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.
Does your theology not hold that there are consequences to this decision? If I were to put a flamethrower to your head, for the purposes of influencing your decisions, would you not consider that coercion?...
Here a greater good would be the preservation of the capacity for humans to make significantly free moral choices by not being coerced or forced to accept the bible as God's revelation to man. Here God allows people to draw their own conclusions about His revelation and allows them to either accept it or reject it.
Red herring throwing and muddying the waters with irrelevant and emotive remarks.Does your theology not hold that there are consequences to this decision? If I were to put a flamethrower to your head, for the purposes of influencing your decisions, would you not consider that coercion?
Red herring, muddying the waters. Return to topic.When we did, you were evasive, so what do you expect?
You may find having your theology called out for being morally bankrupt to be emotive, but I do not see how it is a red herring.Red herring throwing and muddying the waters with irrelevant and emotive remarks.
Please stay on topic.
The waters were already muddy long before this thread was started.Red herring, muddying the waters. Return to topic.
DogmaHunter's question was on-topic. You evaded it repeatedly. Ana's point was on-topic. You evaded it also. Loudmouth's posts were on-topic. You barely engaged with them. So before you admonish anyone for not staying on topic, bear in mind that your evasiveness in response to on-topic posts makes it needlessly difficult to do so.Return to topic.
Now, there may be a small chance that, in all of the thousands of religions and denominations and sects that somewhere in there a theist has their theology right, but exactly how are you going to determine that? Popular vote? Yelling matches? Warfare?
To then call it "God" is to confess complete ignorance of its nature.Much more likely they are all right and just have differing viewpoints.
To then call it "Godf" is to confess complete ignorance of its nature.
And if you had no reasons to be skeptical of my claims would you commit to Christ your life and become His disciple?
You see, I could ask you if there are any claims you hold to be true that are not unanimously held. I'm sure your answer would be "yes". From this it would be shown that when it comes to these particular claims, the fact that they are disputed is not enough to make you skeptical of them.
It would follow then, that your skepticism of certain theological claims is owed at least in part to something other than the fact that they are matters of debate.
When it comes to the criteria for assessing the veracity of theogical truth claims, some set the bar so high as to make it virtually impossible for said criteria to be fulfilled.
Why is it not self evident to you that God is The Supreme Good, if the word "God" is taken to mean "that reality which is greater than that which can be conceived."
Do you disagree with Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Anselm, Augustine and all the others who saw this as self evidently true?
I don´t know. The idea of taking such a road has never crossed my mind, in the first place.What criteria do you go by in assessing whether or not someone is worthy of worship or worthy of being Lord of your life?
Of your premises, I would disagree with 2 and 3...and replace them with.
1. A perfect creator would create a perfect message.
I addressed this in Philosophical arguments against the existence of God
Interestingly, Jeremy E Walker presented a similar line of questioning on another forum (1):
Like @anonymous person, rather than acknowledge any weakness in his apologetics, he also concluded that pride was the main obstacle to acceptance of Christianity (2, 3, 4). It seems that both apologists, Jeremy E Walker and anonymous person, attend the same church (5). Jeremy also previously posted as Elioenai26 (6), another apologist, now banned.
I addressed this in Philosophical arguments against the existence of God
It appears so.
Determining whether a poster is a sock account, is always relevant, because it goes directly to credibility.
Credibility appears to be lacking here.
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?