus to be your free ticket. Now you are claiming I'm the one blinded by sin.

And why am I blinded by sin? Because I won't accept that someone wants to give me a "free gift".

---

Yes, I'm a sinner, but I'm not longer "blinded" by sin, at least not the in the same way you are. I have the Holy Spirit residing in me, and you do not. You are dead in your sins and need God's Spirit to open your eyes and soften your heart. No amount of argumentation will convince you of the truth, otherwise. My desire in this is to show you have absurd your position is. Whether you agree with mine or not is a matter of spiritual blindness.

quote:

---

No, I provide context you wish to gloss over. It's like claiming robbing someone is removing them of the burden of how much weight they carried. And if I point out - well no you are robbing them, you start claiming "That's not the context I chose!".

You want to focus on "he's saving you", but when I point out according to your claims billions of others are burning in hell, I'm suddenly "butchering" things.

---

I'm not glossing over anything. I've provided rational argumentation to support my position and disprove your own conjectures based on the teaching of the Bible that you are attacking. It isn't merely a context change, but an understanding of what's actually happening. When you knowingly call self-defense "murder", you are actually being deceptive, not changing the context. Likewise, when many people are judged for their crimes, that isn't murder, but justice. You fail to see that because of your blindness.

For you, in particular, I was highlighting that no matter your concern for the rest of humanity, you refuse to accept the free offer given to you. You reject the pardon you don't deserve and then complain every other prisoner isn't aware of the same offer, so the King must be unjust. You are refusing to think in biblical categories while rejecting the Bible. You are being purposefully inconsistent at this point.

quote:

---

You've done nothing of the sort. The closest you could do was try to make up excuses when it was pointed out the creation myth contradicts itself, neither of them is actually right.

And then you do things like claiming billions burning in hell for eternity is justice, because "God" while claiming that is morality.

Your statement is just completely false.

---

I love how you call a reasonable explanation an "excuse" :lol:

What I said is not false and you haven't shown that it is. You just keep asserting that it is false, as if I should just believe you because you said it. As I keep saying: prove it. Justify it. Provide reasoning for it.

So far, this has been a one-sided discussion. You are being absolutely unreasonable, and I mean that in it's typical sense: lacking reason.

quote:

---

I could tell you things, but you wouldn't understand.

---

You have told me a lot of things that I disagree with, but not because I'm incapable of understanding, but because you have not supported your claims with reasoning. You criticize me for basing my beliefs ultimately in the testimony of God (as I believe it) while you want me to take your testimony at face value. Why should I believe you over God, when the Bible provides consistent philosophical support for the reality we live in, and you have not?

quote:

---

You don't understand why time isn't real for example. You don't understand that the universe/creation is static, without movement. You don't understand that life/experience is a limitation within it. You don't understand the extra dimensions around you and how choices change the path in it. You don't understand what a soul is, you don't even know who you are.

---

I understand what you are claiming, but I don't understand your reasoning for claiming these things. Perhaps if you could explain them to me and support them with reasoning beyond your dogmatic assertions? Or, at least explain why I should take your word for it over the Bible's (or anyone else's, for that matter)?

quote:

---

Please elaborate since this could be groundbreaking if you could make sense of that.

---

All moral judgments require some standard to compare an action to in order to determine “right” (“good”) or “wrong” (“evil”). Christianity sees God as an objective moral law-giver who has provided an objective moral law (the 10 commandments). It’s objective in the sense that it originates outside the human mind and applies to all humans equally across time, space, and geography. While the application of it may differ at times, the standard, itself, does not change. In addition, all people are held accountable to that standard by God.

Atheism, on the other hand, posits that morality is subjective, originating from the human mind. Since there is no singular source for morality other than the human mind, it necessarily fluctuates from person to person, place to place, and time to time, based on whatever social agreements may exist in the microcosm. Because of this, there is no singular moral standard that applies equally to everyone everywhere and at every time, so if one society chooses to believe it is right to kill off the weak or rape their way to a stronger society, that’s “right” for them, and there is no outside moral judge that we can look to in order to judge otherwise. Human flourishing and empathy are arbitrary measures we typically use to say something is “moral”, but we could just as easily use the opposite as a moral standard.

In other words, without an objective moral framework to go by, atheism reduces morality down to shared preferences, like a favorite flavor of ice cream.