Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Nobody Dies for a Lie

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    You seem to be disallowing the only valid primary concept for God [self Existent, and that uncaused existence is the only thing that is self existent]. And you are making the claim that there can be nothing beyond what ever you are referring to as "nature." i.e. "supernatural."
    Not exactly. We do not know how this universe came to be. We believe it either arises from something else, or has always been (e.g., the cyclic universe). Which is true is unknown, and if there are other possibilities is unknown. What I disallow is that a sentient, eternal, self-caused or uncaused being is the source of this universe. There is no indication that such a being exists, and much indication that it is a being of human conception.

    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    I reject Thomism and Existentialism. I believe that there is uncaused existence. And that uncaused existence precedes everything. And that uncaused existence is the only thing which qualifies to be God. Fact, God's Hebrew Name has been translated "self Existent." As I have explained only uncaused existence is self existent.
    I believe that nothing causes itself (the idea seems oxymoronic to me), so something has to be eternal. I just don't know what that something is. I do not believe, however, that it is a sentient being that loves us dearly and cares for "every hair on our head" or "sent it's only begotten son to save us."
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
      None of this is true or accurate. You're simply using the "poisoning the well" argument. No real refutations displayed...Appeal to authority and hand waving are not real arguments. Saying the Scriptures cited do not say what they say is laughable. Your belief of "many Christians" is also, just that, your mistaken belief. Thanks for playing but it's obvious you do not know what you are talking about.
      It is you “poisoning the well”, not shuny. Your claim that the OT contains Trinitarian references is nonsense. These “references” were read into the OT by later scholars to justify Trinitarian doctrine. If it were otherwise the Jews would have been expecting a ‘three-in-one” Messiah and they were not. For the Jews the "Messiah" referred to a future Jewish king from the Davidic line, which was expected to be anointed with holy oil and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age...not a three-in-one deity embodied in Jesus.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        My mere saying anything to be true does not make it true.
        When I ask you why I should believe something you say, you never offer any other reason.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          It is you “poisoning the well”, not shuny.
          No, I have not committed the "Poisoning the well fallacy"...PTW fallacy is a preemptive strike using irrelevant and adverse information to discredit the opponent so that his future arguments are no longer taken seriously. Let me demonstrate what that would look like.

          Ex.: "Tassman, you obviously do NOT know what "poisoning the well fallacy" is nor apparently have the Google-fu skills to find out. Why would anyone take what you have to say seriously from this point on?"


          THAT^^^ is poisoning the well.

          Shuny did it with the insinuation that Christian Scholars are inferior to their Jewish counterparts and therefore, Christian Scholars should be ignored on this. And by association, what I posted should therefore be ignored. That is a textbook case of PTW.

          Your claim that the OT contains Trinitarian references is nonsense. These “references” were read into the OT by later scholars to justify Trinitarian doctrine.
          You're perfectly welcome to back up that bald assertion, or you can go ahead and retract it now. (Not that I think you will) I copied and pasted from the Bible Gateway website. The verses clearly say what they say....there's no "reading into it what you want to see". You inability to understand the clear text is not my problem.

          If it were otherwise the Jews would have been expecting a ‘three-in-one” Messiah and they were not. For the Jews the "Messiah" referred to a future Jewish king from the Davidic line, which was expected to be anointed with holy oil and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age...not a three-in-one deity embodied in Jesus.
          What the corrupt Jewish Priesthood had sold them as the truth is also not Christianity's problem. Remember, back then no one had a copy of the Scriptures in their house. Only Rabbi's and priests were allowed to touch the Scrolls that were in the Temple or Synagogues. Therefore, they were the gateway to Scripture "interpretation". This is an argument that actually has it's origination in Christianity IIRC, and is one of the reasons they did not accept Jesus as the messiah as a nation. However, many Jews are converting to Christianity when they read the New Testament and find out the Rabbi's have been lying to them about the N.T., that it was an anti-semetic hate filled book that no Jew should ever read.
          "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

          "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
            10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

            11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

            12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

            13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

            14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

            15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

            16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

            ...ad infinitum.

            https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html
            Yes, three separate and distinct persons who all share the same essence of being uncreated, eternal, almighty, divine, etc. There is no logical contradiction here, because it's not saying that three people are one person, or that three gods are one god.

            Oh, but I do love how you think that ignorantly quoting a doctrine that you don't understand somehow disproves that doctrine.
            Last edited by Mountain Man; 05-23-2018, 11:51 AM.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              Oh, but I do love how you think that ignorantly quoting a doctrine that you don't understand somehow disproves that doctrine.
              That's OK, he throws homosexuals under the bus accusing for supporting NAMBLA when the poor fella was actually making a case against NABLA. The boy gets confused, then he just doubles down. Strangest thing.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                Not exactly. We do not know how this universe came to be. We believe it either arises from something else, or has always been (e.g., the cyclic universe). Which is true is unknown, and if there are other possibilities is unknown. What I disallow is that a sentient, eternal, self-caused or uncaused being is the source of this universe. . . .
                Nothing can exist without existing. And my argument was "uncaused existence precedes everything." Now I make a distinction between existence and causation.

                There is no indication that such a being exists, and much indication that it is a being of human conception.
                First off, any being which must exist is never God. Secondly, causation is contingent on an uncaused existence, whether uniquely caused or out of infinite causes with no first cause.


                I believe that nothing causes itself (the idea seems oxymoronic to me), so something has to be eternal. I just don't know what that something is. . . .
                One thing it must be is a self existent uncaused existence. There is no way this is not true.

                I do not believe, however, that it is a sentient being that loves us dearly and cares for "every hair on our head" or "sent it's only begotten son to save us."
                Why?
                Last edited by 37818; 05-23-2018, 02:17 PM.
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  Nothing can exist without existing.
                  This is an odd statement. I find myself wondering why you feel you need to say something so obvious.

                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  And my argument was "uncaused existence precedes everything." Now I make a distinction between existence and causation.
                  Again, I don't understand why you feel a need to state the obvious. That existence and causation are not the same thing is evidence just from the definition of the terms.

                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  First off, any being which must exist is never God. Secondly, causation is contingent on an uncaused existence, whether uniquely caused or out of infinite causes with no first cause.
                  And we're back into the sentences I find pretty much impossible to parse. I cannot speak to your statement about god, so I'll leave that to you. Causation is merely the way we describe the relationship between dependent "things" or elements, so naturally it depends on things existing. I think the rest gets to the whole idea of first cause(s), about which we know little or nothing. It currently resides in the realm of metaphysics because physics can conjecture, but provides no means for testing most (all?) of those conjectures.

                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  One thing it must be is a self existent uncaused existence. There is no way this is not true.

                  Why?
                  If you attempt to apply the concepts we know inside this universe to the universe itself (or anything "before" or "outside" the universe, if those terms even mean anything), you make an assumption you cannot substantiate. The best we can say is "we don't know." We do not know if the entire concept of causation is simply about hos this universe functions, or if it is a concept that transcends the universe.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                    No, I have not committed the "Poisoning the well fallacy"...PTW fallacy is a preemptive strike using irrelevant and adverse information to discredit the opponent so that his future arguments are no longer taken seriously. Let me demonstrate what that would look like.

                    Ex.: "Tassman, you obviously do NOT know what "poisoning the well fallacy" is nor apparently have the Google-fu skills to find out. Why would anyone take what you have to say seriously from this point on?"


                    THAT^^^ is poisoning the well.

                    Shuny did it with the insinuation that Christian Scholars are inferior to their Jewish counterparts and therefore, Christian Scholars should be ignored on this. And by association, what I posted should therefore be ignored. That is a textbook case of PTW.
                    Shuny did not refer to Christian Scholars as “inferior” to their Jewish counterparts, merely that they had an agenda. As do you.

                    You're perfectly welcome to back up that bald assertion, or you can go ahead and retract it now. (Not that I think you will) I copied and pasted from the Bible Gateway website. The verses clearly say what they say....there's no "reading into it what you want to see". You inability to understand the clear text is not my problem.
                    These texts were never understood to refer to a trinitarian god until the worshippers of a monotheistic god, i.e. the early Christians, wanted to say that Jesus was god too. Hence their reading back into to texts that had never before been understood as such throughout the millennia of their existence.

                    What the corrupt Jewish Priesthood had sold them as the truth is also not Christianity's problem. Remember, back then no one had a copy of the Scriptures in their house. Only Rabbi's and priests were allowed to touch the Scrolls that were in the Temple or Synagogues. Therefore, they were the gateway to Scripture "interpretation". This is an argument that actually has it's origination in Christianity IIRC, and is one of the reasons they did not accept Jesus as the messiah as a nation. However, many Jews are converting to Christianity when they read the New Testament and find out the Rabbi's have been lying to them about the N.T., that it was an anti-semetic hate filled book that no Jew should ever read.
                    "The Messiah", throughout the whole of Judaic history referred to a future Jewish king from the Davidic line, which was expected to be anointed with holy oil and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age. It never referred to a three-in-one deity embodied in Jesus as per Christianity.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      It never referred to a three-in-one deity embodied in Jesus as per Christianity.
                      This is just bait, right? I mean, you can't really be this ignorant about what Christianity actually teaches about the incarnation, right?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        This is just bait, right? I mean, you can't really be this ignorant about what Christianity actually teaches about the incarnation, right?
                        Christianity teaches that Jesus is fully god and fully man (i.e. the doctrine of the 'hypostatic union') and the second part of a trinitarian god. Right?
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          Shuny did not refer to Christian Scholars as “inferior” to their Jewish counterparts, merely that they had an agenda. As do you.
                          You are correct, I conflated his "Scholar" statement with this one:
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          I have dialogued with Christians and Jews over many years, and consider Jews far more knowledgeable about their scriptures than Christians that cling to the Roman Trinity doctrine will ever be.
                          That's poisoning the well fallacy. Jews are far more knowledgeable about Scripture than Christians. Classic example.


                          These texts were never understood to refer to a trinitarian god until the worshippers of a monotheistic god, i.e. the early Christians, wanted to say that Jesus was god too. Hence their reading back into to texts that had never before been understood as such throughout the millennia of their existence.
                          Whether they were or were not is irrelevant, if they MISSED it, that's on them.



                          "The Messiah", throughout the whole of Judaic history referred to a future Jewish king from the Davidic line, which was expected to be anointed with holy oil and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age.
                          right...you're close...

                          It never referred to a three-in-one deity embodied in Jesus as per Christianity.
                          Yes it did...based on this Scripture (among others)
                          6 "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given;
                          and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
                          and his name shall be called
                          Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
                          Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
                          7 Of the increase of his government and of peace
                          there will be no end,
                          on the throne of David and over his kingdom,
                          to establish it and to uphold it
                          with justice and with righteousness
                          from this time forth and forevermore.
                          The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.
                          — Isaiah 9:6

                          It looks obvious that the Messiah was to be God... The fact that Jews missed it, is again, on them, not Christians. I'm sure you've heard of "Confirmation Bias" , or maybe it's Anchor Bias...regardless, they missed it.
                          "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                          "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post


                            Whether they were or were not is irrelevant, if they MISSED it, that's on them.
                            They were the texts of the Jews. It’s no good claiming that they misunderstood the texts that had comprised their own holy book for millennia. They wrote them.

                            right...you're close...


                            Yes it did...based on this Scripture (among others)
                            6 "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given;
                            and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
                            and his name shall be called
                            Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
                            Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
                            7 Of the increase of his government and of peace
                            there will be no end,
                            on the throne of David and over his kingdom,
                            to establish it and to uphold it
                            with justice and with righteousness
                            from this time forth and forevermore.
                            The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.
                            — Isaiah 9:6

                            It looks obvious that the Messiah was to be God... The fact that Jews missed it, is again, on them, not Christians. I'm sure you've heard of "Confirmation Bias" , or maybe it's Anchor Bias...regardless, they missed it.
                            It might look obvious in retrospect but there are a lot of scholars who interpret this passage differently. Most commentators consider the text to refer to Hezekiah the successor to Ahaz and the Messianic hope of Israel at the time.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              It might look obvious in retrospect but there are a lot of scholars who interpret this passage differently. Most commentators consider the text to refer to Hezekiah the successor to Ahaz and the Messianic hope of Israel at the time.
                              "Most" commentators?
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                Christianity teaches that Jesus is fully god and fully man (i.e. the doctrine of the 'hypostatic union') and the second part of a trinitarian god. Right?
                                I would use the terms true God and true man, but yes, that's essentially what the hypostatic union teaches. He's not the "second part" of God though, seeing as God does not consist of parts. God consisting of 3 parts would be tritheism.

                                But the problem I have with the phrase "three-in-one deity embodied in Jesus" is that nowhere in Scripture, or orthodox Christian doctrine/dogma is it ever taught that the entire "three-in-one deity" is incarnated as Jesus, but that the second Person of the Trinity took on a human nature when He incarnated as a man.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                43 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X