• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Where's God?

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by doubtingmerle, Jun 27, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +167
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
    And I thought you had debated before. I guess I was wrong.

    I just assumed your debating experience and reading comprehension would answer that question. Again, I guess I was wrong and over estimated you.

    I dont even know what 6MWE means. I dont identify with any racist group. As a Christian, I consider racism antithetical to Christianity as do most Christians.


    How do you know that your definition of fairness is right and theirs is wrong?

    That is a subjective basis, not objective.

    Yes, you did.

    Again, those are subjective reasons.

    And WE is homo sapiens, thanks for confirming what I just wrote.
     
  2. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,047
    Humanist
    No, I did not. Repeating a false statement over and over does not make it true.

    I never said that killing can be justified if the killer says it is done out of love. You are just making this false accusation up out of thin air. Then you repeat the same false assertion over and over.

    How does it benefit your cause to make up false things about people and then repeat them over and over?
     
  3. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +1,010
    Atheist
    Apologist: one who speaks or writes in defense of Christianity. Everyone knows that. Plantinga and Swinburne are both famous for doing this.
     
  4. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +167
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
  5. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +167
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
    His words were no different than what every politician says multiple times a year. And the FBI has confirmed now it was planned days before by the Oath Keepers and other extremist groups thereby proving Trump had nothing to do with it.
     
  6. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +167
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Fraid not. As I demonstrated earlier, the NTS fallacy does not apply to Christianity since we have an actual objective definition of what Christianity is, unlike Scotsmen.

    Generally people are influenced by their worldview. They incorporated many of their Christian principles into their founding of the society especially in the case of the USA.

    Well I disagree, most of the most important principles of Western society came from Christianity like human equality and human rights, not from the Enlightenment.
     
  7. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +167
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
  8. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +167
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Not the real objective one.
     
  9. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +167
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Yes, all those factors combined with being born relatively soon after their ancestors ingested fruit from the Tree of Life which potentially would have allowed Adam and Eve to live forever if they had not sinned.
     
  10. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +167
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
    I disagree. Since sapiens and Neanderthals produced fertile offspring, I believe they were the same species just a different race. Early humans were much more genetically diverse and had more genetic plasticity than modern humans. It would be similar to finding a fossil of a German shepherd and a chihuahua. You would probably think that they were different species, but they are in fact the same species.
     
  11. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +167
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
    I guess I should have said that all the edits for which we have evidence for have been identified. There is no evidence for any other edits. And we know that ancient jews were very meticulous in the copying and writing of texts and that early Christians believed that lying was a moral absolute, therefore, there is much lower probability of text tampering among them as compared to pagans.

    See my earlier post where I dealt with that chapter.

    I read Ehrman's other book about edits in the Bible and not single one was significant. And there is no evidence of any significant corruption of Scripture.

    Matthew just added some things that he as an eyewitness witnessed.

    He didn't rewrite Mark, he just added details that he witnessed. The Holy spirit has confirmed that the fallible person was not mistaken.

    The Apostles Creed and the moral teachings of the Ten Commandments and Christ.

    See above.

    Because the historical evidence points in that direction and the holy spirit has confirmed it.

    The differences are not significant.

    He has.

    No, he may have initially thought about going back to Bethlehem but decided to go back to Nazareth. No contradiction there.

    They both have the essentials.
     
  12. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +1,010
    Atheist
    That's quite inaccurate. First of all, we do have an objective view of what a Scotsman is - a man who was born and lives in Scotland. That's why the NTS fallacy is a fallacy, because it's making up an imaginary qualification. This isn't easy to do, since "being a Scotsman" is a fairly easy thing to determine, but the fallacious speaker in the example is appealing to some mythical sense of "true Scottishness" and citing the action of "eats salt in his porridge" as proof.
    For Christianity, it's easier, because while you might say there is an objective definition of being a Christian (someone who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ) there is a great deal of confusion about what those teachings actually were and what they meant, the proof of which is that there are literally hundreds of different types of Christians, all disagreeing with each other, and many of them saying that the others are not really Christians at all.
    So yes - when you say that the people who disagree with you are not real Christians, that's a textbook example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
    You'll find it difficult to prove that. While Christianity was a major element in Western culture, it was not the only element; and indeed, reaction to Christianity, or learning from religious mistakes was also an important factor.
    That's a considerable oversimplification, and a misleading one. There is a reason that the Enlightenment was called that. It was a time in which people began to think new ideas, many of them considering that the old viewpoints of religious thinking were incorrect or limiting. The American Constitution owes a great deal to these thinkers. Trying to claim credit for human equality and human rights from Christianity is an extremely difficult task to attempt, partly because many other factors can claim credit for it, and partly because of Christianity's historical role against these things. Christianity's ideal model is not a democracy, it is s divinely ordained monarchy; human rights are seen as subordinate to divine rights; and gender inequality is promoted by Christianity.
     
  13. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +1,010
    Atheist
    That's not at all how it works.
    I have no trouble at all believing that evidence has been found saying that the Capitol riots were planned days in advance. It's quite possible - indeed, likely - that Donald Trump knew something of what they were planning and approved of it. It's certainly true that for a very long time he had been using incendiary rhetoric to foment exactly such an uprising. And on the day itself, he actively encouraged resurrection, which was carried out by people who were very clear that they were following his directions. If you don't know this, then you are either ignorant of the facts or in denial about them.
     
  14. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,047
    Humanist
    You say this in response to, "I know that Hitler was not fair to the Jews."

    I have stated my reasons for saying that the Holocaust was unfair to the Jews. I have started two other threads on the subject here. Everybody here agrees with me that Hitler was not being fair to the Jews.

    If you think Hitler was being fair to the Jews, then make your case. If not, then I win. You cannot claim victory if you just walk around outside the ring. If you have a case, make it.

    You say this in response to, "If people like Hitler kill each other, it breaks the trust relationship we need to survive."

    :sigh: Now you want to go back to this again?

    Rewind.

    In this thread I explained to you that my life is real. It is an objective fact that in order to survive we all need each other. It is an objective fact that in order to benefit from each other, we need rules of behavior. Morality includes rules of behavior that allow us to live our objective, real lives, in objective, real cooperation with objective, real people.

    In response you argued that my life was not real and objective. We then went back and forth on whether my life was real, until you forgot about what we were talking about, and the conversation fizzled out.

    Morality goes beyond just mutual rules that we need to survive. It involves recognizing the good in others, and doing loving things for others when the act has no benefit to ourselves. That is a subjective form of morality, and is the best kind. But it seems that you cannot get beyond the need for morality to be objective. I have explained the crudest form of morality, one that is based on the objective need for fair cooperation with others for survival. But there is so much more to morality.

    It means six million weren't enough. It is a horrible, racist thing to say. Trump supporters were wearing shirts with this logo when they invaded the Capital. Unfortunately, those folks seem to be on your team. So when I see your nonstop arguments that maybe Hitler was fair to the Jews, and I see the shirts that your team is wearing, then I need to ask you if you are for or against Hitler.
     
  15. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,047
    Humanist
    OK, but in that thread I refuted the arguments you made here that a Homo Erectus built an ocean liner. I will take it that your argument was refuted, and will assume that no Homo Erectus ever built a large freight ship that sailed the oceans.
     
  16. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,047
    Humanist
    You say this in response to:

    What are the essentials that we need to believe? You have told me that if one believes the Son of God was named Pedro and died in Mexico for our sins, that this mistaken person will go to hell.​

    Ah, so you say we need to believe in the Ten Commandments--AKA The Ten Strong Recommendations-- to get to heaven. Do we need to remember Saturday to keep it holy? If you don't believe in remembering Saturday to keep it holy, will you burn in hell forever?

    And let's look at the Apostle's Creed. You say people will burn in hell forever if they don't believe all of this:

    I believe in God, the Father almighty,
    creator of heaven and earth.
    I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
    He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
    and born of the virgin Mary.
    He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
    was crucified, died, and was buried.
    He descended to the dead.
    On the third day he rose again.
    He ascended into heaven,
    and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
    He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
    I believe in the Holy Spirit,
    the holy catholic Church,
    the communion of the saints,
    the forgiveness of sins,
    the resurrection of the body,
    and the life everlasting. Amen.

    So this is the material that is going to be on the final? And if I get 99% on the final, am I eternal toast?

    What if I think the son was named Joshua or Pedro or Emmanuel or Horus? Toast?

    What if I think Jesus suffered under Herod? Toast?

    What if I think Christ's body was put in a cave and that he was never actually buried? Toast?

    What if I think he was dead for 3 days and 3 nights, and rose on the fourth day? Toast?

    What if I think he is at the left hand of the Father? Toast?

    What if I think the church is not catholic? Toast?

    What if I think the resurrection is to a new body, with the old body left to decay? Toast?

     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2021
  17. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +6,120
    Atheist
    Your beliefs don't change the expert consensus view of the meaning and usage of the terms.

    Except that the analogy is inappropriate. Neanderthals and modern humans were distinctly different and independent breeding populations that occasionally interbred, as often occurs between closely related species today. They were not as closely related to modern humans as human races or dog breeds are related to each other. This has been further confirmed by genetic comparisons.

    Modern humans are extremely genetically homogenous. 'Racial' characteristics are superficial differences; there is more genetic diversity within racial groups than between them, and less genetic diversity between humans on different continents than in chimpanzees from a small part of Africa.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2021
  18. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,047
    Humanist
    Ah, all the edits that have been identified have been identified. Got it.

    There are hundreds of thousands of differences in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. No two manuscripts agree on everything. How do you know there are not many other edits that you don't know about?

    A manuscript of Ephesians has "in Ephesus" scribbled in the margin. Is this something somebody inserted? Or did a proofreader see the mistake and add it in later? We don't know. See Blog (ericsowell.com)
    The hundreds of thousands of differences in the manuscripts show this is false.

    Many people were modifying manuscripts, so the book of Revelations adds a curse on anybody who tries to edit it. This wouldn't be necessary if edits never happened.

    That's odd. The promise that no deadly drink will hurt believers is thought to be a later insertion into Mark. One would think that would be significant.

    The command to give to everyone who asks was not in Mark, but Luke added it in his edit. That is significant.

    The entire Sermon on the Mount is added in through Matthew's edit of Mark. Is that not significant?

    Whenever Mark tells the story, Matthew never retells it from his perspective. Instead he follows Mark nearly word for word, with a few changes. If Matthew was there to see the story himself, he would not have just copied Mark with edits. He would have told it from his viewpoint.


    And how does the Holy Spirit confirm it? You get this feeling that it must be true, so you say that is the Spirit speaking? That does not sound reliable to me.

    If Joseph lived in Nazareth, and had traveled to Bethlehem only on business, why would he go to Bethlehem after being diverted to Egypt? That makes no sense. Matthew implies that he is relocating to Nazareth, but Luke says he was returning to his home in Nazareth.
     
  19. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +167
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Uhh computers dont have a free will either. Thanks for making my point. Their electrical charges are designed/programmed to go down certain predetermined pathways just like our brains if there is a purely physical mind.
     
  20. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +167
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Jesus and all of his disciples only used verbal persuasion in spreading the gospel, not force and never tried to stop any opposition speech with force.

    Same as above.

    Jesus told his disciples to buy a sword to defend themselves when He got arrested.

    The commandment "You shall not steal" plainly implies a right to private property, housing in soldiers in private homes is plainly a violation of that.

    See above.

    God is the ultimate judge, but He had temporal judges in ancient Israel.

    No, God invented lex talonis, which means the punishment must fit the crime.

    So does that mean that since the German people agreed that the jews did not have rights in their society then what the Nazis did was ok?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...