Mega Quake in Turkey signals the end of time

Post Reply New Topic

Assumptions and more assumptions. The Book of Acts presupposes the events recorded in the gospels.

oh no i've started my first religious war on accident

Yeah, sure. Especially if you are starting from the premise that it’s a cohesive work and, thus, use apologist strategies to find any way to make accounts seem to fit when they don’t.

In the account of Matthew, he throws down the pieces of silver in the temple and immediately goes and hangs himself. In Acts, he uses the money to buy a field and then experiences karma and falls and dies in it. Actually read the accounts before trying to come up with ways to make them fit.

Oh, don’t feel bad. I’m absolutely rotten as an apologist. I wish I were better at, but for me it’s simply a casual hobby of mine. I used to be a lot more earnest about it. What broke me out of apologetics was realizing that the ONLY way people won arguments against Christianity was because they tended to make unproven/unprovable assumptions about it. Given the usual anti-Christian framework I would argue in, I was forced to accept anti-Christian or anti-theistic premises, i.e. things I don’t actually believe or accept myself.

If I find God to be true, proving that to someone else is irrelevant and unnecessary. It makes no logical sense to accept the premise of God’s non-existence and then take steps to prove God exists. That would require too many unproven assumptions, plus you have to invalidate ALL of human experience (including science, fwiw). The alternative argument (non-existence) becomes self-defeating if you start from the premise that God exists.

And that means arguing God’s existence is pointless since the other person is willing to assume without proof that God doesn’t exist.

The apologist then must endure the trap that defending the Bible and God means assuming that something is wrong with them. If there’s nothing wrong with God or the Bible, why defend them? Well, the real purpose of the apologist isn’t actually to defend anything. It’s to win converts. Apologists are often guilty of arguing for the sake of arguing and winning arguments. Winning arguments is easy. Changing minds and hearts isn’t, and that makes apologetics a pointless exercise.

So for me, it’s more about knowing the Bible and myself, deepening my relationship with my Creator. If someone genuinely wants to know more and have a meaningful conversation with me about becoming a Christian, I’m open to that. Everything else is just a matter of how much time I have on my hands.

Time comes and goes, so I tend to write as much as I can while I have the opportunity.

Last edited by AngelRho on 15 Feb 2023, 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No, I think Jesus would want us to make love, not war. Anyone down for a good time in honor of Jesus? Gay, straight, or something in-between would be fine.

What makes you think this hasn't happened already?

Acts never says he bought the field with 30 pieces of silver. It just says “Now this man acquired a field with his unrighteous wages.” Matthew mentions the chief priests bought the field with “blood money” and the field was called “Blood Field.” Acts confirms this. Judas DID acquire the field, he hanged himself, his dead body fell and broke open, and the field he acquired was called “Blood Field.” Matthew and Acts don’t contradict each other. They’re both right.

So, basically, unproven/unprovable assumptions about the unproven/unprovable?

We’re still here.

If someone knows a thing to be true, he has no need to prove that thing to himself. It’s already known to be true. So why would you listen to an argument against something you already know to be true?

If you know something to be true, why expend time and energy to convince someone who refuses to believe it no matter how reasonable or how much evidence?

That’s why I don’t waste time taking apologetics seriously. I’ve lately become highly fond and persuaded of the ontological argument. I find the idea of an infinitely great Supreme being meshes well with the same Supreme being transcending space/time and material existence. When I think about how easily evidence can be rejected to support any other point of view, it’s easy to see that most ideas and decisions we make are entirely based on faith rather than evidence. If someone insists that I reject God’s existence, I’ll just say that the extraordinary claim of God’s non-existence requires extraordinary evidence. My point is not to prove anything, just to show people will interpret all kinds of things to believe whatever they want. That’s a matter of faith. No matter how close or far away you are from God, everyone believes in something.

Idk…that an infinitely great Supreme being MUST logically exist does qualify as proof.

Whether you ACCEPT that is an entirely separate matter.

I like how you made that circle there.

And you are quite certain? Have you seen the list? Maybe none of the current population are on it? Maybe everyone worth saving has been saved.
Uh oh.

https://www.dezeen.com/2023/02/14/turki ... quake/amp/

One hundred and thirty one individuals linked to code violating buildings are now slated for arrest.

Theyve busted 12 of them so far. The rest...are now being dug out of flattened buildings!