Prove it to me
- Thread starter hockeywings
- Start date
"So, who created this, this, SIN!"
--------------------------------------------------
God did not create sin. God is holy and He would not create that which is contrary to His nature. Sinfulness is the opposite of holiness. It is lawlessness (1 John 3:4). God is the author of the Law which is a reflection of His holy character (Exodus 20). Therefore, God cannot create that which is in direct violation of the Law any more than a person can wish himself to be bigger than the sun. It just isn’t possible.
God created the conditions where free will creatures would be able to make a choice between obedience and disobedience to God. This condition existed when God created an angel called Lucifer who was without sin yet, apparently, had free will. Lucifer chose to rebel against God and sin (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:13-15). Likewise, Adam and Eve, having been made by God without sin, listened to the devil and chose to sin against God (Gen. 3). But God did not cause them to sin (James 1:13). In the freedom of their wills, each decided to rebel against God and sin entered the world (Rom. 5:12). God simply allowed the condition to exist where sin was possible.
An analogy can be found in the relationship between a parent and a child. A parent can create the condition that makes disobedience possible yet the parent remains innocent if the child sins. For example, if a parent tells his child to clean up his room and the child does not, he has rebelled. But, the parent is not responsible for the child’s sin, nor did he cause the child to sin. The child had a choice to obey or not to obey.
Likewise, God has created the condition in the world where the ability to rebel against Him was possible. Yet, he is not responsible for that rebellion once it has been committed. Therefore, sin originated with Lucifer who was the first to rebel and entered the world through Adam who likewise chose disobedience.
Scriptures Quoted:
1 John 3:4, "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness."
Isaiah 14;12-15, "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! 13 "But you said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north. 14 ‘I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’ 15 "Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol, To the recesses of the pit."
Ezekiel 28:13-15, "You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The ruby, the topaz, and the diamond; The beryl, the onyx, and the jasper; The lapis lazuli, the turquoise, and the emerald; And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, Was in you. On the day that you were created They were prepared. 14 "You were the anointed cherub who covers, And I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 "You were blameless in your ways From the day you were created, Until unrighteousness was found in you."
><>
--------------------------------------------------
God did not create sin. God is holy and He would not create that which is contrary to His nature. Sinfulness is the opposite of holiness. It is lawlessness (1 John 3:4). God is the author of the Law which is a reflection of His holy character (Exodus 20). Therefore, God cannot create that which is in direct violation of the Law any more than a person can wish himself to be bigger than the sun. It just isn’t possible.
God created the conditions where free will creatures would be able to make a choice between obedience and disobedience to God. This condition existed when God created an angel called Lucifer who was without sin yet, apparently, had free will. Lucifer chose to rebel against God and sin (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:13-15). Likewise, Adam and Eve, having been made by God without sin, listened to the devil and chose to sin against God (Gen. 3). But God did not cause them to sin (James 1:13). In the freedom of their wills, each decided to rebel against God and sin entered the world (Rom. 5:12). God simply allowed the condition to exist where sin was possible.
An analogy can be found in the relationship between a parent and a child. A parent can create the condition that makes disobedience possible yet the parent remains innocent if the child sins. For example, if a parent tells his child to clean up his room and the child does not, he has rebelled. But, the parent is not responsible for the child’s sin, nor did he cause the child to sin. The child had a choice to obey or not to obey.
Likewise, God has created the condition in the world where the ability to rebel against Him was possible. Yet, he is not responsible for that rebellion once it has been committed. Therefore, sin originated with Lucifer who was the first to rebel and entered the world through Adam who likewise chose disobedience.
Scriptures Quoted:
1 John 3:4, "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness."
Isaiah 14;12-15, "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! 13 "But you said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north. 14 ‘I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’ 15 "Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol, To the recesses of the pit."
Ezekiel 28:13-15, "You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The ruby, the topaz, and the diamond; The beryl, the onyx, and the jasper; The lapis lazuli, the turquoise, and the emerald; And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, Was in you. On the day that you were created They were prepared. 14 "You were the anointed cherub who covers, And I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 "You were blameless in your ways From the day you were created, Until unrighteousness was found in you."
><>
inspector,
So, God did not create sin, huh?
Correct me if I'm wrong:
-Before Lucifer, sin did not exist.
-Sin was created by Lucifer
-Who created Lucifer? God.
-Lucifer betrays God. Sin is born.
-God makes man in His image.
-Man betrays God.
-Man sins.
So, God creates Lucifer, and Lucifer sins. God creates man, and man sins.
How is it that sin did not exist before God, does not exist in God, yet sin shows up in everything God creates?
God, who does not know sin, who is all-knowing, creates angels and men that are in His likeness, yet sin.
Does that about sum it up?
So, God did not create sin, huh?
Correct me if I'm wrong:
-Before Lucifer, sin did not exist.
-Sin was created by Lucifer
-Who created Lucifer? God.
-Lucifer betrays God. Sin is born.
-God makes man in His image.
-Man betrays God.
-Man sins.
So, God creates Lucifer, and Lucifer sins. God creates man, and man sins.
How is it that sin did not exist before God, does not exist in God, yet sin shows up in everything God creates?
God, who does not know sin, who is all-knowing, creates angels and men that are in His likeness, yet sin.
Does that about sum it up?
"Does that about sum it up?"
-------------------------------------------
No, but this might.
Man is sinful.
VAKEMP is man.
Therefore, VAKEMP is sinful.
Jesus died to redeem man's sin.
Man is redeemed by God's grace and forgiveness.
Grace is a free gift from God for those who have faith in God.
Christians have faith in God and are redeemed.
VAKEMP is without faith in God.
Therefore, VAKEMP does not receive grace or salvation.
'NOW, we see but a poor reflection, as in a mirror. THEN, we shall see face to face. NOW, we know in part. THEN we shall know fully.........'
><>
-------------------------------------------
No, but this might.
Man is sinful.
VAKEMP is man.
Therefore, VAKEMP is sinful.
Jesus died to redeem man's sin.
Man is redeemed by God's grace and forgiveness.
Grace is a free gift from God for those who have faith in God.
Christians have faith in God and are redeemed.
VAKEMP is without faith in God.
Therefore, VAKEMP does not receive grace or salvation.
'NOW, we see but a poor reflection, as in a mirror. THEN, we shall see face to face. NOW, we know in part. THEN we shall know fully.........'
><>
Hmmm...
Ok, let's break this down:
'Man is sinful.'
(Man is created by God)
'VAKEMP is man.'
(Therefore created by God)
'Therefore, VAKEMP is sinful.'
(Because I was created by God)
'Jesus died to redeem man's sin. '
(Why?)
'Man is redeemed by God's grace and forgiveness. '
(Then I don't have to worship Jesus Christ? Who saves us, Jesus or God?)
'Grace is a free gift from God for those who have faith in God. '
(It is not free, then. You have to believe God exists. This is where the big disconnect is. You believe the Bible is the proof of God. I don't.)
'Christians have faith in God and are redeemed. '
(Jews believe in God, too. Christians believe Jesus was sent by God to redeem man's sin, remember? So what happens to Jews? Obviously, they already believed in God. Why should they be left out when they didn't need Jesus?)
'VAKEMP is without faith in God. '
(I need proof. You cannot provide that proof. Only God can. Sorry, I'm pickier than you.)
'Therefore, VAKEMP does not receive grace or salvation. '
(Based on your own interpretation of God. You are not God, so you have no right to judge me or my beliefs. I don't judge yours. I'm asking for proof, and you can't provide it. I'm not damning you to hell for not giving me proof. Yet, that is what you wish of me.)
Ok, let's break this down:
'Man is sinful.'
(Man is created by God)
'VAKEMP is man.'
(Therefore created by God)
'Therefore, VAKEMP is sinful.'
(Because I was created by God)
'Jesus died to redeem man's sin. '
(Why?)
'Man is redeemed by God's grace and forgiveness. '
(Then I don't have to worship Jesus Christ? Who saves us, Jesus or God?)
'Grace is a free gift from God for those who have faith in God. '
(It is not free, then. You have to believe God exists. This is where the big disconnect is. You believe the Bible is the proof of God. I don't.)
'Christians have faith in God and are redeemed. '
(Jews believe in God, too. Christians believe Jesus was sent by God to redeem man's sin, remember? So what happens to Jews? Obviously, they already believed in God. Why should they be left out when they didn't need Jesus?)
'VAKEMP is without faith in God. '
(I need proof. You cannot provide that proof. Only God can. Sorry, I'm pickier than you.)
'Therefore, VAKEMP does not receive grace or salvation. '
(Based on your own interpretation of God. You are not God, so you have no right to judge me or my beliefs. I don't judge yours. I'm asking for proof, and you can't provide it. I'm not damning you to hell for not giving me proof. Yet, that is what you wish of me.)
VAKEMP, my friend. I do not wish anything bad on you. I am only a flawed human on a fallen planet, attempting to defend Christianity on a secular website. I am not all-knowing, or all-anything for that matter.
I have to go for the evening, however, I would like to discuss this matter further, at another time with you. You offer some interesting arguments regarding the existence of God. Perhaps, a private discussion sometime soon?
><>
I have to go for the evening, however, I would like to discuss this matter further, at another time with you. You offer some interesting arguments regarding the existence of God. Perhaps, a private discussion sometime soon?
><>
The whole atheist vs. agnostic definitions debacle seems to be a never-ending point of frustration on these boards.
Lately, people seem to have gotten it in their heads that an atheist is someone that could never believe in god no matter what. I have no idea where this nonsense come from...
Oh well, I give up.
Lately, people seem to have gotten it in their heads that an atheist is someone that could never believe in god no matter what. I have no idea where this nonsense come from...
Oh well, I give up.
didn't see that, but i haven't been much on the religion forum lately. What i ment however that most people (could be) calling themselves atheist instead of agnostic because atheist is a more widespread word.Originally posted by VAKEMP
Bachus,
I've defined atheist and agnostic already, in this post and in the 'God does exist' post. They are different words with different meanings. A person can be agnostic and not atheist, or vice-versa.
Vakemp et all,
This is the view of agnosticsm that I use. It is a taken from a key athesist resource http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Note that dictionaries are fine up to a point, but many are out of date especially for such terms as atheist. The newer ones are slowly catching on, but most declare atheist as someone who believes God does not exist. And that is highly misleading.
The better approach would be to adopt real life curent thinking when using such terms rather than rely on potentially stale dictionary definitions.
One of the key readers for all atheists is the book - The Case Against God - by George H Smith. This includes a long and detailed discussion on the meaning of terms such as atheism and agnosticsm.
For this discussion you are and I are both right and wrong depending on whch resources have been referenced.
Anyway an extract from the website. Atheism is clearly defined there as well -
The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an agnostic as someone who disclaimed both ("strong") atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble. Another way of putting it is that an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not and cannot know for sure whether God exists.
Since that time, however, the term agnostic has also been used to describe those that do not believe that the question is intrinsically unknowable, but instead believe that the evidence for or against God is inconclusive, and therefore are undecided about the issue.
To reduce the amount of confusion over the use of term agnosticism, it is recommended that usage based on the original definition be qualified as "strict agnosticism" and usage based on the second definition be qualified as "empirical agnosticism".
Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For example, many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here as "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism".
Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning, it is very difficult to generalize about atheists. About all you can say for sure is that atheists don't believe in God. For example, it certainly isn't the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out about the universe.
This is the view of agnosticsm that I use. It is a taken from a key athesist resource http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Note that dictionaries are fine up to a point, but many are out of date especially for such terms as atheist. The newer ones are slowly catching on, but most declare atheist as someone who believes God does not exist. And that is highly misleading.
The better approach would be to adopt real life curent thinking when using such terms rather than rely on potentially stale dictionary definitions.
One of the key readers for all atheists is the book - The Case Against God - by George H Smith. This includes a long and detailed discussion on the meaning of terms such as atheism and agnosticsm.
For this discussion you are and I are both right and wrong depending on whch resources have been referenced.
Anyway an extract from the website. Atheism is clearly defined there as well -
The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an agnostic as someone who disclaimed both ("strong") atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble. Another way of putting it is that an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not and cannot know for sure whether God exists.
Since that time, however, the term agnostic has also been used to describe those that do not believe that the question is intrinsically unknowable, but instead believe that the evidence for or against God is inconclusive, and therefore are undecided about the issue.
To reduce the amount of confusion over the use of term agnosticism, it is recommended that usage based on the original definition be qualified as "strict agnosticism" and usage based on the second definition be qualified as "empirical agnosticism".
Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For example, many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here as "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism".
Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning, it is very difficult to generalize about atheists. About all you can say for sure is that atheists don't believe in God. For example, it certainly isn't the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out about the universe.
VAKEMP,
And for atheism: I think you will find these are the common definitions currently in use by practicing atheists and accepted by all mainstream atheist organizations.
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.
Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".
Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...
It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.
Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.
"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"
Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not.
And for atheism: I think you will find these are the common definitions currently in use by practicing atheists and accepted by all mainstream atheist organizations.
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.
Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".
Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...
It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.
Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.
"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"
Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not.
Thanks for the explanation, Cris. I will check the link you provided.
There are undoubtedly different variations to Atheism and Agnosticism, just as there are devout, bible-thumping Christians, and people who call themselves Christians just because they were told it was good to call yourself a Christian.
If you deal with a large group of atheist/agnostic people, I can understand why you would need to categorize people's differences in opinion further. In that case, I would understand using your classifications. For me, the definitions in the dictionary work.
Once again, thanks for the info Cris!
There are undoubtedly different variations to Atheism and Agnosticism, just as there are devout, bible-thumping Christians, and people who call themselves Christians just because they were told it was good to call yourself a Christian.
If you deal with a large group of atheist/agnostic people, I can understand why you would need to categorize people's differences in opinion further. In that case, I would understand using your classifications. For me, the definitions in the dictionary work.
Once again, thanks for the info Cris!
Stu,
It is true that I was a devout Christian for some years in my teens and early twenties, but I have been a practicing atheist for the past 30 years since then. And no I was never hurt in any way by my Christian experience. Some 15 years ago for several years I attended Sunday morning Christian sessions with a group of Christians specifically to debate face-to-face issues of the day and of course how Christianity would be involved. I was the lone atheist. The sessions were great fun and I think many came to understand my alternate views. I’m pretty sure I never converted anyone, but then that was never my purpose since I was there to learn.
To this day some of my best friends are devout Christians.
So I am afraid you are way off the mark.
It looks like you are desperately trying to understand how someone could possibly feel so strongly about something but entirely opposite to you.
It is true that I was a devout Christian for some years in my teens and early twenties, but I have been a practicing atheist for the past 30 years since then. And no I was never hurt in any way by my Christian experience. Some 15 years ago for several years I attended Sunday morning Christian sessions with a group of Christians specifically to debate face-to-face issues of the day and of course how Christianity would be involved. I was the lone atheist. The sessions were great fun and I think many came to understand my alternate views. I’m pretty sure I never converted anyone, but then that was never my purpose since I was there to learn.
To this day some of my best friends are devout Christians.
So I am afraid you are way off the mark.
Vakemp,
Hey no problem. But let's not bash each other to death over definitions. It should be possible to explain the principles of our philosophies without always having to refer to dubious labels. It might take a greater effort on the part of the poster though.
Hey no problem. But let's not bash each other to death over definitions. It should be possible to explain the principles of our philosophies without always having to refer to dubious labels. It might take a greater effort on the part of the poster though.
VAKEMP, Inspector,
Perhaps I can help you out a little. You seem to both be making some errors about Christianity. Here is a summary of the basic mythology.
Christian Mythology.
1. Adam was immortal.
2. To sin means to disobey God.
3. Adam sinned.
4. The punishment for sin is death.
5. Adam died.
6. All men after Adam inherited his mortality.
7. The nature of all men became sinful.
8. All men sin.
9. All men died.
10. Jesus was divine.
11. Jesus gave up his divinity.
12. Jesus came to earth as a man.
13. Jesus never sinned.
14. Jesus did not deserve to die because he never sinned.
15. Jesus accepted the punishment due to every man.
16. Jesus sacrificed himself to God in place of all mankind.
17. God could raise Jesus to life again because Jesus did not break his laws.
18. God resurrected Jesus.
19. God gave Jesus a new nature that was free from the sinful nature of man.
20. God gave man the gift of eternal life if man believed in Jesus.
21. Man no longer needed to die for his sins.
22. Man had to request forgiveness from Jesus if he wanted to live.
23. When men die they have to wait for the second coming of Jesus and judgment.
24. Those who are judged worthy will be resurrected to a heavenly paradise.
25. Those who are judged not worthy will suffer torment for eternity.
This I think is a fairly accurate summary of Christianity, however, there are many cults who will hold variations on this.
Note that if Adam did not exist then the whole basis for Christianity is nonsense.
Many suggest that the Adam and Eve story is just symbolic and that it isn’t possible that just two people were the cause of the whole of humanity.
If the story of Adam and Eve is just symbolic then it must also be true that the whole of Christianity can also be no more than symbolic fantasy. The purpose of Jesus was to save man from his sinful nature that was begun with Adam and Eve. If Adam and Eve never existed then the basis for Christianity disappears.
Perhaps I can help you out a little. You seem to both be making some errors about Christianity. Here is a summary of the basic mythology.
Christian Mythology.
1. Adam was immortal.
2. To sin means to disobey God.
3. Adam sinned.
4. The punishment for sin is death.
5. Adam died.
6. All men after Adam inherited his mortality.
7. The nature of all men became sinful.
8. All men sin.
9. All men died.
10. Jesus was divine.
11. Jesus gave up his divinity.
12. Jesus came to earth as a man.
13. Jesus never sinned.
14. Jesus did not deserve to die because he never sinned.
15. Jesus accepted the punishment due to every man.
16. Jesus sacrificed himself to God in place of all mankind.
17. God could raise Jesus to life again because Jesus did not break his laws.
18. God resurrected Jesus.
19. God gave Jesus a new nature that was free from the sinful nature of man.
20. God gave man the gift of eternal life if man believed in Jesus.
21. Man no longer needed to die for his sins.
22. Man had to request forgiveness from Jesus if he wanted to live.
23. When men die they have to wait for the second coming of Jesus and judgment.
24. Those who are judged worthy will be resurrected to a heavenly paradise.
25. Those who are judged not worthy will suffer torment for eternity.
This I think is a fairly accurate summary of Christianity, however, there are many cults who will hold variations on this.
Note that if Adam did not exist then the whole basis for Christianity is nonsense.
Many suggest that the Adam and Eve story is just symbolic and that it isn’t possible that just two people were the cause of the whole of humanity.
If the story of Adam and Eve is just symbolic then it must also be true that the whole of Christianity can also be no more than symbolic fantasy. The purpose of Jesus was to save man from his sinful nature that was begun with Adam and Eve. If Adam and Eve never existed then the basis for Christianity disappears.
Reply to Inspectors posts
"I cannot speak for other religions, however, Christianity has a bevy of evidence supporting it. Eyewitness testimonies (corroborated by New Testament writers) that is historically accurate and archeologically consistent, fulfilled prophecies, etc. would be a couple of examples. If you say that this is not valid evidence, then why is it not valid? Perhaps, we would need to discuss what would constitute sufficient evidence for you and then proceed to see if your criteria are reasonable and your methodology of examination is objective."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eyewitness testimonies? Could be. But when the eyewitness testimonies do not correspond correctly. God changing (merciful in new testimont, vengeful in old testimont). God limiting himself as Jesus(human form has its limitations in comparison to deity). I could go on. If you like me to I will explain these in more detail.
Hmmmm, historically accurate? Show me your archeologically consistencies for the flood. There was a great debate between 2 geologists, one christian and one atheist on this. Seems to favor the side of no great flood. Link to this would be http://www.atheists.org/bone.pit/morrisdebate.html
Fulfilled prophecies? Explain. Give examples.
If these turn out to be legitiment, then of course they are valid, but you most give me the information first.
I am quite reasonable, and if you provide sufficient evidence, I will indeed convert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No, you won't. Your presuppositions will not allow you to accurately and objectively examine the evidences supporting the existence of God."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite quick to come to that assumption. Judging by how much you have seen me, or heard from me, how could you make such a judgement?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Christians do not have to prove anything to you, or anyone else. You are correct about one thing, though: as long as you hold onto your presuppositions that there is no God, you CANNOT understand the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bible tells you that God does not inhabit unholy vessels."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very well, you can hold that stance, but you tell your god that when someone reached out to you for understanding, you pushed them down.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
""In the Bible, God created man.
In the Bible, man is not perfect.
Therefore, God created man to be imperfect (or He screwed up)."
------------------------------------------------------
You have much to learn, grasshopper.
For the record,
In the Bible, God created man PERFECT.
In the Bible, man became imperfect after the introduction of SIN.
Therefore, God sent his Son to REDEEM man's sinful nature. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God being all-knowing, knew about the introduction of SIN before it was introduced, could have stoped it being all-powerful, and would have been unnessicary to send his 'son'. God being perfect could have created a world where sin would have NEVER been introduced. God being perfect could have created a MORE (?) perfect man who would have not been affecxted by sin. How can man have been created perfect if there were a form that could have been better?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The interesting thing about atheism is that most atheists are ignorant regarding the Bible and it's contents. Most have never read even the New Testament, let alone the entire book. Yet, they attempt to refute the Bible without having any appertaining knowledge. Learning atheism is simple because it is the same parrot talk time after time after time............. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most but not all, I assure you I have read it, and in fact took a course studying it, and in fact am a reverand.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"God created the conditions where free will creatures would be able to make a choice between obedience and disobedience to God. This condition existed when God created an angel called Lucifer who was without sin yet, apparently, had free will. Lucifer chose to rebel against God and sin (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:13-15). Likewise, Adam and Eve, having been made by God without sin, listened to the devil and chose to sin against God (Gen. 3). But God did not cause them to sin (James 1:13). In the freedom of their wills, each decided to rebel against God and sin entered the world (Rom. 5:12). God simply allowed the condition to exist where sin was possible. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If God created these conditions, then man was not created perfect, as stated by you in an earlier post. Someone who does not always do good, is not perfect, and God creating this condition and your earlier statement of God creating man perfect are in conflict with one another. Understand?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"An analogy can be found in the relationship between a parent and a child. A parent can create the condition that makes disobedience possible yet the parent remains innocent if the child sins. For example, if a parent tells his child to clean up his room and the child does not, he has rebelled. But, the parent is not responsible for the child’s sin, nor did he cause the child to sin. The child had a choice to obey or not to obey. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analogy should seem ridiculous to you! How can you compare your almighty GOD with a sinful, limited parent? You should be ashamed. You cannot create an analogy between a limited sinful, parent, who never claimed to make a perfect child, with a limitless, sinless, god who claims to make the perfect man.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I welcome you to argue with me more formally. My AIM sn is stefan719
"I cannot speak for other religions, however, Christianity has a bevy of evidence supporting it. Eyewitness testimonies (corroborated by New Testament writers) that is historically accurate and archeologically consistent, fulfilled prophecies, etc. would be a couple of examples. If you say that this is not valid evidence, then why is it not valid? Perhaps, we would need to discuss what would constitute sufficient evidence for you and then proceed to see if your criteria are reasonable and your methodology of examination is objective."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eyewitness testimonies? Could be. But when the eyewitness testimonies do not correspond correctly. God changing (merciful in new testimont, vengeful in old testimont). God limiting himself as Jesus(human form has its limitations in comparison to deity). I could go on. If you like me to I will explain these in more detail.
Hmmmm, historically accurate? Show me your archeologically consistencies for the flood. There was a great debate between 2 geologists, one christian and one atheist on this. Seems to favor the side of no great flood. Link to this would be http://www.atheists.org/bone.pit/morrisdebate.html
Fulfilled prophecies? Explain. Give examples.
If these turn out to be legitiment, then of course they are valid, but you most give me the information first.
I am quite reasonable, and if you provide sufficient evidence, I will indeed convert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No, you won't. Your presuppositions will not allow you to accurately and objectively examine the evidences supporting the existence of God."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite quick to come to that assumption. Judging by how much you have seen me, or heard from me, how could you make such a judgement?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Christians do not have to prove anything to you, or anyone else. You are correct about one thing, though: as long as you hold onto your presuppositions that there is no God, you CANNOT understand the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bible tells you that God does not inhabit unholy vessels."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very well, you can hold that stance, but you tell your god that when someone reached out to you for understanding, you pushed them down.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
""In the Bible, God created man.
In the Bible, man is not perfect.
Therefore, God created man to be imperfect (or He screwed up)."
------------------------------------------------------
You have much to learn, grasshopper.
For the record,
In the Bible, God created man PERFECT.
In the Bible, man became imperfect after the introduction of SIN.
Therefore, God sent his Son to REDEEM man's sinful nature. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God being all-knowing, knew about the introduction of SIN before it was introduced, could have stoped it being all-powerful, and would have been unnessicary to send his 'son'. God being perfect could have created a world where sin would have NEVER been introduced. God being perfect could have created a MORE (?) perfect man who would have not been affecxted by sin. How can man have been created perfect if there were a form that could have been better?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The interesting thing about atheism is that most atheists are ignorant regarding the Bible and it's contents. Most have never read even the New Testament, let alone the entire book. Yet, they attempt to refute the Bible without having any appertaining knowledge. Learning atheism is simple because it is the same parrot talk time after time after time............. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most but not all, I assure you I have read it, and in fact took a course studying it, and in fact am a reverand.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"God created the conditions where free will creatures would be able to make a choice between obedience and disobedience to God. This condition existed when God created an angel called Lucifer who was without sin yet, apparently, had free will. Lucifer chose to rebel against God and sin (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:13-15). Likewise, Adam and Eve, having been made by God without sin, listened to the devil and chose to sin against God (Gen. 3). But God did not cause them to sin (James 1:13). In the freedom of their wills, each decided to rebel against God and sin entered the world (Rom. 5:12). God simply allowed the condition to exist where sin was possible. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If God created these conditions, then man was not created perfect, as stated by you in an earlier post. Someone who does not always do good, is not perfect, and God creating this condition and your earlier statement of God creating man perfect are in conflict with one another. Understand?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"An analogy can be found in the relationship between a parent and a child. A parent can create the condition that makes disobedience possible yet the parent remains innocent if the child sins. For example, if a parent tells his child to clean up his room and the child does not, he has rebelled. But, the parent is not responsible for the child’s sin, nor did he cause the child to sin. The child had a choice to obey or not to obey. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analogy should seem ridiculous to you! How can you compare your almighty GOD with a sinful, limited parent? You should be ashamed. You cannot create an analogy between a limited sinful, parent, who never claimed to make a perfect child, with a limitless, sinless, god who claims to make the perfect man.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I welcome you to argue with me more formally. My AIM sn is stefan719
Reply to Stu43t
"I have been gone for awhile from here too, and I am back. I would like to see any athiest in here try to prove their non-belief to me. I am muslim, but if you prove me wrong, I will convert. I wish I could expect the same in return although I doubt it.
If you can't prove yourself to me, I do not understand how you could hold these non-beliefs."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume you are a sir, so that is what I will refer to you as, if I am wrong I appologize.
Sir, if you think something is true you must prove it. If you think something is false that has yet to be proven, you have nothing to disprove. If you think something is false that HAS been proven, that is where I would have to come in and dismiss your evidence.
For example, I would not expect you to disprove that a man named fjioniaom giodhoniom lived 3670 years ago. It would be on me to prove that he lived, before you could disprove it. Understand?
I welcome you to chat with me to prove your deity. My AIM sn is stefan719
"I have been gone for awhile from here too, and I am back. I would like to see any athiest in here try to prove their non-belief to me. I am muslim, but if you prove me wrong, I will convert. I wish I could expect the same in return although I doubt it.
If you can't prove yourself to me, I do not understand how you could hold these non-beliefs."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume you are a sir, so that is what I will refer to you as, if I am wrong I appologize.
Sir, if you think something is true you must prove it. If you think something is false that has yet to be proven, you have nothing to disprove. If you think something is false that HAS been proven, that is where I would have to come in and dismiss your evidence.
For example, I would not expect you to disprove that a man named fjioniaom giodhoniom lived 3670 years ago. It would be on me to prove that he lived, before you could disprove it. Understand?
I welcome you to chat with me to prove your deity. My AIM sn is stefan719
Last edited: