It is a claim that you believe. You can't and haven't demonstrated it. God is the judge by the way. The Bible is a book about God.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...
- Thread starter YoursTrue
- Start date
You choose to repeat things of your own volition. That you do is your responsibility. Not mine.
I see you doing it when the questions get harder and harder. Perhaps you should pray about that. If it were me, I would.
ElishaElijah
Return
Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh, He doesn’t even go against His Word, thats why He had to die in our place. He couldn’t just wave His hand and say I forgive you, like some have insinuated. Our betrayal and rebellion in the Garden deserves the death penalty, He loved us too much and paid it.
When will all this be proven? At the White Throne Judgement. Should’ve bold written that
Posts #2032, #2033 and 2034 dealt with the origins and nature of Common Law, Civil Law and Statute Law
ElishaElijah
Return
See how you miss represent things, Seems like you may have the Pride issue here and think much of yourself. You want answers to questions you should already have but don’t if you were a Christian.
Isn't this just proselytizing now? That may not be the direction you want to take this.
Except I didn't.
I agree that PRIDE is an issue here, just not mine.
I want you to meet your obligations to debate by supporting your claims with facts. Are you?
That would be against expectations at this point.
ElishaElijah
Return
How is this proselytizing? You’re a Christian and we are talking Bible and what we believe is true.
How can this be proselytizing unless you really aren’t a Christian then say so and I will go to sleep and stop talking to you seen as I can’t just press ignore.
Shouldn't you know that? I just asked a question. Were you writing as an opinion or as a fact?
I am a Christian and I have been asking another Christian to explain himself and he has spent the entire evening running from that. Often in ways intended to deride my faith too.
Proselytizing is proselytizing regardless of the faith of the audience. You seem to have a propensity to blame your actions on others. I've noticed that a few times this evening and in previous interactions you've had with others. I can tell you that is not a good witness technique.
Last edited:
You can walk away any time you want. You engaged me remember. I'm not keeping you here.
Just so you know, I don't have to be anywhere until after 5pm tomorrow evening. The Spirit seems to have invigorated me too. I'm rather enjoying this learning experience.
You don't have to stick around. If it is a pride issue for you, don't feel that clinging on will ameliorate your failure to support what you claim is obvious and easily seen. The only thing that will do that is for you to address those claims with the evidence that makes it all obvious to anyone, Christian or not.
I am curious and maybe you can answer this for me. Why do you think that another Christian should just accept everything you say without review or valid criticism where it is flawed? You certainly don't and cant even show that what I have said is flawed. That fact that you keep trying to divert from it is almost an endorsement.
Why do you think disagreeing with you invalidates the faith of another?
Last edited:
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Yeah but was Jesus the son of God born to a virgin, in your opinion? Did he die, do you think, to atone for sin? Sorry if I'm bothering you but I like to understand the way people think sometimes.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
As a Christian, you believe then, do you, that Christ was born to a virgin, came from heaven, was resurrected and went back to heaven. Also that he resurrected some and healed some.
That's ok that you're not interested in chatting with me.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
You're deflecting. They don't indicate that you were asking for clarification.
Fair enough. Again, two people looking at the same thing and coming to different conclusions?
To me it is obvious in that the soul that contains the conscience is displayed in babies. It will never be “verifiable” scientifically because we will never be able to “view” the soul and conscience. .
Maybe I should have said “obvious to me”?
Here, I can only refer to it in reference to my position as a believer in Jesus Christ and the scripture therein.
Yes, puppies have souls along with other created creatures. (Whether parameciums have souls or not, I have no idea
)What differentiates animals from human beings is that man has a spirit made in His image and in His likeness.
Last edited:
This seems more dogmatic to me. You really haven’t debunked my position only established that you don’t believe it to be so no matter what the field of psychology does which is the study of the soul
Again, find a psychology textbook that even mentions a 'soul'. You had to go back to a definition from over 350 years ago to even make a link. That is *far* before any serious study of psychology. Find *anything* within the last 150 years that uses this definition.
Hmmm… when I took Psychology in Uni, it mentioned it. Did you want me to upload a book or something? Of course, that was in the early 70’s. I don’t think I saved that book.
False equivalence. We know that the conscience exists both directly in ourselves if we have one, and indirectly through the actions of others behaving morally by choice. Conscience is an epiphenomenon of matter and affects matter through motivating behavior. That makes it part of physical reality.
The word soul refers to nothing real as far as we know except when people use the word to mean a person's personality, or the sum of his regular patterns of behavior, which includes the manifestations of one's conscience. But when referring to a spirit that enters and then leaves bodies and survives death, we're guessing that such a thing exists and happens.
That was in response to, "That's an unevidenced religious belief and plays no role in psychology or any other science," which was written as a response to, "[psychology] IS the study of the soul! The soul controls the material mind which controls the behavior."
Calling that an opinion doesn't diminish the fact that it is correct. If it weren't, you could falsify it with an illustration of where the soul plays a part in a scientific explanation or observation, but you can't. Newton referred to his god in Principia when he reached the perimeter of his knowledge and had to turn to magical thinking to explain a stable solar system, but that was never considered science and is not a part of Newton's actual science, which is all empirical.
Questioning claims can never be a hindrance. Accepting false beliefs uncritically, however, can be a major error.
Occam's Razor like all razors prioritizes hypotheses, the simplest that can account for all observable phenomena being preferred over those with excess complexity that adds no explanatory or predictive power. The concept of the soul adds nothing to neurology or psychology, so it appears in neither science.
That's all he need do. Your position is an insufficiently evidenced claim. He needn't debunk what was never "bunked."
Time for another razor, Hitchens' Razor: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence," meaning that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one making it, without which the claim is unfounded, and others need not provide an argument or evidence themselves in order to dismiss it.
That was in response to, "We know the physical exists, so the burden of proof is on those claiming there is more. The fact that no such evidence has ever been presented is good enough to discard the possibility as unnecessary."
Actually, that's what an educated opinion looks like. It is ignorance that allows one to hold unfalsifiable beliefs uncritically. We're born able to do that as soon as we are old enough to hold abstract beliefs such as in Santa Claus. It is only with maturation that critical thinking begins to appear, which is why the church wants access to minds before this occurs and is frustrated by being kept out of public school curricula. Believing by faith is not a virtue and nothing to be proud of. Learning why and how to never do that is elevating oneself above the more juvenile state we begin at and pays dividends.
I see that a lot - claims that the skeptic and empiricist cannot comprehend the believer's beliefs. Your beliefs are easy to comprehend. And easy to disbelieve. I understand you perfectly, but don't believe that you are correct.
That sounds like a terrible life. No thanks. How about setting the cross down, following your conscience, living an empowered life, and making a difference instead?
Would you be doing all of that if you knew for a fact that when you die, your consciousness is extinguished forever and that there is no afterlife or reward waiting for you in exchange for living such a life? Probably not.
And doesn't that refute Pascal's Wager - that there is no cost in holding false beliefs about Pascal's god?