The strongest argument for the existence of God

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Those folks didn't adhere to the Biblical texts so it wasn't truly a fault of Christianity. Okay. Extend that same courtesy to things supposedly done in the name of atheism. That should be even easier to do since there is no official book of immutable atheist tenants to adhere to. If someone does anything in the name of atheism besides be unconvinced of gods, then I assure you, their motivation is something else.
I'm sure if I could interview a Crusader from the past right now, he'd tell me the Crusades were definitely done with respect to the Bible, and if I didn't like it, I could take a hike.

But interview a college student today, and the best I can expect from him is to hear him say, "Ya. The Crusaders thought it was Biblical."

It would probably go something like this:

AV1611VET: Were the Crusades done with respect to the Bible, or in spite of It?
College student: They thought they were doing it with respect to the Bible.
AV1611VET: But what do you think?
College student: I think they thought they had an obligation to free Jerusalem from the Gentiles.
AV1611VET: Were they correct in their thinking?
College student: They thought so.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Gene Parmesan
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I already know they thought it was Biblical. They certainly didn't hide that fact. They even had crosses on their uniforms.

On the other hand, getting you guys to tell me if you agree with them that it was Biblical ... well ... that's different.

People come rushing on to the Internet to tell us the Crusades were performed by Christians, but then suddenly get lockjaw when asked if, in their opinion, it was Biblical.

They were Christians -- not particularly good at it, but Christians nonetheless.
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I already know they thought it was Biblical. They certainly didn't hide that fact. They even had crosses on their uniforms.

On the other hand, getting you guys to tell me if you agree with them that it was Biblical ... well ... that's different.

People come rushing on to the Internet to tell us the Crusades were performed by Christians, but then suddenly get lockjaw when asked if, in their opinion, it was Biblical.
I don't know. The fact is you can make a case for either way. The bible says love your neighbor at the same time it says it was once ok to kill homosexuals. So who knows.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't know.
That's a shame.
Clizby WampusCat said:
The fact is you can make a case for either way.
But only one is the right one.
Clizby WampusCat said:
The bible says love your neighbor at the same time it says it was once ok to kill homosexuals. So who knows.
I do.

And I don't bring the love-your-neighbor aspect into it.

There's a better way to show it wasn't Biblical.

Have you ever heard of "times of the Gentiles"?
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That's a shame.But only one is the right one.I do.

And I don't bring the love-your-neighbor aspect into it.

There's a better way to show it wasn't Biblical.

Have you ever heard of "times of the Gentiles"?
Before you explain to me your interpretation of the bible. Please show me that your interpretation is the correct one over a contradicting interpretation of the same passages by a different Christian. If you cannot then we are just wasting our time.
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
"In terms of moral rules, secular humanism is indistinguishable from a religion."

Is Secular Humanism a Religion?

Postmodern Religion and the Faith of Social Justice
All atheists are not humanists. And no, humanism is not a religion.

These are notes I've been keeping for years on modern liberalism. I want to arrive at the same answers as modern liberals - progressives:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tenets of the Church of Equality
(My notes)

Scope of Equality: Equality within nations (equal stuff for all,) and equality between nations (immigration, globalism, climate wealth redistribution.)

1. Equal means no better or worse than something else.
2. Every person, group or nation is equal.
3. All religions are equal.
3a. Islam equals Christianity.
4. Everybody is basically good.
4b. #4 leads one to be unprepared for real threats.
5. One gets ahead by cheating or luck.
5a. The West, Israel.
5b. Nonbelievers from #5 are Nazis.
6. Anybody getting behind is a victim of #5 or society.
6a. Those in #6 are the good guys.
7. The policy of diversity does not lead to diversity.
7a. Diversity leads to equality - all groups equal.
7b. Diversity of nations means all nations look alike.
7c. Immigration is by far the most important policy of modern liberals.

Note: There is no stopping place for the equality movement until everyone has the same or similar stuff. Just think about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's cover some of the ideas embedded within the religion of equality:

1. If everybody is equal, then how did some people get ahead? They either cheated or got lucky. Either way they don't serve it.

Imagine if you want to get ahead. So you study, work hard and doing everything right. After 20 or 30 years you lift up your family. Now you're the bad guy. Punishment is coming because you haven't paid your fair share. Success is punished.

2. If everybody is equal, then how did some people get behind? They were victimized. By whom? By society or those who got ahead. Either way it's not their fault.

Everybody always makes good choices. That's why lottery winners do so well.

3. If everybody is equal and most people are good, then people are basically good. People only act bad when they have been harmed - by society or those who got ahead.

We know how this plays out: "I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart." Anne Frank.

What about the 100 million killed under communism? But people are basically good, right?

4. Diversity is a good thing.

The promotion of diversity leads to less diversity and everything looking the same. If every group looks like every other group, that's not diversity. Now group-think can apply. So when things go wrong they go spectacularly wrong. We're seeing that now in the universities and military.

5. Equality promotes tolerance.

That's why everybody who does not believe in equality is a Nazi. I'm waiting for the re-education camps to be built up in Alaska. They are not so kind to nonbelievers. Is anything out of bounds?

6. We don't want everybody equal. We just want to be Denmark.
Did the equality movement shut down in Denmark? Or Sweden? Or anywhere there has been an equality movement?

Logically, the equality movement can't and won't shut down until everybody is equal - everybody has equal stuff. Don't believe the lies of stopping short (of equal stuff for all.) Anybody who wants to stop short just becomes a Nazi.

Notice they don't mention Venezuela. Venezuela is socialist while Denmark is not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is by Evan Sayet whose video below is famous in conservative circles.

THE LAWS OF MODERN LIBERALISM
(Source: KinderGarden Of Eden: How the Modern Liberal Thinks)

Indiscriminateness – the total rejection of the intellectual process – is an absolute moral imperative.
Indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policies. It leads to siding only and always with the lesser over the better, the wrong over the right, and the evil over the good.

Modern Liberal policies occur in tandem. Each effort on behalf of the lesser is met with an equal and opposite campaign against the better.

The Modern Liberal will ascribe to the better the negative qualities associated with the lesser while concurrently ascribing to the lesser the positive qualities found in the better.

THE COROLLARIES

The Modern Liberal may have personal standards but he must deny them and militate against their use and those who use them in the public arena.

Modern Liberals do not and cannot seek to better themselves or society. Instead they must lower others and society to their level.

Modern Liberals have secondary policies that are meant only to somewhat mitigate the greater suffering that their primary policies created or exacerbated.

KinderGarden Of Eden: How the Modern Liberal Thinks

HERITAGE FOUNDATION: "How Modern Liberals Think"
Not all atheists are liberals or progressives. I certainly am not. There are many things to criticize in the progressive ideology however we need to do that in an honest manner. Attacking strawman arguments is easy. You don't want to acknowledge that there is no one progressive/liberal ideology just as there is not one Christian ideology/doctrine. Not all people have the same motives either.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Before you explain to me your interpretation of the bible. Please show me that your interpretation is the correct one over a contradicting interpretation of the same passages by a different Christian. If you cannot then we are just wasting our time.
Do you require the same standards for those who think the Crusaders were Christians doing what Christians should have been doing as well?
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Not very Christ-like, were they?
What does Christ-like mean to you? Jesus killed 1 million +? people in the flood, he directed Amalekite babies to be killed, Jesus destroyed Sodom and he stands by today and watches children starve to death when he could stop it. One could say the Crusades were Christ-like. God ordered crusade like things in the bible you know and worse.
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Do you require the same standards for those who think the Crusaders were Christians doing what Christians should have been doing as well?
Sure, but the fact is that they did that evil thinking it was biblical. So why is your interpretation the correct interpretation and theirs was not?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What does Christ-like mean to you?
Being born again and yielding myself to Christ's wishes for love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, etc.
Clizby WampusCat said:
Jesus killed 1 million +? people in the flood,
Okay ... and?
Clizby WampusCat said:
... he directed Amalekite babies to be killed,
Okay ... and?
Clizby WampusCat said:
Jesus destroyed Sodom ...
Okay ... and?
Clizby WampusCat said:
... and he stands by today and watches children starve to death when he could stop it.
Okay ... and?
Clizby WampusCat said:
One could say the Crusades were Christ-like.
Absolutely not.

1. The Crusaders weren't Christ himself.

So there goes your excuse that they did it because Christ killed people in the Flood, and destroyed the Sodomites.

2. The Crusaders were not ordered by Christ to free Jerusalem.

So there goes your excuse that they did it because Christ directed Amalekite babies to be killed.

And as far as standing by watching children starve to death, Jesus said ...

Mark 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

As the saying goes: Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

So set that keyboard aside and get that fishing pole out; instead of complaining about it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Sure, but the fact is that they did that evil thinking it was biblical.
So what?

What if they thought it was the scientific thing to do? would that change your mind?

What if they came up with a "final solution" that sounded technologically feasible?

Would you blame that on Darwin?
Clizby WampusCat said:
So why is your interpretation the correct interpretation and theirs was not?
I already showed you they were jumping the gun ... like they did in the wilderness and tried to go into the Promised Land prematurely ... and tried to liberate Jerusalem from the Gentiles, when that is an act reserved for Jesus himself, when He comes back.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Nope -- but they professed that He was their Lord and Savior, and that He died for their sins.
Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Those unregenerate Crusaders who stand before God at the Great White Throne Judgement are going to be saying, "In thy name we did many wonderful works;" and they're going to get a reality check.

Aren't they?
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So what?

What if they thought it was the scientific thing to do? would that change your mind?

What if they came up with a "final solution" that sounded technologically feasible?

Would you blame that on Darwin?I already showed you they were jumping the gun ... like they did in the wilderness and tried to go into the Promised Land prematurely ... and tried to liberate Jerusalem from the Gentiles, when that is an act reserved for Jesus himself, when He comes back.
Why is your interpretation the correct one?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Those unregenerate Crusaders who stand before God at the Great White Throne Judgement are going to be saying, "In thy name we did many wonderful works;" and they're going to get a reality check.

Aren't they?


They are if Paul was wrong...

Romans 10:13 "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Was he?
 
Upvote 0