Do Christians who do bad things, nullify other evidences for God - addressing Christian Hypocrisy.

[createdtoworship]

I certainly understand that Christians are a light in the world, I understand that where a secular student may just give in to peer pressure to take another drink of alcohol, meanwhile, a christian student will refrain. But what about when Christians are involved in serious sin, debauchery, murder, molestation for example. Does this nullify God's Gospel and power?

I believe yes, and no.

While we are God's hands and feet in the earth, when people are before the throne of God, there will be no exception to the rule by stating...."hey there was this hypocritical Christian who was rude, that one time, or I saw a pastor in the news that committed sexual sin"

I am not surprised that the Bible states no examples of above excuses to get out of being judged for ones personal sin.

let me put it this way....

what is the worst thing a pastor has done.....say it's molesting little kids....for example.

ok, that's bad.

I agree.

but this does not actually take away the sins of others.

like yourself, like myself.

it is an attempt to tell God that no one actually follows the rules, even His followers.

But they are not technically our examples anyway.

Christ is.

The whole reason why Christ came in the flesh was to experience temptation in the flesh, and to reject it whole heartedly as our example.

He did it, and so can we, with His power.

But even if no one can be moral, ever....that still does not remove us from the fact that we should be.

The interesting thing is that while they reject Christianity based on a poor example, they take an even worse stance in another area.

the creation of the universe...

does the fact that one pastor messed up (in one hundred), mean that now, we all evolved from a rock somewhere, or a primordial soup, or when lightening struck a primordial ooze, that resultingly burped out life as we know it?


if an electrified primordial ooze, or a rock can be our creator now that we have proven God wrong (allegedly)....

then there are other issues than christian hypocrisy that we should be working on.

because this logic is seriously flawed.

agreed?

 

[SeraphimSarov]

Jesus is supposed to work "positive" (whatever that means) change into the Christian's life. I see little evidence of this in most Christians, except for a few notable exceptions of "holy" people, but then again, every other religion has these too, and even we atheists have some pretty "good" people... which leads me to believe that there is nothing particularly exceptional about Christianity. It has nothing to do with our origins. Unless we somehow learn how to prove a negative, one can never definitively say that there is no deity out there. However, the fact is that there is simply no evidence, and part of that evidence is that Christianity demonstrably does not change the majority of its followers for the "better" (again, whatever that means).

 

[createdtoworship]

but does the actions of His followers dictate if Jesus did such things? Thats like saying because hitlers generals repented of wrong, that hitler as well repented of wrong. If saying that because Darwins son was a creationist that Darwin was a creationist. (above stories are illustration only). Christians can fail till they are blue in the face. But that is no indication of God, or Christ. Christ and God are sufficient in an of themselves, and do not need external evidence from us to validate them.

or He is really not God, we are.

Again, if we are good examples, then Christ and God are more accurately portrayed. But that need not be the case. God will one day, send angels to and fro across the world, declaring the Gospel of the Kingdom to every living Creature. So even if we fail in evangelism. God has that covered as well.

God really does not need us.

My view or oppinion, is that God chooses to use us. And the reason He does not send out angels earlier to proclaim His Gospel is that He chooses to use us. If one in 10 fail, or falter to be witness. The other 9 take up the batton, and run the race for the one that fails.

 

[createdtoworship]

Jesus is supposed to work "positive" (whatever that means) change into the Christian's life. I see little evidence of this in most Christians, except for a few notable exceptions of "holy" people, but then again, every other religion has these too, and even we atheists have some pretty "good" people... which leads me to believe that there is nothing particularly exceptional about Christianity. It has nothing to do with our origins. Unless we somehow learn how to prove a negative, one can never definitively say that there is no deity out there. However, the fact is that there is simply no evidence, and part of that evidence is that Christianity demonstrably does not change the majority of its followers for the "better" (again, whatever that means).

nothing particularly exceptional about Christianity?

Yet here you are, hours a day on a Christian forum.

huh?

something must have your interest about Christianity.

Or why bother.

I got the point where when one is so lazy with their intellect that they do not make obvious deductions, that they are basically a waste of time.

it's not that they are given up on, but I figure that if they don't even want to make sense of their own views, why push more view on them?

but the point is that if the debater comes here to fight with Christians, then for the most part, they are in bondage to the forum. They could not get away if they wanted to. They are mezmirized and stuck to the forum like glue.

IF you think it is not so, they quit for a month.

if you get depressed, or lonely.....then perhaps you are like the others.

stuck on christianity, and have not realized it.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

Wow, that was presumptuous. Checking out of this thread; how's that for a break?

 

[ChetSinger]

...But what about when Christians are involved in serious sin, debauchery, murder, molestation for example. Does this nullify God's Gospel and power?...

I don't believe it nullifies evidence because as Paul says:

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. - Romans 1:20

But regarding the Gospel it can sure do damage.

 

[createdtoworship]

Wow, that was presumptuous. Checking out of this thread; how's that for a break?

I don't believe it nullifies evidence because as Paul says:


But regarding the Gospel it can sure do damage.

I think of the sin of david. After adultery and murder, and after confession and repentance.....

all is well, God has forgiven.

accept the Bible says "Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die."

2 Samuel 12:14 (KJV)

so basically what it is saying here is that even though grace saves everyone who is willing to repent, and believe the Gospel....

the problem lies in the fact that even after David's relationship to God was patched up, his sin's still kept destroying his life.

His family, eventually attempted to assasinate him (ahithophel)

and the nations of other kingdoms watchin david's kingdom of alleged Holiness,

laughed him to scorn, because....

hey did you hear the tabloids?

Christian Pastor commits adultry, and kills her husband.

And for years after that, every time DAvid preached a sermon on loving your enemy or purity,

peopled smelled the hypocrisy.

And just think.

David, was a man "after God's own heart."

a failure of king,

a failure of a husband,

and a failure of a father.

HE was a man after God's own heart?

Then I read the psalms about how DAvid trusted God in the times when his son was out to get him, and was tracking him down to murder him.

And DAvid still trusted in the God of Israel, And he trusted that God would defend His cause, even though He did all the above!

That is what faith is all about.

I am encouraged by David's life, actually.

I find strength in the fact that DAvid knew who is daddy was.

even though DAvid was a poor Dad, He knew where the real FAther was.

That is persistance.

and strong faith.

indeed.

That is my goal to be more faith like, and more like that.

A man after God's own heart, with a type of trust the God will deliver you even when it's your own sin tracking you down to take you out!

The Bible is full of stories like this, that read like actual biographies.

that read like historical manuscripts, and that mention artifacts, languages and poeple groups that can be confirmed easily from archaology.

The Bible is provable, and profitable.

 

[Davian]

I certainly understand that Christians are a light in the world, I understand that where a secular student may just give in to peer pressure to take another drink of alcohol, meanwhile, a christian student will refrain.

On what do you base that understanding?

But what about when Christians are involved in serious sin, debauchery, murder, molestation for example. Does this nullify God's Gospel and power?

It does send a mixed message.

I believe yes, and no.

While we are God's hands and feet in the earth, when people are before the throne of God, there will be no exception to the rule by stating...."hey there was this hypocritical Christian who was rude, that one time, or I saw a pastor in the news that committed sexual sin"

I am not surprised that the Bible states no examples of above excuses to get out of being judged for ones personal sin.

From what I gather, anything goes, as long as you believe.

let me put it this way....

what is the worst thing a pastor has done.....say it's molesting little kids....for example.

ok, that's bad.

I agree.

but this does not actually take away the sins of others.

like yourself, like myself.

it is an attempt to tell God that no one actually follows the rules, even His followers.

It does appear that way, the religionists' declarations of "objective" morality notwithstanding.

But they are not technically our examples anyway.

Christ is.

The whole reason why Christ came in the flesh was to experience temptation in the flesh, and to reject it whole heartedly as our example.

He did it, and so can we, with His power.

But even if no one can be moral, ever....that still does not remove us from the fact that we should be.

The interesting thing is that while they reject Christianity based on a poor example, they take an even worse stance in another area.

the creation of the universe...

I reject Christianity, as it has been presented to me, as its claims to not comport with reality, and require virtually all of mainstream scientific knowledge to be wildly inaccurate. I do not find them convincing.

That those proffering their religion as an accurate description of reality get surprisingly rude, condescending, and hypocritical when their opinions are challenged, their arguments shown to be fallacious, or their challenges called out as being intellectually bankrupt is just something I observe with curiosity.

does the fact that one pastor messed up (in one hundred), mean that now, we all evolved from a rock somewhere, or a primordial soup, or when lightening struck a primordial ooze, that resultingly burped out life as we know it?

A [fallacious] false dichotomy. Does your religion require you to be anti-science?

if an electrified primordial ooze, or a rock can be our creator now that we have proven God wrong (allegedly)....

The burden lies with the one making the claim. Prove God right.

then there are other issues than christian hypocrisy that we should be working on.

because this logic is seriously flawed.

agreed?

Agreed, and I do not think I have ever taken this stance.

I do recall, some time ago, talking to my father about this, and while he never was a believer, but he did say that, where he stayed with other children during WWII, the nuns that beat him did not appear to have any relation to an [allegedly] "loving" god.

But he doesn't believe for similar reason to me; he does not find the claims of religionists to be convincing.

 

[Cute Tink]

 

[createdtoworship]

On what do you base that understanding?

there are numerous peer review studies on the positive affects of religion upon the moral fabric of todays youths.

but that is another story for another thread.

It does send a mixed message.

From what I gather, anything goes, as long as you believe.

It does appear that way, the religionists' declarations of "objective" morality notwithstanding.

I do have to ask this question however, on what basis do you declare it a mixed message. If what you mean is this....that a christian is not acting as a christian should. Then by what standard are you comparing him too? An electrocuted mud puddle, that got legs, started swinging from trees, grew fur, and now believes the rocks are his God? How does this primitive folk, if you would.....decide his morality?

Who invented the strict guidlines of what defines this evil? Or mixed messages? On the problem of evil, I will briefly give a moderate quote, and then move on.....
“When people complain that there is evil in the world, they are not simply offering their opinion. They

are instead saying that true, objective evil exists. They are complaining about evil behavior as though

this behavior ought to be recognized by all of us, regardless of our personal likes, dislikes, or opinions

about human conduct. If evil were a matter of opinion, we could eliminate it by simply changing our

minds. People who complain about evil behavior must accept the premise that true, objective “right”

and “wrong” exist in the first place. They must accept that some things are morally virtuous and some

things are morally repulsive, no matter who you are, where you are located, or when you live in history.

This kind of moral evil transcends all of us; if it doesn’t, why complain in the first place? If evil is simply a

matter of opinion, why doesn’t the man who emailed me simply change his opinion?

You see, in order for true evil to exist (so that the writer has something legitimate to complain

about), there must be a true barometer of right and wrong. In order for an act to be objectively “bad,”

there must be some standard of objective “good” by which to measure it. What might that standard be

if not God? Can the standard come from some evolutionary process? Can it come from the slow

development of cultural groups? If so, morals are simply a matter of opinion (albeit a largely held

opinion), and there is nothing objectively evil to complain about. Remember that even the most heinous

regimes of history identified their own behavior as morally virtuous. In order for true evil to exist, there

must be a source of true good that transcends any and all groups that might make a claim about the

existence of evil. In other words, the existence of true evil necessitates the presence of God as a

standard of true virtue. It turns out that the existence of evil is actually another evidence for God’s

existence, another piece of the puzzle that reveals God’s image.”

- Above quote from Cold case Christianity – by J Warner wallace

A [fallacious] false dichotomy. Does your religion require you to be anti-science?

some are anti science that are religious, but not all.

again, you need to check facts here.

there is in fact a whole list of I believe 500 or more that disagree with darwin that are scientists, and even larger group I believe a recent study said 51 percent of younger scientists were theists:

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

The burden lies with the one making the claim. Prove God right.

you can't even prove alleged facts are facts, how can we prove God?

what I mean is that you have falsification of science, but not falsification of God, and this is a contradiction right?

I never much cared for that description of science.

I tend to invoke the scientific method, as that is what is science anyway.

falsifiability is really not a thing, they should in fact replace falsifiability with verifiability, as no fact can be falsified, as it is in fact true.

A common logical error made by 100% of falsifiability adherents. Again, I recommend, using verifiability instead. Facts can be verified, but obviously not falsified, as they are inherently true by nature of the fact they are facts.

Agreed, and I do not think I have ever taken this stance.

I do recall, some time ago, talking to my father about this, and while he never was a believer, but he did say that, where he stayed with other children during WWII, the nuns that beat him did not appear to have any relation to an [allegedly] "loving" god.

But he doesn't believe for similar reason to me; he does not find the claims of religionists to be convincing.

no religion can be proven correct.

I have opinions, but they are mine, and they may not be yours.

religion is base on evidential faith.

a faith that is based on some tangeable act, or fact.

but not facts alone, and not faith without fact, as that is a blind faith.

blind faith is basically a religion of mythology and no facts involved with it.

I cannot prove God exists, and nor can I prove the Bible is true.

I believe numerous circumstantial evidences that they are true.

but not direct evidence, or objective evidence. It is circumstantial.

but that is why I know that a huge part of my belief is faith, and I like that.

I like the faith part, as much as I like the facts.

God is much bigger than anything we can see or hear.

after all He is the intelligent designer behind all quantum science.

and often leaves a more mysterious presence just when we think we have Him figured out.

but to answer your question, this is not to prove the Bible true. As God never wanted Christianity to be forced through evidentialism.

He wanted peoples faith to explode not their brains.

and that, it did.

But I do believe the circumstantial evidences of the Bible do invoke quite a challenge to anyone wishing to outright dismiss the Bible as a fraud.

and just as any fact cannot be falsified itself, I do not expect theism to be any different.

again falsification means something can be reversed or falsified, but facts if they are facts, cannot be so as they are true, not false.

an easy misconception with many I talk to.

so no God cannot be falsified, but I am okay with that, because He is truth.

I hope that answers some of your questions.

(I know some of my post is scattered and may seem random, it's because I clipped some from others posts in this forum, as there is nothing new under the sun, the Bible says)

 

[Davian]

there are numerous peer review studies on the positive affects of religion upon the moral fabric of todays youths.

but that is another story for another thread.

It's easy enough to google such studies.

"Across all countries, parents in religious house- holds reported that their children expressed more empathy and sensitivity for justice in everyday life than non-religious parents. However, religiousness was inversely predictive of children’s altruism and positively correlated with their punitive tendencies. Together these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children’s altruism, challenging the view that religiosity facilitates prosocial behavior."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christian-piatt/does-religion-make-us-wor_b_8584760.html

I do have to ask this question however, on what basis do you declare it a mixed message. If what you mean is this....that a christian is not acting as a christian should.
Then by what standard are you comparing him too?

I don't know how Christians should conduct themselves, but does seem that, generally, Christianity is proffered as providing a basis for morality, and that Jesus was a nice guy, and that their "God" is "good", or even "omnibenevolent", and it would follow, I think, that an adherent to such a religion would want to set an example for that.

I hold them to the standard to which I perceive them to set for themselves.

YMMV.

An electrocuted mud puddle, that got legs, started swinging from trees, grew fur, and now believes the rocks are his God?

I have never met anyone with such a worldview.

How does this primitive folk, if you would.....decide his morality?

I would expect that they do it pretty much as we do today, a varying mix of reason, compassion, empathy, and relative human wellness, and the social contract: conduct oneself towards others in a manner that one would expect oneself to be treated.

Who invented the strict guidlines of what defines this evil? Or mixed messages?

What strict guidelines?

On the problem of evil, I will briefly give a moderate quote, and then move on.....
“When people complain that there is evil in the world, they are not simply offering their opinion. They

are instead saying that true, objective evil exists. They are complaining about evil behavior as though

this behavior ought to be recognized by all of us, regardless of our personal likes, dislikes, or opinions

about human conduct. If evil were a matter of opinion, we could eliminate it by simply changing our

minds. People who complain about evil behavior must accept the premise that true, objective “right”

and “wrong” exist in the first place. They must accept that some things are morally virtuous and some

things are morally repulsive, no matter who you are, where you are located, or when you live in history.

This kind of moral evil transcends all of us; if it doesn’t, why complain in the first place? If evil is simply a

matter of opinion, why doesn’t the man who emailed me simply change his opinion?

You see, in order for true evil to exist (so that the writer has something legitimate to complain

about), there must be a true barometer of right and wrong. In order for an act to be objectively “bad,”

there must be some standard of objective “good” by which to measure it. What might that standard be

if not God? Can the standard come from some evolutionary process? Can it come from the slow

development of cultural groups? If so, morals are simply a matter of opinion (albeit a largely held

opinion), and there is nothing objectively evil to complain about. Remember that even the most heinous

regimes of history identified their own behavior as morally virtuous. In order for true evil to exist, there

must be a source of true good that transcends any and all groups that might make a claim about the

existence of evil. In other words, the existence of true evil necessitates the presence of God as a

standard of true virtue. It turns out that the existence of evil is actually another evidence for God’s

existence, another piece of the puzzle that reveals God’s image.”

- Above quote from Cold case Christianity – by J Warner wallace

If you have not yet defined your "God" in a testable, falsifiable manner, virtually anything can be preferred as "evidence".

Existence of evil? God. Existence of good? God. Existence of suffering? God. Existence of beauty? God. Existence of flush toilets? God.

some are anti science that are religious, but not all.

again, you need to check facts here.

there is in fact a whole list of I believe 500 or more that disagree with darwin that are scientists, and even larger group I believe a recent study said 51 percent of younger scientists were theists:

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

As neither of us have access to the inner workings of the minds of those individuals, and how they compartmentalize their religious beliefs from their scientific practices, I do not see how that address my question, which was about you being anti-science.

you can't even prove alleged facts are facts, how can we prove God?

Not my problem.

what I mean is that you have falsification of science, but not falsification of God, and this is a contradiction right?

Not that I can see. Define "God" in a testable, falsifiable manner.

I never much cared for that description of science.

Not when it is unfriendly to your beliefs.

I tend to invoke the scientific method, as that is what is science anyway.

falsifiability is really not a thing, they should in fact replace falsifiability with verifiability, as no fact can be falsified, as it is in fact true.

You are making the mistake of confusing "unable to falsify" with "unfalsifiable".

A common logical error made by 100% of falsifiability adherents.

A common mistake made by 100% of those that have not fully grasped the concept of falsifiability.

Again, I recommend, using verifiability instead. Facts can be verified, but obviously not falsified, as they are inherently true by nature of the fact they are facts.

Facts are falsifiable, in that they can be changed or updated with new information.

no religion can be proven correct.

I have opinions, but they are mine, and they may not be yours.

I am not asking that a religion to be proven correct. I would ask of the individual proffering their religion as an accurate description of reality to, in some way, substantiate their claim.

religion is base on evidential faith.

a faith that is based on some tangeable act, or fact.

I am not sure where you are going with this. My child believes in Santa. The fact that presents appear by the fireplace on Christmas morning reinforces her faith in him.

Like that?

but not facts alone, and not faith without fact, as that is a blind faith.

blind faith is basically a religion of mythology and no facts involved with it.

I cannot prove God exists, and nor can I prove the Bible is true.

I believe numerous circumstantial evidences that they are true.

but not direct evidence, or objective evidence. It is circumstantial.

It seems odd to me that the "truth" - as you claim it to be - can only be supported by circumstantial evidence. I can can support lies, hoaxes, and fabrications in much the same way.

but that is why I know that a huge part of my belief is faith, and I like that.

Of course, if your faith gives you comfort.

I like the faith part, as much as I like the facts.

What facts are you alluding to?

God is much bigger than anything we can see or hear.

So you believe.

after all He is the intelligent designer behind all quantum science.

...and he is the intelligent designer behind the forces that allow us to have flush toilets.

Keep going.

and often leaves a more mysterious presence just when we think we have Him figured out.

but to answer your question, this is not to prove the Bible true. As God never wanted Christianity to be forced through evidentialism.

Or, the writers of the bible knew that an evidentialist approach would fail, even back then, due the absence of evidence. Hence the emphasis on "faith".

He wanted peoples faith to explode not their brains.

and that, it did.

When did that happen?

But I do believe the circumstantial evidences of the Bible do invoke quite a challenge to anyone wishing to outright dismiss the Bible as a fraud.

And you are free to believe that. I have not seen that challenge presented in these forums.

and just as any fact cannot be falsified itself, I do not expect theism to be any different.

I see theism as defaulting to false, given that religions are mutually exclusive, and they cannot all be right. Now, it may be that there is one religion that is right, out of all of them, but I have not yet seen evidence of that.

again falsification means something can be reversed or falsified, but facts if they are facts, cannot be so as they are true, not false.

No, that is not what falsification means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

an easy misconception made by many I talk to.

A common mistake made by many I talk to.

so no God cannot be falsified, but I am okay with that,

Scientifically, unfalsifiable means of no significance. I am okay with that.

because He is truth.

By "truth" in this context, it would seem you mean "opinion".

I hope that answers some of your questions.

Not really. You went off topic for the most part.

(I know some of my post is scattered and may seem random, it's because I clipped some from others posts in this forum, as there is nothing new under the sun, the Bible says)

Nothing new from you, for sure.

 

[createdtoworship]

It's easy enough to google such studies.

"Across all countries, parents in religious house- holds reported that their children expressed more empathy and sensitivity for justice in everyday life than non-religious parents. However, religiousness was inversely predictive of children’s altruism and positively correlated with their punitive tendencies. Together these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children’s altruism, challenging the view that religiosity facilitates prosocial behavior."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christian-piatt/does-religion-make-us-wor_b_8584760.html
Nothing new from you, for sure.

I appreciate the dialogue.

thanks again.

however your post to a news article is significantly changing the bars here as it relates to citation.

I mention peer review, and indeed have links for peer review, however you reply with some reporters opinion, as if that source is authoritative, when in reality....their articles are meant to primarily sell news subscriptions. not further our investigation.

so again, if you have some peer review, please show it as of right now, your post is simply a fallacy of an appeal to authority, and not really documenting any factual citations.

I will be out and about for awhile, I will attempt to adress some more of your points later.

 

[Davian]

I appreciate the dialogue.

As do I.

thanks again.

however your post to a news article is significantly changing the bars here as it relates to citation.

Or sets the bar, as it were.

I mention peer review, and indeed have links for peer review,

I do recall you mentioning "numerous peer review studies" but you failed to provide any links to them, if you do have such links.

however you reply with some reporters opinion, as if that source is authoritative, when in reality....their articles are meant to primarily sell news subscriptions. not further our investigation.

so again, if you have some peer review, please show it as of right now, your post is simply a fallacy of an appeal to authority, and not really documenting any factual citations.

Unless you had actually read the article and saw that I was not actually quoting the reporter, but directly from the scientific article, and that article link was provide by the reporter,

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf

as well as the links to the other articles cited by the reporter, here (requires registering):

http://connectedtogive.org/reports/

...here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20141019.../resources/advisorypanel/2013/surveyreports20

...and here:

http://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=111222

Where are you going with this? It does not appear to be on-topic.

Is this an attempt to somehow place a burden on me, or to distract from how you are conducting yourself?

I will be out and about for awhile, I will attempt to adress some more of your points later.

 

[createdtoworship]

I do disagree with that peer review article. I take the same view as the parents. Even the article states that nearly every parent, disagreed with the peer review summary. So apparently because of this discrepancy, and no alleged facts gained from the article, other than a title, we can assume it arbitrary.

so strike that one from the record, unless you have a full copy and can post quotations.

but again, I can give you peer review for this, but I am not in the business, or attempting to impress anyone here.

I could give quotes etc, as my peer review is not behind a paywall, as of yet.

but again this is sort of off topic anyway.

it's not really hard to find numerous examples of the positive affects of religion in nearly every single culture and religion.

things like, loving your neighbor, not stealing, not murdering (as in like abortion), and how religion has reduced the occasions of nearly all of the above is not even really a thing you are questioning, are you?

never the less, again the topic of this thread is not the good things christians do, although thats important, it's that when they do negative things, does it actually nullify the factualness behaviour of archaology, or histories as found in the Old Testament? If one in one hundred does something really really bad, very very evil, that claims a Christian God, does that mean God failed? Does that mean God is done with that person, and contrary to Christian dogma about grace and forgiveness, is such a one lost. Or will God leave the 99 to pursue the one, and guide even the stranger, and the stragler, back to Him?

God is a restorer, I have seen numerous times.

I recommend for this visiting a you tube channel called "I am second."

very compelling evidence of the above, eye witness testimony of not only the power of a religion, but the power of what we Believe is the true and living God, Jesus Christ.

So in conclusion, because one fails does not make the other 99 failures, nor does it make their Creator a failure.

If they reject redemption, and restoration, and choose eternal damnation instead....even then...

as it's all in HIs plan.

God says....

Proverbs 16:4 (KJV)
4 The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

So God does not lose, any technically.

that He has infact chosen by foreknowledge.

Only those who reject Him, will be found as not chosen BY Him.

but even those, it says have a purpose for being created.

To be an example of what not to do.

(which is choose to be an inhabitant of Hell).

 

[createdtoworship]

It seems odd to me that the "truth" - as you claim it to be - can only be supported by circumstantial evidence. I can can support lies, hoaxes, and fabrications in much the same way.

as promised I would, address some more of your posts later....

as far as this one....

most evidence is circumstantial, as I have shown already, that even facts cannot be falsified, and thus fail to be facts, according to many who claim to be Scientists.

we cannot prove, evolution on a macro level for example, it's all circumstantial.

we cannot prove the law of gravity even, only circumstantially.

so again...your point is moot.

circumstantial evidence is valid evidence, and 99% of cold cases today are solved with such circumstantial evidence.

that was mentioned to me, by a cold case detective, a rather good one at that.

So you have yet another unfounded claim to add to your arsenal here.

again, I will address more of your posts in time.

please be patient.

 

[createdtoworship]

Facts are falsifiable, in that they can be changed or updated with new information.

think about what you are saying logically,

step away from your professors lectures for awhile.

facts are not falsifiable, if they were they would be false.

think of it this way.

facts cannot be false, or they are not a fact.

if they are not a fact, then they could be falsified, but since by nature a fact is true, it cannot be false, or falsified.

 

[createdtoworship]

Not that I can see. Define "God" in a testable, falsifiable manner.

again, facts are not falsified.

If I did believe God proved himself in an absolute, and directly factual manner (and I don't), but if I did...

then even that would not be falsified.

because it would be true, if it were in fact a fact.

if it was not a fact, but I believed it so, then no amount of belief would change the unfactual nature of my belief.

but I don't believe God to be a fact.

I believe God to be proven numerous times, in countless circumstances, requiring circumstantial evidences.

Which I believe He has plainly laid out.

so, do I believe God is real, yes.

Do I believe He has made himself known in ample magnitude, yes.

I am persuaded, but it's not beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Do I think most evidence proves His existence, yes.

but there is still some evidence that is still in existence, that can make an argument that He does not exist.

but only if one is not allowed to take a hack at explaining some of the discrepancy, from a Biblical perspective.

which many times, most will call it a settled deal without even hearing the other side, unfortunately.

again, God does not need to prove Himself in an absolute factual way.

and it is not in His desire to prove Himself absolutely, as that would nullify faith, would it not?

If I did not hope for Him, Then my belief and faith would lack an essential element, hope.

which my faith would no longer be faith, but my hope would have been fulfilled evidentially, and my faith would have morphed into active knowledge of a known fact.

I would actively know, God....not have faith in Him.

So since God is a God of Faith, to keep faith alive, He allows enough evidence to be persuaded, but not enough evidence to be forced or coerced intellectually into accepting it.

He is a gentleman in that manner, and allows us the free will to intellectually accept Him or reject Him,

again with it's respective awards and punishments.

but that is not the only reason for not showing Himself to the world all at once.

So that His elect can be glorified in their sactified bodies.

What I mean is that by obedience to God's ordinances, many will be transformed into a new Creature.

but if every one did that, I for one, would feel intimidated, that I was not performing well enough in district 3 of state 5, in planet 10 of the christian populus.

but as it stands, I feel special.

and every Christian does.

because we know God has chosen us, and delights in us.

again, that's not an objective statement.

it's filled with emotial appeal, but none the less.

being set apart from a wicked norm....does have a fulfilling sense to life.

We are different, and because of Christ, we Don't have to be a slave of everyone elses ideas, simply because they have a degree.

We are taught to think for ourselves, to tackle objectively contradictory thoughts, and ideas, to rationize and battle darkness with His Glorious and perfect word.

which, if I may add is very very thick in meaning.

I read alot of books on audio, probably one a week right now.

and most books I read are speed and a half.

but when I listen to scripture, I always listen at a slower speed.

because of being in the world, my thoughts do not align with scripture as much as I would like.

I am flesh after all.

it's a battle of natures.

but again the light is winning.

buts its a long haul.

anyway, when I read scripture.

I have to take it in, take it to heart.

I often stop it many many times to write down a verse.

I forgot.

because being in the world, it's a foreign language, a lost art.

but again, there is a sense of fulfillment and set-apart-ness.

and for that I am thankful to God.

but again,

I know you have too many questions that need to be answered before you would ever even, contimplate this way of life.

I understand.

so, you have come to the right place.

let's hear your concerns.

 

[Davian]

I do disagree with that peer review article. I take the same view as the parents. Even the article states that nearly every parent, disagreed with the peer review summary. So apparently because of this discrepancy, and no alleged facts gained from the article, other than a title, we can assume it arbitrary.

To suggest that your disagreement with the article in any way shows it as faulty would be laughable, in my view.

so strike that one from the record, unless you have a full copy and can post quotations.

No, it can stand, as I provided direct quotes and full citations.

but again, I can give you peer review for this, but I am not in the business, or attempting to impress anyone here.

Indeed, I am not impressed.

I could give quotes etc, as my peer review is not behind a paywall, as of yet.

Yet you again fail to provide anything.

but again this is sort of off topic anyway.

Indeed. But you carry on regardless. It's your thread.

it's not really hard to find numerous examples of the positive affects of religion in nearly every single culture and religion.

By their very nature, all religions (except maybe one) are false. What you have done here is make a case for benefits derived from false religion.

I do not dispute that.

things like, loving your neighbor, not stealing, not murdering (as in like abortion),

Murder is unlawful killing. Abortion is not unlawful in my country.

and how religion has reduced the occasions of nearly all of the above

Do you have a citation for that? No?

is not even really a thing you are questioning, are you?

I do not dispute that there can be positive influences of religion. However, it says nothing about the veracity of their religious claims.

Perhaps you would like to stick with a particular religion, as you did in your OP, unless your position is that it doesn't matter which religion we are talking about. Is one as "good" as the next?

never the less, again the topic of this thread is not the good things christians do, although thats important, it's that when they do negative things, does it actually nullify the factualness behaviour of archaology, or histories as found in the Old Testament?

Perhaps it does, but I don't see how archaeological or historical references - even if accurate - speak the the divinity claims within the OT. There are fictional stories that have accurate archaeological or historical references.

If one in one hundred does something really really bad, very very evil, that claims a Christian God, does that mean God failed? Does that mean God is done with that person, and contrary to Christian dogma about grace and forgiveness, is such a one lost. Or will God leave the 99 to pursue the one, and guide even the stranger, and the stragler, back to Him?

No, I would say that it is the individual that fails, particularly in the absence of evidence that gods are real.

God is a restorer, I have seen numerous times.

I do not dispute that some find value in religion.

I recommend for this visiting a you tube channel called "I am second."

If you cannot be bothered to provide a link, I cannot be bother to look for it.

And, I do not dispute the benefits that some get from religion. Religions do not require actual gods.

very compelling evidence of the above, eye witness testimony of not only the power of a religion, but the power of what we Believe is the true and living God, Jesus Christ.

No, it is not very compelling.

So in conclusion, because one fails does not make the other 99 failures, nor does it make their Creator a failure.

Sure. There are plenty of other reasons for which the claims for the existence of gods fail.

If they reject redemption, and restoration, and choose eternal damnation instead....even then...

What if they are simply not convinced that virtually all of mainstream science is wildly inaccurate, as would be if the claims of most religions were true?

as it's all in HIs plan.

God says....

The Bible says...

Proverbs 16:4 (KJV)
4 The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

So God does not lose, any technically.

that He has infact chosen by foreknowledge.

Only those who reject Him, will be found as not chosen BY Him.

So they are being held accountable for reason beyond their control.

but even those, it says have a purpose for being created.

To be an example of what not to do.

(which is choose to be an inhabitant of Hell).

How does one make that choice? I cannot make such a choice, in the absence of compelling evidence.

 

[createdtoworship]

To suggest that your disagreement with the article in any way shows it as faulty would be laughable, in my view.

thats okay, it's just that almost universally in every occasion the article self defeats in this way. It separates almost every parents viewpoint, with the point of the article. While that does not dismiss it, it does place it into question. Why would anyone believe some remote story, that contradicts active knowledge of a parent toward their own children? After all a parent probably (not always) but probably knows a child far more than anyone doing a study from across the country, doing questions over email, or phone. It is not my purpose to say it is wrong, as that I don't know. But when the article said that nearly all parents said one thing, while the article proves another...makes me wonder what type of questioning, or premises it uses in it's study. And how it's conclusions were made. Thats all, and without reading it, we simply cannot know. For know we assume it right because it's peer review. However even peer review has been known for bias. Yet it's a great place to start when addressing a topic. I do have a peer review that proves my point, but I don't need it. Because you already said yourself, that you don't question that aspect.

No, it can stand, as I provided direct quotes and full citations.


By their very nature, all religions (except maybe one) are false. What you have done here is make a case for benefits derived from false religion.

I do not dispute that.

Well, while yes one religion is probably correct, while most if not all others wrong....that does not mean that each individual religion does not have positive influences on society. After all simply upgrading ones view from that of....I have evolved from a piece of slime and have no meaning, to something, or anything created me with purpose....does have a positive influence on ones personal fulfillment. Many religions believe in creation, just have a different take on it. I don't necessarily agree with them, but yes, they are an upgrade to what is being fed them in college. At least as far as giving them identity.

Murder is unlawful killing. Abortion is not unlawful in my country.

Do you have a citation for that? No?

What Hitler did was legal in his country at the time of the holocaust. So apparently the definition of murder is something more than simply a vote in some cabinet somewhere, that defines what constitutes murder. I believe that murder philosophically is killing of another human being, with what is called "malice aforethought."

"It is murder if a person has killed with ‘malice aforethought’. Contrary to public belief the law does not require an actual intention to kill nor a premeditated plot. A person is guilty of murder if death results from an act intended to cause really serious harm even ifthere was no intention to kill."
above quote from online legal dictionary:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homicide


in other words,

killing becomes murder when malice is involved, for selfish gain, or out of jealously, or rage, or any other emotion. Regardless of premeditation or planning, and even if it is not planned. As in an outburst. Police only kill on self defense, either of their person or of another. Military only kills in accordance to the geneva convention policy. And thus would not be considered murder. If a soldier does not follow the geneva convention, they can be tried for murder, and many have.

RE: abortion. Abortion is murder because it involves killing for gain, or other. If a parent is scared and cannot get a job to pay for childs needs, they abort for example. Or if by rape, or by other misdeed. It is still murder, in otherwords, it's not the childs fault that we were raped, or could not get a job. They still merit an honest chance at living a normal life.


"Christian apologist Gregory Koukl wrote that "the assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them."[4] Koukl details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under atheistic communist regimes, in whichmilitant atheism served as the official doctrine of the state.[4]

It has been estimated that in less than the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 to 259,432,000 human lives.[5] Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.[6]" footnotes below...and quotation from online encyclopedia "conservapedia.com"

I do not dispute that there can be positive influences of religion. However, it says nothing about the veracity of their religious claims.

Perhaps you would like to stick with a particular religion, as you did in your OP, unless your position is that it doesn't matter which religion we are talking about. Is one as "good" as the next?

well that was only to show that most religions benefit society in one or more ways. Not just Christianity.

No, I would say that it is the individual that fails, particularly in the absence of evidence that gods are real.

so here you are saying, they do not do good because a good God does not exist. And one links to the other,

but then before you said that even if they do do good, that is still not proof for God. So in essence these statements self defeat.

God's existence cannot be negated by lack of morality in the world, and not at the same time God's existence be supported by the presence of morality.

you have to logically apply the same rule to both sides.

if you wish to use morality to negate God's existence that is fine, but you must also use it as a valid argument FOR his existence, if morality should be found in the World.

that is just being logically consistant.

One thing that has helped me is using truth tables,

logical exercises are found here:
http://www.math.fsu.edu/~wooland/argumentor/TruthTablesandArgs.html

Being rational and logical takes time, often emotion, preconceptions etc get in the way of real logical analysis.

I do not dispute that some find value in religion.

And, I do not dispute the benefits that some get from religion. Religions do not require actual gods.

No, it is not very compelling.

again, you use morality to disprove God, yet do not let others use morality to prove God. That is non sequitur, and does not follow.

Sure. There are plenty of other reasons for which the claims for the existence of gods fail.

but my claim in the OP that a few failures do not make the majority a failure, is accurate. And if you admit this as true we can move on.

What if they are simply not convinced that virtually all of mainstream science is wildly inaccurate, as would be if the claims of most religions were true?

I believe alot of science is innacurate, especially evolutionary biology in general. But I do not believe that most science is innacurate, or even farther yet, that "all of it" is bad science. The scientific method is at work in the world today, but many times we simply have to go back to the basics of what the scientific method is.

So they are being held accountable for reason beyond their control.

No, God choses even the evil people for a reason, they are chosen for hell.

to be an example of what not to do.

But that choice, is based on a foreknowledge.

a foreknowledge that even under the best circumstances those people would not want God, or anything to do with Him. So God decides to use even that type of wickedness for a reason. As a sort of negative example for the rest of us...Basically for us to say....I don't want to be like that, or to make those bad choices.

But free will exists, and God's sovereignty both exist, in beautiful harmony.

and yet an aspect of God's power over all is still there, that is beyond comprehension.
a part of our election is in the mind of God, that we will never know.

He makes some vessels for honor, others vessels for dishonor.

partly because some will reject God over most circumstances, given.

but partly because of God's choosing some over others.

That part I can't comprehend logically or even try to guess at. As I am not Him, nor do I try to be. That's God's sovereignty.

How does one make that choice? I cannot make such a choice, in the absence of compelling evidence.

well, first there needs to be a desire.
if one is not at the point of desiring God, then no amount of discussion, or dialogue will further that desire. Only time and circumstance will. If a cookie isn't done baking in the oven, then only more time in the heat of life, in bad situations will allow those cookies to be ripe for eating.

footnotes:

1. Koukl, Gregory, The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?, 1994
2. Jump up↑ Multiple references:
   • Anticommunist (April 14, 2004). "The Human Cost of Communism - 100 million". UK Indymedia. Retrieved from June 7, 2013 archive at Internet Achive.
   • "The Black Book of Communism". Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences website: Cold War Studies.
   • Rummel, R. J. (November 1993). "How many did communist regimes murder?" University of Hawaii website; Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War.
   • White, Matthew (February 2011). "Source list and detailed death tolls for the primary megadeaths of the twentieth century". Necrometrics.
   • Higgins, David (June 22, 2007). "Memory and ideology: Washington's newest statue is the Victims Of Communism Memorial". Sarasota Magazine website. Retrieved from October 8, 2007 archive at Internet Archive
   • Radosh, Ronald (February 2000). "The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression". First Things [journal] website.
3. Jump up↑ Rummel, R. J. (November 1993). "How many did communist regimes murder?" University of Hawaii website; Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War.

 

[Davian]

as promised I would, address some more of your posts later....

as far as this one....

most evidence is circumstantial, as I have shown already, that even facts cannot be falsified, and thus fail to be facts, according to many who claim to be Scientists.

we cannot prove, evolution on a macro level for example, it's all circumstantial.

we cannot prove the law of gravity even, only circumstantially.

Perhaps you should brush up on the concept of falsifiability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

so again...your point is moot.

Or, my point rests on a solid understanding of the concept of falsifiability.

circumstantial evidence is valid evidence, and 99% of cold cases today are solved with such circumstantial evidence.

that was mentioned to me, by a cold case detective, a rather good one at that.

Am I to be impressed by a second hand anonymous opinion?

So you have yet another unfounded claim to add to your arsenal here.

You are a never ending source of unfounded claims.

again, I will address more of your posts in time.

please be patient.