I am arguing for it as it was originally and best defined by the great theologian Athanasius. His view has been the orthodox understanding ever since and is not contradictory as I have demonstrated.I am surprised that he argues for the three persons view. I have debated the trinity here before, and other views were more popular. But all views got vague when questioned. One Christian summed it up: it is impossible to clearly define the trinity without stating heresy.
He is referring to both the Father and the Holy Spirit, the other members of the Trinity.Define God. When you use the word God are you referring to God the father or the Trinity?
John is referring to the Father in this quote.dm; John 3:16 says God gave his only begotten son. When it says God, does it mean one of the three persons, or does it mean the trinity? Who was doing the giving?
Just saying so doesnt mean that they are, you have to demonstrate that the words are vague and meaningless. They seem pretty clear to me.ed: John 1:1, 14 show they were one in essence. Also, Colossians 1:19 shows this as well. John 6:37-39 shows they are one purpose.
ia: These are all so vague as to be almost meaningless.
Actually He did. I left out the rest of what He said. He said, "Before Abraham was, I am." The last two words are equivalent to the Hebrew, Yahweh. A better translation of the statement understanding the hebrew background and phrasing, is "Before Abraham was, I was Yahweh."ed: Except He claims to be equal with God unlike any other prophet in the Bible. He claims to have existed prior to Abraham even though He was only around 30 years old. And I could provide many other examples that show He was very different from a biblical prophet.
ia: See? This is what I mean? You take a single, ambiguous line and create a whole story out of it. Was Jesus joking? Misinterpreted? Meaning something else? Who knows? And why didn't he just say, "Yes, actually, I am God" instead of speaking in Zen koans?
Either way it was supernatural knowledge.ia: He said he saw Nathaniel in a different location even before they ever met physically or saw each other physically. That is a characteristic of omniscience.
ed: Or God gave him a vision.
Just saying it is not based on the Bible doesn't mean it is not, you have to demonstrate it.ed: I am not saying that that was not also part of His distress but being God also He knew that He would resurrect Himself and reconstitute His body. So that was obviously not all that He dreaded. Since He was also part of the Triune God which the Bible plainly implies it is perfectly reasonable that that experience would also be dreaded greatly if not even potentially more.
ia: As usual, you're just making all of this up, stringing a whole narrative on the flimsiest of evidence. Look, believe all of this if you want, its your religion. Just don't tell us it's based on the Bible, because it obviously isn't.
He is referring to both the Father and the Holy Spirit, the other members of the Trinity.
John is referring to the Father in this quote.
No, I can demonstrate the Christian God and his objective moral character probably does exist.ed: Yes, it does, it tells us that their moral code is not the objective moral standard of the universe.
ia: You mean the one you have failed to demonstrate exists?
Provide evidence that the US has done anything near those things in the last 60 years.ed: Any nation that puts political prisoners in concentration and re-education camps and harvests their organs and forcibly aborts babies so parents cannot have more than one child is a hell hole IMO and in the opinion of most Americans.
ia: I never said that China was perfect, but you seem to be suffering from an extremely large beam in your eye while straining at the motes in other countries'.
So you dont consider your experience with your wife evidence of her love for you?ed: It is taught by the bible and I have seen evidence of it in my own experience of meeting all kinds of people from all over the world. How is that unsubstantiated?
ia: You've just said it yourself. The Bible and your personal experiences are not evidence of anything.
Look at the history of France, Germany, and Russia for three examples.ed: Those are all atheists that were raised in nations founded on Christian principles. I explained that that can help make them keep those principles for a while. But nevertheless if the entire government becomes and remains atheistic and tries to make the nation secular there is a slide toward tyranny. Sometimes gradual, sometimes rather quickly.
ia: Prove it. So far, this is just baseless claims.
Read about how the movie Voices of the Silenced was temporarily banned in UK in Douglas Murrays book The Madness of Crowds. And there are other examples like Pastor Arrested for Preaching Against Homosexuality — Charisma News.ed: Evidence?
ia: Yes.
You said: "Europe has started banning public speech criticizing homosexuality and Islam among other things. So they are plainly losing free speech."
And I said:
"This is just ridiculous oversimplification and misunderstanding."
My evidence is what you said. You're making the claim, you provide the evidence.
It is nevertheless an accurate description of the philosophy.ed: While my definition may not be the official definition.
ia: Thank you, that will do nicely. In future, please use words according to their actual meanings.
By the late 1920's the American establishment was no longer Christian.ed: Yes, primarily run by atheistic evolutionary humanists.
ia: And the Christian country let them get away with it? Not that surprising, really, as it was Christians who ran the slave trade in the USA.
What genocide has occurred in the last 100 years besides Planned Parenthood? If systemic racism was true Obama would have never been elected twice. Name a proven crime that Trump has committed.ed; I am not claiming America is a perfect society, no society is perfect, but relative to China it is 100 times superior to it.
ia: Yeah. Genocide. Warmongering. The stripping of civil rights. Systemic racism. Class warfare. Electing a criminal of appalling morals. Nothing to worry about at all.
How many times has our sitting President been taken to court and convicted of crime? Zero. That is because Presidents generally are not prosecuted. Impeachment is the legal remedy, and that has been done. Of course there was no way that the Republican Senate was going to convict him, but that in no way clears him of the charges of a crime in his dealing with Ukraine.Name a proven crime that Trump has committed.
Actually there are many tribal groups that have little if any recognition of the supernatural. They can rightly be described as atheistic. See Ethnographic Evidence for Unbelief in Non-Western Cultures: Unbelief in Latin America | Free Inquiry (secularhumanism.org)most polytheistic and animist religions believe in gods that are shape shifters and play with nature, and turning into animals, rocks, and plants.
Not being Chinese they are going to protect you from experiencing the worst aspects of their society. Communists have been doing this for 100 years.ed: I was raised during the Cold War plus you ought read the Gulag Archipelago and the Black Book of Communism, you might learn something. Communism is built upon a foundation of lies and they have to lie constantly to keep the illusion that it works.
ia: Funny that you cite your experience as valid while telling me that I can't say China isn't a hellhole just because I happen to live there.
Name one big important lie he has told.ed: Hardly. The Trump Administration is one of the most transparent administrations in history. No tracking and punishing of journalists like the Obama administration. And most of Trumps lies are about relatively unimportant issues. He rarely ever lies about big issues.
ia: Goodness me. It's like saying that black is white.
No, the Trump administration is not one of the most transparent administrations in history, it is a pack of liars who tell lies all the time, and I mean all the time, about everything.
That was not a mistake, there is strong evidence that it was intentional. Communists like to sow chaos, that is how they get their power, they cause chaos and then come in saying they need to enforce "law and order".ed: They did not stop flights to Europe and America, which caused many of the cases to get to Europe and cause huge death tolls.
ia: Mistakes were certainly made.
Evidence?ia: Having said that, compared to the way the USA handled the coronavirus, China has been a model.
I didnt say he became a saint, but as I stated above most of his lies are about unimportant issues and he no longer commits adultery.ed: I dont deny he was some of those things in the past, but no longer, he changed. People can change.
ia: Oh yes. We can all see what a kind, humble, caring person Trump is now. Not at all a spiteful, vindictive, lying con man.
At the time Fauci was saying it was not that dangerous too, so publicly he was saying what the experts were, meanwhile he was preparing for the worst and keeping people from panicking.ed: ↑They provided no evidence that he misled the people on anything important.
ia: Of course he did. At the same time he was telling the American people that coronavirus was nothing to worry about, and that it would go away very soon, he was also talking in private about how dangerous it was and what a huge problem it would be.
He has not made any significant money since he became president.ed: Actually he and his business have lost a huge amount of money since he became president.
ia: Which would explain his desperate grifting to try to make as much money as possible.
As long as he has changed and it appears he has. There is no evidence he has broken the Emoluments Act.ed: No evidence he has stolen anything since becoming president.
ia: But you're happy with him having been a thief before, right? As if breaking the Emoluments Act as much as humanly possible wasn't also theft.
If they said they let him do it, then it is consensual not assault. And Unlike several other presidents, he has done none of those things since he took office.ed: Many of the claims made about him even before he became president have been refuted. For example the woman that claims she was assaulted on the airplane. A man that sat next to them on the same flight said they were both flirting with each other and she never did anything that implied that she didnt want Trumps attention. The former contestant on the Apprentice that claims he assaulted her. Her own brother said she became angry with Trump when he wouldnt come to her new business she was starting and make an appearance to endorse it. Before that, her brother said she loved Trump. And there are other refutations.
ia: Here. Go see this: List of Trump's accusers and their allegations of sexual misconduct
Since Trump is on record as admitting to going in to changing rooms to watch beauty pageant contestants while naked, and saying that he liked to sexually assault women, and they "let you do it," I'm amazed that a self-proclaimed moralist such as yourself takes such a relaxed view of the many, many credible allegations against him.
While he himself sometimes does not wear a mask when he probably should, the official position of the administration strongly encourages wearing a mask as explained by Dr. Fauci and others in his administration.ed: Hardly, he did everything Fauci said to do. And more, he stopped almost all flights from China saving thousands. The experts said 2 million people were going to die, so he has potentially so far saved 1.8 million people.
ia: The 2 million people was an estimate of the worst possible outcome. And Donald Trump is working hard to get there. Just look at how he behaves, and how he encourages others to behave. "Wear a mask? That's stupid and unmanly. You don't need to be afraid of COVID-19. Yes, all gather round, come together. Hug and kiss. Don't be afraid of some stupid virus."
I notice you didnt answer my question. But No, God and his moral character can be pretty much proven to exist using logic and the BB theory.ed: I didnt say you cant tell the difference between good and evil, even atheists are created with a moral conscience by God. I am saying that if there is no God then there is no objectively existing foundation for good or evil and therefore the distinction is meaningless. In addition, you dont have a rational basis for condemning someone that engages in evil. It is just their subjective personal preference based on the chemicals in their brain produced by evolution, how can you be condemned for something you had no control over?
ia: I know you're saying this, but you just can't prove it. I have to thank you, actually. It's good to have ideas tested. We can now see that the Euthyphro Dilemma still stands, and that Christians cannot claim God as the foundation of their morality.
By the time English colonists came to America most of the areas had been abandoned due to disease that had been spread by earlier Spanish colonists so it was not owned by anyone.ed: No, I am just saying that it is human nature (that has not been transformed by Christ) to retaliate evil for evil. Liberals like your self tend to put the natives up on pedestals as if they were early environmental scientists and total pacifists slaughtered by the evil Christian colonists, which is a totally false picture of history.
ia: Remind me again, who came into whose land?
ed: If the US truly had systemic racism, Obama never would have been elected president TWICE.
ia: And now the racists are having their revenge.
When 95% of blacks are democrats, he did pretty well getting about five percent of his Cabinet and staff to be black. In addition, Republicans dont judge people by the color of their skin but rather the content of their character like MLK.ia: Remind me again, exactly what percentage of the people who work for Donald Trump are black?
In some cases but not the majority.ed: No, that was not the only reason we entered the war especially the European theater.
↑
ia: Yes, but often helping subject peoples was the reason for the US getting into some wars.
As I've said, history is complex. But, unsurprisingly, much of the USA's motive for entering wars was selfishness.
Riiiiight.ed: I will take that as an unable to refute.
ia: I feel it would be unkind, as well as pointless, to try to correct your views on "benevolent dictators."
No, I did refute.ed: Vox is a major source of fake news, they still believe Trump colluded with the Russians. Even American citizens are separated from their children when they commit a crime this happens every day and can last for years or even a lifetime.
ia: I will take that as an unable to refute.
Trump commanded the states to do everything Fauci said. Some did and some didnt. But that is the way a nation with states rights works. The democrats claimed Trump did nothing to stop so they thought there was going to be 2 million deaths. But contrary to their lies, he did plenty including telling everyone to follow Fauci's advice. After a few months the number of deaths caused by the lockdown itself exceeded the number of Covid deaths so that is why he started opening the economy. If he had kept the lockdown nationwide it would have been even a greater disaster. The chance of death by the disease is less than 0.03 percent. It is absurd to have a complete lockdown given such a low death rate. especially when the death rate from the lockdown itself is probably greater than that.Goodness me, no. I see you've completely misunderstood the situation.
Look, I can't really be bothered to spell it out for you. Just read one of these two summaries. Either one will do. They both use the same reliable sources to say the same things (I mention this because I think you'll probably just dismiss them as "left-wing sources", which they're not - they're objective sources that back up their conclusions with evidence).
President Trump is claiming that without his efforts, there would have been 2 million deaths in the U.S. from COVID-19.
But that 2 million number is taken from a model that shows what would happen without any mitigation measures — that is, if citizens had continued their daily lives as usual, and governments did nothing. Experts said that wouldn't have happened in real life.
And while lockdowns and social distancing have indeed been proven to prevent COVID-19 illness and deaths, credit for that doesn't go solely to Trump. The White House issued federal recommendations asking Americans to stay home, but much stronger social distancing measures were enforced by states.
Travel restrictions implemented by Trump perhaps helped hold down transmission in the context of broader efforts, but on their own, they don't seem to have significantly reduced the transmission rate of the coronavirus.
We rate this claim Mostly False.
and
Some studies also explore the potential human costs of missed opportunities. If lockdowns had been implemented one or two weeks earlier than mid-March, for instance, which is when most of the U.S. started shutting down, researchers estimated that tens of thousands of American lives could have been saved. A model also shows that if almost everyone wore a mask in the U.S., tens of thousands of deaths from COVID-19 could have been prevented.
Note - because Trump doesn't care in the slightest about people dying, but only about him looking bad, he worked tirelessly to urge people to end the lockdowns, said he wanted to slow testing down, and did everything he could to discourage people from wearing masks.
Basically, the "two million deaths" that Trump is farcically claiming to have saved you from is an estimate of the absolute worst case scenario, in which nobody did anything at all to stop the virus. Of course that didn't happen - politicians, doctors and normal people tried their best to stop it - closing things down, social distancing, wearing masks.
Trump, meanwhile did just about everything he could to ensure the virus spread as fast as possible. This (probably) wasn't because he wanted people to get sick; it's just that a sick country makes him look bad, so he felt it was better to try to paper over it. Reopen the economy, send the kids back to school, stop wearing masks. How do you not know all about this? Trump says it everywhere he goes, and has been for months. You don't need to worry about the coronavirus, you don't need to wear a mask, and will everyone please just stop talking about it all the time?
Ugh.
Several of Moses writings have been confirmed by science and Jeremiah's prophecies came true.↑ed: Because there is evidence that they got them from God, there is no evidence the others did.
dm: What evidence do you have that Moses and Jeremiah spoke God's words? So far you have given nothing that verifies this.
No, you just took the verse out of context, this is a basic rule of understanding any text, never take statements out of context. A literal reading of that verse goes against multiple verses in the bible besides the one I quoted.dm: Luke 6:30. That verse says to give to every man that asks of you. Please give me every thing you own.
We will then see if that results in you living longer, happier, and with less disease.
ed: Jesus also said you must be as wise as serpents but as gentle as doves, IOW you should not allow yourself to be taken advantage of.
dm: Ah, the command to be wise overrules the command to give to every man that asks of you.
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winner.
Lets all use wisdom to overrule ancient commands that are not good for us.
The Bible doesnt say that as I demonstrated earlier.dm: If an ancient book says we need to submit as slaves to masters that beat us, then let's let wisdom override the ancient rules.
How do you know having gay sex is caring? The scientific evidence says otherwise.dm: If ancient commands say we cannot express our inborn sexual desires in caring, consensual ways with other adults, then let's let wisdom override the ancient rules.
Besides the nearby context, it violates multiple other teachings in the bible, besides the one I quoted. That is strong evidence it is the wrong interpretation since God's word is a unified whole.ed: you cannot take just one verse out of context. Verses must be understood in the context of the entire bible.
dm: How do you know the Bible wants the command to be wise to overrule the command to give to everybody that asks?
No see above, read Proverbs, being wise is one of the most important teachings the bible.dm: Could it be the writers thought that the command to give to everyone that asks overrules the command to be wise?
There is no evidence of that except maybe when referring to the hell they will experience if they dont repent, it most likely will not be fiery. Hell being like a fire is considered hyperbole by the most educated scholars. Homosexual behavior is one of most obvious sins, given that it is obvious we are all created anatomically heterosexual.ed: In addition, we know from history that jewish rabbis used hyperbole to make points this was obviously the case here, he meant you should have an attitude of generosity, He did not mean that you should literally give something to everyone who asks you.
dm: And were the Bible writers using hyperbole when they condemned homosexuality?
You write this in response to my question, "What evidence do you have that Moses and Jeremiah spoke God's words?Several of Moses writings have been confirmed by science
So did Nostradamus's. Provided of course, we are creative enough in our interpretations of Nostradamus or Jeremiah.and Jeremiah's prophecies came true.
Ah, so Luke 6:30 contradicts other verses, therefore it does not mean what it says?No, you just took the verse out of context, this is a basic rule of understanding any text, never take statements out of context. A literal reading of that verse goes against multiple verses in the bible besides the one I quoted.
The Bible doesnt say that as I demonstrated earlier.
It doesn't seem to matter what the thread is about. We always end up talking about Hitler, the cause of the Big Bang, and gay sex.How do you know having gay sex is caring? The scientific evidence says otherwise.
I seek to broaden my understanding of many things. Scientific studies are one of the ways I find generally reliable. Could you direct me to the scientific evidence that you mention?How do you know having gay sex is caring? The scientific evidence says otherwise.
You are kinda beating a dead horse here. Trump has been resoundingly defeated at the polls. He will soon be gone.Trump commanded the states to do everything Fauci said.
The states that had the worst practices were primarily red states who did what Trump and his supporters wanted. It is odd that you would rewrite history such that Trump was the one pushing for safe measures.Some [states] did and some didnt. But that is the way a nation with states rights works.
I never heard them say Trump did nothing. The claim is that his response was inadequate, not that he did nothing.The democrats claimed Trump did nothing to stop so they thought there was going to be 2 million deaths.
Please prove your assertion that more than 267,000 people have died in America due to the lockdown. Are you just making stuff up?But contrary to their lies, he did plenty including telling everyone to follow Fauci's advice. After a few months the number of deaths caused by the lockdown itself exceeded the number of Covid deaths so that is why he started opening the economy.
I agree that the lockdown was too intense. We could have gotten by with less extreme lockdown measures if masks wearing and distancing had been better practiced.If he had kept the lockdown nationwide it would have been even a greater disaster.
The United States has had 13 million confirmed cases and 267,000 deaths. Do the math. That is 2%.The chance of death by the disease is less than 0.03 percent.
I am arguing for it as it was originally and best defined by the great theologian Athanasius. His view has been the orthodox understanding ever since and is not contradictory as I have demonstrated.
I don't have time to list the 20,000 lies Trump has told in his presidency. See CNN Fact-Checker Spells Out The Stark Truth Of Donald Trump's Post-Election Lies | HuffPost and President Trump has made more than 20,000 false or misleading claims - The Washington Post .Name one big important lie he has told.
I am arguing for it as it was originally and best defined by the great theologian Athanasius. His view has been the orthodox understanding ever since and is not contradictory as I have demonstrated.
Yes but that is just your subjective opinion. Ultimately, one tiny bag of fluids destroying millions of little bags of fluids on a tiny rock in a giant universe means nothing if there is no God.Hitler and Stalin killed innocent people.
My opinion is that, when rulers kill innocent people, that harms people.
Do you or do you not agree with me that, when rulers kill innocent people, that harms people?
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?