Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Wow.
Do I even bother to point out that I'm not even Roman Catholic? Or do I let you just keep going? Either way. Very...interesting.
God bless?
-CryptoLutheran
Wow.
Do I even bother to point out that I'm not even Roman Catholic? Or do I let you just keep going? Either way. Very...interesting.
God bless?
-CryptoLutheran
Oy veh. Alright.
Not really though. You resorted to responding to my signature. Something appears on literally every post I have without my control, because it's set in my account settings.
I'd be more than happy to discuss the theology of the matter if you'd like in a more appropriate place on the forum, such as General Theology (and, hopefully, if you are willing to do so civilly). Nothing in my signature is contrary to ordinary, orthodox Christian teaching.
If you truly do disagree with what is in my signature, and not just whatever you seem to imagine is there (vegetable patch? Really? What on earth are you talking about?), then I would consider that grounds for concern, theologically speaking.
I can't think of anything in your basic description of salvation that I would disagree with, (though I am confident that there is much on the matter that we do disagree with if any such in depth discussion on the subject matter were to occur).
I'm not actually sure what it is you are taking issue with. Do you disagree with the resurrection? That God is going to set all things to rights? That God is going to bring about new heavens and new earth in the Age to Come? Because if so, then like I said, then there is a real theological problem. Because this is pretty basic Christianity 101 stuff. The Apostles' Creed says, "We believe ... in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God ... who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, buried, dead, descended into the place of the dead, rose on third day, ascended into heaven, where He sits at the right hand of the Father. From whence He will come again to judge the living and the dead. ... We believe ... in the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting." The Nicene Creed spells it out with slightly more detail, "We believe ... in the life of the Age to Come." And all you have to do is look right there in St. John's Apocalypse which you've already quoted to see that in St. John's final vision he beholds the renewal of all creation, where we read, "Behold! I make all things new!"
Cool? What logic would that be? And could you demonstrate where I've used any fallacious reasoning so far? You seem to still be talking about what is written in my signature, so I am actually quite curious what your issue is with the "logic" of m signature might be.
Gotta be real honest, I don't think you really mean it. But may the Lord be also with you.
-CryptoLutheran
You are correct. Instructions do not arise from nature. It’s all unguided, my dude. No guidance has ever been shown. Unless of course, you can evidence that guidance.Allow me to make a few predictions here if I may:
I predict for one, that you cannot even provide one simple demonstration of how instructions can form from nature.
And second; I predict that any attempt you make will involve the terminology that is used to describe a cretion with, such as: design - make - produce...etc
And thirdly, I will predict that your attitude will degenerate rapidly through the process of trying to demonstrate the impossible.
You are correct. Instructions do not arise from nature. It’s all unguided, my dude. No guidance has ever been shown. Unless of course, you can evidence that guidance.
Merry Xmas.
Freedom of thought and "collective distributions" can not exist together. Those who claim the collective ownership of wealth are really claiming collective ownership of the mind, which is the source of all wealth.Throughout time humanity has divided itself based on land disputes as well as disputes over which laws are fair, and which laws are not fair. Historically, the fairest systems of law have not only included collective distributions to the poor, but also rights for the poor in order that their cause should be heard, which is the sole basis for case law (common law).
The most unfair systems in history have been empires with imperial ambitions to rule and govern people as a whole, leaving little or no room for the cause of the poor to be heard and understood from their hardships. An imperial rule is no different to a fascism historically, because both imperial rule and government dictatorships rely on covet means to expand their interests abroad to include foreign territories for resources, and direct taxation of the inhabitants to fund imperial ambitions.
The best way to describe the differences between these two systems of rule is to imagine a straight line with a 100% margin at the left end of the line, and a 0% margin at the far right of the line. The far left represents total government, which is defined as a fascism because of its totalitarian authority.
The far right on the other hand is distinguished by having no government, which is defined as anarchy, because there is no system of law in place.
Between these two scopes there is a wide margin between anarchy and fascism, with the conservative view in the middle. The conservative view includes a system of law from the government that protects the people's right to life and liberty.
A democratic republic is defined as a conservative system, because the democracy is from the far right, while the republic is from the far left.
A constitutional system of law presides from the middle of these two extremes as being conservative, which is in the best interests of the democracy, and the republic. Because if democracy is not upheld by the republic then the government is to be defined as a fascism, and not as a democratic republic.
The declaration of independence in its second paragraph says that:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
And these words have had such a significant level of importance on human life that the declaration itself is never to be underestimated in terms of its value. Because, this is the sole basis for human equality, and without human equality, there will be no lawful premise for equal justice.
So according to the First Amendment, the human being is endowed with rights, and these rights have been defined as inalienable, meaning that a person is born with them, and they cannot be given away, and can be exercised at any time.
But what makes this different from being just a concept is due to the fact that we are all endowed with a conscience in order to understand morality, which is how we decide right from wrong.
And what is self-evident here, is that no amount of chemical reactions can ever become self-aware, which means that life is a conscious reality, and not just a physical one, which is self-explanatory.
The difference between being conscious, and having a conscience, is that the conscience is specifically for determining fact from fiction, the truth from a lie, and yes or no with. While being conscious means to be aware of your surroundings, yourself and to be breathing also, because, being conscious was initially from breath to begin with according to Genesis chapter 2.
And what all of this means is that we are all equal under the law according to our God given conscience, and not, according to one's appearance. And this is the international standard for equal rights according to article 1 from the United Nations Global Declaration of Human Rights and Equality.
The definition of what a natural person is under law, has been defined as being an individual who is endowed with the ability to reason from their conscience. So the proper legal definition of what a human is under law has been defined by the endowed conscience. Which means that without a conscience, you are not a human being, but only an animal or a thing.
An animal or thing has been legally defined as property under the law. But because slavery is unlawful, as it deprives people of their equality, it will mean that there is no legal obligation for anyone to regard them self or others as being from an animal, because an animal is without a conscience, and a conscience is required before the law in order to make a case.
What is the first liberty?
Freedom of thought (also called freedom of conscience or ideas) is the freedom of an individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or thought, independent of others' viewpoints.
What do we mean by freedom of conscience?
Freedom of conscience – sometimes called “freedom of worship” or “religious freedom” – means simply the freedom to worship in one's own way, including the right not to worship.
Psalm 41:1-3
1 Blessed is the one who considers the poor!
In the day of trouble the Lord delivers him;
2 the Lord protects him and keeps him alive;
he is called blessed in the land;
you do not give him up to the will of his enemies.
3 The Lord sustains him on his sickbed;
in his illness you restore him to full health.
Freedom of thought and "collective distributions" can not exist together. Those who claim the collective ownership of wealth are really claiming collective ownership of the mind, which is the source of all wealth.
The burden of proof is on you, friend. You claim it is guided. You need to substantiate that claim. Unless you are asking me to prove a negative?Sorry? I didn't catch your unclear, unlettered and unsubstantiated proof that instructions are "unguided" as you claim they are...So this will mean automatically that the origin of instructions was not natural.
Merry Christmas
Or conquest. Or accident of birth. Or theft. Unless your definition of creativity is any action at all?The source of all wealth is by creativity and there is no other example.
The burden of proof is on you, friend. You claim it is guided. You need to substantiate that claim. Unless you are asking me to prove a negative?
Seasons greetings.
Or conquest. Or accident of birth. Or theft. Unless your definition of creativity is any action at all?
Or conquest. Or accident of birth. Or theft. Unless your definition of creativity is any action at all?
If it is self evident then you should have no problem supplying said evidence.It's interesting how you're requesting proof from me in regards to something which is self-evident.
That’s not special creation. Special creation is ex nilo.The best examples are often the most simple ones. And the best example of special creation is procreation,
You’re using an argument from definition which is a logical fallacy.The theory of evolution is described as belief according to the dictionary, while the act of creation is defined as an action. So there is your proof.
You are correct. Instructions do not arise from nature. It’s all unguided, my dude. No guidance has ever been shown. Unless of course, you can evidence that guidance.
Merry Xmas.
If it is self evident then you should have no problem supplying said evidence.
Using the scientific method means that if one asserts something one must provide evidence to support that assertion. This is similar but different to asking for evidence in a legal context.
So, if you assert that something is true, you need to evidence that true.
To be clear: my position is “you have not substantiated your assertion”. I’m not even say that your assertion is wrong- I can’t even comment on it until you provide evidence to support your conclusion.
Contrast with me saying that it’s self evident that humans were created by the Sumerian god Enki.
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
All the best.
I did not.
Friend, if you’d like to go back and read post 45 you’ll see your comment that I was replying to.This was your first post to me on this thread:
"That’s not self evident. That’s where all life ultimately came from".
My reply:
I have heard you plea of denial before again and again and again. So allow me to make this clear for you here:
You have been arguing with me in regards to human equality for over two days now, and now, all of the sudden, just right out of no where, you have decided that you will change your mind by denying that you have been challenging me on the issue of human equality, and whether it is self-evident or not.
And the only lesson you have taken away from this is that you cannot challenge other peoples right to human equality from a science before the law.
But yet, you still believe that I am going to listen to you from your science when it was the basis for your denial in human equality to begin with.
Good luck with that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?