Got a problem with God Fire away

Post Reply New Topic

Well, if I can't laugh at myself, who can I laugh at, right?

Where's the attack? I am making a statement of fact. I'm not insulting you, I'm not belittling you, I'm stating the facts.

To claim it is a fact you must have proof of your cliams which you don't

The bible has laws. It is stated in the bible that christians must follow those laws. You don't.

The only conclusion based off of those facts, is that you are not a christian.

Yes and I have stated those laws to you which I follow plenty of times now the laws of moses which are the laws christians are to follow. Moral of the story your opinon of me is very irrelevant. Every time you give me a question I will change the answer why because it's funny to me

I am a Christian and I also believe that a relationship with God is the most important. Right now, due to my life changing, I don't have a church, but I help run an outreach and I believe that it will grow. A lot of things have happened to me that I cannot really explain very well on WP, but I assure you that these things are way beyond the comprehensions of my family and I. Let's just say that supernatural events have occured and my family and I have taken our faith to the next level. HE is now the center of everything in our lives.

I am glad to hear that but just be ready for the WP atheists to attack you for posting that.

I guess I'll just have to be a duck. I've already fought the atheist battle before and I have no desire to fight again. Just let them believe what they wish.

SO when you cannot defend your position just scapegoat the via forum rules? It sounds like he is making a valid point... and I also agree with his last paragraph by the way...

Oh boy another great signature line..

Again he answered you question with using logic and reasoning and an easy to follow logical argument. It is not an opinion... again you cannot defend it so u create a totally pointless response that does not even challange the argument made.. which means its most likely correct if you cannot prove it incorrect.

Questions?

No, it is correct if it is correct. The INability to prove something incorrect has little to do with the likelihood of something being correct or not. It could be someone is unable to prove something simply because they don't know HOW to prove it. Not knowing HOW to prove something doesn't mean that the proof itself is impossible.

You just described the definition of FAITH in not so specific terms. Also the likelyhood of it being correct or incorrect argument only works if there is equal lack of proof on both sides. this is the common argument for/against the existence of GOD or anything supernatural in nature.
The point is not being able to dispute the argument

I'm just making a general observation about logic that has nothing to do with religion specifically.

Here's an example: Is O.J. Simpson a murderer? The answer is that we don't know with absolute certainty. Maybe he is a murderer, maybe he is not. There is only one correct solution--either he killed her or he didn't. The prosecution made what many believed was a strong case against him, but in the end they were unable to convince a jury that he was guilty. We might say they were unable to "prove" Simpson guilty of murder.

But just because they were unable to prove it, that doesn't magically bring a murder victim back to life. Nor does it make Simpson not "not guilty" if he committed a crime.

A logical argument will be lost or won depending on who best knows how to attack or defend a position following strict rules that avoid reasoning pitfalls. I've seen many a Christian end up on the losing side for no better reason than simply not having all their facts straight. Another mistake I often see is attempting to respond to every single point the opponent raises without first considering whether it is worth responding to. And by that I mean not knowing things like red herrings, strawman arguments, burden of proof shifts, and ad hominem attacks. Once a person falls for a distraction, the argument inherently takes an illogical direction. That doesn't mean, for example, that someone making an argument in favor of the existence of God is wrong about whether God exists or not. It just means he is unable to prove the existence of God using a faulty line of reasoning. It is possible one could win an argument and still be wrong.

It's all about context. In it's time, yeah, it was monstrous. The whole "rule of law" + "sane laws" thing was still being hammered out. In modern Judaism you need to consider that the crazy of ancient laws is mediated by the sanity of the Talmud-the ancient word isn't the last word. In modern day Christianity, it does not really matter, since most* Christians have no idea what's in the OT, and only use a few choice quotes of the NT. It's probably not fair to call Christians out on the bible-it might as well be a brick for all the value it's given. The problem stems from the constant use of out-of-context bible quotes by people with agendas, and the persistent refusal to go look them up and see where they are.

Nobody knows about the part where Moses is shown to be a war criminal in Numbers because nobody cares about Numbers.

(*Disclaimer: This only applies to every single christian I've ever met. Perhaps there are exceptions.)