22 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI didn't ask you to accept it, I asked you to pretend. In other words, the logical possiblity God exists? Embrace it for the purposes of this post. When I debate an athiest, I normally try and see things from his point of view so I can present good points to him (or her). That includes thinking as if God doesn't exist. It doesn't affect my beliefs one bit, but it opens up my mind to new insight.
If I accept that God is the author of the Bible then, of course, Christianity is true. If that's all you're trying to prove then you win. The question is really can you logically prove that God is the author of the Bible? And secondly, as I presume you are talking about your fundamentalist cult brand of Christianity and not say, the Christianit ...[text shortened]... ree in anything you assert as part of your doctrine.But it's a free forum; knock yourself out.
My focus is on presenting Christ to you, not any particular denomination. I happen to believe that one should base their Christianity on the Bible and the Bible alone, but I feel that once someone accepts Jesus, that is the natural step they take eventually.
I can admit the possiblity of error, if someone were to point it out to me. 'God appears mean in this instance' isn't very convincing when I'm aware they don't understand God's motives in the first place.
22 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusYou should have named this thread "I'm Darfius and I think Christianity is true...."
I didn't ask you to accept it, I asked you to pretend. In other words, the logical possiblity God exists? Embrace it for the purposes of this post. When I debate an athiest, I normally try and see things from his point of view so I can present good points to him (or her). That includes thinking as if God doesn't exist. It doesn't affect my beliefs on ...[text shortened]... isn't very convincing when I'm aware they don't understand God's motives in the first place.
If you did that you could argue from opinion and emotion. The way you set yourself up in addressing the issue is that you take material that is subjective, emotional and opinionated, presented as a provable fact which it is not, it is a faith.
RTh
22 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusI misunderstood. I accept the logical possibility that God exists, so I don't have to pretend or accept it for the sake of this argument. I'm also not an atheist as I've pointed out many times. I've explained before that I am open to evidence supporting theism of any sort, including Christianity. So, please proceed.
I didn't ask you to accept it, I asked you to pretend. In other words, the logical possiblity God exists? Embrace it for the purposes of this post. When I debate an athiest, I normally try and see things from his point of view so I can present good points to him (or her). That includes thinking as if God doesn't exist. It doesn't affect my beliefs on ...[text shortened]... isn't very convincing when I'm aware they don't understand God's motives in the first place.
22 Apr 05
Originally posted by RingtailhunterPerhaps you should retract that statement and realize that everything we think and perceive is bias because of our opinion. Would you like me to present one of my opinions that is closer to 'fact'?
You should have named this thread "I'm Darfius and I think Christianity is true...."
If you did that you could argue from opinion and emotion. The way you set yourself up in addressing the issue is that you take material that is subjective, emotional and opinionated, presented as a provable fact which it is not, it is a faith.
RTh
Just because you do not agree with me does not give you the right to be rude or off-topic. If you wish to participate, then do so, if not then kindly leave.
22 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderGreat to hear. 😀
I misunderstood. I accept the logical possibility that God exists, so I don't have to pretend or accept it for the sake of this argument. I'm also not an atheist as I've pointed out many times. I've explained before that I am open to evidence supporting theism of any sort, including Christianity. So, please proceed.
I'm just waiting for Starr to check in before I continue.
22 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusMy statement was not in agreement or disagreement with you.
Perhaps you should retract that statement and realize that everything we think and perceive is bias because of our opinion. Would you like me to present one of my opinions that is closer to 'fact'?
Just because you do not agree with me does not give you the right to be rude or off-topic. If you wish to participate, then do so, if not then kindly leave.
Fact is fact.
Faith is faith.
You cannot argue faith as fact.
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
I thought when I opened this thread that this was going to be an open minded debate Based on it's title "is Christianity true?" I am dissapointed. I see that it is not an open minded debate after all.
You should be less misleading with your thread titles.
RTh
22 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusI thought that God only inspired the Bible, and did not personally write it. Honestly, Darfius, you always seem to alter your opinion on this matter to suit the argument at hand. Perhaps I will start a seperate thread on this subject to try and nail it down once and for all.
Would you humor me and think of God as the author of the Bible, no1? Just for the purposes of the thread? Don't worry, I don't think pretending gets you in danger of getting theist juice on you. 😉
... --- ...
22 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusLet me ask you a few questions, Darfius:
Perhaps you should retract that statement and realize that everything we think and perceive is bias because of our opinion. Would you like me to present one of my opinions that is closer to 'fact'?
Is it your opinion that 2+2=4? Or would you say that this is
a fact?
What if my opinion was that 2+2=3? What would you say to
that? Would you say that it was an opinion worthy of respect simply
by virtue of my holding it?
Nemesio
22 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by DarfiusHow then would you respond to Kreeft's sloppy response to the argument from evil and the argument from suffering in "The Case for Faith" by Lee Stobel (which you recommended to me)?
Since Heaven is where God is, it is pure happiness, love and eternal life with none of the opposites of those.
Kreeft basically argues that evil is necessary for free will, and free will is necessary for true love. Pain is necessary in order to value happiness. In Kreeft's words, "a world without suffering appears more like hell than heaven."
From his words, it sounds like you are really describing Hell.
But then I always thought you agreed with Kreeft on this.
"If He had made us unable to choose evil, we would be slaves, would we not? Would you rather be a slave then enjoy such things as love, goodness and happiness? Because those things don't exist unless we have hate, evil, and sadness." - Darfius (Thread: Is There A God? page 1)
"If He had made us unable to choose evil, what basis would we have to enjoy something as good?" - Darfius (Thread: Is There A God? page 4)
Do you just make this stuff up as you go, espousing whatever doctrine bests suits the situation?
22 Apr 05
Originally posted by Darfiuswow... i've just been convinced... bye
I'd like to know what you think of this quote, Starr. Please bear with me, it's a Bible verse, but I promise not to be circular. 🙂
1st Corinthians 1:20-25 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher 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 ...[text shortened]... of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
22 Apr 05
Originally posted by telerionWe make our choice using free will on Earth. Heaven is our reward.
How then would you respond to Kreeft's sloppy response to the argument from evil and the argument from suffering in "The Case for Faith" by Lee Stobel (which you recommended to me)?
Kreeft basically argues that evil is necessary for free will, and free will is necessary for true love. Pain is necessary in order to value happiness. In Kreeft's words ...[text shortened]... stuff up as you go, espousing whatever doctrine bests suits the situation?
No, I don't make things up, it's clearly in Scripture. Do you sacrifice babies and howl at the moon, tel? Don't ask stupid questions.
22 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DarfiusStupid questions are tels way of getting you upset. (I know, it's hard not to). 😉
We make our choice using free will on Earth. Heaven is our reward.
No, I don't make things up, it's clearly in Scripture. Do you sacrifice babies and howl at the moon, tel? Don't ask stupid questions.
23 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by DarfiusI don't think these questions are stupid at all. I think you are as usual making grand declarations and then sweeping the implications under the rug.
We make our choice using free will on Earth. Heaven is our reward.
No, I don't make things up, it's clearly in Scripture. Do you sacrifice babies and howl at the moon, tel? Don't ask stupid questions.
When it is necessary you argue that your god could not have created a world where people choose not to do evil and do not experience pain because this would have deleterious effects on our experience of love and happiness.
Then when it is convenient, you claim that the very best world we could live in (i.e. Heaven) is a place where there is no suffering or evil but instead is full of love and happiness.
So the question is if it was possible for your god to create a better world where people choose not to do evil, endure no pain, and have a fuller understanding of love and happiness, then why did he make this place instead. And if it was impossible, then how is that he created heaven?
The reason I accuse you of making things up is that when I give you sincere, well-researched objections, you usually hide behind incendiary statements like the ones above, claiming to have the clear truth from scripture, but never actually backing yourself up with truth. So rather than clear the issue up, you ignore the question or dismiss it with aggressive language.
Even, Coletti, who apparently has once again become sympathetic to your position, had to comment on the weakness of your posts in the "How can a God of love send somebody to hell?" You made grandeous professions of clear truth from the Bible, but never backed it up. Instead you reverted to insults and distorted fragments of the Psalms.
23 Apr 05
Originally posted by NemesioWhat if it was 2+2=10?
Let me ask you a few questions, Darfius:
Is it your [b]opinion that 2+2=4? Or would you say that this is
a fact?
What if my opinion was that 2+2=3? What would you say to
that? Would you say that it was an opinion worthy of respect simply
by virtue of my holding it?
Nemesio[/b]