Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[jonathan180iq]

I believe that the Book of Mormon is indeed a second witness to the authenticity of deity. That gives me the right to quote it as a source of evidence for the plan of salvation. It is, of course, your right to reject it, remembering, that both of our choices will have consequences.

You have the right to quote whichever source you choose. As an engineer who must have at least had some training in the sciences before graduating, you also know that review by one's peers is standard practice in order for any work or claim to gain merit. If it shown that your sources or methods were flawed, then out the window goes the conclusion, right?

"Hey Marty, where'd you get the figures for the stress tolerances of this wooden bridge?"

"Oh, I pulled them directly from the Fisher Price Building Materials picture book..."

"Uh, Marty, you know we can't use a Fisher Price Building Materials picture book when lives are at stake."

"Why not, boss? I give it authority. That's good enough, right?"

It is what is being said that is relevant, regardless as to the source of the words. If Hitler was to have announces that breast feeding is better for the baby then bottle feeding, would it make his remarks any less true because he was a genocidal maniac. Of course not. The same logic applies to the Book of Alma.

That's a fair point, but there are scientific studies available which verify the claims made by Hitler about breast milk, right? We trust the statement that Adolf made not because of his claim but because of the evidence to support it. The source is pointless - unless that source is obviously quite flawed and not even remotely connected to objective verifiable reality.

You have made two posts on here to me. That hardly constitutes the need for the phrase "all along" when it is but a brief encounter.

This is actually my 10th post to you, spanning 4 pages and thousands of words.

But you fail to comprehend that my belief is not under scrutiny here, it is the plausibility Plan of Redemption.

Your claim is what is under scrutiny. And you have yet to source validity for your argument other than saying "Christians believe this" and "some holy books describe it. There it is true."

Yes, indubitably, unless you think you can falsify it.

How can people expect to falsify something that is not verifiable?
You've yet to falsify my belief that tiny purple dragons sprinkle unicorn dust over our eyes while we sleep. They disappear when you open your eyes, or when someone is watching...Can you falsify that?

Are you suggesting that the war in heaven is not a belief of everyday Christian's, or the creation, the fall, the birth of a Saviour, the replacing of the Mosaic Law with the Abrahamic Covenant during the beatitudes, the atonement and crucifixion that brought salvation to all mankind, the resurrection, the day of Judgment and exaltation are not the belief of Christians. All of these are significant points of the Plan of Salvation yet you say that Christians, those who strive to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, do not believe in any of those things. I am sorry but I would have to disagree with you. They are all fundamental principles of christianity.

Some Christians hold tight to some of those beliefs and some do not. I wager that you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone who believes every single one of those tenets.

I also wager that, although you claim otherwise, Jesus himself didn't mention all of them...

The Plan of Salvation is obvious. It is the epicentre of christianity. It is our raison d'etre.

I don't doubt that it's part of what makes most Christians tick. I'm asking you to prove it's credibility outside of faith.
I am very aware of what the Plan of Salvation is and how it supposedly works. I just want you to show this Universal truth to me without copying the interpretation of someone else and without using faith.

Again, Universal Truths exists regardless of our belief systems. Since you've so far only referenced faith as evidence of the Plan, you'll have to do better.

Truth is not restricted to books of authority. The truth is the same regardless as to what the title of the book is or who wrote it. The description of the Plan if Salvation, in the Book of Alma, is both true and accurate. That is the only authority required. It is a universal law.

At least the first two sentences are true. If the Devil himself wrote a true statement on a piece of paper, let's say it said "2 + 2 = 4", it would be a true statement regardless of who wrote it. Fact.

The second part of your statement, though, is false. You can say "I believe the book of Alama is both true and accurate and that is the only authority that I require. I believe it is a Universal Law."

Had you said that, you would have written a truth. However, what you said and what you should have said are totally different.
If it's true, then it will be expressed in places other Christian circles. Show us where those places are, and we can begin talking about whether or not there is any truth to it.

Why would you think it is foolish.

You are asking why quoting from the Book of Alma is foolish. As a 25 year veteran of the Mormon faith, you should know more than anyone that the Historical authenticity of almost everything in that book is unacceptable in educated conversation. It is not accepted by anyone in academia as being worth much more than the paper it is written on. I do not make that statement as a insult, but as a critique of a source, which I explained earlier in this reply. Quoting something of dubious origin is foolish, just like taking stress tolerances from a Fisher Price book.

I have no intentions of spouting historical facts. I am a Engineer and Christian, I am not a historian. If I need proof for any of this then I will use my knees.

As long as you admit that your requirement for truth is subjective faith, then you and I have nothing to argue about.
I will suggest, however, that you look into the historical accuracy of some of the claims in the book that you lend authority to before you make statements claiming that it has never been falsified.

 

[Sapiens]

I believe that the Book of Mormon is indeed a second witness to the authenticity of deity. That gives me the right to quote it as a source of evidence for the plan of salvation. It is, of course, your right to reject it, remembering, that both of our choices will have consequences.

You can quote anything you want, but no one with half a brain and even minimal training in logic and rhetoric will take you seriously. Using Scripture to prove Scripture is just circular reasoning, the primary reason that you will not be (are not) taken seriously.

Not really, as I am fully aware of the world view on Mormonism, having been one for twenty five years. Quoting the book of Alma hold no greater authority then making the claim in my own words, other then my colloquialisms will cause no problems in clarity. It is what is being said that is relevant, regardless as to the source of the words. If Hitler was to have announces that breast feeding is better for the baby then bottle feeding, would it make his remarks any less true because he was a genocidal maniac. Of course not. The same logic applies to the Book of Alma.

If Hitler made such a claim, sure, it would be true however that's not akin to what you are doing, you are trying (figuratively) to use everything that Hitler ever said about child rearing to lend credence and authority to one of his suggestions that has not been independently validated by outside sources, as breast feeding has been.

But you fail to comprehend that my belief is not under scrutiny here, it is the plausibility Plan of Redemption. If the plan is falsifiable then it is nothing more then meaningless words in a book. If it is strategically sound then it's implementation could be factual, not that it is, but that it is a feasible proposition, which is the point that I am making. In any scientific investigation a hypothesis is constructed and tested. The hypothesis in this case is the Plan of Redemption.

At this stage of the discussion you have so far failed to demonstrate that there is any difference between your belief and your claim of the existence of a "Plan of Redemption."

Not true, the Plan of Salvation must be demonstrably possible. You are correct in saying that it should stand on its own. It does.

It does not stand on its own, in fact (according to you) it can only be seen by those who all ready believe. That is not what any rational being would consider to be "standing on its own."

Yes, indubitably, unless you think you can falsify it.

I think I just did.

Are you suggesting that the war in heaven is not a belief of everyday Christian's, or the creation, the fall, the birth of a Saviour, the replacing of the Mosaic Law with the Abrahamic Covenant during the beatitudes, the atonement and crucifixion that brought salvation to all mankind, the resurrection, the day of Judgment and exaltation are not the belief of Christians. All of these are significant points of the Plan of Salvation yet you say that Christians, those who strive to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, do not believe in any of those things. I am sorry but I would have to disagree with you. They are all fundamental principles of christianity.

None of your, "fundamental principles of Christianity" can be demonstrated, they can only be claimed, that is an attribute of faith based beliefs.

The Plan of Salvation is obvious. It is the epicentre of christianity. It is our raison d'etre.

Then I'd suggest that you're living in a house of cards.

When one reads scriptures along side of the Holy Ghost he quickens the spiritual eyes of your understanding making their meaning clear and concise. When look upon by the carnal academic eyes you only see black and white and your knowledge will only reach the heights of man's knowledge.

1 Corinthians 1:20-21

Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

This is an example of the logical fallacy known as, "the Courtier's Reply." It is a form of the logical fallacy known as, "Appeal to Authority," only in this case the Authority is not vetted.

You misrepresent me. I have never said that he does not communicate with words on a page. He clearly does, it is your explanation of communication that is in error. You now suggest that it is magic, in some kind of supercilious tone. The method is simplistic and logical. The communication is by concepts and emotions, no different then a sixth sense. The use of words voiced into ones head would be too laborious and unreliable as you would need to decipher the difference between your thoughts and the communication of the Holy Ghost. When receiving knew knowledge from an external energy, separate and distinct to yourself, the transfer is almost instantaneous and the knowledge is unique to yourself. It is communications without words.of course, this kind of communication is not relevant to the Plan of Salvation and only those who strive to live a Christ like existences can tap into the influence of the Holy Ghost. See what you are missing through disbelief.

More Courtier's Reply hocus pocus.

Once again, you misrepresent me. Cephus is a failed Christian who just could not leave the faith quietly without burning bridges but has had to leave it kicking and screaming with an empty box of jumbo matches in his hand. He has a Web page where he blatantly lies and denegrates Christians because of his bitterness.

Even if that is true of Cephus ... I stand four square with him and of all the things that I might be accused of being, "a failed Christian" doesn't make the list. Ii give him credit for using his Jumbo Matches to push back the miasma of darkness that religion attempts to use to confuse people, a confusion that you not only suffer from but willingly buy into.

I never said that he failed at being Christian because he doesn't share my version of faith. I actually said that he was never a Christian in the first place because if he had been truly converted by the spirit of God then he would still be a Christian today. Once you have been blessed by the testimony of the Holy Ghost there is no going back. There is no denying the testimony of the Holy Ghost. Such action results is being made a son of perdition.

That's the "No True Scotsman" BS.

So, Cephus never reached that point, which is why he is so proactive in trying to take others away from a standard of living that he could not personally maintain.it is so much easier to accept failure if you are not the only one who has failed. It is easy to write this drivel on the Internet but when it comes to defending it his lips are sealed. So, let's rectify your misrepresentation by saying that "I never said that he failed at being Christian because he doesn't share my version of faith. I actually said that he was never a Christian in the first place because if he had been truly converted by the spirit of God"

So he can't possibly see the truth unless he has your double-secret decoder ring?

What goal post did I move?

What goal post did you not move?

Truth is not restricted to books of authority. The truth is the same regardless as to what the title of the book is or who wrote it. The description of the Plan if Salvation, in the Book of Alma, is both true and accurate. That is the only authority required. It is a universal law.

Those things in the Book of Mormon and it's adjuncts that are open to objective historical and scientific scrutiny have been shown, inequivicably, to be false. Why should any of the remaining snippets be taken seriously?

I am no longer a Mormon, however, the Book of Mormon is one of the most academically scrutinised books in existence yet it has never been discredited.

That is two blatant lies in one.

The method and conditions of its translation has never been replicated.

It could not even be replicated by Smith, he had to make excuses or lose any and all creditability.

The translator was not even intelligent enough to write such a canon of religious writ.

An interesting claim, but one the is obviously untrue. Witness the obvious fraud encircling the Egyptian materials.

Mormonism has developed a great many ethical concerns which has rendered it a unwise choice of religion, however, there are to many unexplained events and happenings that surround the book of mormon for it to be dismissed out of hand.

That is an unsupportable claim.

The big mistake you make is in branding it a historical record of the early inhabitants of South America. It is not. It is another testament to the Holy Bible. A book of commandments. It does not rely on historical accuracy for its authority. It's authority, like the bible, is God given.

The Christian Bible at least drew on real places and in many cases real people ... it can be reasonably viewed as an historical novel. The Book of Mormon can't even make to that, the locations, people and event (not to mention people and technologies) that are mentioned did not exist, so perhaps it can be best viewed as pure, unadulterated, fantasy, more akin to Lord of the RIngs than to, say, the Hornblower series.

I have no intentions of spouting historical facts. I am a Engineer and Christian, I am not a historian. If I need proof for any of this then I will use my knees.

When I need proof I use my brain ... I guess that the primary difference between us, you do your thinking with parts of your body that are ill suited to the task.

 

[Right lane]

I spent many, many years trying to disprove religion and faith. Frankly, most religions are build upon the interpretations and logic of men, who do, by nature, fall short of the glory of God, thus their doctrines are susceptible to being flawed as well. So religions are easy to disprove, and that is not just a handful, that is all of them. So when we see our coequals, on the other side of the fence, rubbing their hands together in glee, taunting us with the words that religions are slowly fading from our world, we can take solice in the fact that we are best rid of them anyway, none of have authority to act in the name of God. To disprove them is a little like using the scientific method. You have to simply be familiar with the scriptures, which give us and insight to the character and will of God, and have god knowledge of the Plan of Redemption. Like science there are set constants and laws that cannot be change. By those laws we can know what is true and what is false. If the contravene a principle or commandment then they are false.

For example, I listen to a testimony of a man who died and was revived. He gave a detailed account of what happened to him whilst he was dead. A very convincing account as well, but for one detail that exposed it as a fraud, or the source was dubious. He said that he found himself in the presence of God. Now, anyone who knows scriptures would know that it is impossible for a Spirit to be in the presence of God, pre-judgement. Anyone who is familiar with the Plan of Salvation would also know that his claim was fallacious. The Plan of Salvation is like a jig saw puzzle with every piece being unique. Many of our religions have some of the pieces, however, none of them have all the pieces. To disprove them is just a matter of looking at the pieces to see if they are all there. I have yet to find a religion that has all the pieces.

To clarify when I say religion I am referring to denominations in the Christian faith.

Now faith and our personal relationship with God is another story. It cannot be faulted in anyway or form. To be converted by the Holy Ghost, who opens the gates to the pure knowledge of the Plan of Redemption, and to receive that knowledge in all humility and faith in Christ, is to make yourself impervious to the fiery darts of Satan. So, in essence, I am throwing down the gauntlet to anyone who thinks they can disprove the logic of the Plan that was devised by God and accepted by Christ. I am looking for miss-shaped jig saw puzzle pieces that do to fit making the finished picture ugly instead of magnificent to behold. I am looking for someone to stump me on any aspect of Gods marvelous work and wonder to bring to pass the salvation and eternal life of mankind. If it cannot be done then even the disbelieved must concede that it is a rational and logical plan.

How does your beliefs and your God differ than the thousands that proceeded them that makes them valid and the others not valid ? If your answer is anything other than facts & evidence based, as opposed to faith based, I will not buy it.

BTW, why do christians celebrate the story that says jesus lifted the curse that he put on all mankind, in the beginning, because two people sought knowledge after they were tempted by "God" ? It seem jesus is simply giving people what he took from them in the first place.

Do you think it is just to commit people to eternal torture for not believing in a "God" that never shows himself ?

Do you think the jesus story is a lesson in morality ? Namely, the "sins" of the "guilty" can be absolved by punishing the innocent ?

 

[Serenity7855]

Ok, are you asking people to believe that a perfect being created either:

a) two perfect beings knowing they could be tempted to sin?

or:

b) two imperfect beings to be tempted to sin?

Either scenario casts the deity into doubt as to being a divinity. Why would any self respecting deity create "doomed to sin" creatures just to be able to forgive them? If A&E had resisted the 3rd attempt to make them sin, christianity would be moot. Who knows how many time they would be tempted after the talking snake episode. Seems the deity was actually rooting for failure dunit?

We have always existed. How could God create element. From nothing comes nothing, that is - creatio ex materia and not creatio ex nihilo. Intelligences, like subatomic particles, have always existed. The ability to act has alway been the right of the intelligences. We sin because we choose to sin and not because God made us that way. If that were not so then we would be nothing more then artificial intelligence, robots.

... and, how could YOU know how many people believe in the invisible blue fairy theory? It could be very wide spread and just not spoken of. A belief that doesn't need the hoopla of preachers and books and making money off the faithful. You cannot disprove it. It may be more complex and intricate than you could ever know.

I know because I was once a member of the invisible blue fairy fraternity. I thought i was being duped by my family into believing that they appeared every time I closed my eyes. Needless to say, I opened my eyes and saw them which meant that they were not really invisible. How could I possibly believe in them after seeing them.

 

[Sapiens]

We have always existed.

Unsubstantiated claim.

How could God create element. From nothing comes nothing, that is - creatio ex materia and not creatio ex nihilo. I

Even in Latin it's still just BS.

Intelligences, like subatomic particles, have always existed.

Unsubstantiated claim.

The ability to act has alway been the right of the intelligences.

Acting is an ability, not a right. Get yourself a dictionary.

We sin because we choose to sin and not because God made us that way.

The religious idea of "sin" is just so much crap, there is no such think as sin. There is only the natural morality born of natural selection and social contract.

If that were not so then we would be nothing more then artificial intelligence, robots.

Clearly not the case. This is another in your seemingly endless list of unsubstantiated, undocumented, completely off the wall, claims.

 

[Serenity7855]

You have the right to quote whichever source you choose. As an engineer who must have at least had some training in the sciences before graduating, you also know that review by one's peers is standard practice in order for any work or claim to gain merit. If it shown that your sources or methods were flawed, then out the window goes the conclusion, right?

"Hey Marty, where'd you get the figures for the stress tolerances of this wooden bridge?"

"Oh, I pulled them directly from the Fisher Price Building Materials picture book..."

"Uh, Marty, you know we can't use a Fisher Price Building Materials picture book when lives are at stake."

"Why not, boss? I give it authority. That's good enough, right?"

When using the scientific method, that is true, however, the same rules do not apply outside of science. That is a major stumbling block as sciences has encroached upon areas where it does not fit. That old saying "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That there is no evidence for the exexistence of God does not mean he does not exist. Part of the Plan of Salvation is the need to live by faith. My faith is sufficient to testify to me that there is indeed a deity. That you do not know that is sad to behold but you are not being prevented from knowing Him. That is entirely your choice. Christianity is personal to the individual. It is your relationship with God, it is not a congregational event. I am not trying to claim merit for my belief. It doesn't matter to me if you believe me or not because the only person who can come to the knowledge of divinity is you.

That's a fair point, but there are scientific studies available which verify the claims made by Hitler about breast milk, right? We trust the statement that Adolf made not because of his claim but because of the evidence to support it. The source is pointless - unless that source is obviously quite flawed and not even remotely connected to objective verifiable reality.

There is also verifiable archeological discoveries that verify the existence of a man called Jesus Christ. When Hitler says that breast feeding is better then bottle feeding we know he speaks the truth because science backs Him up. When we say that Jesus Christ went through a ignominious execution at Golgotha, the place of the Skull, we know that is true because historians and archaeologist backs it up.

This is actually my 10th post to you, spanning 4 pages and thousands of words.

Eleven, actually, but we will not split hairs, it is still insufficient.

Your claim is what is under scrutiny. And you have yet to source validity for your argument other than saying "Christians believe this" and "some holy books describe it. There it is true."

That is true, but only because what comes out of our mouths is truth. We have to be morally accountable for our actions and to bear false witness would render us sinners. That is not what we want. A newly whitewashed tomb looks clean and bright on the outside but inside it is filthy. Our inner vessels must be clean and sterile. If I say that my egg is white you can bet your life on it being white. The need to put it through a rigorous scientific analysis is unwarranted. If I say to you that I know that God lives, why wouldn't you believe me? The Plan of Salvation exists because religion is based upon it. Without it there is nothing but history.

How can people expect to falsify something that is not verifiable?

But it is verifiable

James 1:5-6

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

Mormonism 10:4

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

This is a promise to every human being.

You've yet to falsify my belief that tiny purple dragons sprinkle unicorn dust over our eyes while we sleep. They disappear when you open your eyes, or when someone is watching...Can you falsify that?

Tiny purple dragons sprinkle unicorn dust over our eyes while we sleep is unrealistic. God is plausible.

Some Christians hold tight to some of those beliefs and some do not. I wager that you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone who believes every single one of those tenets.

Every single one of these events are interconnected. One cannot exist without the other. They are all dependant on each other. It is the core of christianity. I believe in every single one.

I also wager that, although you claim otherwise, Jesus himself didn't mention all of them...

That is an irrelevance, however, I am pretty sure that you would lose the bet.

I don't doubt that it's part of what makes most Christians tick. I'm asking you to prove it's credibility outside of faith.

I can't, you will either have to take my word for it or brand me a liar. What is up for debate is whether the Plan of Salvation would work or is there too many discrepancies for it to ever get off the ground.

I am very aware of what the Plan of Salvation is and how it supposedly works. I just want you to show this Universal truth to me without copying the interpretation of someone else and without using faith.

If you are aware of what the Plan of Salvation is then you will be able to tell me if it is a plausible plan, and if not, then you should be able to show me why it is not plausible.

Copying the interpretation of individual aspects of the Plan of Salvation is for your benefit to fully understand it. That plan is based on faith. It does not work without faith so why would you expect me to show you evidence without faith when it is an essential ingredient. Universal Truth is a constant. It never changes. It is like a law. Apples will always fall from the tree. God created the universe. Both universal truth that are in independent.

Again, Universal Truths exists regardless of our belief systems. Since you've so far only referenced faith as evidence of the Plan, you'll have to do better.

No, that is a misconception. I do not need to do anything. I have already done it. It is you who needs to do better, should you wish to know.

At least the first two sentences are true. If the Devil himself wrote a true statement on a piece of paper, let's say it said "2 + 2 = 4", it would be a true statement regardless of who wrote it. Fact.

The second part of your statement, though, is false. You can say "I believe the book of Alama is both true and accurate and that is the only authority that I require. I believe it is a Universal Law."

Had you said that, you would have written a truth. However, what you said and what you should have said are totally different.
If it's true, then it will be expressed in places other Christian circles. Show us where those places are, and we can begin talking about whether or not there is any truth to it.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, The Methodist Church are two that immediately come to mind. Who is "us". Are you debating on behalf of a group who has selected you as their spokesman or do you speak for yourself, as I do.

You are asking why quoting from the Book of Alma is foolish. As a 25 year veteran of the Mormon faith, you should know more than anyone that the Historical authenticity of almost everything in that book is unacceptable in educated conversation.

I cannot comment on that. I am not a historian. However, I seem to recall that there was a video made by the church called "Ancient America Speaks" in which much of the historical evidence available backs up the Book of Mormon. I also recall an article on DNA analysis of native American showing that there is a connection with eastern countries. And yet another that showed the places in South America that matched those mentioned in the Book of Mormon, however, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable on the subject to debate it, no doubt you believe yoj can refute it as much as they fervantly believe that you can't..

It is not accepted by anyone in academia as being worth much more than the paper it is written on.

Have you ever heard of Brigham Young University and the many other universities in the State of Utah, and Jerusalem.

I do not make that statement as a insult, but as a critique of a source, which I explained earlier in this reply. Quoting something of dubious origin is foolish, just like taking stress tolerances from a Fisher Price book.

Not if the content of the Fisher Price book were accurate. You are assuming that because it is Fisher Price that it will be written for children. How have you based that assumption? What evidence exists that states that all Fisher Price book are written for children, or, like the existence of God, we take it as being true.

As long as you admit that your requirement for truth is subjective faith, then you and I have nothing to argue about.
I will suggest, however, that you look into the historical accuracy of some of the claims in the book that you lend authority to before you make statements claiming that it has never been falsified.

The translation of the Book of Mormon has never been falsified. No one can fully explain how it came into existence. There is no religious requirement for it to be historically correct. What is required is the moral code that it contains and if that code verifies the same code in the bible. It is a second witness of Christ. That elephants were never native to that country is a complete irrelevance and not insurmountable to an Omnipotent God. Historical verification is a red herring.

 

[Serenity7855]

How does your beliefs and your God differ than the thousands that proceeded them that makes them valid and the others not valid ? If your answer is anything other than facts & evidence based, as opposed to faith based, I will not buy it.

Well, an answer is not what you are looking for then as Christianity is faith based.

BTW, why do christians celebrate the story that says jesus lifted the curse that he put on all mankind, in the beginning, because two people sought knowledge after they were tempted by "God" ? It seem jesus is simply giving people what he took from them in the first place.

What story are you referring to. I do not recognise your story. You obviously read a different bible to mine as nowhere in my bible does it say that Jesus cursed anyone. The tempting was done by Satan and not God and Jesus was not even involved. I think you need to read up on what you are accusing divinity of before you try and discredit them. You run a risk of making yourself seem ignorant to the actual story.

Do you think it is just to commit people to eternal torture for not believing in a "God" that never shows himself ?

No.

Do you think the jesus story is a lesson in morality ? Namely, the "sins" of the "guilty" can be absolved by punishing the innocent ?

No

 

[jonathan180iq]

When using the scientific method, that is true, however, the same rules do not apply outside of science. That is a major stumbling block as sciences has encroached upon areas where it does not fit. That old saying "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That there is no evidence for the exexistence of God does not mean he does not exist. Part of the Plan of Salvation is the need to live by faith. My faith is sufficient to testify to me that there is indeed a deity.

Science has not encroached anywhere. The discoveries that have been made have lead people to question their preconceived notions in light of certain evidences - but that's a natural outcome of curiosity. IF there was a preconceived notion that flowers bloomed because fairies opened their petals, and then studying flowers demonstratively proved that flowers opened of their own accord, it would naturally cause one to question the necessity to believe in the actions of fairies, would it not. (I know this example is incredibly simplistic, but work with me.) Science hasn't encroached upon areas where it does not fit. It simply makes observations of the world, studies it, and proposes conclusions to how stuff works. If the findings aren't convenient to certain notions, that's not the fault of Science.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it's certainly not evidence of existence either. Without something to back up the claim, it simply can't be considered part of objective reality.

You made the claim that Faith in Christ is Completely Logical. Therein lies the burden of proof. For someone to logically accept this premise, you have to show why - not what you believe or what some books say, but why it should be viewed as anything more than fable.

There is also verifiable archeological discoveries that verify the existence of a man called Jesus Christ. When Hitler says that breast feeding is better then bottle feeding we know he speaks the truth because science backs Him up. When we say that Jesus Christ went through a ignominious execution at Golgotha, the place of the Skull, we know that is true because historians and archaeologist backs it up.

Is there? You'd be more than hard-pressed to find anything other than secondary sources. I say that not as a skeptic but as a scholar. There are a couple of questionable references by Josephus, several artifacts that were proven to be forgeries, a few scraps of parchment from 100-300 years after the fact and that's it. Other than church tradition (and whatever might be held captive under the Vatican) there's nothing else to validate the claim.

Eleven, actually, but we will not split hairs, it is still insufficient.

You said 2, I said 10, now it's 11. The point is, I have read everything you have written to me and I don't dismiss the conversation as a passing point. The fact remains that I have been making the same point since I first addressed you and it is only met with the explanation that "I believe this and the Scriptures tell me it's true."

That is true, but only because what comes out of our mouths is truth. We have to be morally accountable for our actions and to bear false witness would render us sinners. That is not what we want.

As much as I would prefer to believe that, nothing that we say is of merit unless it is supported. The words that come out of our mouths are judged by their accuracy, not by our promise to tell the truth.

Tiny purple dragons sprinkle unicorn dust over our eyes while we sleep is unrealistic. God is plausible.

But can you falsify them?

The mental framework of a world controlled by the Greek and Roman gods was quite plausible, as long as you accepted their precepts. Can you falsify the faith of hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people, spanning hundreds of years? Entire cultures and even modern architecture was influenced by these very invented deities. Daily lives were changed and every aspect of one's day focused on the actions of these mythological supernatural beings. Who's to say that we're not all just deeply removed from the love of the almighty Zeus? Can you falsify their existence in our lives?

Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I can't, you will either have to take my word for it or brand me a liar. What is up for debate is whether the Plan of Salvation would work or is there too many discrepancies for it to ever get off the ground.

Exactly, it is all based on individual faith - not objective reality or Universal Truth.

It is an illogical concept, spread over thousands of generations, with each generation trying to reconcile the fact that there is no sign of the paradise that was promised before, during, or after the crucifixion. Each generation has to find, and then fabricate, coordinating interpretation of scriptural passages in order to validate their continued faith in something unseen.

You may find personal truths hidden within these stories. And, again, that's absolutely fine.
Your personal truths, however, are not Universal Truths, regardless of the veracity of your faith.

If you are aware of what the Plan of Salvation is then you will be able to tell me if it is a plausible plan, and if not, then you should be able to show me why it is not plausible.

The very idea of a creation being created for the purpose of destruction is illogical. To then claim that reconciliation with the creator must be achieved through some random political human sacrifice is also illogical. To claim that this reconciliation must be achieved through faith in this random political prisoner, when the method of transferring information has reached global proportions roughly 2,000 years after the fact, is quite illogical. The absence of evidence for the events of this supposed event, which included the bodies of the deceased walking around, an earthquake, a solar eclipse, the ripping of a giant curtain in the Temple, and other such events never mentioned by history, renders it illogical.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, The Methodist Church are two that immediately come to mind. Who is "us". Are you debating on behalf of a group who has selected you as their spokesman or do you speak for yourself, as I do.

Us refers to anyone who has taken the stance against your proposition that faith in this Plan of Salvation is logical.

As an aside, doesn't it seem odd that several of "us" seem to be saying the same things to you?
We've never met. We've never PMed. We aren't conspiring. Hell, we aren't even of the same religious persuasion. Yet the same types of questions are being asked and the same concepts are being brought up.

"Us" refers to your readers - I am included.

I cannot comment on that. I am not a historian. However, I seem to recall that there was a video made by the church called "Ancient America Speaks" in which much of the historical evidence available backs up the Book of Mormon. I also recall an article on DNA analysis of native American showing that there is a connection with eastern countries. And yet another that showed the places in South America that matched those mentioned in the Book of Mormon, however, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable on the subject to debate it, no doubt you believe yoj can refute it as much as they fervantly believe that you can't..

A video supplied by the Church to prove that the church is legit? Surely you see the problem there.

Genome studies of the native peoples of America will trace back to Eastern countries because of the migration patterns of nomadic people across the Northern Pacific, down the Western American shoreline and and then fanning out into all different parts of the continents between 13,000-40,000 years ago... It has nothing at all to do with what Joseph Smith fantasized about.

The Genographic Project by National Geographic - Human Migration, Population Genetics - This is a global study, attempting to trace the lineage of everyone, ever.

Have you ever heard of Brigham Young University and the many other universities in the State of Utah, and Jerusalem.

There are plenty of academic pursuits that have nothing at all to do with verifying a Holy Book. As you've mentioned, the furthest that most people get is "I accept this book as an authority and that's all I need to know about it" It's a serviceable, albeit misguided approach to education.

Not if the content of the Fisher Price book were accurate. You are assuming that because it is Fisher Price that it will be written for children. How have you based that assumption? What evidence exists that states that all Fisher Price book are written for children, or, like the existence of God, we take it as being true.

The point is, you wouldn't trust your stress tolerance info if it came from a children's book. You would verify the info in the children's book with better sources before you built the bridge, right? You wouldn't just blindly accept it because you liked the book. You wouldn't argue that the info from that book is perfect, so you had no need to verify the numbers from other sources. If you did, you would quickly be out of a job, if not on trial with a wrongful death lawsuit.

 

[Sapiens]

When using the scientific method, that is true, however, the same rules do not apply outside of science. That is a major stumbling block as sciences has encroached upon areas where it does not fit.

There are no areas that science doesn't fit. What you are, in fact, complaining about is that science has successfully falsified all sorts of religious claptrap and deprived you of that comfort and support. Too damn bad, time to grow up.
[/quote]

There is also verifiable archeological discoveries that verify the existence of a man called Jesus Christ. When Hitler says that breast feeding is better then bottle feeding we know he speaks the truth because science backs Him up. When we say that Jesus Christ went through a ignominious execution at Golgotha, the place of the Skull, we know that is true because historians and archaeologist backs it up.

That's simply not true. There is neither historical and/or archeological evidence.

Tiny purple dragons sprinkle unicorn dust over our eyes while we sleep is unrealistic. God is plausible.

Only to one so blind that they choose not to see.

I can't, you will either have to take my word for it or brand me a liar.

OK, consider it done ... ages ago I believe.

I cannot comment on that. I am not a historian. However, I seem to recall that there was a video made by the church called "Ancient America Speaks" in which much of the historical evidence available backs up the Book of Mormon. I also recall an article on DNA analysis of native American showing that there is a connection with eastern countries. And yet another that showed the places in South America that matched those mentioned in the Book of Mormon, however, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable on the subject to debate it, no doubt you believe yoj can refute it as much as they fervantly believe that you can't.

You need to become more knowledgeable about these areas. Your lack of discernment is leading you astray as you accept authorities that are in fact stupid and deceptive.

The translation of the Book of Mormon has never been falsified.

No, but the lost 110 pages sure open it up to serious doubt.

No one can fully explain how it came into existence.

Easy to explain, oldest con-game on earth conducted by a convicted practitioner of the art.

There is no religious requirement for it to be historically correct.

Is that an admission the the historical material contained therein is a blatant lie?

What is required is the moral code that it contains and if that code verifies the same code in the bible. It is a second witness of Christ. That elephants were never native to that country is a complete irrelevance and not insurmountable to an Omnipotent God. Historical verification is a red herring.

Wow! That is, quite literally, beyond belief.

 

[Serenity7855]

Science has not encroached anywhere.

I beg to differ. It's evil tenticles is infiltrating every facet of our society, effecting, and infecting, every minute detail of our world. It has edged it's way into politics manipulating our politicians into dishonesty and immorality. It is fast becoming a scourge to humanity. Scientists determined when it is OK to abort a fetus, to effectively kill a child, and the government implemented their finding on the world stage as though it were ethical. Abortion is unethical at any age unless the oregnancy threatens life. In essence they have complete control over what happens in our world and with such extensive powers comes unwieldy corruption.

AIDS is a prime example. To give a brief synopsis.There is no possibility what-so-ever for HIV to cause AIDS. Anyone who thinks differently has been duped, brainwashed. The symptoms and microbiology totally fail koch's postulates. The expedemiology does not comply with a bath tub curve of a viral epidemic. It is a completely different virus then can be found in Africa and the politics and corrupt diagnostic methods make the whole thing a complete joke, with thousands being diagnosed with AIDS without even having HIV, but it is a gold mine for the scientists who work for the pharmaceutical companies that produce a treatment so toxic that nothing like it has ever been prescribe to mankind ever before, it actually causes the disease it is supposed to cure. Those pharmaceutical companies are paying off the US government, who look the other way, with billions of dollars in back handers, whilst innocent people have been misled by governments and psuedo scientists making claims that do not even comply to their own scientific methods. Believe me, I could write a book on how the corrupting influence of politicians, intermingled with get rich quick scientists, have killed millions. And anyone who stands out from the rest, who are too frightened to come out, are vilified and hounded by government departments set on destroying any objections to their filthy plans to control the world we live in. Science is great for curing cancer, but carnal man is an enemy to God, to morality, so for every good that science produces there is a thousand corrupt dealing. Of course science is hell bent on getting rid of religion. We are the only movement with the guts to stand up and say NO. That is why you will find blinker visioned, bigoted scientists on here using aggressive and hostile techniques to ostracise Christians. As Christ said "They know not what they do"

The discoveries that have been made have lead people to question their preconceived notions in light of certain evidences - but that's a natural outcome of curiosity.

The discoveries that have been publicised are merely smokescreen to the atrocities performed at the hands of unscrupulous scientists.

IF there was a preconceived notion that flowers bloomed because fairies opened their petals, and then studying flowers demonstratively proved that flowers opened of their own accord, it would naturally cause one to question the necessity to believe in the actions of fairies, would it not. (I know this example is incredibly simýplistic, but work with me.) Science hasn't encroached upon areas where it does not fit. It simply makes observations of the world, studies it, and proposes conclusions to how stuff works. If the findings aren't convenient to certain notions, that's not the fault of Science.

If that were true then there would not be such a massive devide between science and religion. This is the last days. Armageddon will be fought between theism and atheism in science and politics, with the mega rich, who have sucked the life blood out of our world, thinking that the will be saved by the god, called money..

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it's certainly not evidence of existence either. Without something to back up the claim, it simply can't be considered part of objective reality.

Only in science is evidence an essential requirement. In my world the word of a wise man is still convincing.

You made the claim that Faith in Christ is Completely Logical. Therein lies the burden of proof. For someone to logically accept this premise, you have to show why - not what you believe or what some books say, but why it should be viewed as anything more than fable.

You are attempting to set a trap that I am vigilant in avoiding after seeing the same trap many times. The introductory heading was to the challenge to falsify the Plan of Salvation. In order for the plan to work it is essential to have faith in Christ. If the Plan of Salvation can be shown to be logical and rational then faith in Christ is also included. But playing on word like saying "but you said" and "I said" is tiresome and not conducive to constructive debate.

For those who do not possess the ability to tap into the powers of heaven the bible is just a fable in a book. It is those same people who will be stood motionless with mouth agape when the Saviour returns to lift up his elect.

Is there? You'd be more than hard-pressed to find anything other than secondary sources. I say that not as a skeptic but as a scholar. There are a couple of questionable references by Josephus, several artifacts that were proven to be forgeries, a few scraps of parchment from 100-300 years after the fact and that's it. Other than church tradition (and whatever might be held captive under the Vatican) there's nothing else to validate the claim.

The Jesus/Magdalene Papyrus. Plus a whole host of recent developments and documentaries making the life of Christ an almost certainty, beyond doubt. One such Documentary called "Eyewitness to Jesus" has the eye witness account at 62AD. I do not know where you were schooled but this evidence is easily available in layman's terms to anybody who wants to see.

You said 2, I said 10, now it's 11. The point is, I have read everything you have written to me and I don't dismiss the conversation as a passing point. The fact remains that I have been making the same point since I first addressed you and it is only met with the explanation that "I believe this and the Scriptures tell me it's true."

I do not believe I said that the scriptures told me it's true. One, because it is not terminology that I use, and secondly, because I have never communicated with scripture. My responses to you have been consistent with my level of expertise on the Plan of Salvation. Ask me the same questions next year and I will give you the same answer. Truth is a constant. It is a part of who I am. I have entrenched myself in its precepts and principles to a point where I need not consider my rebutled to questions relating to it. I am entirely familiar with every single aspect of the Plan of Salvation, I to have been making the same point, and have been met with your resilience to shift an inch in your belief, which is fine, but resilience does not make you right. You are wrong. God lives and this is a probationary period in which we prepare to meet God.

As much as I would prefer to believe that, nothing that we say is of merit unless it is supported. The words that come out of our mouths are judged by their accuracy, not by our promise to tell the truth.

Well yes, I would concur, however the truth we tell should be synonymous with accuracy.

But can you falsify them?

I can give rational explanation that would incorporate naturalistic laws that would make it highly improbable. But that is science, the best possible explanation. Just like the rapid expansion is best explained by naming it a supernatural event. There is no other explanation.

The mental framework of a world controlled by the Greek and Roman gods was quite plausible, as long as you accepted their precepts. Can you falsify the faith of hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people, spanning hundreds of years? Entire cultures and even modern architecture was influenced by these very invented deities. Daily lives were changed and every aspect of one's day focused on the actions of these mythological supernatural beings. Who's to say that we're not all just deeply removed from the love of the almighty Zeus? Can you falsify their existence in our lives?

I do not need to falsify ancient belief systems to Justify my own. I know that Christianity is a method by which I can return to God in heaven. Anything else is irrelevant. It matters only to me, which is why I continue to state that Christianity is personal and not congregational, however, the Plan of Salvation can still be analysed and, if possible, falsified.

Exactly, it is all based on individual faith - not objective reality or Universal Truth.

The culmination of individual faith results in universal truth.

It is an illogical concept, spread over thousands of generations, with each generation trying to reconcile the fact that there is no sign of the paradise that was promised before, during, or after the crucifixion. Each generation has to find, and then fabricate, coordinating interpretation of scriptural passages in order to validate their continued faith in something unseen.

That is the teachings of man, it is not the teachings of God.

As far as I am aware, paradise was never promised before, during, or after the crucifixion. The only paradise I know of is in the spirit world where we all go after our life ends here.

Faith is the belief is things unseen but are true. In science the Theory of Evolution is the best possible example of how we came to being. But it is a theory because the time constraints on transitions is to large to observe and monitor. The word theory, in science, means that it is pretty much a fact as it seems unlikely that another theory will raise it's head. Faith is not dissimilar. You reach a point where you know that the postman will post your mail between 10 and 12 everyday. Faith is knowing without knowing.

Your outlook on humanity is far more negative then mine. Do people really need to believe in a God. I didn't look for it, it happened. I didn't manipulate scripture to fit my belief, my belief is the result of the testimony of the Holy Ghost. I am not some delusional fool who tricks himself into feeling that someone has spoken to me. I am rational and logical. I scrutinised it and tried to falsify and explain it away. I kept performing the same experiment with identical results and when I could no longer find a reason not to believe I succumbed to the enticing of the Holy Ghost. I constantly tap into the powers of heaven and have never been disappointed. When you try and rationalise it you have no idea how unfortunate it sounds to me because I know that what I am saying is true, yet you have no clue.

You may find personal truths hidden within these stories. And, again, that's absolutely fine.
Your personal truths, however, are not Universal Truths, regardless of the veracity of your faith.

These are allegories and parables. They are not intended to tell a story they are intended to teach a principle. That principle is what I seek to perfect on my life. Those principles are universal, irrespective as to whether you are religious or not. Nobody welcomes adultery, murder, theft or bearing fafalse witness.

The very idea of a creation being created for the purpose of destruction is illogical.

It is also not a part of the Plan of Salvation either. The earth was created for mankind and will return to its celestial condition when all is done with here. There is no destruction of the world just the destruction of the wicked and non-believers.

To then claim that reconciliation with the creator must be achieved through some random political human sacrifice is also illogical.

And that to is not a part of the Plan of Salvation. This is not about God, this is all about us and what we wanted and agreed to during our first estate. Without the atonement there could be no resurrection and eternal life. It was not political, it was a necessity. The reconciliation is with our self in order to receive salvation.

To claim that this reconciliation must be achieved through faith in this random political prisoner, when the method of transferring information has reached global proportions roughly 2,000 years after the fact, is quite illogical.

The reconciliation is achieved through repentance, that invokes the power of the atonement, which bridges the gap between perfection and imperfection. Without the faith to believe that the atonement will achieve what it is susupposed to achieve than there can be no repentance. I am sure you can just make out the intricacies of the interwoven principles of the Plan of Salvation. Those principles apply the same today as they did 2,000 years ago. That makes it ultra logical. But once again your idea of what the Plan of Salvation is, is very misguided.

The absence of evidence for the events of this supposed event, which included the bodies of the deceased walking around, an earthquake, a solar eclipse, the ripping of a giant curtain in the Temple, and other such events never mentioned by history, renders it illogical.

You place you faith in tangible evidence that would have little likelihood of surviving to modern times. We do not expect evidence for many things that have occurred in history yet there is nowhere near the amount of controversy of that. Why, because the truth of Jesus gets the backs of atheists up.

Incidentally, those souls who were raised from the grave were judged and received salvation. They are somewhere in heaven, which is why there are no bodies.

Us refers to anyone who has taken the stance against your proposition that faith in this Plan of Salvation is logical.

It is also a bullying technique to give the impression that your opponent is being ganged up on.

As an aside, doesn't it seem odd that several of "us" seem to be saying the same things to you?
We've never met. We've never PMed. We aren't conspiring. Hell, we aren't even of the same religious persuasion. Yet the same types of questions are being asked and the same concepts are being brought up.

Does it seem equally strange that several of us seem to also being saying the same thing. Check the thread and see that at one point there was around eight christians all saying the same thing as well. But you err, as such an observation is a fallacious appeal to numbers. Argumentum ad populum.

Many of those christians share the same experience to me and also live in the four corners of the world unknown to me. Your argument is mute and nonsensical.

A video supplied by the Church to prove that the church is legit? Surely you see the problem there.

You would only consider that a problem if you had trust issues or if you are projecting.

 

[Sapiens]

I beg to differ. It's evil tenticles is infiltrating every facet of our society, effecting, and infecting, every minute detail of our world. It has edged it's way into politics manipulating our politicians into dishonesty and immorality. It is fast becoming a scourge to humanity. Scientists determined when it was OK to abort a fetus, to effectively kill a child, and the government implemented their finding on the world as though it were ethical. In essence they have complete control over what happens in our world and with such extensive powers comes unwieldy corruption.

Science's evil tentacles? You mean like: Knowledge, Nutrition, Health Care, Increased Standards of Living? Those tentacles?

AIDS is a prime example. To give a brief synopsis.There is no possibility what-so-ever for HIV to cause AIDS.

Those are the ravings of a denialist, we've debunked your opinions on the subject several times in the past, there is not need to do so again.

If that were true then there would not be such a massive devide between science and religion. This is the last days. Armageddon will be fought between theism and atheism in science and politics and with the mega rich who have sacked the life blood out of our world.

The division between science and religion is that as scientific knowledge has advanced religion has not always gracefully withdrawn from the approximations, half-truths, tall tales, fables and outright lies that it has been revealed as having had participated in.

Only in science is evidence an essential requirement. In my world the word of a wise man is still convincing.

"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume.

You are attempting to set a trap that I am vigilant in avoiding after seeing the same trap many times. The introductory heading was to the challenge to falsify the Plan of Salvation. In order for the plan to work it is essential to have faith in Christ. If the Plan of Salvation can be shown to be logical and rational then faith in Christ is also included. But playing on word like saying "but you said" and "I said" is tiresome and not conducive to constructive debate.

No need, you built the trap, baited it and then jumped right in.

For those who do not possess the ability to tap into the powers of heaven the bible is just a fable in a book. It is those same people who will be stood motionless with mouth agape when the Saviour returns to lift up his elect.

Please demonstrate the "powers of heaven, or at least hold your breath until the Savior returns to lift up his elect.

The Jesus/Magdalene Papyrus. Plus a whole host of recent developments making the life of Christ a certainty beyond doubt.

No, comparative consensus paleographical analysis dates the manuscript to about 200, CE.

One such Documentary but the eye witness account at 62AD. I do not know where you were schooled but this is evidence available in layman's terms to anybody who wants to see.

Your alleged Christ died in thirty something CE, what was there to "eyewitness" in 62 CE?

I do not believe I said that the scriptures told me it's true. One, because it is not terminology that I use and secondly because I have never communicated with scripture. My responses to you have been consistent with my expertise on the Plan of Salvation.

Ah, you are an expert on the cut and fit of the Emperor's new clothes.

Ask me the same questions next year and I will give you the same answer.

You expect to learn nothing in an entire year? I'd find that to be a badly wasted year.

Truth is a constant. It is a part of who I am. I have entrenched myself in its precepts and principles to a point where I need not consider my rebutted to questions relating to it. I am entirely familiar with every single aspect of the Plan of Salvation, I to have been making the same point and gave been met with your resilience to shift an inch in your belief, which is fine, but resilience does not make you right. You are wrong. God lives and this is a probationary period in which we prepare to meet God.

OK, you're stubborn, no one ever denied that, but the so are mules. Are they smart though? "Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best proof of stupidity." - Michel de Montaigne

Faith is the belief is things unseen but are true. In science the Theory of Evolution is the best possible example of how we came to being. But it is a theory because the time constraints on transitions is to large to monitor. The word theory, in science, means that it is pretty much a fact as it seems unlikely that another theory will raise it's head. Faith is not disdissimilar. You reach a point where you know that the postman will post your mail between 10 and 12 everyday. Faith is knowing without knowing.

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." — Friedrich Nietzsche

Your outlook on humanity is far more negative then mine. Do people really need to believe in a God. I didn't look for it, it happened. I didn't manipulate scripture to fit my belief my belief is the result of the testimony of the Holy Ghost. I am not some delusional fool who tricks himself into feeling that someone has spoken to me. I am rational and logical. I scrutinised it and tried to falsify and explain it away. I keep performing the same experiment with identical results and when I could no longer find a reason not to believe I succumbed to the enticing of the Holy Ghost. I constantly tap into the powers of heaven and have never been disappointed. When you try and rationalise it you have no idea how unfortunate it sounds to me because I know that what I am saying is true.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." — George Bernard Shaw

 

[jonathan180iq]

I beg to differ. It's evil tenticles is infiltrating every facet of our society, effecting, and infecting, every minute detail of our world. It has edged it's way into politics manipulating our politicians into dishonesty and immorality. It is fast becoming a scourge to humanity. Scientists determined when it is OK to abort a fetus, to effectively kill a child, and the government implemented their finding on the world stage as though it were ethical. Abortion is unethical at any age unless the oregnancy threatens life. In essence they have complete control over what happens in our world and with such extensive powers comes unwieldy corruption.

AIDS is a prime example. To give a brief synopsis.There is no possibility what-so-ever for HIV to cause AIDS. Anyone who thinks differently has been duped, brainwashed. The symptoms and microbiology totally fail koch's postulates. The expedemiology does not comply with a bath tub curve of a viral epidemic. It is a completely different virus then can be found in Africa and the politics and corrupt diagnostic methods make the whole thing a complete joke, with thousands being diagnosed with AIDS without even having HIV, but it is a gold mine for the scientists who work for the pharmaceutical companies that produce a treatment so toxic that nothing like it has ever been prescribe to mankind ever before, it actually causes the disease it is supposed to cure. Those pharmaceutical companies are paying off the US government, who look the other way, with billions of dollars in back handers, whilst innocent people have been misled by governments and psuedo scientists making claims that do not even comply to their own scientific methods. Believe me, I could write a book on how the corrupting influence of politicians, intermingled with get rich quick scientists, have killed millions. And anyone who stands out from the rest, who are too frightened to come out, are vilified and hounded by government departments set on destroying any objections to their filthy plans to control the world we live in. Science is great for curing cancer, but carnal man is an enemy to God, to morality, so for every good that science produces there is a thousand corrupt dealing. Of course science is hell bent on getting rid of religion. We are the only movement with the guts to stand up and say NO. That is why you will find blinker visioned, bigoted scientists on here using aggressive and hostile techniques to ostracise Christians. As Christ said "They know not what they do"

The discoveries that have been publicised are merely smokescreen to the atrocities performed at the hands of unscrupulous scientists.

Um, I think you're bias is sticking out just a little bit. You might want to put that away.

If that were true then there would not be such a massive devide between science and religion. This is the last days. Armageddon will be fought between theism and atheism in science and politics, with the mega rich, who have sucked the life blood out of our world, thinking that the will be saved by the god, called money..

Every single day since the dawn of time has been "The Last Day" - The Christian claim to have a monopoly on this concept is no more right than any other similar claims.

Only in science is evidence an essential requirement. In my world the word of a wise man is still convincing.

The word of nearly anyone with charisma can be convincing... Being convinced of something doesn't make it true.

You are attempting to set a trap that I am vigilant in avoiding after seeing the same trap many times. The introductory heading was to the challenge to falsify the Plan of Salvation. In order for the plan to work it is essential to have faith in Christ. If the Plan of Salvation can be shown to be logical and rational then faith in Christ is also included. But playing on word like saying "but you said" and "I said" is tiresome and not conducive to constructive debate.

For those who do not possess the ability to tap into the powers of heaven the bible is just a fable in a book. It is those same people who will be stood motionless with mouth agape when the Saviour returns to lift up his elect.

My man, you just don't see why the Purple dragon argument and your argument are the same thing...

If I burst into a room and did my spiel about the Purple Dragons, it would be ridiculous of me to ask everyone to disprove my claim without supporting my own claim. That is what the burden of proof is. The basic rules of debate are not a trap.

Philosophic Burden of Proof - "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.[3]"

Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Jesus/Magdalene Papyrus. Plus a whole host of recent developments and documentaries making the life of Christ an almost certainty, beyond doubt. One such Documentary called "Eyewitness to Jesus" has the eye witness account at 62AD. I do not know where you were schooled but this evidence is easily available in layman's terms to anybody who wants to see.

Please read my statement again. The Magdalene Papyrus is one of documents that registers in that block of time that I mentioned, between 100-300 years after the fact. The Eyewitness to Christ is based on the inaccurate dating methods of 1 man. And before it's asserted that the evil scientists and atheists are the ones trying to cover up the truth, it's not skeptics who have questioned his dating methods, it's believers. No matter how much someone wants that document to be dated to 37 CE, the facts conclude that it was written much later. If we are going to talk about truth and accuracy, then you have to admit that inventing something just because we want it to be so makes it false.

I do not believe I said that the scriptures told me it's true. One, because it is not terminology that I use, and secondly, because I have never communicated with scripture [\QUOTE]

My responses to you have been consistent with my level of expertise on the Plan of Salvation. Ask me the same questions next year and I will give you the same answer. Truth is a constant. It is a part of who I am. I have entrenched myself in its precepts and principles to a point where I need not consider my rebutled to questions relating to it. I am entirely familiar with every single aspect of the Plan of Salvation, I to have been making the same point, and have been met with your resilience to shift an inch in your belief, which is fine, but resilience does not make you right. You are wrong. God lives and this is a probationary period in which we prepare to meet God.

Multiple times you've quotes passages from the Bible or from the Book of Mormon, as evidence to your claims.

It's not resilience that I'm looking for to prove me right. This is not about you being wrong or me being right. It's about accuracy. What makes something right, or accurate, or true, or whatever synonymous word you want to use is verifiable evidence. Unless you have that, then everything is just a convicted guess.

I can give rational explanation that would incorporate naturalistic laws that would make it highly improbable. But that is science, the best possible explanation. Just like the rapid expansion is best explained by naming it a supernatural event. There is no other explanation.

The rapid expansion is incredibly well understood, drawing cohesive evidences from multiple independent fields of study. It needs no "magic" or supernatural title to describe or explain the event. The only reason that someone would call it supernatural is to open up, in their mind, the possibility that there is room for the fairy tale of transplanted Jewish kingdoms....

The culmination of individual faith results in universal truth.

So truth is just made up? It's whatever we all decide that it is?
I've never heard a religious person claim that truth is relative.

That is the teachings of man, it is not the teachings of God.

As far as I am aware, paradise was never promised before, during, or after the crucifixion. The only paradise I know of is in the spirit world where we all go after our life ends here.

Luke 23:43
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise

Someone, somehow, recorded this conversation between two dying men hanging on a stump on a wood...

Faith is the belief is things unseen but are true.

In science the Theory of Evolution is the best possible example of how we came to being. But it is a theory because the time constraints on transitions is too large to observe and monitor. The word theory, in science, means that it is pretty much a fact as it seems unlikely that another theory will raise it's head. Faith is not dissimilar. You reach a point where you know that the postman will post your mail between 10 and 12 everyday. Faith is knowing without knowing

So says every person of faith from every denomination ever..

There will always be gaps in knowledge. Those gaps are filled with hypotheses until there is data available that will allow us to test them. Once there is data available, supporting whatever conclusion it will support, then the scientific worldview will adapt to the known truth. It doesn't for example, pretend that letting blood out of the brain cavity will prevent headaches, as it once did.

The mailman would have established a predictable routine. It is that predictable routine that you expect to continue happening. If, one day, the mailman gets a late start and doesn't show until 3:30, no one is going to claim that the Holy Mailman is never late, because that would be a falsehood.

Your outlook on humanity is far more negative then mine. Do people really need to believe in a God. I didn't look for it, it happened. I didn't manipulate scripture to fit my belief, my belief is the result of the testimony of the Holy Ghost. I am not some delusional fool who tricks himself into feeling that someone has spoken to me. I am rational and logical. I scrutinised it and tried to falsify and explain it away. I kept performing the same experiment with identical results and when I could no longer find a reason not to believe I succumbed to the enticing of the Holy Ghost. I constantly tap into the powers of heaven and have never been disappointed. When you try and rationalise it you have no idea how unfortunate it sounds to me because I know that what I am saying is true, yet you have no clue.

Your personal convictions aren't what I'm questioning. It's your claim to Universal Truth.

These are allegories and parables. They are not intended to tell a story they are intended to teach a principle. That principle is what I seek to perfect on my life. Those principles are universal, irrespective as to whether you are religious or not. Nobody welcomes adultery, murder, theft or bearing fafalse witness.

The mentioned principles of murder, theft, and lying are also explained under different circumstances well outside of the Christian faith and are not dependent whatsoever on this Plan of Salvation.

Naturalistically, those things would have been hindrances to survival. Anything that hindered further survival would be considered "bad."

Several world religious influences prior even to the first ancestors of the people who would become the Hebrews understood these concepts. Again, if anything that's evidence that the Christian concept is just another in a long line of groups who claim to hold proprietary rights to truth.

It is also not a part of the Plan of Salvation either. The earth was created for mankind and will return to its celestial condition when all is done with here. There is no destruction of the world just the destruction of the wicked and non-believers.

From start to finish, the Plan of Salvation extends from creation to Armageddon, does it not? And, using the Christian texts, what transpired during the creation period? An omnipotent God created a flawed system that he has to spend thousands of years correcting before he would introduce the final correction that would bridge the gap between the holy and the unholy. Am I missing something here? Since that's what it says, my original statement still stands.

And that to is not a part of the Plan of Salvation. This is not about God, this is all about us and what we wanted and agreed to during our first estate. Without the atonement there could be no resurrection and eternal life. It was not political, it was a necessity. The reconciliation is with our self in order to receive salvation.

Again, a political prisoner of the subjoining Jewish and Roman states in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago being executed is the great redemption for humanity? It's the greatest story ever told? It's the Universal Truth in this over-arching Plan of Salvation? There are more intriguing tales today, and in antiquity, than this.

Does it validate the faith of a particular sect of Judaism? Sure.
Does that personal validation mean that a particular group of people have discovered the ONE TRUTH....nope.

The reconciliation is achieved through repentance, that invokes the power of the atonement, which bridges the gap between perfection and imperfection. Without the faith to believe that the atonement will achieve what it is susupposed to achieve than there can be no repentance. I am sure you can just make out the intricacies of the interwoven principles of the Plan of Salvation. Those principles apply the same today as they did 2,000 years ago. That makes it ultra logical. But once again your idea of what the Plan of Salvation is, is very misguided.

Quite the contrary. It is very understood. And it is perfectly acceptable to people of faith, as their personal truth. It is not, for the 13th time, an indicator that it is a Universal Truth.

To further that - Can Buddhists, seeking only enlightenment and repentance for wrongs in their lives, achieve this cleansing atonement while rejecting the deity or even existence of Christ?

You place you faith in tangible evidence that would have little likelihood of surviving to modern times. We do not expect evidence for many things that have occurred in history yet there is nowhere near the amount of controversy of that. Why, because the truth of Jesus gets the backs of atheists up.

Incidentally, those souls who were raised from the grave were judged and received salvation. They are somewhere in heaven, which is why there are no bodies.

I don't place my faith in hardly anything. I just don't make claims that cannot be supported factually.

And as an Historian, there are plenty of things that are known to be missing from certain records - and any claims about those gaps in knowledge are understood to be purely conjecture. These conjectures can be incredibly entertaining and even personally satisfying. But when we sit down at the end of the day, we know that they're just conjecture.

There is probably more that has been lost to ravages of time than what currently exists, including what is yet to be discovered. And it's a travesty, really. It's lost knowledge. But to claim, absolutely, that we know what happened when there is little to no evidence to support us, is to propagate a lie. There are many sensational "Historians" who make this mistake. There are Scientists who claim to have data that doesn't exist, or who manipulate data to adjust an outcome to their liking or to support their biases. There are political leaders who will look passionately into your eyes and lie directly to your heart. And there are religious people who will claim to have knowledge of things that they have no knowledge of. All of these people are propagating something that is not true.

It is also a bullying technique to give the impression that your opponent is being ganged up on.

There's no bullying involved. You've made a claim. You currently have an audience of a few people. We are the audience.
We're just talking, man. Chill out.

Does it seem equally strange that several of us seem to also being saying the same thing. Check the thread and see that at one point there was around eight christians all saying the same thing as well. But you err, as such an observation is a fallacious appeal to numbers. Argumentum ad populum.

Many of those christians share the same experience to me and also live in the four corners of the world unknown to me. Your argument is mute and nonsensical

I wasn't making an appeal to numbers. That wasn't my point. Of the three people who are currently asking you to produce the same thing, all three of us have been with "it requires faith", instead of actually addressing what needs to be address in order to go forward.

You would only consider that a problem if you had trust issues or if you are projecting.

No. Questioning a source which attempts to validate itself is proper procedure. Don't let your affection for something keep you from seeing what's reasonable.

"Purple dragons are true because I say they're true. Look, here's a friend of mine to tell you how correct I am about purple dragons..."

You wouldn't accept that at all, would you? Of course not.
So why do it for your Church or for your faith?

 

[Serenity7855]

Um, I think you're bias is sticking out just a little bit. You might want to put that away.

Bias or righteous indignation. I think the latter.

Every single day since the dawn of time has been "The Last Day" - The Christian claim to have a monopoly on this concept is no more right than any other similar claims.

Not true. Nobody has a clue when it will happen. The world must reach a greater level of debauchery first, but we are getting there.

Matthew 24:36

36"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone

The word of nearly anyone with charisma can be convincing... Being convinced of something doesn't make it true.

As responsible individuals, we know the extreme cases all to well, and are familiar with these characters. Truth does not need to be persuasive, it is the truth and, with a modicum of intellect, speaks for itself.

My man, you just don't see why the Purple dragon argument and your argument are the same thing..

I do not see it because, with respect, they are not the same. One is an unrealistic mythological yarn, a fairy tale, and the other is a rational and logical strategic, non-fictional, novel - The Plan of Redemption.

If I burst into a room and did my spiel about the Purple Dragons, it would be ridiculous of me to ask everyone to disprove my claim without supporting my own claim. That is what the burden of proof is. The basic rules of debate are not a trap.

I have yet to see any Christian exert their beliefs on an unsuspecting audience. What I see is either inquisitive individuals asking question or aggressive atheists attacking someone for their beliefs, just because it is not in keeping with their belief. The days of the "fire and brimstone" ministers have long gone. Christians can feel the coming of Christ is imminent and that there are those who genuinely cannot, don't want to, see the wood for the trees. I have absolutely no burning desire for you to have the precious gift that I possess, however, if you want it I can tell you how to get it. We are under the Abrahamic Covenant, the choice is all yours, along with the consequences.

Philosophic Burden of Proof - "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.[3]"

Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am fully aware of the philosophy of the burden of proof, however, how do you relate it to this debate. No claim has been made, just a challenging hypothesis put forward.

Please read my statement again. The Magdalene Papyrus is one of documents that registers in that block of time that I mentioned, between 100-300 years after the fact. The Eyewitness to Christ is based on the inaccurate dating methods of 1 man. And before it's asserted that the evil scientists and atheists are the ones trying to cover up the truth, it's not skeptics who have questioned his dating methods, it's believers. No matter how much someone wants that document to be dated to 37 CE, the facts conclude that it was written much later. If we are going to talk about truth and accuracy, then you have to admit that inventing something just because we want it to be so makes it false.

The historicity of Jesus concerns whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, whether the episodes portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events as opposed to myth, legend, or fiction, and the weighing of the evidence relating to his life. The historicity of Jesus is distinct from the related study of the historical Jesus, which refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts.

Since the 18th century scholars have attempted to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus, developing historical-critical methods for analysing the available texts. The only sources are documentary; in conjunction with Biblical texts such as the Pauline Letters and the synoptic Gospels, three passages in non-Christian works have been used to support the historicity of Jesus: two in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus. Although the authenticity of all three has been questioned, and one is generally accepted as having been altered by Christians, most scholars believe they are at least partially authentic.

There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically, although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels. While scholars have sometimes criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, with very few exceptions, such critics do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the theory that Jesus never existed, known as the Christ myth theory.Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that while there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the historical Jesus, and that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Multiple times you've quotes passages from the Bible or from the Book of Mormon, as evidence to your claims.

Never as evidence, always as verification of my beliefs and why I believe it. I am fully aware that non-believers give scriptural text no credence, so to use them as substantive evidence would be futile.

It's not resilience that I'm looking for to prove me right. This is not about you being wrong or me being right. It's about accuracy. What makes something right, or accurate, or true, or whatever synonymous word you want to use is verifiable evidence. Unless you have that, then everything is just a convicted guess.

I did not say that your resilience proved you right I said that your resilience has prevented you from moving an inch on your beliefs. My wife tells me she loves me all the time. There is not a shred of tangible evidence to corroborate her claim. Yet I know she is telling the truth. Sure, the fact that we have been happily married for 41 years and have raised 6 children together indicates that she might love me but there is no certainty that she does. Just because we live in the same house and do all the things a married couple do, does not mean we love each other. Yet, I do not require evidence. I know without having any verifiable evidence. Are you married? If so, do you require verifiable evidence from your wife that she loves you.

The rapid expansion is incredibly well understood, drawing cohesive evidences from multiple independent fields of study. It needs no "magic" or supernatural title to describe or explain the event. The only reason that someone would call it supernatural is to open up, in their mind, the possibility that there is room for the fairy tale of transplanted Jewish kingdoms....

The Inflationary epoch is one of the most unexplained phenomenon of the known universe. There are several postulation, however, a lack of comprehension as to how it took place makes any kind of certainty still illusory, especially as their are other ideas as well.

I have no reason to open up the possibility that there is room for my supernatural entity. God is the master scientist who has gradually drip fed us with everything that has progressed our lifestyles over recent years, by way of the Holy Ghost. It is not whether there is room for Him but rather are we at a point to receive any more knowledge, even hidden knowledge. Or would we abuse it like everything else.

So truth is just made up? It's whatever we all decide that it is?
I've never heard a religious person claim that truth is relative.

Truth is a constant. It cannot be made up or created, it just is.

Luke 23:43
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise

Someone, somehow, recorded this conversation between two dying men hanging on a stump on a wood...

This is what you said

It is an illogical concept, spread over thousands of generations, with each generation trying to reconcile the fact that there is no sign of the paradise that was promised before, during, or after the crucifixion. Each generation has to find, and then fabricate, coordinating interpretation of scriptural passages in order to validate their continued faith in something unseen.

Jesus spoke with one of the thieves on the cross and said "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise" Paradise is that part of the spirit world in which the righteous spirits who have departed from this life await the resurrection of the body. It is a condition of happiness and peace. It was there where Jesus went to teach the gospel to the spirits during the three days between his death and resurrection. What he said was true, that day he was with Christ in paradise. No one else was promised. There was no paradise that was promised before, during, or after the crucifixion." for anyone else, as you have indicated.

So says every person of faith from every denomination ever..

They are all right then.

There will always be gaps in knowledge. Those gaps are filled with hypotheses until there is data available that will allow us to test them. Once there is data available, supporting whatever conclusion it will support, then the scientific worldview will adapt to the known truth. It doesn't for example, pretend that letting blood out of the brain cavity will prevent headaches, as it once did.

There is a finite number of natural laws to give explanation for all of the phenomenon found in the universe, and it does a very good job, however, there are areas, called the rather puerile name of gaps, where natural laws cannot give explanation. They are supernatural laws. Laws that are outside of those we know. Supernatural laws govern supernatural events. Science just recents having to admit it so whenever it is pointed out they like to say that our God is a God of the Gaps.

Hypothesis' are based on natural laws. Ideas put together using known data, experience and knowledge previously gained. There is no research on supernatural events that have no explanation. What would you research? Your statement that "gaps are filled with hypotheses until there is data" is a non - sequitur as there is nothing to base a hypothesis on.

The mailman would have established a predictable routine. It is that predictable routine that you expect to continue happening. If, one day, the mailman gets a late start and doesn't show until 3:30, no one is going to claim that the Holy Mailman is never late, because that would be a falsehood.

You are using exceptions to the rule to base your objections on. It is a rare anomaly that is irrelevant to the whole. It is the "but if" found in the tool box of the atheist to use in dislodging logic.

Your personal convictions aren't what I'm questioning. It's your claim to Universal Truth.

My personal convictions are used to refute your logic. You seem to think that christians set out to belong to a group for security and the Christian faith groups are as good as any. Granted, there is no doubt a small percentage that do, however, in my experience, people are called to the faith, usually as a result of a moral disposition, they do not flock to it. Atheists have no moral accountability, no deterrent. Only atheists would have the need to look for religion.

No one has ever said any different. Christianity gives you a legible moral code to adhere to and a deterrent to insure that it is maintained. No one has said that Christianity has ownership of all morals. Morals are objective. As I have said "Those principles are universal, irrespective as to whether you are religious or not. Nobody welcomes adultery, murder, theft or bearing fafalse witness."

From start to finish, the Plan of Salvation extends from creation to Armageddon, does it not?

No. It extends from the organisation of the eternal intellegences into spirits and extends to eternity. It has always existed.

And, using the Christian texts, what transpired during the creation period? An omnipotent God created a flawed system that he has to spend thousands of years correcting before he would introduce the final correction that would bridge the gap between the holy and the unholy. Am I missing something here? Since that's what it says, my original statement still stands.

Again, not true. Have a look at post 138 for an explanation as to why you are incorrect and why your original statement is erroneous. God's creation was like unto himself, perfect.

Faith in Christ is Completely Logical | Page 7 | ReligiousForums.com

Again, a political prisoner of the subjoining Jewish and Roman states in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago being executed is the great redemption for humanity? It's the greatest story ever told? It's the Universal Truth in this over-arching Plan of Salvation? There are more intriguing tales today, and in antiquity, than this.

Well that is personal opinion.

Quite the contrary. It is very understood. And it is perfectly acceptable to people of faith, as their personal truth. It is not, for the 13th time, an indicator that it is a Universal Truth.

I can only but reasserts my position on this matter. The reconciliation is achieved through repentance, that invokes the power of the atonement, which bridges the gap between perfection and imperfection. Without the faith to believe that the atonement will achieve what it is susupposed to achieve than there can be no repentance. I am sure you can just make out the intricacies of the interwoven principles of the Plan of Salvation. Those principles apply the same today as they did 2,000 years ago. That makes it ultra logical. But once again your idea of what the Plan of Salvation is, is very misguided.

To further that - Can Buddhists, seeking only enlightenment and repentance for wrongs in their lives, achieve this cleansing atonement while rejecting the deity or even existence of Christ?

Every one will receive an opportunity to hear the Plan of Redemption.

I don't place my faith in hardly anything. I just don't make claims that cannot be supported factually.

By your own logic, everything you do is based on faith.

There's no bullying involved. You've made a claim. You currently have an audience of a few people. We are the audience.
We're just talking, man. Chill out.

Oh I do not feel bullied, however, there was a time when I would have been and there are still people who will be. To use the word "us" indicates coercion by numbers

I wasn't making an appeal to numbers. That wasn't my point. Of the three people who are currently asking you to produce the same thing, all three of us have been with "it requires faith", instead of actually addressing what needs to be address in order to go forward.

That is how I read it. I am only debating with you. If there is any others then they are on my ignore list and I do not get to see anything they write, thankfully. If they are on my ignore list it is because they are of an odious character.

No. Questioning a source which attempts to validate itself is proper procedure. Don't let your affection for something keep you from seeing what's reasonable.

That is why I am a Christian.

"Purple dragons are true because I say they're true. Look, here's a friend of mine to tell you how correct I am about purple dragons..."

You wouldn't accept that at all, would you? Of course not.
So why do it for your Church or for your faith?

Not if you alone said it, however, when a hundred, a thousand, a million says it I might investigate it objectively and make my mind up based on that information.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Bias or righteous indignation. I think the latter.

Either one of those is a hindrance...

Not true. Nobody has a clue when it will happen. The world must reach a greater level of debauchery first, but we are getting there.

Matthew 24:36

36"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone

There have been, literally, thousands of instances throughout history where the faithful have claimed that "The end is nigh!"
Obviously no one has a clue - nor do they even know that it will ever happen. It's purely a fantastic claim with no basis other than previous fantastic claims.

As responsible individuals, we know the extreme cases all to well, and are familiar with these characters. Truth does not need to be persuasive, it is the truth and, with a modicum of intellect, speaks for itself.

We can certainly look back on past events and realize when a bad person was telling a very good lie. But those events happened because we (we meaning everyone, so there is no confusion) are unable to do that in the moment. If we were, then those people telling very good lies would never have attracted the hordes of followers that were able to attract.

I do not see it because, with respect, they are not the same. One is an unrealistic mythological yarn, a fairy tale, and the other is a rational and logical strategic, non-fictional, novel - The Plan of Redemption.

I completely realize the absurdity of the analogy. If you were able to view it from outside the confines of the Christian construct, you would see how similar they actually are.

There are certain things that we are simply not going to make any progress debating.

I have yet to see any Christian exert their beliefs on an unsuspecting audience. What I see is either inquisitive individuals asking question or aggressive atheists attacking someone for their beliefs, just because it is not in keeping with their belief. The days of the "fire and brimstone" ministers have long gone. Christians can feel the coming of Christ is imminent and that there are those who genuinely cannot, don't want to, see the wood for the trees. I have absolutely no burning desire for you to have the precious gift that I possess, however, if you want it I can tell you how to get it. We are under the Abrahamic Covenant, the choice is all yours, along with the consequences.

I'm an atheist, and I could honestly care less what your religious persuasion is. I do not want to convert you away from your faith, nor do I want you to join ranks with me and delvel deeper into a lifetime of debauchery and depravity, since we atheists have no sense of morals or of right and wrong, ya know, godless heathens and all... I just want to you support your claims and make true statements., something I would require of everyone on the planet.

If I said - "PURPLE DRAGONS RULE EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LIVES!!!!" I would be making an untrue statement.

If I said - " I BELIEVE THAT PURPLE DRAGONS RULE EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LIVES!!!" then I would be making a true statement.

I know you see how that works.

If you read my first claim, and then asked me to support it factually because you wanted accuracy, and all I said was "My convictions are testament of the authenticity of my statement." Well, that wouldn't be good enough for you either, would it? You'd want something more - you would require more substance.

I am fully aware of the philosophy of the burden of proof, however, how do you relate it to this debate. No claim has been made, just a challenging hypothesis put forward.

So your claim that the Plan of Salvation is actually a thing at all is just a hypothesis and you want to debate the concept? Is that it?
Maybe I've missed the point entirely, but when you say things like "Stump me and show me how I'm wrong" - well that it makes it seem more like a claim that requires validation to start with - hence the burden of proof.

The historicity of Jesus concerns whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, whether the episodes portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events as opposed to myth, legend, or fiction, and the weighing of the evidence relating to his life. The historicity of Jesus is distinct from the related study of the historical Jesus, which refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts.

Since the 18th century scholars have attempted to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus, developing historical-critical methods for analysing the available texts. The only sources are documentary; in conjunction with Biblical texts such as the Pauline Letters and the synoptic Gospels, three passages in non-Christian works have been used to support the historicity of Jesus: two in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus. Although the authenticity of all three has been questioned, and one is generally accepted as having been altered by Christians, most scholars believe they are at least partially authentic.

There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically, although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels. While scholars have sometimes criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, with very few exceptions, such critics do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the theory that Jesus never existed, known as the Christ myth theory.Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that while there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the historical Jesus, and that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For a minute there I was worried that you weren't going to cite your source - so kudos.

None of this addresses the fact that what I supplied you with is already accounting for all of the known sources from the time period. If you prefer that I cite them directly, I will do so - but if you look it all up, I'm being completely honest.

Even if we overlook the likelihood that the Josephus citation is a forgery, the only thing that it attests to is that there were some people who followed Jesus around and made some supernatural claims about him.

Outside of personal faith, there is nothing to attest to anything supernatural happening in Judea at the turn of calendar.
That is a true statement. Not a single Historian of the time validates any of the events that supposedly happened. And if you're going to base the happening of those events on the authority of their only source of recording, which is the Bible, then you have to question it.

This is not about the historical Jesus. This is about the supernatural claims associated with him, his followers, and that period of time on Earth.

Never as evidence, always as verification of my beliefs and why I believe it. I am fully aware that non-believers give scriptural text no credence, so to use them as substantive evidence would be futile.

Where else do the supernatural claims come from, if not from these sources?

I did not say that your resilience proved you right I said that your resilience has prevented you from moving an inch on your beliefs. My wife tells me she loves me all the time. There is not a shred of tangible evidence to corroborate her claim. Yet I know she is telling the truth. Sure, the fact that we have been happily married for 41 years and have raised 6 children together indicates that she might love me but there is no certainty that she does. Just because we live in the same house and do all the things a married couple do, does not mean we love each other. Yet, I do not require evidence. I know without having any verifiable evidence. Are you married? If so, do you require verifiable evidence from your wife that she loves you.

Yes. And Yes.
Wives can say they love you all day long - but unless they show you, then those words are meaningless.
You trust and have faith that your wife loves you either because of how she treats you daily or based on a pattern of behavior that she established in the past. (Say, for example, that things aren't all that lovey at the moment, but you trust that she's honest and that she loves you because of how she treated you this morning, or yesterday, or last year, etc...)

The Inflationary epoch is one of the most unexplained phenomenon of the known universe. There are several postulation, however, a lack of comprehension as to how it took place makes any kind of certainty still illusory, especially as their are other ideas as well.

I have no reason to open up the possibility that there is room for my supernatural entity. God is the master scientist who has gradually drip fed us with everything that has progressed our lifestyles over recent years, by way of the Holy Ghost. It is not whether there is room for Him but rather are we at a point to receive any more knowledge, even hidden knowledge. Or would we abuse it like everything else.

This is simply not true.

While I'm certainly not professionally trained in the field, it is a hobby of mine to study human origins, to trace lineages, and to follow genetic data backwards. My sister is an archaeologist, so when I have questions about certain areas or need to know what evidence there is to support part of a timeline, I have a quick source to go to. Not that any of that matters, really. But I want to give you some reference point.

When you have independent, cohesive, evidence between the genetic map of human migration and the archaeological and anthropological timeline showing when people moved into and out of an area, then there simply is not a better place to put your bet as to why, how, and when human expansion occurred. It is very well-known and very detailed. Just how much detail is there is mind-blowing. I had no idea until I started looking into it. I suggest you do the same.

Truth is a constant. It cannot be made up or created, it just is.

You're right. And assumptions and claims and convictions are not constant.

Jesus spoke with one of the thieves on the cross and said "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise" Paradise is that part of the spirit world in which the righteous spirits who have departed from this life await the resurrection of the body. It is a condition of happiness and peace. It was there where Jesus went to teach the gospel to the spirits during the three days between his death and resurrection. What he said was true, that day he was with Christ in paradise. No one else was promised. There was no paradise that was promised before, during, or after the crucifixion." for anyone else, as you have indicated.

This is but one of hundreds of interpretations of paradise. It certainly makes sense to you and fits within the personal narrative that you have carved out over the years - but it's not the only reading of that passage, is it?

How about when Jesus is quoted as saying that this generation shall not pass before these things have happened - Matthew 24

You can claim that he was talking about the sacking of Jerusalem in 70~CE , but, again, that's not the only interpretation of that passage, is it?

Surely the conviction and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to those believers who read those same passages differently than you do attest to the truthfulness of their interpretation.

There is a finite number of natural laws to give explanation for all of the phenomenon found in the universe, and it does a very good job, however, there are areas, called the rather puerile name of gaps, where natural laws cannot give explanation. They are supernatural laws. Laws that are outside of those we know. Supernatural laws govern supernatural events. Science just recents having to admit it so whenever it is pointed out they like to say that our God is a God of the Gaps.

Hypothesis' are based on natural laws. Ideas put together using known data, experience and knowledge previously gained. There is no research on supernatural events that have no explanation. What would you research? Your statement that "gaps are filled with hypotheses until there is data" is a non - sequitur as there is nothing to base a hypothesis on.

Would you please give an example of a "Supernatural Law"

I'm fairly certain that it is a religious claim that God is a "god of the gaps"... Science would never make such a claim.

What you and I consider supernatural events are very different, as I posit that they don't exist. What gaps we have in knowledge are filled with hypotheses... That's what a hypothesis is... How can trying to figure something out be a non-sequitir?

You are using exceptions to the rule to base your objections on. It is a rare anomaly that is irrelevant to the whole. It is the "but if" found in the tool box of the atheist to use in dislodging logic.

No. Anomalies are not irrelevant to the whole - they are part of the whole. That's the point. When understanding something, you must also account for anomalies.

I couldn't say "I have been a good and righteous person my whole life.... except for the years 1979-1983...Those were crazy times! But that was just an anomaly - let's not worry about those years."

In the concept of the whole of my life, those years, while anomalous, are still part of my whole - so such with the daily routine of the mailman.

My personal convictions are used to refute your logic. You seem to think that christians set out to belong to a group for security and the Christian faith groups are as good as any. Granted, there is no doubt a small percentage that do, however, in my experience, people are called to the faith, usually as a result of a moral disposition, they do not flock to it. Atheists have no moral accountability, no deterrent. Only atheists would have the need to look for religion.

No one has ever said any different. Christianity gives you a legible moral code to adhere to and a deterrent to insure that it is maintained. No one has said that Christianity has ownership of all morals. Morals are objective. As I have said "Those principles are universal, irrespective as to whether you are religious or not. Nobody welcomes adultery, murder, theft or bearing fafalse witness."

Your personal convictions are used to explain YOUR logic, and nothing more. You could argue that you are expressing some of the Mormon or maybe a version of Christian logic - but you don't hold the only key to truth in your hand, nor are you a personal authority on the interpretation of Scirpture... which is why I am asking for more than just convicted explanations of your claims.

No. It extends from the organisation of the eternal intellegences into spirits and extends to eternity. It has always existed.

This is another claim that is going to require some form of proof.

"The brain of the Mother Dragon holds the key to eternal life." - ...That's just not good enough.

Again, not true. Have a look at post 138 for an explanation as to why you are incorrect and why your original statement is erroneous. God's creation was like unto himself, perfect.

Faith in Christ is Completely Logical | Page 7 | ReligiousForums.com

I'm familiar with this argument too. "Whatever God made was perfect because God made it and that's the ultimate standard."
This, again, falls into the trap of self-validation.

If God made a creation that was different from this one, wouldn't it also be perfect? How can two things be perfect if one sets the standard for perfection and the other is the opposite?

Well that is personal opinion.

Exactly! Just like everything that you, or any other Christian, claims.
These types of conversations are wonderful for expressing personal feeling or conviction - but they do not set the standard nor provide evidence of things divine, supernatural, or truthful.

I can only but reasserts my position on this matter. The reconciliation is achieved through repentance, that invokes the power of the atonement, which bridges the gap between perfection and imperfection. Without the faith to believe that the atonement will achieve what it is susupposed to achieve than there can be no repentance. I am sure you can just make out the intricacies of the interwoven principles of the Plan of Salvation. Those principles apply the same today as they did 2,000 years ago. That makes it ultra logical. But once again your idea of what the Plan of Salvation is, is very misguided.

To quote your line above - "Well that is personal opinion."

Every one will receive an opportunity to hear the Plan of Redemption.

That doesn't answer the question.
If the sole purpose in one's life is to seek moral perfection, through inward contemplation, deep reflection, and real life-changing personal atonement (while completely rejecting the idea of Jesus and this Plan of Salvation) are they able to achieve this reconciliation that you say exists?

If not - Why?
If yes - Then what's the point of your religion?

By your own logic, everything you do is based on faith.

Are you going to say that when I sit down, I have faith that I'll be sitting on a chair? Or that when I press send that I have faith that my message will be posted?

I have established a chain of assumptions based on previous experiments - 9,999 out of 10,000 I have sat down to find a chair or something stationary under my buttocks. 483 times out of 483, I have pressed send and my message has been posted. These claims can be validated if studied. They are not based on faith that my Holy Chair will always come to my buttocks' call when my body decides that it is time to sit. I do not press send and then pray that the magic Lords of Internet will find my words worthy and give them a rightful place on the World Wide Web...

Oh I do not feel bullied, however, there was a time when I would have been and there are still people who will be. To use the word "us" indicates coercion by numbers

Fair enough

That is how I read it. I am only debating with you. If there is any others then they are on my ignore list and I do not get to see anything they write, thankfully. If they are on my ignore list it is because they are of an odious character.

Fair enough - I have no way of knowing who is, or is not, on your ignore list.

That is why I am a Christian.

Exactly. Because you have placed your faith and give certain authority to things while rescinding your ability to question those things without bias toward their supposed accuracy.

Not if you alone said it, however, when a hundred, a thousand, a million says it I might investigate it objectively and make my mind up based on that information.

Which is precisely what I am doing with your claim about the Christian concept of the Plan of Salvation.
It has yet to lend any merit to the objective verifiable world that surrounds those unhindered by bias or righteous indignation.

 

[moriningstar]

I assume by "stump me" you mean you can explain any such aspect to your satisfaction. Not much of a challenge is it. On the other hand, if you're willing to explain any such aspect to the satisfaction of others, then you're on. Satisfy me that keeping others from his big plan of salvation---either by not reveling it to them or sending incompetent messengers to explain it---qualifies as a marvelous work.

j

 

[moriningstar]

Scripture tells the tail of a god raping a little 12 year old girl named Mary. Doctrine tells us this little girl was also this god's mother. While todays Christian might find this an inflammatory statement, historically it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow ......are Christians deluded or is the bible just being ignored?

 

[Serenity7855]

There have been, literally, thousands of instances throughout history where the faithful have claimed that "The end is nigh!"
Obviously no one has a clue - nor do they even know that it will ever happen. It's purely a fantastic claim with no basis other than previous fantastic claims.

They are wrong. I know they do it. Some denominations believe in the Rapsody and have predicted exact dates for it. Then we have Nostradamus and his failed predictions. If you really think logically, then I am dubious as to whether God himself even knows the exact day. If we all have agency to act for ourselves it needs to be completely played out on the worlds stage before the second coming. Every action must be allowed to go through every interconnective reaction. If I decide to leave the house at 9.00am instead of 8.00am it shifts every interconnecting action which could result in different outcomes which could take 6 months, a year, 10 years to come back on track. The complexity of cause and effect are mesmerising. What really is becoming quite disconcerting is that most of the events, necessary to be completed, have come and gone. Everything is going wrong at the right time. The moral decline of our societies is breaking all sorts of records as the only reservoir of morality left is being pushed undercover, religion. It is beginning to feel like things are coming to an end. These are, of course, my own feeling. There are scriptures that corroborate the signs which need to be fulfilled, however, the feeling of an imminent Armageddon is all to real. Maybe, Armageddon has already begun and we are in the initial stages.

We can certainly look back on past events and realize when a bad person was telling a very good lie. But those events happened because we (we meaning everyone, so there is no confusion) are unable to do that in the moment. If we were, then those people telling very good lies would never have attracted the hordes of followers that were able to attract.

Scripture warns us of these people and how to detect them

Matthew 7:15

15"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

16"You will know them by their fruits.

I completely realize the absurdity of the analogy. If you were able to view it from outside the confines of the Christian construct, you would see how similar they actually are.

No, not at all, I understand the point you are making, however, you to must walk in my moccasins for a week. I have received, what I believe to be, a communication via the Holy Ghost that has irreversibly converted me to Christianity. That same Spirit has communicated with my soul on many occasions since then. Now I would sooner lay down my life then deny any of it. Like other converted Christians, on this very forum, I do not tell anyone of that initial communication because I believe it is too sacred, however, I am not a liar either, I am not delusional, I am a realist so I just do not except things without question, I know that what I have received, and the source that I received it from, is external to myself and is true. I did not go searching for it, it came to me. I never aspired to become a Christian, my life was fine without it. There is no reason for me to come on here and lie, i have better things to do with my time, what could I possibly achieved with a lie. What benefit to my meager existence is a lie about an epiphany. Firstly, and foremostly. I have to live with myself before I can communicate with others. I could not live with a lie. Now you can either believe what I am saying, you can rationalise it, or you can accuse me of being a blatant liar, so, bearing all this in mind, you can see how easy it is for me to believe in God but how impossible it is for me to believe in a purple dragon, unless, of course, I receive an epiphany with a purple dragon, at which time, you will be the first to know.

There are certain things that we are simply not going to make any progress debating.

Absolutely

I'm an atheist, and I could honestly care less what your religious persuasion is. I do not want to convert you away from your faith, nor do I want you to join ranks with me and delvel deeper into a lifetime of debauchery and depravity, since we atheists have no sense of morals or of right and wrong, ya know, godless heathens and all... I just want to you support your claims and make true statements., something I would require of everyone on the planet.

Realistically, what possible reason would an atheist have for not telling a lie. If he/she can get away with it, and benefit from its commitment, then what reason exists for him/her not to lie. It is simply deductive reasoning. If there is no accountability for an act and the act benefits you then why wouldn't the lie be told. Now there are always exceptions to the rule, however, why would I believe that a stranger, with no reason to be morally accountable, would not lie if doing so benefits him?

If I said - "PURPLE DRAGONS RULE EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LIVES!!!!" I would be making an untrue statement.

If I said - " I BELIEVE THAT PURPLE DRAGONS RULE EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LIVES!!!" then I would be making a true statement.

I know you see how that works.

Well, yes I do, however, I am not claiming anything in this thread. I am asking posters to challenge me on the rationality of the Plan of Salvation.

If you read my first claim, and then asked me to support it factually because you wanted accuracy, and all I said was "My convictions are testament of the authenticity of my statement." Well, that wouldn't be good enough for you either, would it? You'd want something more - you would require more substance.

Well, yes, I would have to agree, however, I am making no claim here as to the existence of divinity. If that were what i was looking for then i am very capable of debating, point for point, about circumstantial evidences that exists for the existence of divinity. That was not my objective here. I want to establish that as a strategic plan of action, can the Plan of Salvation be falsified, or, like many military plans of action, is the detailed strategy likely to give the desired effect.

So your claim that the Plan of Salvation is actually a thing at all is just a hypothesis and you want to debate the concept? Is that it?

Yes

Maybe I've missed the point entirely, but when you say things like "Stump me and show me how I'm wrong" - well that it makes it seem more like a claim that requires validation to start with - hence the burden of proof.

I have made an extensive study of the Plan of Salvation, mainly in trying to falsify it. I cannot find a single point that can be falsified. Every attempt that has been made to discredit it has already been made by me, so, I have always been able to refute any attack on it. I know that Plan of Salvation very well. I believe in it. I have invited anybody to discredit it and stump me, that is, leave me unable to respond with logic.

Even if we overlook the likelihood that the Josephus citation is a forgery, the only thing that it attests to is that there were some people who followed Jesus around and made some supernatural claims about him.

Outside of personal faith, there is nothing to attest to anything supernatural happening in Judea at the turn of calendar.

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

That is a true statement. Not a single Historian of the time validates any of the events that supposedly happened. And if you're going to base the happening of those events on the authority of their only source of recording, which is the Bible, then you have to question it.

This is not about the historical Jesus. This is about the supernatural claims associated with him, his followers, and that period of time on Earth.

Well, that is not my interpretation of what was being said. The insinuation was that we do not even know that Jesus existed as there is no Eyewitness account, and the Gospels were compiled 300 years after the event. My rebuttal to that was to provide evidence that the man, Jesus, did actually exist. I made no claim of his so called miracles. Compared to the science of today, much of it is common practice in our hospitals anyway. I believe him to have been a physician, as claimed in Luke 4:23 - "Physician, heal yourself!" But again, another debate. As soon as we can establish that a man called Jesus lived at that time then we can start looking to see if he performed miracles through other writings, or if he was known by those miracles. That is a task for historians. His miracles play no part in my belief as I believe I see them for what they are, an introduction to the Son of God.

Where else do the supernatural claims come from, if not from these sources?

What supernatural events take place in the Bible? I am not insinuating that there are none, however, you need to recognise the difference between parables, allegories, principles and precepts compared to actual supernatural events. For example, when Jesus healed the eye sight of the blind man by putting clay on his eyes. In my opinion, that clay contained properties that used naturalistic laws to rectify his eyes, possibly via genetics. That is not a supernatural event. Hospitals are doing similar things everyday. Secondly, consider the flood. Was that an actual event or were we being taught that the principle of disobedience will bring about our entire destruction. That is also not a supernatural event, even if it took place, the flood is a naturalistic phenomenon. I cannot think of any events that can be considered as supernatural in scripture. Unless you can point any out for me.

Yes. And Yes.
Wives can say they love you all day long - but unless they show you, then those words are meaningless.
You trust and have faith that your wife loves you either because of how she treats you daily or based on a pattern of behavior that she established in the past. (Say, for example, that things aren't all that lovey at the moment, but you trust that she's honest and that she loves you because of how she treated you this morning, or yesterday, or last year, etc...)

Nothing here can be counted as evidence as it can all be easily falsified. Showing love does not mean that the person loves you. There could be a plethora of reasons to put the act on. The past does not necessarily determine the future.

This is simply not true.

I have an adequate degree of knowledge in cosmology. The reason being is that most recognisable supernatural events take place there. I know there are theories to explain how rapid expansion took place but not one of them can be tested with repeatability. The only thing coming close is the collisions monitored in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The universe expanded from a singularity into a universe in a fraction of a second. What naturalistic law can explain that.

This is but one of hundreds of interpretations of paradise. It certainly makes sense to you and fits within the personal narrative that you have carved out over the years - but it's not the only reading of that passage, is it?

Yes, it really is. Take a look at the context in which it was said and give me a logical alternative meaning.

How about when Jesus is quoted as saying that this generation shall not pass before these things have happened - Matthew 24

i used to have problems with this one until the Holy Ghost put me straight on it. He was talking about the generation that will exist when all of these events take place.

Surely the conviction and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to those believers who read those same passages differently than you do attest to the truthfulness of their interpretation.

Scriptures can mean different things to different people at differ ring times.

Would you please give an example of a "Supernatural Law "

I cannot. If I could I would be sunning myself on a beach in Jamaica instead of writing this on a cold, wet and windy winters night.

What you and I consider supernatural events are very different, as I posit that they don't exist. What gaps we have in knowledge are filled with hypotheses... That's what a hypothesis is... How can trying to figure something out be a non-sequitir?

Hypothesis is based on known laws, previous experience and knowledge. If an event cannot be explain by any of these tools then how can you fill a gap with a hypothesis.

No. Anomalies are not irrelevant to the whole - they are part of the whole. That's the point. When understanding something, you must also account for anomalies.

Yes, true, but accounting them could just as easy result in a triviality that has no bearing on the whole.

I couldn't say "I have been a good and righteous person my whole life.... except for the years 1979-1983...Those were crazy times! But that was just an anomaly - let's not worry about those years."

If you are still a good and righteous man, 30 years after the event, then yes, do not worry about a blip.

In the concept of the whole of my life, those years, while anomalous, are still part of my whole - so such with the daily routine of the mailman.

They are an irrelevant part as the conclusion is the same as the beginning. Likewise with the mailman. He did not deliver that day, however, the post office employ people to cover for those who go sick, so my mail will still get delivered and I will never pick up on the anomaly.

Your personal convictions are used to explain YOUR logic, and nothing more. You could argue that you are expressing some of the Mormon or maybe a version of Christian logic - but you don't hold the only key to truth in your hand, nor are you a personal authority on the interpretation of Scirpture... which is why I am asking for more than just convicted explanations of your claims.

I am making no claims here

This is another claim that is going to require some form of proof.

This is anecdotal. Knowledge gleaned through unauthorised sources of speculation. From a scriptorial perspective it begins with the war in heaven and ends with exaltation. From informed speculation it is eternal.

I'm familiar with this argument too. "Whatever God made was perfect because God made it and that's the ultimate standard."
This, again, falls into the trap of self-validation.

No, God simply could not make it with imperfect elements as God cannot dwell in the presence of imperfection. Adam was created perfect from the elements of a perfect dust.

If God made a creation that was different from this one, wouldn't it also be perfect? How can two things be perfect if one sets the standard for perfection and the other is the opposite?

Things are not perfect because God made them. It is the elements, or intellegences, or quantum subatomic particles, that are the source of perfection.

Exactly! Just like everything that you, or any other Christian, claims.
These types of conversations are wonderful for expressing personal feeling or conviction - but they do not set the standard nor provide evidence of things divine, supernatural, or truthful.

Agreed.

That doesn't answer the question.
If the sole purpose in one's life is to seek moral perfection, through inward contemplation, deep reflection, and real life-changing personal atonement (while completely rejecting the idea of Jesus and this Plan of Salvation) are they able to achieve this reconciliation that you say exists?

No, we all fall short of the glory of God. We are sinners, every single on of us, thus, we are an enemy to God. Those sins needed to be washed away through repentance, that is, recognition of the sin, restitution of the sin and forsaking the sin. After this has been completed you will feel a lifting of the burden of sin brought on by the atoning sacrifice of the Saviour, who has paid the price for sin. It is through Jesus Christ that salvation and exaltation is achieved. It is a part of the Plan.

Are you going to say that when I sit down, I have faith that I'll be sitting on a chair? Or that when I press send that I have faith that my message will be posted?

I was not going to say that, however, there is no reason why it cannot be used. Nothing is definite.

I have established a chain of assumptions based on previous experiments - 9,999 out of 10,000 I have sat down to find a chair or something stationary under my buttocks. 483 times out of 483, I have pressed send and my message has been posted. These claims can be validated if studied. They are not based on faith that my Holy Chair will always come to my buttocks' call when my body decides that it is time to sit. I do not press send and then pray that the magic Lords of Internet will find my words worthy and give them a rightful place on the World Wide Web...

You are rejecting your own argument for the inclusion of anomalies.


If there are spelling errors then I apologies, it has been tiring writing this

 

[Sapiens]

They are wrong. I know they do it.

They'd say that you are wrong and I'd say that both of you are wrong. You only seem to attempt to break the impasse by presonal fiat and that doesn't cut it.

Some denominations believe in the Rapsody and have predicted exact dates for it. Then we have Nostradamus and his failed predictions. If you really think logically, then I am dubious as to whether Gos himself knows the exact day. If we all have agency to act for ourselves it needs to be completely played out before the second coming.

Grown humans arguing overt he birthday of a fictional character ... makes no sense, you need to produce something akin to Santa's birth certificate before we start planning the party.

Every action must be allowed to go through every interconnective reaction. If I decide to leave the house at 9.00am instead of 8.00am it shifts every interconnecting action which could result in different outcomes which could take 6 months, a year, 10 years to come back on track. The complexity of cause and effect are mesmerising. What really is becoming quite disconcerting is that most of the events, necessary to be completed, have come and gone.

This is what? The teleological version of Paul Erlich's butterfly wings?

Everything is going wrong at the right time. The moral decline of our societies is breaking all sorts of records as the only reservoir of morality is being pushed undercover, religion. It is beginning to feel like things are coming to an end. These are, of course, my own feeling. There are scriptures that corroborate the signs which need to be fulfilled, however, the feeling of an imminent Armageddon is all mine. Maybe, Armageddon has already begun and we are in the initial stages.

We've heard this time and time again and it has always been wrong. Why would any body in their right mind believe you the time around. Too many times have the religionists cried wolf over a non-existent predator.

Scripture warns us of these people and how to detect who they are

Matthew 7:15

15"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

16"You will know them by their fruits.

Well who has done more to date to provide a better life for a greater number of people, science or religion? I say on basis of fruit science wins hands down.

No, I understand the point you are making, however, you to must walk in my moccasins for a week. I have received a communication via the Holy Ghost that has irreversibly converted me to Christianity. That same Spirit has communicated with my soul on many occasions since then. Now I would sooner lay down my life then deny any of it. I do not tell anyone of that initial communication because I believe it is too sacred, however, I am not a liar either, I am not delusional, I am a realist, I know that what I have received, and the source that I received it from, is true. I did not go searching for it, it came to me. I never aspired to become a Christian, my life was fine without it. There is no reason for me to come on here and lie, what could I possibly achieved. What benefit to my meager existence is a lie about an epiphany.

You sound just like the Son of Sam, all the separates you two is that your invisible friend hasn't sent you out to kill anyone yet, but frankly you talk of wars and struggles and Armageddon gives me the willies. Not because I think that there is any reality to it, but rather because you and your fellow travelers do, and some of your fellow travelers kill themselves and others along the way in the midst of their delusion, the delusion that you do not even have the mental balance to acknowledged. That scares the crap out of me.

Firstly, and foremostly. I have to live with myself before I can communicate with others. I could not live with a lie. Now you can either believe what I am saying, you can rationalise it, or you can accuse me of being a blatant liar, so, bearing all this in mind, you can see how easy it is for me to believe in God but how impossible it is for me to believe in a purple dragon, unless, of course, I receive an epiphany with a purple dragon, at which time, you will be the first to know.

It is your surety concerning such outlandish claims in the face of no evidence beyond your own thoughts, that I'd call delusional and irrational that concerns me.

What possible reason would an atheist have for not telling a lie. If he can get away with it and benefit from its commitment then what reason exists for him not to lie. It is simply deductive reasoning.

Cause we are basically more honest people as shown by the prison data. The number of incarcerated atheists is way lower that any other "belief" group.

If there is no accountability for an act and the act benefits you then why wouldn't the lie be told. Now there are always exceptions to the rule, however, why would I believe that a stranger, with no reason to be morally accountable, would not lie if doing so benefitted him.

Because I am bound, both by the altruism of my birth and social contract of my upbringing, to behave as best I can in the light of increasing the well-being of conscious creatures. You religionists, on the other hand, can (can at best) invoke a fear of punishment if your caught. I think my morality is far more dependable.

Well, yes I do, however, I am not claiming anything in this thread. I am asking posters to challenge me on the rationality of the Plan of Salvation.

You have provided nothing what-so-ever that permits even an attempt at falsification. That part of your game is just Pigeon Chess.

Well, yes, I would have to agree, however, I am making no claim here as to the existence of divinity. If that were what i was looking for then i am very capable of debating, point for point, about circumstantial evidences that exists for the existence of divinity. That was not my objective here. I want to establish that as a strategic plan of action, can the Plan of Salvation be falsified, or, like many military plans of action, is the detailed strategy likely to give the desired effect.

Supernatural claims can never be falsified, no matter how outlandish the claim, by definition. So you ask for the impossible and they crow "VICTORY!" when the impossible is not immediately forthcoming. That is almost a textbook example of Pigeon Chess.

I have made an extensive study of the Plan of Salvation, mainly in trying to falsify it. I cannot find a single point that can be falsified. Every attempt that has been made to discredit it has already been made by me, so, I have always been able to refute any attack on it. I know that Plan of Salvation very well. I believe in it. I have invited anybody to discredit it and stump me, that is, leave me unable to respond with logic.

Playing Pigeon Chess with yourself, now there's an image for you.

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence,

but the absence of evidence being the absence, or lack of, any kind of evidence may show, indicate, suggest, or be used to infer or deduce.

Well, that is not my interpretation of what was being said. The insinuation was that we do not even know that Jesus existed as there is no Eyewitness account, and the Gospels were compiled 300 years after the event. My rebuttal to that was to provide evidence that the man, Jesus, did actually exist.

And what where you able to show? That there were no eyewitness accounts and the Gospels were complied (in a likely corrupted form) centuries later. Despite your claim you provided no evidence that the man, Jesus, did actually exist. Others made the completely academic argument that: well ... in their professional apologist opinion, using arcane forms of historical divination, they find that it is more likely than not that there was a human basis for the mythology of a Christ.

I made no claim of his so called miracles. Compared to the science of today, much of it is common practice in our hospitals today. I believe him to have been a physician, as claimed in Luke 4:23 - "Physician, heal yourself!" But again, another debate. As soon as we can establish that a man called Jesus lived at that time then we can start looking to see if he performed miracles through other writings, or if he was know by those miracles. That is a task for historians.

An interesting fantasy for which there is no support, Luke 4:23 notwithstanding.

What supernatural events take place in the Bible. I am not insinuating that there are none, however, you need to recognise the difference between parables, allegories, principles and precepts compared to actual supernatural events.

and you hold the key to sorting everything into is proper bin? Wow!

For example, when Jesus healed the site of the blind man by putting clay on his eyes. In my opinion, that clay contained properties that used naturalistic laws to rectify his eyes, possibly via genetics. That is not a supernatural event. Hospitals are doing similar things everyday.

I know of no use of clay to change someones genome and thus repair their blindness. That would go into the supernatural bin. Now color blindness can be temporarily repaired with the injection of a pigment that binds to certain receptors inside the eye and some forms of blindness may soon be treated with stem cell therapy, but to pretend that anyone 2,000 years ago even have access to the needle and syringe required for the procedure or to a stem cell lab is, dare I say it, delusional.

Secondly, consider the flood. Was that an actual event or were we being taught that the principle of disobedience will bring about our entire destruction. That is also not a supernatural event, even if it took place the flood is a naturalistic phenomenon. I cannot think of any events that can be considered as supernatural in scripture. Unless you can point any out for me.

No, it would have to be supernatural, if just because there is not enough water on earth to flood the planet as described.

Nothing here can be counted as evidence as it can all be falsified. Showing love does not mean that the person loves you. There could be a plethora of reasons to put the act on. The past does not necessarily determine the future.

Yes, you can be fooled, you can be lied to. People have natural free will and their past does not necessarily determine the future. But the planet's past does.

I have an adequate degree of knowledge in cosmology. The reason being is that most recognisable supernatural events take place there.

There is no evidence of any supernatural events. None what-so-ever of any kind and such a claim, with full knowledge of the fact that it is naught but and argument from igorance it tantamount to a lie.

I know there are theories to explain how rapid expansion took place but not one of them can be tested with repeatability. The only thing coming close is the collisions monitored in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The universe expanded from a singularity into a universe in a fraction of a second. What naturalistic law can explain that.

None as of yet, but wait until next Friday and perhaps that will change. Until the we must say, I think that ... or it is possible that ... or in your case invent an entire mythology of pretense because you can't stand saying: we aren't quite sure yet.

Hypothesis is based on known laws and previous experience and knowledge. If an event cannot be explain by any of these tools then how can you fill a gap with a hypothesis.

You understand so little about science that I do not know where to begin explaining it to you.

They are an irrelevant part as the conclusion is the same as the beginning. Likewise with the mailman. He did not deliver that day, however, the post office employ people to cover for those who go sick, so my mail will still get delivered and I will never pick up on the anomaly.

Clearly you do not live in the more rural part of the Big Island of Hawaii.

This is anecdotal. Knowledge gleaned through unauthorised sources of speculation. From a scriptorial perspective it begins with the war in heaven and ends with exaltation.

You start with a mythical conflict and concatenate the Lord buying you a Mercedes-Benz to the end of it (The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59 for you Mormons). That is very strange.

No, God simply could not make it with imperfect elements as God cannot dwell in the presence of imperfection.

Just look at the crappy job that your God did designing most of the animals on earth. I guess that's why he doesn't live in this neighborhood, he cannot dwell in the presence of imperfection.

 

[Serenity7855]

Scripture tells the tail of a god raping a little 12 year old girl named Mary. Doctrine tells us this little girl was also this god's mother. While todays Christian might find this an inflammatory statement, historically it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow ......are Christians deluded or is the bible just being ignored?

You call the immaculate conception rape? Really? Mary was not physically touch, God was not even present and Mary made no complaint either to God or anyone else and you say that is rape. I know why you have said is. To specifically provoke hostile altercations between atheists and theists. To deliberately offend and agitate. It is the likes of posters like you who give atheists a bad name and this forum could well do without posters, like you, who stir trouble between two groups of people. Oh, please indulge us, tell the christians who do not believe in God incarnate how God was her father and her son. The bible is not being ignored it is being read by spiritually illiterate fools.

 

[Sapiens]

You call the immaculate conception rape? Really? Mary was not physically touch, God was not even present and Mary made no complaint either to God or anyone else and you say that is rape. I know why you have said is. To specifically provoke hostile altercations between atheists and theists. To deliberately offend and agitate. It is the likes of posters like you who give atheists a bad name and this forum could well do without posters, like you, who stir trouble between two groups of people. Oh, please indulge us, tell the christians who do not believe in God incarnate how God was her father and her son. The bible is not being ignored it is being read by spiritually illiterate fools.

Well ... sex with a 12 year old is considered rape in all states except, I believe, Alabama.