Missing link was a lie

[dad]

I will pray for you. Bye!

OK. Thanks. What will the prayer sound like, and to who will it be directed to, may I ask? 'god, please help dad not to believe God'?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

OK. Thanks. What will the prayer sound like, and to who will it be directed to, may I ask? 'god, please help dad not to believe God'?

You don't have to believe in the absurd nonsense you have been posting on this and other boards for years to believe in God.
Creation Science
Affiliation of Christian Geologists Homepage

This false dichotomy is one of the young earth creationist's favorite logical fallacies.

 

[dad]

You don't have to believe in the absurd nonsense you have been posting on this and other boards for years to believe in God.
Creation Science
Affiliation of Christian Geologists Homepage

This false dichotomy is one of the young earth creationist's favorite logical fallacies.

If one prays to a god, it is best admitted who it is, and defined. The God of the bible includes Jesus, and Eden. Include creation any way you want, but it cannot be excluded. Period. Entertaining some other notion is just kidding oneself. As for any particular Christian's comprehension of how God was right all along can go, that doesn't matter. What is a false dichotomy, is trying to make God wrong, and still claim to know Him.

So, if someone says they will pray for me, without making any clear claim to believing in Jesus, or the bible, then it is correct to ask who they will be praying to.

Some people pray to Satan, other to trees, others to nature, or to spirits, etc. God cannot be separated from His word to man! Those that try it, merely separate themselves from Him!

If one clearly says they will pray to Jesus, because they think that somehow the bible should be understood some other way, that is another story. However, in the case of the poster, nothing was presented in the way of a case, and nothing made clear.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

If one prays to a god, it is best admitted who it is, and defined. The God of the bible includes Jesus, and Eden. Include creation any way you want, but it cannot be excluded. Period. Entertaining some other notion is just kidding oneself. As for any particular Christian's comprehension of how God was right all along can go, that doesn't matter. What is a false dichotomy, is trying to make God wrong, and still claim to know Him.

So, if someone says they will pray for me, without making any clear claim to believing in Jesus, or the bible, then it is correct to ask who they will be praying to.

Some people pray to Satan, other to trees, others to nature, or to spirits, etc. God cannot be separated from His word to man! Those that try it, merely separate themselves from Him!

If one clearly says they will pray to Jesus, because they think that somehow the bible should be understood some other way, that is another story. However, in the case of the poster, nothing was presented in the way of a case, and nothing made clear.

I suggest there will no discernable outcome if prays to God, a tree or Satan.

Prove me wrong.

 

[dad]

I suggest there will no discernable outcome if prays to God, a tree or Satan.

Prove me wrong.

Well, that depends on who is doing the discerning.

 

[sandwiches]

Well, that depends on who is doing the discerning.

How about a machine?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Well, that depends on who is doing the discerning.

No, it doesn't. There is either an objectively discernable outcome, or there isn't.

 

[JustMeSee]

OK. Thanks. What will the prayer sound like, and to who will it be directed to, may I ask? 'god, please help dad not to believe God'?

I will pray to Jesus that dad will understand the Truth of The Holy Book, The Bible.

I will pray that all who read The Bible will understand The Truth of The Holy Bible.

I will pray that I will find the Truth in the Bible.

Though we do not hold the same beliefs in our interpretations of Christianity, I believe we are brothers in Christ.

Arguing with you is not productive for me. So, in the future, I hope to refrain from debating our differences.

Have a happy and safe day.

I wish for God to bless you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Have a happy and safe day.

How did you score so highly on Myers-Briggs?

 

[JustMeSee]

How did you score so highly on Myers-Briggs?

I don't know. It seems to vary some depending on when I take the test. I think I would have a more accurate score on a long test.

 

[dad]

How about a machine?

How about one?

 

[dad]

No, it doesn't. There is either an objectively discernable outcome, or there isn't.

No, actually. You see to get an objective analysis of something that includes a spiritual component, one must have the ability to discern the spiritual. Science doesn't. You must face the obvious, it is a good place to actually start getting someplace.

 

[dad]

I will pray to Jesus that dad will understand the Truth of The Holy Book, The Bible.

Ok, thanks. Would you happen to have some inkling what that may be that you can share with us, by the way? Otherwise, how would you know I had something not quite perfect??

I will pray that all who read The Bible will understand The Truth of The Holy Bible.

So, what, we all need to get it from cover to cover?

I will pray that I will find the Truth in the Bible.

You came to the right place. It oozes from the thread.

Though we do not hold the same beliefs in our interpretations of Christianity, I believe we are brothers in Christ.

Good. Then you have a long time to worry about developing a case.

Arguing with you is not productive for me. So, in the future, I hope to refrain from debating our differences.

Hey, I don't even know what they are! Have you actually said anything relative to the creation and past debate here?

Have a happy and safe day.

Thanks. Cheers.

I wish for God to bless you.

You too.

 

[Gracchus]

No, actually. You see to get an objective analysis of something that includes a spiritual component, one must have the ability to discern the spiritual. Science doesn't.

Nor has anyone demonstrated that there is any such thing to discern. In logic we can prove (in the mathematical sense) that if you start with false premises you may reach a false conclusion, and if you start with contradictory premises you can reach any conclusion at all.

You must face the obvious, it is a good place to actually start getting someplace.

One obvious truth that you don't seem to want to face is that one can be absolutely certain and still be absolutely wrong. I hate to break it to you , Dorothy, but you ain't in Kansas.

 

[dad]

Nor has anyone demonstrated that there is any such thing to discern.

False. Hiding one's head in the sand cannot make the almost universally known spiritual, and history, and the bible, and the witnessed resurrection and ascension go away! You can't wave away all the ghosts, and angels, and gods, and devils, and miracles of man's experience. All you can do is doubt for no reason. Just because you can't see the past, or science has no instruments for ghost busting doesn't mean there are no spirits. The demonstrations of the spiritual have been observed, and repeated, and tested, and seen, and felt.

In logic we can prove (in the mathematical sense) that if you start with false premises you may reach a false conclusion, and if you start with contradictory premises you can reach any conclusion at all.

The same state past is contradictory to God, and false. That is why it led nowhere fast.

One obvious truth that you don't seem to want to face is that one can be absolutely certain and still be absolutely wrong.

That depends on who the one is. Not all can be wrong. S


ince science doesn't know, they can be dismissed. That leaves God, and He can't be dismissed.

I hate to break it to you , Dorothy, but you ain't in Kansas.

I ain't Dorothy either.

 

[Tomatoman]

dad:

Hiding one's head in the sand cannot make the almost universally known spiritual, and history, and the bible, and the witnessed resurrection and ascension go away! You can't wave away all the ghosts, and angels, and gods, and devils, and miracles of man's experience. .

universally known spiritual - No idea what you're talking about
history - History is good. I've read quite a lot of it. Human records of human events. No problem there.
the bible - qualifies as a sort of history book i.e. written by humans about humans, but has an enormous amount of primitive mythology, fantasy and fairytales included which makes it both unreliable as a source and very tedious and unrewarding to wade through. It's a bit like having Herodotus and Finegan's Wake mixed up in the same volume.
the witnessed resurrection - secondhand accounts passed on by word of mouth and written down decades later. Yeah, that sounds like it'll be 100% accurate then.
ascension - Nurse, I think it's time for my medication.
You can't wave away all the ghosts, and angels, and gods, and devils, and miracles of man's experience. - Actually I can because there is absolutely no proof for any of them. None at all. Got it? None. If there had been you'd be able to point to it. Unfortunately there isn't and you can't.

dad:

Just because you can't see the past, or science has no instruments for ghost busting doesn't mean there are no spirits.

True. But remember, there is nothing that a human being can discern or detect, observe or sense that a scientific instrument can't. You're limited in your perceptions by your body's sense organs. And your body is part of the real world. This means that if a scientific instrument can't detect it, you certainly can't. It's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of something undetectable, so you, dad, as a human being, will never experience your 'spirits'. Nor will anybody else.
dad:

The demonstrations of the spiritual have been observed, and repeated, and tested, and seen, and felt.

No, they haven't. If you can prove otherwise I believe a man called James Randi will give you a million pounds. I hope you spend your money wisely, dad.
dad:

The same state past is contradictory to God, and false. That is why it led nowhere fast.

Still making stuff up as you go along are you, dad? Cor, it must get a bit lonely being the only person in the world who believes in this different state past drivel.
dad:

That depends on who the one is. Not all can be wrong. S

Unfortunately the one in question is you, dad. Of all the rotten luck, eh? Never mind. I'm sure there's someone somewhere who can be persuaded that you are 'the one'.
dad:

Since science doesn't know, they can be dismissed. That leaves God, and He can't be dismissed.

The subject was how a person can be wrong, dad, not science, or God (even). You see, the Christian faith gets filtered through each individual human being's subjective process of understanding and interpretation. When it got to your filtration system, dad, it ran into something pretty hot and got thoroughly mangled. It went in as the traditional Christian story and came out smothered in different state pasts and future and God knows what else. If there is a God I should imagine he saves up your your personal interpretation of His message for His tea-breaks. Probably munches a chocolate hobnob while chuckling over your latest fantastic assertions.
dad:

I ain't Dorothy either.

Now, dad, can you be absolutely certain of that? I mean, how can you be sure?

 

[AV1611VET]

the bible ... written by humans about humans...

Nope -- written by God, Himself.

... but has an enormous amount of primitive mythology, fantasy and fairytales included which makes it both unreliable as a source and very tedious and unrewarding to wade through.

Does this mean that Israel is not divinely entitled to their land?

(Just a YES or NO please.)

 

[Tomatoman]

AV:

Does this mean that Israel is not divinely entitled to their land?

(Just a YES or NO please.)

I'm not going to answer that as (a) I don't care, and (b) it is, I believe, a large and contentious topic.

What is more interesting to me is why, after I criticise the bible for its fantasy and myth, you should immediately focus on the question of Israel.

Why would that be, AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV:
I'm not going to answer that as (a) I don't care, and (b) it is, I believe, a large and contentious topic.

What is more interesting to me is why, after I criticise the bible for its fantasy and myth, you should immediately focus on the question of Israel.

Why would that be, AV?

Because claiming the Bible is a myth can lead to anti-Zionism & anti-Semitism, if one isn't careful.

 

[JustMeSee]

False. Hiding one's head in the sand cannot make the almost universally known spiritual, and history, and the bible, and the witnessed resurrection and ascension go away! You can't wave away all the ghosts, and angels, and gods, and devils, and miracles of man's experience. All you can do is doubt for no reason. Just because you can't see the past, or science has no instruments for ghost busting doesn't mean there are no spirits. The demonstrations of the spiritual have been observed, and repeated, and tested, and seen, and felt.

The same state past is contradictory to God, and false. That is why it led nowhere fast.




That depends on who the one is. Not all can be wrong. S


ince science doesn't know, they can be dismissed. That leaves God, and He can't be dismissed.

I ain't Dorothy either.

Quite abrasive.

I discussed 'different state past' with my pastor. He never heard of that notion.

How many people do you know of that interpret a different state past from The Holy Bible?