Do You Consider Yourself To Be A Good Person? Poll.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Friend,  I don't have time to sit here and write pages and pages, showing the mountain of evidence that exists for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity, every time someone asks. I have provided evidence on many different threads. it is not my responsibility to prove anything to you. My responsibility is to share the Gospel of salvation in Christ. What you do with it is up to you. I have done that.

Enosh88

since when is one book writen 2000 years ago a "mountain of evidence"?

That is not the only evidence that has been put forth here and across many threads. Maybe you should take the journey as well.

I watched the Richard Niles video. He falls into all the same traps that I have problems with, many of which subrosian addresses.

These include: Taking the martyrdom of the apostles as evidence for the validity of Christianity. Taking the complexity of nature as evidence of a creator God, much less Bible-Is-God's-Word Christianity. The failure to question the Bible's claims of its own authorship. The biased reading of the Old Testament, coupled with the assumption that it has not been changed to fit in with the New. The claim that "from Genesis to Revelation, it's all tight" which overlooks at the very least the hypothesis that things might have been massaged to fit better together. The acceptance of the stories, and biases, of the Bible without questioning. The problems with prophecy (which you and I have debated, much to my dissatisfaction.

At the end of the day, he's just another believer with no more rational basis than anything else I've seen. Why should his belief suddenly change me?

You always raise the same arguments, and never new ones. Again, I challenge you to confront subrosian's criticism's. They're ground that hasn't been tread a thousand times.

 

Qooroo

There is a lot more on that site than just a video.  It would take hours and hours to explore that site if one was really serious about examining the evidence that they claim they are looking for. You claim you seek the truth, ask for evidence, even assert that no evidence has been offered, and then when one offers a source that will help provide the evidence you claim you want, you won't even invest the time to study it in detail.

I am sorry but I no longer feel that you are being sincere in your "plea" for evidence and will use my free will to choose to invest my time elsewhere.

I wish you well.

By the way, a mutual acquaintance seems to be busy trying to get religious discussion in the OT threads silenced. So much for free speach, open debate, and free exchange of ideas! Like I said, I have seen all before. Solomon was very wise indeed. He wrote...

Have you ever told a lie? As a youngin', yes.
Have you ever stolen anything? No.
Have you ever looked with lust? Not at all.
Have you ever hated anyone? No.
Have you ever used God's name in vain? Like as a swear word? Rarely ever.

I very much so consider myself a good person.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

subrosian,

Since you choose to continue to prevaricate and falsely claim that I have personally attacked you, which I have not, and continue to blaspheme the Lord I serve, I choose to no longer discuss anything with you.

I wish you well. My hope is that God will bless you richly and lead you to the truth.

Qooroo

Personally, I think you're just scared. Subrosian made a lot of good points, and rather than debate him in those issues, it's easier for you to fabricate reasons to not engage with them - a slightly more refined version of shoving your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALALA!" until he goes away.

Stop acting like a child and answer his questions, or admit that you either can't, or simply don't want to. Don't try and pretend you've been horribly slighted here.

So, from what I gather blackregiment, given that I've shown the "bible" is filled with scientifically unsupported claims, than there's no scientific evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was God, and that even just a few years after his death, people were not in agreement that he was the messiah, and that, in fact, more people were willing to die for the belief that *space aliens were flying a ship in the tail of a comet* than were willing to support Jesus' blasphemous claims at the end of his life, the discussion is over?

The "lord" you serve might well be an attempt by Lucifer to trick humanity into worshipping a false idol. God has blessed my life, continually, he has given me true love, a comfortable life, and opportunities wherever I sought them - and the truth he lead me to is that fundamentalist Christianity is wrong. Not just because it is designed to subvert the happiness and well-being of innocent people, but because it is a religion of hate.

I've attempted to engage you in a true theological discussion. The response has been to tune me out and shut the door. If feel as though the attempts to "save me" continued until the moment I turned the argument around, then the door was slammed in my face under the chant of "how dare you!". That's not a very christ-like thing to do sir, and it's certainly an insult to myself that anyone would do so. If Jesus is love, why demostrate such hatred towards me? What I see here are anger and fear - but why?

Fundamentalist Christianity and its bible are no more "fact" than Scientology and Dianetics, and yet, Scientology, FSM, and other ideas have been given zero respect in this thread. Why blackregiment? It is a double standard to demand respect for your personal belief system, yet show disrespect for Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, and others. Further, to be a true discussion, i.e. if the intent of this thread is *genuine moral discussion* rather than simple evangelism, which is not allowed, then you must honestly address the possibility that your belief system is wrong. It is possible that you have been tricked, mislead, or mistaken, and that the belief that Jesus the so-called-Christ is God is, in fact, wrong. If this is the case, the belief you're spreading is blasphemous - an afront to the God of Abraham.

-

And that, blackregiment, is a dangerous possibility.

I kill babies every once in a while, so yes.jachichorro

So, from what I gather blackregiment, given that I've shown the "bible" is filled with scientifically unsupported claims, than there's no scientific evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was God, and that even just a few years after his death, people were not in agreement that he was the messiah, and that, in fact, more people were willing to die for the belief that *space aliens were flying a ship in the tail of a comet* than were willing to support Jesus' blasphemous claims at the end of his life, the discussion is over?

subrosian

You apparently have convinced yourself that your opinions and speculations are axioms and proven fact for that is totality of the "proof" you have put forth. I commend you for thinking so highly of your personal opinions and speculations but, I don't accept that premise.

I would hope that you know that science, by definition of the science academy, limits itself to the exploration of the natural world. The supernatural is outside of its sphere of investigation.  God is a spirit, supernatural in nature and therefore is outside the realm of scientific inquiry. That being said, it is clear that you put your faith in science as the only source of truth. Science is but one source for examining the truth, it is not the ultimate authority on all things that you have enshrined it to be and which seems to be your object of faith.  The truth of Jesus Christ is not dependent on scientific discovery. You also seem to be confused about the differences in practical science and forensic science, which are two different disciplines. Your attempt to compare the deaths associated with the Hale Bopp cult to the death of the Apostles and many, many other Christians who died rather than recant their faith is humorous. The Apostles and other early Church members died for their faith in Jesus, which was based on their first hand account of the events of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, not on the wild speculations of a false prophet. You are also assuming that the Apostles were the only followers of Christ that were sacrificed and persecuted for their faith, in your attempt to play a "numbers who died" game. This reveals that the depth of your historical knowledge of Biblical history is left wanting. You might want to do some research on early Christianity before assuming your opinion is an axiom. .    .  

The "lord" you serve might well be an attempt by Lucifer to trick humanity into worshipping a false idol. God has blessed my life, continually, he has given me true love, a comfortable life, and opportunities wherever I sought them - and the truth he lead me to is that fundamentalist Christianity is wrong. Not just because it is designed to subvert the happiness and well-being of innocent people, but because it is a religion of hate.

subrosian

And using your logic, and speculation that Jesus Christ might be one of satan's tricks to deceive man, you place yourself in the same position. If you believe this, you cannot be certain either that this god you reference, is not a deception of satan either. The Bible tells us.

2Co 4:3  But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

2Co 4:4  In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Isa 44:18  They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.

Your comments, demeaning and defrauding Biblical Christianity and labeling it a "religion o hate",   further reveal the shallowness of your understanding of Biblical Christianity, what following Christ really means, the truth of the millions and millions of lives that have been lifted from a life of despair through the power of Jesus Christ, and the joy and fulfillment in the lives of those that follow Christ. One will never even begin to understand or experience this until they accept Christ and are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, something that you, by choice have denied yourself.

Your verbal assault on Biblical Christianity also belies the "tolerance" for faiths other than yours that you claim to possess. You have clearly demonstrated that dual standards are acceptable in your world.

I will state again as I have numerous times before, I respect the right of others to hold whatever beliefs or even non-belief they choose, but I do accept the notion that all faiths are equally true. God of the Bible, the one true God that I worship in Christ, gives everyone the free will to accept salvation in Christ or reject it. He will not force anyone to accept His plan of salvation that He patiently offers in grace.

I respect your right to serve this god of whom you speak. Perhaps you can share with me his plan of salvation for humanity. I would be interested in hearing about him and any evidence you can put forth to support his truth claims.  

I've attempted to engage you in a true theological discussion. The response has been to tune me out and shut the door. If feel as though the attempts to "save me" continued until the moment I turned the argument around, then the door was slammed in my face under the chant of "how dare you!". That's not a very christ-like thing to do sir, and it's certainly an insult to myself that anyone would do so. If Jesus is love, why demostrate such hatred towards me? What I see here are anger and fear - but why?

subrosian

I have not "demonstrated hate" for you as you continue to prevaricate. I have also not "attempted to save you". No person can "save" any other person, only faith in Jesus Christ can do that. I also have no "anger and fear". I find it very ironic that the things you falsely accuse me of, appear to form the basis of your approach as clearly demonstrated in the post I am responding to. I have shared the truth in Christ with you out of love. I find it ironic that you, a self-proclaimed in the belief that Christ was not God, would label me as "un-Christ like". You meant that as an insult but according to your worldview, your comment is irrelevant since you disrespect Christ. Let me reassure you, I give no weight to your words on spiritual matters, as I do not take spiritual advice from those that are not followers of Christ.  

Perhaps most ironic of all is your claim to "engage in theological debate". If that, as you now claim, is your true intention then why does it appear that, rather than open debate, your real motive may be to silence the free expression of Biblical Christians as evidence in this plea that you posted on the "ask the mod" forum? Our words are the "fossils" of the true intent of our heart.

I know this is a touchy one, but I'm curious where GameSpot and the TOU stand on this one. What is the policy in regards to religious groups forming unions and having intentional, planned evangelical (conversion / "ministry spreading" / et cetera ) efforts on GameSpot?

What is the policy regarding which religions may do this, what messages they may spread, how honest they have to be on their intentions, et cetera? Does it fall under spam / advertising? Off-Topic? Disruptive posting? Or are such messages allowed. I'm guessing no on here really wants to touch this with a 10-foot pole because it's such a loaded area of discussion, but as I've never actively posted on boards on GS dealing in religious matters, I'm rather curious.

subrosian

Fundamentalist Christianity and its bible are no more "fact" than Scientology and Dianetics, and yet, Scientology, FSM, and other ideas have been given zero respect in this thread. Why blackregiment? It is a double standard to demand respect for your personal belief system, yet show disrespect for Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, and others. Further, to be a true discussion, i.e. if the intent of this thread is *genuine moral discussion* rather than simple evangelism, which is not allowed, then you must honestly address the possibility that your belief system is wrong. It is possible that you have been tricked, mislead, or mistaken, and that the belief that Jesus the so-called-Christ is God is, in fact, wrong. If this is the case, the belief you're spreading is blasphemous - an afront to the God of Abraham. -

And that, blackregiment, is a dangerous possibility.

subrosian

You are entitled to your opinions and beliefs, I am entitled to mine as well. Just to clear up a little of your continued prevarication, I have not discussed any of the beliefs, doctrines, and tenets of  "Scientology , Dianetics, the FSM, for Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, in any depth on this thread. You would be hard pressed to support that false accusation. That being said, it appears that what you really mean is that you expect me to compromise my beliefs and accept all faiths as equally valid. I respect the right for anyone to hold any belief they choose, even non-belief, and that being said, I do not and will not accept that all faiths are equally valid. Rather than continue to suggest that I do, you might consider that I have a right to hold any belief that I choose to as well. I am here to defend my faith and tell others about God's love and plan of salvation, not to succumb to your wishes, conform to your standards, or please you.

Gal 1:10  For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Gal 4:16  Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

In regards to your last statement regarding "danger", I will put my faith and trust in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who said…

Joh 14:6  Jesus saith unto him, Iamtheway,thetruth,andthelife:no mancomethuntotheFather,butbyme.

The Bible is very clear that the real "danger" is not for those that put their faith in Christ, but rather for those that use their free will to choose not to.  That "danger" will be manifested in eternity.   

Feel free to define your own understanding of "danger", but as for me an my house, we will trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and what He has revealed.

Psa 118:8  Itis better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

In closing I will say that I nothing further to say to you. You claimed to want theological discussion, but your comments and attack on Biblical Christianity as a religion of "hate" reveal your true motives. My responsibility to the Lord is to share the Gospel, which I have done, do with it what you will. Maybe someday you will come to the truth and understand that following Christ is not "hate", it is love, God's love, in that He loved  us so much that while we were yet sinners, Christ suffered and died to pay the price for our sins so that those that repent and put their faith and trust in Him are reunited in fellowship with Him, in this world and in all eternity.

Joh 3:14  AndasMoseslifted uptheserpentinthewilderness,even somusttheSonofmanbelifted up:

Joh 3:15  Thatwhosoeverbelievethinhimshouldnotperish,buthaveeternallife.

Joh 3:16  ForGodsolovedtheworld,thathegavehisonly begottenSon,thatwhosoeverbelievethinhimshouldnotperish,buthaveeverlastinglife.

Joh 3:17  ForGodsentnothisSonintotheworldtocondemntheworld;butthattheworldthroughhimmightbesaved.

Joh 3:18  He that believethonhimisnotcondemned:buthe that believethnotiscondemnedalready,becausehehathnotbelievedinthenameoftheonly begottenSonofGod.

Joh 3:19  Andthisisthecondemnation,thatlightiscomeintotheworld,andmenloveddarknessratherthanlight,becausetheirdeedswereevil.

Joh 3:20  Forevery onethat doethevilhateththelight,neithercomethtothelight,lesthisdeedsshouldbereproved.

Joh 3:21  Buthe that doethtruthcomethtothelight,thathisdeedsmaybemade manifest,thattheyarewroughtinGod.

I wish you well.  

i think i am a great person, but not by your polls!sAndroid17

The poll just asks a general question and then gives several choices for response. It does not list or define any standards of goodness at all. With no standards defined in the poll, there is nothing for us to compare ourselves to so I don't understand your statement, "but not by your polls"?. Are you referring to the follow up questions asked by a poster rather than the poll itself?

Alright, fair enough. I admit that, after the video, I dismissed it as 'more of the same' and didn't read the rest of the site.

I have now attempted to do so, picking out specific sections relevant to my problems and reading them critically.

Much to my surprise, all the same unsupported leaps of logic are there.

Qooroo

As in the "same unsupported leaps of logic and faith" that naturalists take when they believe that the universe, all matter, energy, space, and even time arose from a tiny singulatity, smaller than a period, and without a first cause?

Or as in the "same unsupported leaps of logic and faith" that naturalists take when they believe that the over 100 finely tuned anthropic factors, which if any of them had a slightly different value would render life on earth impossible, all just happened to be magically set at their values by random chance? 

Or perhaps the "same unsupported leaps of logic and faith" that naturalists take when they believe that the immaterial laws of nature, such as the laws of physics, the laws of logic, the laws of mathematics, the laws of morality, and other immaterial things like the human conscience, love and other emotions, all just magically created themselves.

Or maybe you are referring to the "same unsupported leaps of logic and faith" that naturalists take when they believe that the first life magically arose from non-living chemicals. or was seeded on earth by aliens?

Or by chance you mean that the "same unsupported leaps of logic and faith" that naturalists take when they believe that the immaterial and complex language found in the coding of our DNA just formed magically by natural processes.

Or maybe you are referring to the "same unsupported leaps of logic and faith" that naturalists take when they believe that the unbelievably complex micro-components of every living cell and many biological process that are irreducibly complex, as they require their many components to come into existence at the same time to be functional and beneficial to the organism, all magically occurred at once.   

Or are you referring to the "same unsupported leaps of logic and faith" that naturalists take when they believe that a speculative story written about a few bone fragments or even a pig's tooth, somehow "proves" macro-evolution has been proven true?

Yes, we all must have faith, but when one examines all of the evidence with an open mind, faith in the God of the Bible and His revealed Word is the only rational and reasonable conclusion.

Here is the conclusion of things. We differ in opinion because I put my faith and trust in the Word of God and you place yours in the words of fallen man. God gave us a free will to choose either.  Both choices require faith. I choose to put my faith in the Word of God, you place your faith elsewhere. I respect your right to do that.  We will just have to agree to disagree. One thing is certain we will both find out who is right someday.

Amo 3:3  Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

I wish you well

After you answer that question, I ask that you would please answer these questions: Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen anything? Have you ever looked with lust? Have you ever hated anyone? Have you ever used God's name in vain? Like as a swear word? After you answer these, I'll quote you and ask you a few more. I'll answer them along with you guys. God bless, Crushmaster.Crushmaster

I reject your ethic.  

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]After you answer that question, I ask that you would please answer these questions: Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen anything? Have you ever looked with lust? Have you ever hated anyone? Have you ever used God's name in vain? Like as a swear word? After you answer these, I'll quote you and ask you a few more. I'll answer them along with you guys. God bless, Crushmaster.Frattracide

I reject your ethic.  

The only thing about that, is that it is not "his ethic", he is but a messenger, it is God's standard for righteousness.  I just wanted to clear that up.

I also have a question (and I hope you understand that I ask this out of genuine curiousity rather than malice or anything of the sort)...how do Biblical literalists resolve the problem of the historically innacurate portrayal of Pontius Pilate? You have claimed numerous times that there is no historical evidence against the Bible, but problems like this seem to be just that...

Qooroo

You need to be more specific as to what you are referring to.

By the way, in your reference to macro-evolution being observed, is this the kind of "science" that you are referring to?

Disclaimer: This is mere speculation do not take this as truth.

This disclaimer is posted for fear that there are those that will actually accept this as truth as they do with the many other speculations put forth by those that put their faith in the religion of naturalism, its doctrine of evolution, and the words of their high priests, scientists many of whom disbelieve in God, or at best are just trying to keep their job. (see the documentary, Expelled for more information.)  

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]After you answer that question, I ask that you would please answer these questions: Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen anything? Have you ever looked with lust? Have you ever hated anyone? Have you ever used God's name in vain? Like as a swear word? After you answer these, I'll quote you and ask you a few more. I'll answer them along with you guys. God bless, Crushmaster.blackregiment

I reject your ethic.  

The only thing about that, is that it is not "his ethic", he is but a messenger, it is God's standard for righteousness.  I just wanted to clear that up.

It is "His Ethic" In the sense that he applies it to his life. Even if he can't meet his own standard. (Which is the point of the ethic in th first place.)

It's all very silly in my opinion.   

[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="Frattracide"]

 

I reject your ethic.  

Frattracide

The only thing about that, is that it is not "his ethic", he is but a messenger, it is God's standard for righteousness.  I just wanted to clear that up.

It is "His Ethic" In the sense that he applies it to his life. Even if he can't meet his own standard. (Which is the point of the ethic in th first place.)

It's all very silly in my opinion.   

None of us meet God's standard for righteousness. We are all sinners in God's eyes. We all miss the mark and are separated from fellowship with Him, a righteous, just and holy God. Being the loving God He is, He, out of love for us and through His grace, provided the solution in Christ. While we were yet sinners, Christ died to pay the price for our sins. Those that repent and put their faith and trust in Christ as their Lord and Savior, are restored to fellowship with God, both in this world and in all eternity. We are then counted rightous in His eyes, our sin covered by the blood of Christ.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

 

The only thing about that, is that it is not "his ethic", he is but a messenger, it is God's standard for righteousness.  I just wanted to clear that up.

blackregiment

It is "His Ethic" In the sense that he applies it to his life. Even if he can't meet his own standard. (Which is the point of the ethic in th first place.)

It's all very silly in my opinion.   

None of us meet God's standard for righteousness. We are all sinners in God's eyes. We all miss the mark and are separated from fellowship with Him, a righteous, just and holy God. Being the loving God He is, He, out of love for us and through His grace, provided the solution in Christ. While we were yet sinners, Christ died to pay the price for our sins. Those that repent and put their faith and trust in Christ as their Lord and Savior, are restored to fellowship with God, both in this world and in all eternity. We are then counted rightous in His eyes, our sin covered by the blood of Christ.

Righteous, Just and holy? By my ethic god is amoral. Is it just to punish a man for a sin his father committed? Is genocide righteous? Certainly not by my ethic. 

[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="Qooroo"]

I also have a question (and I hope you understand that I ask this out of genuine curiousity rather than malice or anything of the sort)...how do Biblical literalists resolve the problem of the historically innacurate portrayal of Pontius Pilate? You have claimed numerous times that there is no historical evidence against the Bible, but problems like this seem to be just that...

Qooroo

You need to be more specific as to what you are referring to.

By the way, in your reference to macro-evolution being observed, is this the kind of "science" that you are referring to?

Disclaimer: This is mere speculation do not take this as truth.

This disclaimer is posted for fear that there are those that will actually accept this as truth as they do with the many other speculations put forth by those that put their faith in the religion of naturalism, its doctrine of evolution, and the words of their high priests, scientists many of whom disbelieve in God, or at best are just trying to keep their job. (see the documentary, Expelled for more information.)

Micro-evolution has been observed. Unless you can provide some evidence that there is an inherent biological boundary that the changes caused by micro-evolution cannot cross, the existence of micro-evolution proves the existence of macro-evolution.

And I was referring to the fact that most historical record displays Pilate as a ruthless, wholy unlikeable figure, in contrary to his sympathetic portrayal in the Bible. Historians theorize that the high level of tension between Romans and Judeo-Christian religions at the time when the Gospels were written would have made villainizing a Roman figure suicidal, and so the blame was placed primarily on the Jewish elders (who I'm pretty sure display a problematic amount of power for Jews at the time, but don't quote me on that).

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]After you answer that question, I ask that you would please answer these questions: Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen anything? Have you ever looked with lust? Have you ever hated anyone? Have you ever used God's name in vain? Like as a swear word? After you answer these, I'll quote you and ask you a few more. I'll answer them along with you guys. God bless, Crushmaster.Frattracide

I reject your ethic.

[QUOTE="Qooroo"]

I also have a question (and I hope you understand that I ask this out of genuine curiousity rather than malice or anything of the sort)...how do Biblical literalists resolve the problem of the historically innacurate portrayal of Pontius Pilate? You have claimed numerous times that there is no historical evidence against the Bible, but problems like this seem to be just that...

blackregiment

You need to be more specific as to what you are referring to.

By the way, in your reference to macro-evolution being observed, is this the kind of "science" that you are referring to?

Disclaimer: This is mere speculation do not take this as truth.

This disclaimer is posted for fear that there are those that will actually accept this as truth as they do with the many other speculations put forth by those that put their faith in the religion of naturalism, its doctrine of evolution, and the words of their high priests, scientists many of whom disbelieve in God, or at best are just trying to keep their job. (see the documentary, Expelled for more information.)

LOL thats not proof of evolution, heres prof of evolution

http://www.gamespot.com/users/CptJSparrow/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25308664&tag=all-about;blog3

Your treading in dangerous territory, you will never win in an evolution debate

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]After you answer that question, I ask that you would please answer these questions: Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen anything? Have you ever looked with lust? Have you ever hated anyone? Have you ever used God's name in vain? Like as a swear word? After you answer these, I'll quote you and ask you a few more. I'll answer them along with you guys. God bless, Crushmaster.Crushmaster

I reject your ethic.

That is interesting. Are you claiming that god wrote the bible? 

Since there seems to be some creationism VS. evolution discussion going on, I have a question for evolutionists:
What is one thing you know without a shadow of a doubt that is true about evolution?Crushmaster

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"][QUOTE="Frattracide"]

I reject your ethic.

Frattracide

That is interesting. Are you claiming that god wrote the bible?

[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="Qooroo"]

Alright, fair enough. I admit that, after the video, I dismissed it as 'more of the same' and didn't read the rest of the site.

I have now attempted to do so, picking out specific sections relevant to my problems and reading them critically.

Much to my surprise, all the same unsupported leaps of logic are there.

Qooroo

As in the "same unsupported leaps of logic and faith" that naturalists take when they believe that the universe, all matter, energy, space, and even time arose from a tiny singulatity, smaller than a period, and without a first cause?

Or as in the "same unsupported leaps of logic and faith" that naturalists take when they believe that the over 100 finely tuned anthropic factors, which if any of them had a slightly different value would render life on earth impossible, all just happened to be magically set at their values by random chance?

Or perhaps the "same unsupported leaps of logic and faith" that naturalists take when they believe that the immaterial laws of nature, such as the laws of physics, the laws of logic, the laws of mathematics, the laws of morality, and other immaterial things like the human conscience, love and other emotions, all just magically created themselves.

Or maybe you are referring to the "same unsupported leaps of logic and faith" that naturalists take when they believe that the first life magically arose from non-living chemicals. or was seeded on earth by aliens?

Or by chance you mean that the "same unsupported leaps of logic and faith" that naturalists take when they believe that the immaterial and complex language found in the coding of our DNA just formed magically by natural processes.

Or maybe you are referring to the "same unsupported leaps of logic and faith" that naturalists take when they believe that the unbelievably complex micro-components of every living cell and many biological process that are irreducibly complex, as they require their many components to come into existence at the same time to be functional and beneficial to the organism, all magically occurred at once.

Or are you referring to the "same unsupported leaps of logic and faith" that naturalists take when they believe that a speculative story written about a few bone fragments or even a pig's tooth, somehow "proves" macro-evolution has been proven true?

Yes, we all must have faith, but when one examines all of the evidence with an open mind, faith in the God of the Bible and His revealed Word is the only rational and reasonable conclusion.

Here is the conclusion of things. We differ in opinion because I put my faith and trust in the Word of God and you place yours in the words of fallen man. God gave us a free will to choose either.Both choices require faith. I choose to put my faith in the Word of God, you place your faith elsewhere. I respect your right to do that.We will just have to agree to disagree. One thing is certain we will both find out who is right someday.

Amo 3:3Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

I wish you well

Nope, I was reffering to leaps of logic like "archeological evidence for the existence of the places mentioned in the Bible is evidence for the events contained therein."

This entire post displays a massive ignorance of science. Evolution is no longer speculative - it has been observed.

You remarks regarding the balance of environmental factors necessary for life displays ignorance regarding how biological adaptation works.

I also find it fascinating how you seem to feel that proving intelligent design would validate Biblical literalism, rather than simply the existence of a creator.

I also have a question (and I hope you understand that I ask this out of genuine curiousity rather than malice or anything of the sort)...how do Biblical literalists resolve the problem of the historically innacurate portrayal of Pontius Pilate? You have claimed numerous times that there is no historical evidence against the Bible, but problems like this seem to be just that...

Oh so you have now "declared" me "ignorant". Are you omniscient too? Where is that tolerance, compasion, inclusiveness, freedom of expression that secularists claim they exhibit?  I thoug you did not participate in personal attacks. The truth is you know nothing about me other than I put my faith and trust in Christ. I could be a PHD for all you know. If you know so much about me to deem me ignorant, how tall am I? Wht color are my eyes? Where did I go to school? What is my mother's maiden name? If you are claiming omniscience, tell us how many grains of sand are on the beaches of Hawaii, or what the temperature is on Pluto right now, or perhaps the number of hairs on a Tibetan Yak.  

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]
Since there seems to be some creationism VS. evolution discussion going on, I have a question for evolutionists:
What is one thing you know without a shadow of a doubt that is true about evolution?Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="Frattracide"]

 

It is "His Ethic" In the sense that he applies it to his life. Even if he can't meet his own standard. (Which is the point of the ethic in th first place.)

It's all very silly in my opinion.   

Frattracide

None of us meet God's standard for righteousness. We are all sinners in God's eyes. We all miss the mark and are separated from fellowship with Him, a righteous, just and holy God. Being the loving God He is, He, out of love for us and through His grace, provided the solution in Christ. While we were yet sinners, Christ died to pay the price for our sins. Those that repent and put their faith and trust in Christ as their Lord and Savior, are restored to fellowship with God, both in this world and in all eternity. We are then counted rightous in His eyes, our sin covered by the blood of Christ.

Righteous, Just and holy? By my ethic god is amoral. Is it just to punish a man for a sin his father committed? Is genocide righteous? Certainly not by my ethic. 

God gave you a free will to believe whatever you want. He will be faithful to give us the eternal destination we choose with that free will. 

[QUOTE="Qooroo"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

 

 

As in the "same unsupported leaps of logic and faith" that naturalists take when they believe that the universe, all matter, energy, space, and even time arose from a tiny singulatity, smaller than a period, and without a first cause?

Or as in the "same unsupported leaps of logic and faith" that naturalists take when they believe that the over 100 finely tuned anthropic factors, which if any of them had a slightly different value would render life on earth impossible, all just happened to be magically set at their values by random chance?

Or perhaps the "same unsupported leaps of logic and faith" that naturalists take when they believe that the immaterial laws of nature, such as the laws of physics, the laws of logic, the laws of mathematics, the laws of morality, and other immaterial things like the human conscience, love and other emotions, all just magically created themselves.

Or maybe you are referring to the "same unsupported leaps of logic and faith" that naturalists take when they believe that the first life magically arose from non-living chemicals. or was seeded on earth by aliens?

Or by chance you mean that the "same unsupported leaps of logic and faith" that naturalists take when they believe that the immaterial and complex language found in the coding of our DNA just formed magically by natural processes.

Or maybe you are referring to the "same unsupported leaps of logic and faith" that naturalists take when they believe that the unbelievably complex micro-components of every living cell and many biological process that are irreducibly complex, as they require their many components to come into existence at the same time to be functional and beneficial to the organism, all magically occurred at once.

Or are you referring to the "same unsupported leaps of logic and faith" that naturalists take when they believe that a speculative story written about a few bone fragments or even a pig's tooth, somehow "proves" macro-evolution has been proven true?

Yes, we all must have faith, but when one examines all of the evidence with an open mind, faith in the God of the Bible and His revealed Word is the only rational and reasonable conclusion.

Here is the conclusion of things. We differ in opinion because I put my faith and trust in the Word of God and you place yours in the words of fallen man. God gave us a free will to choose either.Both choices require faith. I choose to put my faith in the Word of God, you place your faith elsewhere. I respect your right to do that.We will just have to agree to disagree. One thing is certain we will both find out who is right someday.

Amo 3:3Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

I wish you well

 

blackregiment

Nope, I was reffering to leaps of logic like "archeological evidence for the existence of the places mentioned in the Bible is evidence for the events contained therein."

This entire post displays a massive ignorance of science. Evolution is no longer speculative - it has been observed.

You remarks regarding the balance of environmental factors necessary for life displays ignorance regarding how biological adaptation works.

I also find it fascinating how you seem to feel that proving intelligent design would validate Biblical literalism, rather than simply the existence of a creator.

I also have a question (and I hope you understand that I ask this out of genuine curiousity rather than malice or anything of the sort)...how do Biblical literalists resolve the problem of the historically innacurate portrayal of Pontius Pilate? You have claimed numerous times that there is no historical evidence against the Bible, but problems like this seem to be just that...

Oh so you have now "declared" me "ignorant". Are you omniscient too? Where is that tolerance, compasion, inclusiveness, freedom of expression that secularists claim they exhibit?  I thoug you did not participate in personal attacks. The truth is you know nothing about me other than I put my faith and trust in Christ. I could be a PHD for all you know. If you know so much about me to deem me ignorant, how tall am I? Wht color are my eyes? Where did I go to school? What is my mother's maiden name? If you are claiming omniscience, tell us how many grains of sand are on the beaches of Hawaii, or what the temperature is on Pluto right now, or perhaps the number of hairs on a Tibetan Yak.  

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Crushmaster"]
Since there seems to be some creationism VS. evolution discussion going on, I have a question for evolutionists:
What is one thing you know without a shadow of a doubt that is true about evolution?Crushmaster

Wow. Blowing things out of proportion much?

I simply pointed out that your post completely misrepresented scientific thought, which indicated that you lack an understanding in the science you are discussing (I suppose you could be wilfully misrepresenting things, but I'd prefer to assume you're not malicious here). I never meant a personal attack. I could have called you a stupid fundie drone or something similarly insulting, but I'm interested in having a debate, not a flamewar. Please don't misrepresent my behaviour as a way to avoid addressing the issues I raise. Also, points for irony given how many times you've called people ignorant of Christian teaching/scripture/the like.

I also never claimed to be omniscient. I am simply drawing logical conclusions based on what you have said here. It would be terrifyingly hypocrticial of me to assume things like your educational background in fields other than science.

Qooroo

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]
Since there seems to be some creationism VS. evolution discussion going on, I have a question for evolutionists:
What is one thing you know without a shadow of a doubt that is true about evolution?Qooroo

I know that it has been observed. And phrases like "shadow of a doubt" open up the whole Cartesian kettle of fish...we probably don't want to go there.

[QUOTE="Qooroo"]

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]
Since there seems to be some creationism VS. evolution discussion going on, I have a question for evolutionists:
What is one thing you know without a shadow of a doubt that is true about evolution?Crushmaster

I know that it has been observed. And phrases like "shadow of a doubt" open up the whole Cartesian kettle of fish...we probably don't want to go there.

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]I'm not even sure without a shadow of a doubt that I exist, so I'll stick to almost certain... I am almost certain that macroevolution is the same as microevolution.Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="Crushmaster"]
It is not "my ethic", Frattracide. I go by the law of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, which He has revealed to us in His Word.Crushmaster

That is interesting. Are you claiming that god wrote the bible?

So if man had an influence on the bible and men are capable of deceit, then how do you know that the bible is true? 

[QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

 

None of us meet God's standard for righteousness. We are all sinners in God's eyes. We all miss the mark and are separated from fellowship with Him, a righteous, just and holy God. Being the loving God He is, He, out of love for us and through His grace, provided the solution in Christ. While we were yet sinners, Christ died to pay the price for our sins. Those that repent and put their faith and trust in Christ as their Lord and Savior, are restored to fellowship with God, both in this world and in all eternity. We are then counted rightous in His eyes, our sin covered by the blood of Christ.

 

blackregiment

Righteous, Just and holy? By my ethic god is amoral. Is it just to punish a man for a sin his father committed? Is genocide righteous? Certainly not by my ethic. 

God gave you a free will to believe whatever you want. He will be faithful to give us the eternal destination we choose with that free will. 

Yes. "Belive in me or I'll set you on fire." Just one of the many reasons I consider god an amoral person.