Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

[Aman777]

Your concern for our immortal souls does you credit. But don't forget that many of us believe that faith in Christ is what saves us, not faith in Genesis.

I supposed that some liberals would twist my words since most of them don't believe what the Bible says anyway. Since they see God's Holy word as allegory or myth, they can teach whatever view they wish or can dream up an entirely new story, no matter how silly. In your opinion, where do you get the Faith to believe that a man rose from the dead?

 

[Speedwell]

I supposed that some liberals would twist my words since most of them don't believe what the Bible says anyway. Since they see God's Holy word as allegory or myth, they can teach whatever view they wish or can dream up an entirely new story, no matter how silly.

I think you know that's not true. Just making stuff up is not an option for the rest of us any more than it is for you.

In your opinion, where do you get the Faith to believe that a man rose from the dead?

Apostolic Witness, as corroborated by the Bible.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No.

Owkay.

First came Odin and then Yule.

ps: "Yule" is what you call christmass today............ ;-)

 

[AV1611VET]

First came Odin and then Yule.

IF Odin existed ... and he may well have ... then he was a fallen angel who set up his realm in Scandinavia.

IF Odin did not exist, then you bringing him up just keeps the mythical fires burning.

Even though you think you're making a point, you're actually not venerating Odin, you're denigrating Jesus Christ.

 

[DogmaHunter]

IF Odin existed ... and he may well have ... then he was a fallen angel who set up his realm in Scandinavia.

IF Odin did not exist, then you bringing him up just keeps the mythical fires burning.

According to your own list of criteria a few posts ago, just about all gods from all religions exist.

If that list works for your particular god of choice, then it also works for all other gods.

Even though you think you're making a point, you're actually not venerating Odin, you're denigrating Jesus Christ.

Whatever you say. Meanwhile, you are denigrating Thor, Zeus, Allah, Shiva, ..........

 

[AV1611VET]

According to your own list of criteria a few posts ago, just about all gods from all religions exist.

Why do you call them gods?

"My own list of criteria" comes from a person holding a mindset that they are fallen angels.

If that list works for your particular god of choice, then it also works for all other gods.

No, it doesn't.

There is God, then there are angels.

Knowing the difference in the two is why I'm a Christian.

Whatever you say.

Do you know what it is I'm saying? or is your academics getting in the way?

Meanwhile, you are denigrating Thor, Zeus, Allah, Shiva, ..........

You bet I'm denigrating them.

Where I'm going when I die will be off-limits to them.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why do you call them gods?

Because that's what they are.

"My own list of criteria" comes from a person holding a mindset that they are fallen angels.No, it doesn't.

Doesn't matter. Criteria are criteria.

There is God, then there are angels.
Knowing the difference in the two is why I'm a Christian.

What you personally believe is not relevant to the criteria you established.
The criteria you used to "demonstrate" your personal religion, can be used to demonstrate any religion.

If you don't like that - come up with better criteria.

Do you know what it is I'm saying? or is your academics getting in the way?

Your intellectual dishonesty, is what gets in the way.

You bet I'm denigrating them.

Using the very same criteria that I used to "denigrate" the god you happen to believe in.
Again, if you don't like it that your very own criteria backfire on you - then come up with better criteria.

Where I'm going when I die will be off-limits to them.

Whalhalla?

 

[AV1611VET]

What you personally believe is not relevant to the criteria you established.
The criteria you used to "demonstrate" your personal religion,

So since I make a distinction between God and angels, I'm suddenly in a religion now, am I? and being "intellectually dishonest" to boot?

Whalhalla?

And with that, I submit you're not interested in our dogma, but just want to ridicule.

Have a nice day, sir.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So since I make a distinction between God and angels, I'm suddenly in a religion now, am I?

Gods and angels only appear in religions, yes.

and being "intellectually dishonest" to boot?

When you establish criteria that are only allowed to be used when they are in your favour, you are engaging in special pleading. This is intellectually dishonest, yes.

And with that, I submit you're not interested in our dogma, but just want to ridicule.
Have a nice day, sir.

Again, I'm just arguing based on the very criteria YOU established.

If you don't like what those criteria result, in - come up with better criteria.
You don't get to blame me for your own shortcomings.

 

[Kylie]

If I didn't like you, I would let you skate on into Eternity just as you are. I've done my duty and told you. It's up to you now. It's your free choice. God Bless you

But as we discussed earlier, if I had never heard of God and Jesus, I would not be sent to hell. So why do you go around telling people? If no one ever tells people about it, then those people get a free pass into Heaven!

 

[Aman777]

But as we discussed earlier, if I had never heard of God and Jesus, I would not be sent to hell.

False premise since it doesn't agree with Scripture:

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

So why do you go around telling people? If no one ever tells people about it, then those people get a free pass into Heaven!

No, they get judged to see IF they have been perfect or not. That's the standard and only ONE man has ever fulfilled God's standard. That is WHY one must be born again Spiritually, in Christ, in order to inherit Heaven.

 

[Kylie]

False premise since it doesn't agree with Scripture:

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:



No, they get judged to see IF they have been perfect or not. That's the standard and only ONE man has ever fulfilled God's standard. That is WHY one must be born again Spiritually, in Christ, in order to inherit Heaven.

So let's say there's some uncontacted tribe deep in the Amazon rainforest. The chief dies, and God sends him to hell because he never accepted Jesus? "But how could you punish me for not believing something when there was no way I could have possibly known about it?" he says.

What would God's answer be?

 

[AV1611VET]

What would God's answer be?

"You knew.

I'm all through My creation (Psalm 19)."

 

[Kylie]

"You knew.

I'm all through My creation (Psalm 19)."

Then why wasn't the Chief a Christian?

Even if you are right and the universe points to a creator, it's still a long way to get to the Christian God specifically, isn't it?

Can you prove to me that the Christian God specifically exists without using the Bible?

 

[the iconoclast]

The only reason you think it's not a defense is because you disagree with me.

Hey kylie

I do disagree with your position. However you were unable to write in favour of your analogy. You could not defend your analogy

You do not like be proven wrong.

Do you not even understand what an atheist is?

I do have access to google

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Did i get the definition correct?

I do not believe that your God is an actual existing thing in just the same way you don't think Zeus or Darth Vader are existing entities.

Well darth vader was a character in star wars and we both agree zeus does not exist.

Why is this concept so difficult for you?

Indulge me. Why is it difficult for you to believe in God?

Cheers

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why wasn't the Chief a Christian?

Probably for the same reason you aren't: spiritual rebellion.

 

[Kylie]

Hey kylie

I do disagree with your position. However you were unable to write in favour of your analogy. You could not defend your analogy

You do not like be proven wrong.

Actually, you decided that you didn't like the way I phrased it, apparently missing the point of an analogy, and then you declared it was a bad analogy rather than actually addressing the points I had raised.

I do have access to google

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Did i get the definition correct?

Very good, now let me ask you again: Do you think Thor and Odin actually exist, or are they fictitious?

Well darth vader was a character in star wars and we both agree zeus does not exist.

Now, tell me why you don't think Zeus exists.

Indulge me. Why is it difficult for you to believe in God?

A lack of evidence.

Now, tell me why you don't think Zeus exists.

 

[Kylie]

Probably for the same reason you aren't: spiritual rebellion.

Perhaps you can tell me how the people of this tribe are supposed to be Christians when there has been no one at all to tell them of Christianity?

Do you think God is up there saying, "Yes, expecting them to believe something they have never heard of is a perfectly reasonable thing to do."

 

[the iconoclast]

Actually, you decided that you didn't like the way I phrased it, apparently missing the point of an analogy, and then you declared it was a bad analogy rather than actually addressing the points I had raised.

Hey hey you

Please excuse me, I addressed your points and you ask me about my grammar.

I give you plenty of opportunity to modfify or redact your analogy because of player 1. You chose to ignore it and used that marvellous word quibble.

Hence, you could not defend your analogy, it is flawed and you will not accept it.

I did not miss the point. You were trying suggest that the analogy was an analogy for the Bible. Yet player 1 is a catalyst. All that could happen is player 3 is wrong about the logistics.

Player 1 is a random set of events. Player 2 is richard dawkins and Player 3 is kylie.

Do you think God is up there saying, "Yes, expecting them to believe something they have never heard of is a perfectly reasonable thing to do."

No i do not.

Do you think that is the case?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

Before I can answer that question, you're going to have to define such entities in such a way that they even CAN have any evidence.

Hey hey dh

Well lets say Christian God is the entity being discussed. What are the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Facts - a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Information - facts provided or learned about something or someone.

Lets say evidence is seen in the form of creation, consciousness and the results of a personal relationship with God - Holy Spirit.

What say you?

Because if god is defined as an unfalsifiable entity without any detectable or measureable manifestation, then that god is indistinguishable from non-existant things.

Well lucky for us we are not.

So at this point, I don't know what evidence I would accept.

So your position is not systematic or methodical. You do not know what evidence to look for in relation to the existance of God.

Is this lack going to give a false reading?

What evidence would you accept to believe that 'brukabollybooboo" exists?

Well i just went on the internet and looked up that word. There is no mention of it and it appears you just made up the word.

Anyways lets test it. Who or what is brukabollybooboo?

That's how your question sounds to me.

You mean i made up the word God on the spot?

First, I'ld have to define what a ''brukabollybooboo' is and do it in such a way that it at least on principle, can be distinguished from non-existance.

Go for it, i think we should try this out?

Cheers