There is no such thing as an ex-Christian there are only false converts (stony ground hearer). If you can lose your salvation, then what do you do with Romans 8:38-39 or John 10:28-30, where Jesus says he gives eternal life and the sheep will NEVER perish? If you can lose it then Jesus should have said, "and they may perish..." or "they CAN perish." But he said, THEY WILL NEVER PERISH. So, will they never perish? Or can they?A true Christian cannot turn away from God. Here is why.
"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." ~2 Corinthians 5:17
Now look at:
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." ~1John 2:19
THEY WOULD HAVE REMAINED if they were really Christians to begin with.
Now a question for you. Are you saying that the Spirit begins the work of salvation in us and that we work it out and complete it by remaining faithful? That IS what you are saying, that we get saved and keep it by the effort of our works, right? Check this out:
"O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" ~Galatians 3:1-3
Jesus taught it. He said those with eternal life will NEVER Perish or leave.
"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." ~John 10:28
Well, will they perish or not? Leave or not? Jesus says those with eternal life will NEVER perish or leave Christianity. I believe Him. Do you?
To the Atheists that claim they were once Christians, my buddy asked:
"Since the bible defines a Christian as one who knows God, would you consider yourself to have been a Christian according to the biblical definition?" ~Thomas Bridges
"Your willingness to acknowledge evidence for God is a direct result of your willingness to trust Him." ~ Thomas Bridges
Conclusion:
If you reasoned OUT of Christianity then Jesus was never the Lord of your reasoning, and evidence of your autonomous reasoning...just like Eve. Scripture says you are not yet a Christian but that is what makes me jump and down with joy for you. There is still time! Just don't die.
The Bible is clear in the parable of the sower (explained by Jesus in Matthew 13) not everyone that says Lord, Lord will make it to heaven. There are definitely true and false converts. Not to merely accept Jesus Christ. Jesus doesn't need your acceptance. You need to receive Him and submit to Him as your Lord and Savior.
*7/11/2008 Addition: The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) just sent me an email today that confirms this post so I thought I would share to back up the Biblical view. Be Truly Converted by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
bit.ly/exchristian
Dan, because you played this card, and Ray Comfort himself already accused me personally of this, I will have to play my card. Normally I like to live and let live, but I see this particular claim as an attack on my character, even though it's not directed at me personally.
ReplyDeleteBecause Jesus, as he is presented in the New Testament and is viewed by modern Christendom, is more than likely a myth I would state that there is no such thing as a True Christian, thus I must agree with you that there is no such thing as an ex-Christian. There are only people like me that woke up from the dream.
No True Scotsman! He's not a True Scotsman!
ReplyDelete[cue Salem trials, Inquisition, etc.]
Nay, sir, YOU are the 'false convert'. Thousands of man-made so-called 'Christian' denominations exist, and virtually all of them utilize only the bible as their text, and base their entire doctrines off of interpretations thereof. YOUR 'Christianity' is no different than these.
Ergo, the burden of proof is upon YOU to show that 'Christian' denominations which use only the bible, and which base their doctrines upon biblical interpretations, are false, with the notable exception of your own. Following from this, you must then show that your own dubious claim of divinely inspired 'Christian' doctrine is true and correct.
Of course, since the only acceptable evidence is the bible itself, you must show that your interpretations are biblically valid whereas other denominations' interpretations are not. You may choose to include Apocryphal, Gnostic, or other works rejected by the Council of Nicaea (in either a confirming or a disconfirming capacity) if you wish.
Failure to adequately disprove competing interpretations will admit the possibility that there are multiple acceptable interpretations of the bible.
Success will bring exposure of blasphemous or otherwise false doctrines, and serve to unite the 'Christian' faith behind the One, True Christian Doctrine™. It will also provide you an opportunity to use the following:
Q.E.D.M.F.
I wish you luck on your quest, noble Scotsman.
--
Stan
An atheist said to me: "No such thing as an ex-Christian"?
ReplyDeleteYAY! I was wondering when someone would try to pull the "No True Scotsman". My expectation is fulfilled - I may now watch as the master of logic tries to bungle his way out of this one.
(For those of you who don't know about the "no true scotsman", google it. It takes this conversation thread to a whole new level of hilarity.)
My response was: YAY! I was wondering when someone would try to pull the "No True Scotsman"
This does not hold up to basic logic. If you were to use the comparison to lets say Chinese people there would definitely be characteristics of a Chinese person. The originator of the "Scotsman" augment (probably an atheist, prove me wrong please) used Scotsman because of the lack of physical characteristics of a certain race. This argument wouldn't work with "true Japanese", "true Chinese" Even Obama is being compared to a "true Black man" so your argument is washed.
Christians, like Chinese, have definite characteristics of being one, albeit not physical, but distinct characteristics. A person swinging an axe at children screaming "I am a Christian" would never be confused with a Christian. Just because you all are parroting each other because some bozo thought of the 'Scotsman' augment doesn't mean you all lack logic, but you do lack leadership skills. Speak for yourselves instead of seeking "validation" from each other. Atheists look for validation, Christians are proclaiming truth.
Remember what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr said:
"Christians should not be a thermometers that merely record and reflect the temperature of popular opinion.
Christians should be like thermostats, responsible for transforming and setting the temperature or standards of society" (Thank God free at last!)
Dan
Dan, forgive me, but you do not understand the No True Scotsman fallacy. It has absolutely nothing to do with the physical attributes of Scotsmen or any other attribute. It would totally work for any ethnicity or any other group for that matter. A member of the group performs in a manner disapproved of by another member and then that member says "Well they aren't a true member of our group!"
ReplyDeleteScotsman are a group? Since when? From what I understand they are from Scotland, am I wrong? The analogy wouldn't work with any obvious nationality like I pointed out. Why Scotsman? I stand by my point.
ReplyDeleteYou don't actually understand the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, do you?
ReplyDeleteIt has nothing to do with permanent features, identifiable to all, and agreed upon by all, but it has to do with ethereal traits, which cannot be determined directly.
Obviously, a "No True Chinese" (can I get away with 'Chinaman'?) fallacy would play differently, but as you said, the distinguishing characteristics of a True Christian™ are not physical. Indeed, the bible mentions several times that Christians should pray in private, and that they should be identified by their deeds, and indeed, you even parrot this particular fact in many of your arguments. Your frequent use of the "good tree bears good fruit" analogy belies the fact that good fruit comes from a great many varieties of trees.
Sorry, pal, but you cannot escape your use of the No True Scotsman fallacy so easily. You are certainly free to claim that professing ex-Christians are not current Christians, but the claim that they were never Christians is a judgment which you are unqualified to make.
As I have told you before, your pride and envy are all too visible when you make these claims. Your own system states that only god can see into the 'hearts' of men, and that only he is qualified to cast judgment. It is undoubtedly true that some professing ex-Christians were never true believers, but just the same, it is not your place to say whether this applies to every ex-Christian.
Consider Satan as an example -- would you consider him to be an ex-Christian? Your bible claims that he knows god intimately, that he walked with god, that he communes with god. He was once the highest of all angels -- was he a True Christian™ then? Is he still one now, or do you need to retune your claim?
So yes, you are free to recognize that current behavior can be used to determine one's current status as a True Christian™, but you are not free to state that current behavior can be used to determine one's past status as a True Christian™ -- or as anything else.
For instance, I have traditionally held the position of "Politically Independent" -- I have eschewed affiliation with any particular political party -- but this year, I have affiliated myself with the Democratic party, specifically to vote in the Congressional primary. Following this primary, I will rescind my affiliation with the Democratic party, and resume my status as Independent.
Am I a True Independent™? Am I a True Democrat™? If I withheld the information in the preceding paragraph, and merely stated (factually) that I am affiliated with the Democratic party, would you be more or less qualified to determine whether I was a True Democrat™? Are you so brazen to assert that you are privy to my past behavior, such that your claim that I was never a True Christian™ is validated?
Insofar as the given descriptions of the No True Scotsman fallacy describe it as a fallacy of equivocation coupled with an ad hoc definition shift, you may well claim that your personal definition of a True Christian™ is such that the current actions of a person can disqualify them from being one, but nothing in your arsenal qualifies you to make any sort of claim as to what they were -- True Christian™ or false Christian, gay or straight, male or female, funny or serious, pessimistic or optimistic, etc.
You have no basis for making such a claim, without question begging, and without accepting the burden of proof regarding exactly how one is determined to be a True Christian™, in your parlance. Your abject failure to address either the question begging or the burden of proof shows that your No True Christian™ claims are fallacious, in addition to the obvious fact that they are insulting.
This is the last time I will address this claim with you without also directly calling you a liar. It is ignorance to make an unsupported claim (whether true or false), but when that ignorance is exposed, an intent to mislead arises whenever that claim is restated without support. Your continued claims, despite the exposure of your ignorance, falls directly into that category of intentional misleading -- lying.
I will accept your apology in advance.
--
Stan
group
ReplyDelete-noun
a number of persons or things ranged or considered together as being related in some way.
Would you consider the people of Scotland to be related in some way? Maybe that they are all, oh I don't know, Scottish?
Certainly they are a group.
The No True Scotsman fallacy stands, and you are guilty of using it as well as not understanding it.
Compelling arguments both of you but you failed to prove your points.
ReplyDeleteStan,
"Consider Satan as an example -..."
Again you claim great logical superiority and then you compere apples to oranges. Satan is an angel so to compare him to a human condition is impossible. Let's follow your logic. Your logic is claiming that someone that stops being a Christian would be considered an ex-human. Does that make sense?
It's called 'born again' for a reason. You are born with a new heart and a new life and the Holy spirit never leaves you. You are both claiming God abandons you which would be immoral. What I claim is that you never devoted your lives fully to Christ to show fruit of the spirit. The fruit wasn't there. The belief in Christ was there but the experience of being born again was not.
1Peter 1:23 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."
"but this year, I have affiliated myself with the Democratic party, specifically to vote in the Congressional primary."
Well you aren't a true republican then are you?
"Of course, since the only acceptable evidence is the bible itself, you must show that your interpretations are biblically valid whereas other denominations' interpretations are not."
The mere fact there are different denominations negates the one true way as talked about in Jeremiah 32:38-40. So by default a denomination is rendered null and void. The Bible itself is all you need for Salvation and anything added or man made is just that, made from man, not God.
"You may choose to include Apocryphal, Gnostic, or other works rejected by the Council of Nicaea "
Why should/would I? The definition of Apocryphal is "A work which is of doubtful authenticity or authorship."
Do you really think a couple of dudes just picked and chose things and slapped a book together? Really? This is your superior logic?
Stan, God will accept your apology when you humble yourself before Him.
BTW, quod erat demonstrandum would of sufficed, dude.
You have no basis for making such a claim Now that statement is just plain false, just because you claim it doesn't make it true, at least I can prove my statement Biblically. Plus this was a hypocritical statement. You claim I don't have proof, but I do, and then you make a claim without proof. sigh, whatever.
Mike,
Group: "Two or more figures forming a complete unit in a composition"
"A number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship"(emphasis added)
"A set of individuals traveling together and involved in similar activities."
Does this accurately describe a Scotsman?
Now look at the definition of 'nationality': "people having common origins or traditions and often comprising a nation. The status of belonging to a particular nation by birth or naturalization"
Now that's a true Scotsman, true Japanese or true Chinese people or born again Christian. I stand by my claims.
"Would you consider the people of Scotland to be related in some way? Maybe that they are all, oh I don't know, Scottish?" OK now you are arguing my argument, just preaching to the quire.
You said (A member of the group performs in a manner disapproved of by another member and then that member says "Well they aren't a true member of our group!")
You failed in your "group" description.
BTW I fully understand it but it doesn't stand. I looked it up and I was right it was an atheist that made that up back in 1975. I knew it, sigh. Get some new material, please. It doesn't even hold up to my simple scrutiny. You need to be leaders not followers. If you are going to follow at least follow someone worthy of following, let's say for example, Jesus Christ who is God the Creator of the Universe worthy of all praise and honor.
Peace and joy and God's grace to both of you.
Someone much smarter than both of us said "Truth is the same in any mouth". I wouldn't write something off because a Christian said it or invented it, I'm saddened to find that you would discount something because an atheist said it.
ReplyDeleteYour arguments remind me of back when I was disgusted with President Clinton for arguing about the definition of "is".
Whether Scotsmen are a group or a nationality, the fallacy stands.
I'm sure the false conversion claim is older than 1975 so be careful with the "get some new material" jibes.
"I'm sure the false conversion claim is older than 1975 so be careful with the "get some new material" jibes."
ReplyDeleteI concede to this point.
If the Devil (aka) Richard Dawkins told you God existed would you believe him?
"I'm saddened to find that you would discount something because an atheist said it."
Where I agree truth is truth, I take what any man says with intense scrutiny. We are all wicked and all are fallible. The only one I blindly trust without doubt is Jesus Christ our Lord. He is my parachute.
The Scotsman fallacy fails. A Chinese man is not a true Scotsman.
Your arguments remind me of back when I was disgusted with President Clinton for arguing about the definition of "is".
Ouch, I hated that too.
The difference is Scotsman isn't just a group but a nationality. There are certain parameters that must be met to be called a Chinese man. If your heritage doesn't show Chinese traits then you are not one.
Just because a Chinese man eats hot dogs no one can say "No real Chinese man would do that" so the fallacy fails. Christianity is a born into nation of soundly saved believers.
John 10:29 "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand."
No such thing as an ex-Christian, just non Christians.
Either God is lying or man is, I will go with the latter. Sorry, I may have failed to show you the truth, but it's truth. If Christianity is derived from the Bible and the Bible says that no one can be taken from Christ and that all Christians are Christians forever then you lose the augment.
1st. That Christians are given by God the Father to Christ.
2nd. That Jesus gives to them eternal life, or procures by his death and intercession, and imparts to them by his Spirit, that religion which shall result in eternal life.
3rd. That both the Father and the Son are pledged to keep them so that they shall never fall away and perish. It would be impossible for any language to teach more explicitly that the saints will persevere.
4th. That there is no power in man or devils to defeat the purpose of the Redeemer to save his people. We also see our safety, if we truly, humbly, cordially, and daily commit ourselves to God the Savior. In no other way can we have evidence that we are his people than by such a persevering resignation of ourselves to him, to obey his law, and to follow him through evil report or good report. If we do that we are safe. If we do not that we have no evidence of piety, and are not, cannot be safe. (Barns NT notes)
but there are christians who say real christians can fall away from the faith....
DeleteThen they're mistaken. Their reasoning does not comport with Scripture. But that is to be expected. Men are fallible after all.
Deletetinyurl.com/FallAway
And we disagree exactly at the same place that I would have disagreed with an atheist when I was a Christian...exactly.
ReplyDeleteYour logic is claiming that someone that stops being a Christian would be considered an ex-human.
ReplyDeleteWhat?!
You're an idiot.
You've made a lot of statements I would otherwise have considered stupid, but that one takes the cake.
What about Peter, then? When did he become a True Christian™? Was it before or after the cock crowed?
You are both claiming God abandons [Christians] which would be immoral.
No, we are denying that god exists. If, however, we accept for the sake of argument that god exists, nothing precludes Christians from abandoning him, which is, from what I've plainly read in the bible, precisely what Adam and Eve did in the first place. It is also, dare I say it, what Satan did, but I suppose in your haze of stupidity you'll think that means Adam and Eve weren't human...
Anyway, if your understanding of our position were accurate (and it is not), then were god to abandon Christians, they'd still be Christians -- Christians can exist with or without god's existence. Abandonment by one's deity merely means that one's piety was in vain.
Christians needn't be abandoned by god to become ex-Christians. They can abandon god all by themselves, to the same end.
Well you aren't a true republican then are you?
This is a non sequitur. I could very easily be a True Republican™, yet still have registered as a Democrat, so as to poison the well. In fact, both Democrats and Republicans have accused one another of doing precisely that during this Presidential Primary season.
I suppose your inability to answer the question, and indeed, your insertion of an informal fallacy in place of an answer, is an indication of the failure of your reasoning on this point. People can become ex-Christians just as easily as they can become ex-husbands, or ex-wives -- easier, even, since they don't have to fill out the divorce paperwork.
Can a person become an ex-Catholic? An ex-Buddhist? An ex-Muslim? As you must know, the Catholic church holds that anyone baptized as a Catholic is a Catholic for life -- just like your notion of True Christianity™ -- what problem could there be with their logic, that doesn't also exist in your own?
Do you really think a couple of dudes just picked and chose things and slapped a book together?
Not exactly, but I do contend that the Council necessarily made arbitrary decisions in the process, but you go right ahead asserting that they were as divinely inspired as the rest of the biblical authors.
You quoted me as saying:
You have no basis for making such a claim
To which you responded:
Now that statement is just plain false, just because you claim it doesn't make it true, at least I can prove my statement Biblically.
But what I had actually said was:
You have no basis for making such a claim, without question begging, and without accepting the burden of proof regarding exactly how one is determined to be a True Christian™
(emphasis added)
Did you miss that part? Do you deny that the burden of proof is on you, to show why it is that while you are not privy to the thoughts, feelings, emotions, and desires of a professing Christian, you are nonetheless qualified to say that because that person today claims to be an atheist, they were therefore never a True Christian™?
Oh, that's right, you claim it, so it must be true. You can no doubt "prove [your] statement Biblically." By all means, show me where in the bible it says you are qualified to make such claims. Are you as god?
I suppose it shouldn't have surprised me that you ignored completely that aspect of my counter -- that you are attempting to usurp god by claiming that you are qualified to judge people in this manner. Pride and envy, indeed.
OK now you are arguing my argument, just preaching to the quire.
Heh. Actually, he was explaining what the fallacy entailed, but you chose to redefine the terms yet again. Also, if you're going to pretend you didn't google 'Q.E.D.M.F.' (or even just 'Q.E.D.'), you'll have to learn how to spell "choir".
Get some new material, please.
Really? This from the guy spouting out-moded ancient text as though it was the word of god... "Get some new material, please."
Like Mike implied, dismissing a discovery because of its source is a fallacy in and of itself (the Genetic Fallacy -- a form of ad hominem. It would be both unfortunate and ironic that you would dismiss Flew's NTS fallacy, since you might agree with the dubious claims that he is now a Christian (a True Christian™?).
Whatever. In reading this latest reply of yours, I can easily tell that there are indeed multiple persons logging on with the same credentials and posting as "Dan" (your wife, maybe?). I don't pretend to know who is who, but the differences in argument style, the differences in spelling and grammatical awareness, and the apparent forgetfulness regarding posts on other topics is more than enough to convince me that you are not a single entity. Do everyone a favor and create separate blogspot accounts so we can address you individually.
--
Stan
Great site, Dan.
ReplyDeleteI have been going around with these atheist groups for a year of so...I hate to say it but I have been highly amused by their pretentiousness.
I guess I just don't have their level of faith.
Welcome Andrew,
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more, atheists faith is very strong indeed. Please feel free to speak truth hear at this blog. If I am wrong in your eyes please let me know. We are about seeking truth here no matter where it comes from.
Truth is absolute and if it is truth then it's from God.
Thanks for the kind words and I look forward to talking to you in the future.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteLet me break it down for you since you are confused by what I said. Satan is an angel, Christians are human.
You said: "Consider Satan as an example -- would you consider him to be an ex-Christian? Your bible claims that he knows god intimately, that he walked with god, that he communes with god. He was once the highest of all angels -- was he a True Christian™ then?"
"ex-Christian?" No
"was he a True Christian™ then?" No
Satan cannot be an ex-Christian because he is an angel. To say he is no longer believing in God he must be an ex something. You compared apples to oranges by comparing him to humans. He cannot stop being an angel like humans cannot stop being humans. By claiming that Satan is an ex-Christian is like saying once people stop believing in Christ they are ex-human.
I concede now that you only posed the question to me instead of claiming it as fact.
Get it? Satan cannot stop being an angel like we cannot stop being human. We have a choice to become Christians where Satan was and always will be an angel he is just now a fallen angel. He didn't have a choice like you do. Consider it a gift from God.
Will God consider you a fallen human? Maybe, that is another debate to be had.
Get it? Satan cannot stop being an angel like we cannot stop being human. We have a choice to become Christians where Satan was and always will be an angel he is just now a fallen angel. He didn't have a choice like you do. Consider it a gift from God.
ReplyDeleteI see. So you maintain that my comparison was indeed like suggesting that ex-Christians are somehow no longer humans.
How absurd.
In truth, your "breakdown" of the comparison shows that you do indeed understand it, but that you insist on ignoring its implications.
We have a choice to become Christians
Yes...?
Satan was and always will be an angel
Just as I am and always will be a human. What has this to do with my choice to be or not to be a Christian? Who is comparing apples to oranges?
[Satan] didn't have a choice like you do.
Didn't he? A choice to be or do what, exactly? I ask for clarification here because the context suggests he has no choice to be an angel (which is true but irrelevant), whereas the comparison is pretty explicit in that he did have a choice of whether or not to become a "fallen" angel.
You see, my conveniently ignorant friend, the comparison holds because according to the bible, Satan had a choice whether or not to follow god's instruction, just like we do.
In that sense, since Satan had a vastly more intimate relationship with god than we could ever hope to have (until the afterlife), he could be considered a Christian. He believed in god, he trusted god, he knew god personally and intimately, and he followed god's teaching and instruction. It wasn't until the "fall" that he ceased being what you would term a True Christian™, because at that point he made the decision to turn away. His choice is identical to our own choice.
So I ask again, and I expect you to refrain from asinine suggestions that I consider ex-Christians as non-human:
Was Satan, by virtue of his knowledge and his choice(s), a True Christian™ before the fall?
Surely you don't honestly believe that only humans can be followers of Christ, or that only humans can choose to do god's bidding; especially since the bible makes it explicitly clear that Satan, along with fully one-third of the heavenly host, specifically chose otherwise?
What about my question concerning Peter's status as a True Christian™? Was he or was he not a True Christian™ before the notorious crowing of the cock?
Recognize that this is a fairly loaded question -- you insist that a person cannot be a non-Christian unless they never were a True Christian™, and Peter's actions immediately prior to the crowing cock were clearly that of a non-Christian. Indeed, if I may be so vain, his actions that evening are no different than my own. I deny what Peter denied.
So if Peter was not a True Christian™ prior to the crowing of the cock, then your claim is at least consistent, but this renders un-Christian any teachings from any person who has ever had a similar un-Christian moment, and it means that the jury must necessarily be out until Judgment Day for any "Christian" teaching, since at any point in their lives a person could commit an act which exposes them as a "false convert" -- up to and including the bible itself.
Likewise, if you choose the inconsistent path, that Peter was a True Christian™ both before and after the denial, then any person could currently be a True Christian™, regardless of their current state of denial.
In either case, of course, the fact that you have exhibited both pride and envy by making such a bold claim regarding who is and who is not a True Christian™, despite having had your lack of qualifications quite explicitly spelled out for you, remains unaddressed (by you).
--
Stan
"Was Satan, by virtue of his knowledge and his choice(s), a True Christian™ before the fall?"
ReplyDeleteNo such thing as Christian until Jesus died on that Cross. (I will elaborate later)
"Surely you don't honestly believe that only humans can be followers of Christ" Yes I do, and don't call me Shirley. (Airplane fan)
Christ came to earth to save humans not aliens or angels. The Bible is clear about this and allows a resounding Yes!
Since sin entered this world through one man, Salvation entered this world through one man Jesus Christ a.k.a. the Last Adam™
"and Peter's actions immediately prior to the crowing cock were clearly that of a non-Christian."
Peter was not a Christian because Christianity didn't exist until Jesus died on that Cross.
Galatians 3:13 "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:"
Jesus, at the time before the cross, wasn't cursed for us he was an Old Covenant prophet (Old Covenant Messianic Kingdom of David) after the cross he became the High Priest (Christ’s New Covenant Church Kingdom)
In order for there to be a change in the LAW, there had to be a change in the Priesthood. Jesus did NOT become High Priest of His New Covenant Kingdom until He was Resurrected from the dead. If Jesus, before the Cross, had given NEW Covenant Law, there would have been NO New High Priest to Mediate it.
Peter was a disciple of Jesus, but became a Christian only after the Cross. A comparison is Cane marrying and having children with his sister before it was against the Law set forth to Moses. Before the Law it wasn't sin. Before the Cross there wasn't Christianity.
Romans 7:7 " I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. "
"Indeed, if I may be so vain, his actions that evening are no different than my own." As I have proven, this statement is false. You deny after the new Covenant was in place. Be afraid, be very afraid but It's not too late.
LUKE 12:10 "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven."
Every day we ask from God the forgiveness of sins, and every day he reconciles us to Him; and, finally, at death, he takes away all our sins, and declares that he is gracious to us. The fruit of this mercy will appear at the last day. The meaning therefore is: —"There is no reason to expect that those who shall have blasphemed against the Spirit will obtain pardon in this life, or will be acquitted in the last judgment."
"In either case, of course, the fact that you have exhibited both pride and envy by making such a bold claim regarding who is and who is not a True Christian™, despite having had your lack of qualifications quite explicitly spelled out for you, remains unaddressed (by you)."
Let me make an even bolder claim. No one was Christian before the Cross, no satan, none of the disciples, no one ever, while Jesus was alive. There was no such thing as a Christian until the Cross. Jesus did NOT become High Priest of His New Covenant Kingdom until He was Resurrected from the dead.
Again God will forgive you if you just humble yourself, repent and trust in Jesus Christ before it's too late, please.
The Holy Spirit is fictional.
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to get my blasphemy out of the way early for this one...
Seriously -- you must have known this was a bad day to quit amphetamines. Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining. "Christian" means:
one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ (from Merriam-Webster online)
I suppose to keep the definition of a True Christian™ in line with your claims to date, we could adjust this as follows:
one who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ and recognizes his divinity
If Jesus Christ existed in any form at the time of Lucifer's fall, then it stands to reason that Lucifer was indeed a Christian at that time. Likewise, your ad hoc definition change fails with Peter (and anyone else before the alleged resurrection), who was quite clearly a follower of Jesus.
Christ came to earth to save humans not aliens or angels.
I said nothing about the redemption of non-humans (or humans, for that matter). I asked if you seriously believed that only humans could be "followers of Christ".
If you misunderstood and would like to correct yourself, feel free to do so. If you maintain that only humans can be "followers of Christ", then you implicitly claim that angels, demons, Satan (I recognize the redundancy), aliens, etc. have no free will, and as such you swallow the Problem of Evil as one gigantic horse-pill, and implicitly admit that god is evil.
Peter was not a Christian because Christianity didn't exist until Jesus died on that Cross.
As I said, this is a bullshit cop-out. Peter was effectively the first [human] Christian. Stop jerking me around.
In order for there to be a change in the LAW, there had to be a change in the Priesthood. Jesus did NOT become High Priest of His New Covenant Kingdom until He was Resurrected from the dead. If Jesus, before the Cross, had given NEW Covenant Law, there would have been NO New High Priest to Mediate it.
What in the hell are you talking about here? "High Priest"? Are you denying the trinity now? Did Jesus only ascend to godhood after his resurrection, or has he been 2 of 3 since the dawn of time?
Your Christian Science rambling notwithstanding, Jesus did implement new "LAW" -- or did you forget the Sabbath incident?
Finally...
A comparison is Cane (sic) marrying and having children with his sister before it was against the Law set forth to Moses. Before the Law it wasn't sin.
"Cane" is the main character on CSI: Miami, who (puts on / takes off) his sunglasses (prior to / immediately following) a punny one-liner, which is itself immediately followed by Peter Townsend screaming.
Cain, ostensibly the first human child, committed incest, which you assert was not taboo because there was no Law. Why, then, was he punished for murdering his brother? Why was he ostracized for claiming not to know what had happened? Why were Adam and Eve cast out of the Garden of Eden in the first place, since there was no Law by which they could be governed...?
More bullshit?
Obviously, if there was only one reproducing human couple, then their offspring would necessarily have to commit incest (indeed, Adam may have impregnated his daughters directly), and a great many offspring they would necessarily have had, if the species was to survive at all. But this was not your claim.
You claimed that because the incest took place before the Law of Moses, that it was not sin. You imply, then, that before the Law many things were not sinful, which were considered sinful following the Law. As apt you thought the example of "Cane" was, he is much more well-known for ostensibly being the first murderer, but by your logic, this was not yet a crime.
So the "sin" of eating the 'apple', the "sin" of lying about it, the "sin" of killing his brother, the "sin" of lying about that -- none of it was actual sin until Moses came down from Sanai?
Wait, there's more. Noah was the only righteous man on the face of the earth at the time of the flood, whereas all other humans were deemed excessively "wicked", but how could that be if there was no Law?
Satan and god agreed that Job was the most righteous man on earth, but against what could they have made such a comparison? He was exceedingly wealthy -- is righteousness equivalent to wealth? He supposedly existed after the flood, but before the Law, so what makes him righteous and anyone else wicked (or less righteous, as it were)?
Let me guess -- you'll pull out another ad hoc shift, and retreat to a slightly more ambiguous, but equally dubious, claim.
Peter's actions that night were identical to my own; he denied Jesus. He could therefore not have been a True Christian™ -- and not because Jesus was still alive -- before that event. If you will accept the loss of this particular topic's debate, then you may regain Peter as a True Christian™, and you accept that while god may not abandon people, people are free to abandon god, and this abandonment constitutes becoming an ex-Christian.
Is that so difficult to admit?
Oh, yeah, that pride and envy you still haven't denied. At this point, I'd say you have tacitly admitted both traits.
--
Stan
Yes Stan you are right it was "Cain" and an ad hoc fallacy in one double barrel shot. I concede to it as a bad example and have no choice but to retract it.
ReplyDeleteI stick by my Old Covenant Messianic Kingdom of David vs Christ's New Covenant Church Kingdom explanation but the 'Cain' example was terrible. Can I blame it on the new baby keeping me up at nights? No? That is probably a fallacy itself.
" You imply, then, that before the Law many things were not sinful," No, just one thing. You reading too far into what I am saying. But it's retracted.
Thanks for your assistance.
:)
ReplyDeleteOkay, I'll quit busting your balls about "Cane" (but my CSI:Miami jibe was funny, right?). I'll also tone down the aggressiveness in light of your admission.
The problem, though, is that you have admitted quite accidentally that there was indeed Law before Moses brought the tablets down from Sanai. The Law in place, however, was not explicitly stated, or it at least was not recorded.
So the question of Cain murdering Abel, of the judgment of wickedness upon all but Noah and his family, of the judgment of righteousness upon Job -- none of it has any meaning without a set of Laws against which such a comparison could be made. Are we to believe, then, that god arbitrarily (at least from the human standpoint) decided to judge humanity based on a set of Laws to which they weren't privy?
Isn't that what happened? Until Moses came down with the tablets, the Israelites had no way of knowing that they should keep the Sabbath, or that they were not to create graven images, right?
Hell, in the three days it took Moses to hammer out two tablets (three, if you accept the History of the World Part I account), the rest of the desert-bound Israelites managed to collect all of their gold, melt it down, collect metals with a higher melting point than gold, ply it into a caste, and pour the gold so as to construct a giant golden calf, that they then saw fit to worship.
If that was a sin, then without the explicit Law, how could they know?
No, just one thing. You reading too far into what I am saying. But it's retracted.
(Just stick with the fact that it's retracted -- I read into it exactly what it said, that before the Law, it was not sin. You even quoted Romans 7:7 in support of this.)
So the answer, I must assume, must be that god handed people Laws individually, but this process was never recorded until Moses.
Back to the original topic, however, we see that non-Christian behavior, which you have equated, however tongue-in-cheek, with Atheism, was prevalent throughout the bible, both before, during, and after Jesus' earthly ministry. Bearing this in mind, and considering your claim that there is "no such thing as an Ex-Christian", we must assume that once a Christian, always a Christian, regardless of non-Christian acts -- up to and including denial of Christ.
Remember, too, that I have repeatedly offered a simple way out for you: that god need not abandon people -- people can abandon god. This answer satisfies both camps, since I deny the existence of god (that one, at the very least), and you deny that god can abandon people. I fail to see how this can be a problem for you, and in fact, it seems to explain the need for Paul (or whomever) to send letters to the various churches in the region, who had 'fallen out of faith', or 'lost their way', or however else you'd prefer to put it.
True Christians™ can be led astray, too.
--
Stan
Stony Ground hearer Stan,
ReplyDelete"that [G]od need not abandon people -- people can abandon [G]od."
This is contrary to what a Christian is though. I can only speak from experience. When I was a false convert still living in sin for all those years, when I believed I was a Christian, God never left me. He never stopped tugging at my soul until that day when I truly repented of all that sinning and put my entire faith in Him.
From the day that a person breaks God's Law of Sin and Death, God's greatest desire is that they will come to repentance. And so we then go along thinking that we're just living life, but the reality is, that our life's experiences are filled with acts of God trying to bring us back into a relationship with Himself.
That is exactly what happened to me. When I was living in sin I was a fraud, a poser, but the hand of God grabbed me from hell, forever and ever. At this point there would be nothing on this earth that can take me away from God...nothing. I could never abandon God because of the gratefulness I feel towards Him. Once saved, always saved and the reason I know it as fact is because I have experienced it myself. I didn't just see it with my own eyes, mere windows to the soul, but I saw it with my entire soul.
You could spend the rest of our lives crying foul with all my fallacies but that won't change the fact that I will, without question or doubt, be with God for eternity. Also, I am convinced that the last days are near and we both will see truth played out before us, so this is very exciting, and scary, times. I worry for you, dude. I am worried about your, as well as Mike's and others, fate. Call it fallacy, but it's truth. I would love to eloquently dazzle you with my intellect, but we have been through that and it doesn't work. God has to grab you from hell, and I am asking for y'all to get saved. Once He does though YOU would never let go either and that was my point all along. Truly saved people NEVER will let go, as you once did.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your concern. Not that long ago I was every bit as certain about my Christian faith as you are about yours.
Saved? Been there, done that. God may exist, but I'm certain that the Bible and Christianity are not his only game, I doubt that he had much, if anything to do with them at all.
If Christianity makes you happy, then I'm happy for you, but I hope that if ever there is a time when you despair over the God who isn't there, that you will discover the great joy and freedom that I have.
When I was a Christian I thought I could never be happier, yet here I am, happier and more complete than ever before.
So Dan, you're so fond of the Parable of the Sower, I have some questions about it. First, though, I'll identify what the passage explicitly tells us:
ReplyDelete1) According to Jesus, in Mark 4:14, the "seed" is the "word" (presumably, the word of god)
2) Also according to Jesus, in Mark 4:15-20, the type of ground is the person who receives the word (corroborated in Matthew 13:19-23)
So, then, who is the sower? Is he not god (or Jesus)?
What is the sower's purpose? Is it not to grow the seed? Then why cast seed onto stony ground, or in amongst the thistles, or by the wayside? Wouldn't a prudent sower only cast his seed onto fertile soil? Wouldn't he till up and fertilize stony ground or thistles prior to sowing there? Wouldn't he claim the wayside, and similarly prepare it for the seed?
The parable seems to make it clear that the sower is an extremely inefficient agriculturist. He tosses his seed wherever he likes, and then curses the seed for its performance based upon the soil onto which it was tossed. Even a child would recognize that the seed is not at fault for failing to take root in stony ground, or for being choked out when amongst the thistles, or for being eaten by birds when being tossed on the wayside.
What, also, of the Parable of the Tares of the Field (Matthew 13:24-30; explained in Matthew 13:36-43)?
37: He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38: The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one
39: The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
And now it is explicitly spelled out for us: we are to be judged for becoming the plant from whose seed we sprung forth, having been sown not by god in the first place.
I have to wonder, though, why the inconsistency? In the Parable of the Sower, I understand myself to have been good seed cast by god onto bad soil, for which I am inexplicably judged. In the Parable of the Tares of the Field, however, I am now bad seed cast by the devil onto good soil, for which I am again inexplicably judged.
The extant theme is that I am to be judged for something I cannot control.
Riddle me that, Batman.
--
Stan
Batman answered in a new post
ReplyDeleteAn observation:
ReplyDeleteThe claim that anyone who leaves was "never really a christian™" looks very much like the methods used by cults to prevent current members from listening to former members.
"...looks very much like the methods used by cults to prevent current members from listening to former members."
ReplyDeletePretty effective method huh, isn't God smart? If said "technique" is used on a wrong religion, like secular humanism (atheism), the results would be devastating but if used by God then thank Him for saving your soul.
I might be talking blasphemously so I will stop/repent.
Effective, yes, against those on the inside. But it is a method of deception. An honest being would have no use of it. And yes, it would be equally dishonest to say there were no "former humanists."
ReplyDeletePvblivs,.
ReplyDeleteSigh,
You my friend have no sense of humor
And yes, it would be equally dishonest to say there were no "former humanists."
Of course that would be dishonest, because that is the default position. We are all born wicked and must be called into Christianity. This is why the term is called 'Born Again'. No such term as 'born again humanist' either. Apples and Oranges.
Oh, I have a sense of humor. But certain "jokes" I don't find funny. While your "humor" is not as bad as the KKK making "jokes" to belittle the people they lynch, I find it in rather poor taste.
ReplyDeleteSince you have made this a sidebar link. I will add that there are, of course ex-christians. You are only trying to redefine christianity. So, you are applying the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
ReplyDeletePvblivs,
ReplyDeleteI already addressed that if you care to comment.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteThat link just goes to the main post where you attempt to redefine christianity. In general usage, "christian" refers to a follower of a particular faith. It includes people who may later leave that faith. Clearly, it does not include them after they leave. Then, they become ex-christians. Indeed, "false convert" is the fictitious term.
try the link again it was my post at (July 9, 2008 1:03 PM)
ReplyDeleteDan:
ReplyDeleteChristians may have identifying characteristics. But being unable to leave and being unable to change their minds are not among them. You are still trying to apply a special definition of christian recognized only by fundamentalists. You are, therefore, applying a fallacy.
Pv,
ReplyDeleteYou are still trying to apply a special definition of christian recognized only by fundamentalists.
Did you mean recognized only by Jesus Christ, God Himself?
The standard or characteristics of being Chinese is apparent and the same is true for Christianity. Its not a fallacy at all. The standard has been set by God Himself in His Word. BTW God also set the standards as to what Chinese would look like and who will marry. God is the standard.
No, because that is not in evidence. You may find passages of the bible that you interpret in that fashion. But, in all likelihood, the term "christian" would be completely foreign to Jesus, if he even existed.
ReplyDeleteStan said, in reference to the parable of the sower and the parable of the wheat and the tares:
ReplyDeleteThe extant theme is that I am to be judged for something I cannot control.
But Stan, in the parable of the sower, you have control over the "soil" in your life - how you receive the Word, distributed liberally and indiscriminately by the Sower (whomever) to all.
And in the parable of the wheat and the tares, you have a choice to be either a "Son of the Kingdom" or a "Son of the Wicked One". The field of life is where you will live a life proceeding from your choice, and yes, God sends rain to the "righteous and the unrighteous" (Matt 5:45) so one can't really judge who's who by one's own impression.
Just thought I should respond respectfully to that one Stan (a bit late maybe).
Hi there
ReplyDeleteI've written a response to this argument here. Basically, if you argue that ex-Christians were not Christians to begin with, then you remove any meaning from the attributes that define you as a Christian to begin with.
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteBasically, if you argue that ex-Christians were not Christians to begin with, then you remove any meaning from the attributes that define you as a Christian to begin with.
I appreciate your input on this subject. I addressed it further in another post also, that I want you to read.
I was deceived for so many years and I truly thought I was saved. I am sure you can relate to those feelings also. But you do remember the Parable of the seed though (Luke 8, Matthew 13) so it is possible to be deceived.
You said something that I absolutely disagree with: "When some fundamentalist Christians see others leaving Christianity, they naturally place the fault on the person leaving the faith (i.e., “she was never really a Christian”), instead of considering the possibility that the belief being rejected could be at fault..."
You cannot go to God unless you are called.(Psalm 65:4) It is grace through faith that saves us. (Ephesians 2:1-10) There is nothing you can do to save yourself. Christians don't fall away either.
If we can lose our salvation, what is to prevent someone from living in fear, not knowing what he can, or cannot do, before he loses his salvation? If he lives in fear of constantly losing his salvation, then how is he resting in Christ? Jesus said, “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest," (Matthew 11:28).
God's grace can save and keep His chosen. (John 10:28-30)
A very important question to you is:
Can you at least admit that it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us, such that we can be certain of them?
To the Skeptics:
ReplyDeleteThe Bible is THE Christian "handbook" and as such, THE primary source for understanding why early disciples of Christ were first called Christians. Modern Christians would, by default, exhibit the same behaviors, activities and beliefs as early disciples. Understanding should flow from the biblical model. Merriam Webster's, although a fine dictionary, is a poor choice for proper hermeneutics.
Who does the Bible say were first called Christians?
Acts 11
v. 21 -- And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord.
v. 24 -- For he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord.
v. 26 -- And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
What does it mean to believe and turn to the Lord?
A great many people were added to the Lord?
What was a disciple? then... and now?
Why were they called disciples?
Why were they called Christian?
Start there. The No True Scotsman Fallacy is false. An honest study shows that the core beliefs of the two groups being discussed do not intersect.
Well said Tony...Welcome!
ReplyDeleteI was a born again christian as a child. I was raised as such. I prayed everyday, I sang his praises and felt lifted. I went to church religiously for years. BECAUSE I KNEW NOTHING ELSE!! When I became a teenager, I realized the hypocracy of the church, and the bible. I thought outside the box and I now COMPLETELY deny the existence of any diety. christian or not. Why? Because there are just to many that have the same story as christ. They are even older than christ. So, from that point on I refused to follow one of the many cults of the world. Past, present, and future. I refuse to live in a world thats a mental psych up, and live in reality. Which is so much more meaningful then living within the confines of my mind.
ReplyDeleteI was also taught early that you could fall from the grace of christ that is why you must repent daily. So your argument is false. I have denied the holy spirit and I "suffer" from the "sin" of blasphemy. I will never reach the great mythilogical mansion is the sky. I don't want to either. Your god "gave" us free will. I will exercise that right for the rest of my short and sweet life. I will make the most of it, because I know when I die that's it.
proudmtathiest,
ReplyDeleteYou STILL have a chance for Salvation because simply, you haven't died yet. THAT is the great news. There is no sin too large to firrgive except the one that you mistakenly interpret as "denied the holy spirit and I "suffer" from the "sin" of blasphemy."
If you choose to deny Christ as Lord throughout your life all the way until death then Yes you have done the unforgivable since your entire life you have CHOSEN to go to hell. IF you turn, today even, away from your wickedness and trust in Christ foe every part of your life from this day forward you WILL be saved forever.
I beg you to listen to this lecture, and I know you will not listen to all 7 parts, but you might want to check out 4:30
of part 7. It explains it with complete clarity as to your choices you are making. Be rest assured though, you STILL have a chance while you're alive. That may end tomorrow though so take this seriously please.
*too large to forgive
ReplyDeleteMy best friend is a christian and she said you are full of shit and you are full of yourself. What part of " Your god "gave" us free will. I will exercise that right for the rest of my short and sweet life. I will make the most of it, because I know when I die that's it." The only way I will take your stance seriously, is if you PROVE heaven and hell exist. I would think you would have realized this with the other posts I have made. You make the claim so back it up and stop wasting my time with imaginary threats.
ReplyDeleteTelling an atheist they are going to hell is like telling someone hogwarts exists. Both are completely illogical.
ReplyDeleteproudmtathiest,
ReplyDelete'You're wrong because my friend said so'
Wow, you are a wealth of hilarity. I could care less what your friend says. What matters is what CHRIST says who is, and who is not, a CHRISTian.
>>The only way I will take your stance seriously, is if you PROVE heaven and hell exist.
Let me guess, science "proves" things too, huh? You're a silly Atheist.
Besides that, proving something according to what I believe is pointless as you will interpret it according to what you believe. Does my proof have to comport with absolute laws of logic according to what YOU believe? IF so, how do you account for those laws according to YOUR worldview?
But make no mistake, there is plenty of evidence for God. All of which you deny in a viciously circular fashion within that atheistic worldview. As an example, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
In fact, the claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.
Proudmtathiest,
ReplyDelete>>Telling an atheist they are going to hell is like telling someone hogwarts exists. Both are completely illogical.
Care to tell us how you KNOW your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?
because dan neither exists. If I told you I am sitting on my couch and eating a sub sandwich, I could prove it by idk web cam. If I told you an alien abducted and probed me you would ask for proof. You are not going to buy it hook line and sinker. Or if you do buy it you are dumber than I thought.
ReplyDelete>>because dan neither exists.
ReplyDeleteBare assertions, FTW
ok prove my assertions wrong...I am still waiting...and I hear crickets. You make the claim, back it up.
ReplyDeleteI would expect to back up and outlandish tale if it was true, I would shout it off the rooftops. I wouldn't make a circular argument like you are. My idea of proof is if it can me touched, smelled, heard, tasted, and seen. Or can be detected with a scientific instrament like a microscope.
ReplyDeleteProudmAtheist,
ReplyDelete>>ok prove my assertions wrong...I am still waiting...
Did you just ask me to prove a negative? Really?
You said "neither exist." That is a positive position BUT you did not back that up with evidence, ergo a bare assertion.
>>My idea of proof is if it can me touched, smelled, heard, tasted, and seen.
OK how to you account for math then?
Look, I have been having fun with you but let me nail it down. If I wrote the number 2 on a chalk board and asked you what it was. You might say it was "the number 2" but it isn't, if I erased it you could still use 2. Its a written representation of the number but the number 2 is universal and immaterial. The nonbeliever cannot account for universal, immaterial concepts without presupposing God. You are presupposing your reasoning is valid. How do you account for immaterial concepts in a material universe?
For one I cannot prove a negative. If hell and hogwarts exist, I will retract my statement ONLY if there is positive proof. But I see none for either.
ReplyDeleteyou said "OK how to you account for math then?"
Lets go back to first grade math shall we. I have 2 apples. I eat one and you eat one that leaves none. Or I have 1 apples and I add 1 more. That equals 2 apples. How do I know? I can see and count all 2 of them. The number 2 is not immaterial when I can see and touch 2 objects. count em with me ready? 1....2...very good! You get a gold star for the day.
*I have 1 apple
ReplyDelete>>If hell and hogwarts exist, I will retract my statement ONLY if there is positive proof.
ReplyDeleteIf you mean evidence, then YES there is evidence of Hell. You know it with complete certainty.
I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right?
How do you account for mathematical, logical, or moral laws in that worldview of yours?
In a Christian worldview we have a foundation for unchangeable, repeatable, universal laws, and reason, because it flows directly from the nature of God. You do not. You cannot account for that AT ALL as all you have is randomness, matter and motion. That is it for your worldview. You cannot account for any laws whatsoever.
You claim all this evidence and I have yet to see it. You say I KNOW it's true. UMMMM sorry to burst your bubble but I know no such thing.
ReplyDelete"How do you account for mathematical, logical, or moral laws in that worldview of yours?"
Are you saying that I don't know how to count, how to use logic and use morals without god? You have GOT to be joking!!!! I know I am not the smartest one on this blog, but damn give me some credit. I am not completely retarded. I use logic on a daily basis. I look both ways before crossing the street because logically there are cars that drive by and could possibly hit me if I am not paying attention. I can balance my check book, not because god helped me but because I want to make sure I have enough money for me and my son to live, and I am moral BECAUSE I don't follow your bible. According to the bible, I must condemn a human being for being homosexual. Who am I to judge these people? What the hell have they done to me? I can tell you what! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!! I have morals enough not to keep slaves and beat them exodus 21:2-6. I have morals enough not to torture my son for the good of everyone else. Are you kidding me?
We gather all of these skills to survive as a species. It has nothing to do with the supernatural, it has to do with evolution. We wouldn't have survived as a species if we didn't look out for each other, shared our food sources, counted how many animals we hunted for the winter to make sure we had enough.
ReplyDelete>>Are you saying that I don't know how to count, how to use logic and use morals without god?
ReplyDeleteNot at all. You missed the entire point. Again, I am not saying that atheists do not reason, all I am saying is that they have no basis for assuming that their reasoning is valid, yet they make that assumption. Without presupposing God, the position of the atheist is reduced to absurdity.
The laws of logic are universal, how can an atheist know anything to be universally true? The laws of logic are invariant, how do unchanging entities make sense in a constantly changing universe? The laws of logic are not made of matter, how do things which are not made of matter make sense in ANY atheistic worldview?
>>I have morals enough not to keep slaves and beat them exodus 21:2-6.
*sigh You certainly are revealing your eisegesis.
This equivocation of yours was quite apparent. You see, this is why I don't discuss Scripture with those that don't hold it as authoritative.
Yes, Biblical slavery is perfectly OK and fell into the catagory of CIVIL LAW. They did not have things like chapter 11 bankruptcy "avenues" back then. It was a form to pay off debt, mostly voluntary. This was debt that could not be written off like today. There would be a lot less frivolous spending if it were still around though. Before you get in an uproar the US Slavery was wrong. It impeded on liberties of individuals.
You need more Bible study.
again like any good presupptionalist you just assume all athiests are crude materialists
Delete"The laws of logic are universal, how can an atheist know anything to be universally true? The laws of logic are invariant, how do unchanging entities make sense in a constantly changing universe? "
i think this has been anwsered before Dan, its just that you ignore the anwsers
" It was a form to pay off debt, mostly voluntary."
but that was only for the ancient Jews, not for gentiles who where slaves
>>again like any good presupptionalist you just assume all athiests are crude materialists
DeleteYou certain of that?
>>...its just that you ignore the anwsers
We are to reject fallacious reasoning, because by definition it is illogical. Your atheistic worldview is a vat of illogical premises. We are to reject your positions. We warn you in love, but then we are to move on from your illogical positions.
"Any atheist who adheres to any one of these positions: naturalism, scientism, materialism, logical positivism is 'debunkable'. I also don't know a single atheist who doesn't fall into those categories
Anyone who refutes his own ability to reason is wrong, and every single person who explicitly denies God and His existence does exactly that." ~Keith Kaira
>>but that was only for the ancient Jews, not for gentiles who where slaves
And you're absolutely certain of this HOW?
>>We wouldn't have survived as a species if we didn't look out for each other, shared our food sources, counted how many animals we hunted for the winter to make sure we had enough.
ReplyDeleteWe would survive better in a 'survival of the fittest' situation, like evolution. Elimination of the competition ensures one's survival. But then, as an evolutionist, you would have to accept capitalism also, but that is another discussion altogether. Again your worldview is reduced to that absurd. Good luck with that.
"We would survive better in a 'survival of the fittest' situation, like evolution"
Deleteactually no we would not,human beings cant survive on their own with out the help of others
"Elimination of the competition ensures one's survival."
Deletebut if there is no one else to help you in times of need you cant survive!
>>...human beings cant survive on their own with out the help of others
DeleteHow do you know your reasoning is valid without God, or being viciously circular.
Could you be wrong about what you know?
I can ask you the same thing Dan, if you could be wrong about what you know, they you according to your strange reasoning you cant know anything, and since i dont think you are omniscient nor infallible, you could always be wrong of what you know.
Delete"How do you know your reasoning is valid without God, or being viciously circular. "
this has nothing to do with the question at large, how do you know an infalliable god has revealed himself to you? of course the only way to really know is of course you yoursel was infallible
No, I cannot be wrong about what has been revealed to all of us by God. If I said "The speed limit on my street is 40 MPH, but I can be wrong" did I KNOW the speed limit? Of course not.
DeletePlease give an example of something which is KNOWN for certain to be true, which is in fact not true.
I know certain things, the same way we can be certain of anything, REVELATION.
How am I certain that the revelation is valid? Because God has revealed it such that WE can be certain of it. Your turn, how do you know your reasoning, about anything, is valid?
>>and since i dont think you are omniscient nor infallible, you could always be wrong of what you know.
By the way, it is quite telling that the first thing out of your mouth, after denying knowledge, was a knowledge claim. You cannot know what I can, or cannot, know. Please try again.
Are you absolutely certain that you MUST be "omniscient" to know things? IF so, are you omniscient to know even that?
Problem is Fozzie bear, you use your reasoning to test your reasoning which is viciously circular. With that line of thought, no one's reasoning could be invalid. A person with invalid reasoning could easily say the exact same things as you, but since his reasoning is invalid, he would obviously be wrong.
Knowledge is revealed, otherwise opinion and belief. This is exposed with a simple question, how do you know your reasoning is valid without God or being viciously circular?
"I know certain things, the same way we can be certain of anything, REVELATION.
DeleteHow am I certain that the revelation is valid? Because God has revealed it such that WE can be certain of it. Your turn, how do you know your reasoning, about anything, is valid?"
How do you know its not someone pretending to be God?a Trickster can easily make you think that it is God when it really is not
"after denying knowledge"
Don't be redcioulous i never denied that
" you use your reasoning to test your reasoning which is viciously circular"
sorry buddy testing a machine to see if it works is not circular reasoning
"No, I cannot be wrong about what has been revealed to all of us by God."
But God might be infallible, but i dont think we are....since we can be wrong, than it means we can be wrong if God has revealed something to us
no let me word my main question better-how exactly did God has revealed it such that WE can be certain of it? Can you provide any objective proof that its Jesus giving revelations and not the Mystic Taco?
Delete""The speed limit on my street is 40 MPH, but I can be wrong" did I KNOW the speed limit?"
Deleteyes you do know the speed limit its 40 miles per hour, just because you can be wrong doesn't mean you are wrong
Like for example an airplane,if you take a plane to Winnipeg, you know it will get there correct? But you cant really know if the plane might malfunction mid flight and crash in Kansas so do you KNOW the plane will go to Winnipeg if it might crash in Kansas?
>>But God might be infallible, but i dont think we are....since we can be wrong, than it means we can be wrong if God has revealed something to us
DeleteAre you saying it is impossible for an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being the ability for direct revelation to a fallible mind or intuitive revelation? THAT is your claim?
Do you deny God has the ability to reveal things to us such we can be certain of it?
IF you say "I am certain the plan will land in Winnipeg" and it crashes in Kansas, is what you said knowledge?
"Are you saying it is impossible for an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being the ability for direct revelation to a fallible mind or intuitive revelation? THAT is your claim? "
Deletewell if we are fallible then it means we can be wrong which means we could be wrong about the revelation, and how do you know you INTERPRETED the revelation correcty?
>>well if we are fallible then it means we can be wrong which means we could be wrong about the revelation
DeleteAgain, You are saying that it is impossible for an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being the ability for direct revelation to a fallible mind or intuitive revelation. That is intellectually dishonest.
>>and how do you know you INTERPRETED the revelation correcty(sic)?
Because God revealed it such we CAN be certain of it. Again, do you deny that God has the ability to reveal to a fallible mind or intuitive revelation?
The revelation is not something you can escape. Even if you deny a special revelation, like the Bible you are still in the world of natural revelation.
"Man was created as the image of God (Gen. 1:16-27) and thus cannot escape the face of God. There is no environment where man can flee to escape the revelational presence of God (Ps. 139:8). God’s natural revelation goes out to the end of the world (Ps. 19:1-4) and all people see His glory (Ps. 97:6). Therefore, even when living in open (idolatrous) rebellion, men are in the condition of “knowing God” (Rom. 1:21)—the living and true God, not merely “a god.” Christ enlightens every man (John 1:9), and so Calvin declares: For we know that men have this unique quality above the other animals, that they are endowed with reason and intelligence and that they bear the distinction between right and wrong engraved in their conscience. Thus there is no man to whom some awareness of the eternal light does not penetrate...the common light of nature, a far lowlier thing than faith (Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. T.H.L. Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1959)." ~Bahnsen, Greg; Booth, Robert (2011-03-03). Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith
" that they bear the distinction between right and wrong engraved in their conscience"
Deleteso do chimpanzees, monkeys and elephants
"
Again, You are saying that it is impossible for an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being the ability for direct revelation to a fallible mind or intuitive revelation. That is intellectually dishonest."
i am not being dishonest, i am for the sake of the argument assuming your ideas to be true, since Christians believe God doesn't make contradictions,because it against his nature a falliable man making infalliable statement seems very contradictory
So you are saying that it was ok for slave owners to beat their slaves unconscious? Read your bible a little further. It says the laws for beating a slave. It says the owner is allowed to beat them but if they get up after 2 count em. ready? 1....2...days they wouldn't have sinned in the eyes of the lord. Who on earth would volunteer to be beaten that badly? That is a crime against humanity!
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I do accept capitalism. But I am also willing to help those in need too. I have even thought of building a secular homeless shelter to teach the value of a hard days work, and the accomplishment one feels when they achieve their goals to better their lives. But that is a dream. Right now I am scraping the bottom of the barrel and I wouldn't have it any other way. I don't want a hand out I want a hand up.
>>Who on earth would volunteer to be beaten that badly?
ReplyDeleteOne that does not want to pay his bills and defy his master. One must keep his pimp hand strong after all. :7)
>>That is a crime against humanity!
IS that your opinion or a universal truth? If the latter, how do you account for that moral law, or standard, within your absurd worldview?
So its ok then? Tell me oh wise one!
ReplyDelete