Part 10 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

I wanted to. Your interpretation makes it appear that way.

People who share similar or even the same thoughts on a given subject.

Because I want to,,, it is just a matter of when in Rome do as the Romans do.

 

Let me ask you a different question. Can evidence that doesn't compel your mind to accept an assertion as true compel the minds of others that the assertion is true?

You don't think that somebody can change their mind when provided with evidence?

Do you see anybody else demanding proof and then rejecting what somebody provides them because "it doesn't compel their mind" without providing them with a rebuttal for why it doesn't compel their mind? Because you're the only poster I've seen do that.

 

I was not aware anyone went to heaven or the kingdom of God until the judgement day. Before that, no one knows where any one's 'soul' or whatever it is goes. You may be lying unconscious like every other formerly living thing.

 

Yet you have clearly stated you know when Moses died. And in the same link, it gave his birthdate as well.
So you must've forgotten you do know when Moses lived and died. Did you forget?

 

Conceivably.

Stop interjecting what you believe you know about what I think ("You don't think....") when you don't know what I think or what I don't think. Besides, your question is not relevant to the script it was placed in reference to. If you are asking if a person can change their mind on a given subject, then the answer is 'YES' IF they become convinced that there is a need to do so. So far, that has not happened on this forum ... as far as I am aware.

No... they usually throw in some rationalization pertaining to some off the wall alleged rule of some kind or another, instead of stating the obvious,,,, the obvious being that they were not convinced or that their mind was not compelled to accept the offering as 'true'.

In the words that I have chosen to use, that might be right.. but I do recall recently seeing someone else on this forum use words that were similar and almost exactly the same choice of words.

 

Okay, then how can you declare that the proof can't be anything under that definition? You declared that it couldn't be anything because you don't accept everything as proof. That's great and all, but other people can accept anything and everything they want as proof to back up an assertion, as long as it compels their mind.

Again, as I pointed out before those posts were deleted, I was asking you a question, not making a statement about what you thought.

Never claimed that I did. You don't seem to know what a question mark means when it is placed at the end of a sentence.

So, you're basically saying that close-minded people, such as yourself, are close-minded people. Open minded people who accept logical arguments and evidence, however, are much more willing to change their mind.

And why do you think that they don't just state the obvious?

Perhaps they were making fun of you.

 

In one instance you were speaking relative to me; in the other instance you were speaking relative to others. It is a matter of how it impacts each individual.

Relative to me.

Relative to them (other people). On the same token, what is compelling to me may or may not be compelling to others and vice versa.

Refresh my memory please.

It is implied with the opening few words "You don't think...." and continues on in an attempt to insert words in my mouth or (in the case of thinking) in my mind.

No! That is what you are saying.

Perception. My perception renders what they said to not be the obvious.

Perhaps they were launching a personal attack?

 

"Of course it is functional, it just is practically useless as anything can be considered as proof under that definition."

Where do you see anything that indicates I was speaking relative to you? I was talking about definition of proof in general. And you responded in a general manner.

Okay, and I'm not speaking about how you see the definition, I'm talking about what the definition can imply.

Then why do you continually say that what people are providing is not proof? Maybe to others it is.

"No, you're choosing vague definitions that give you the ability to argue speciously that anything can be a fact or proof. You think that nobody has noticed that you choose the same definitions for 'fact' and 'proof' regardless of the context of what another person is saying? You think that I didn't notice that you never responded to me saying that by the definition you are using for 'proof' that an opinion, and really anything could be proof, despite you saying to the contrary? The same could be said about your definition of 'fact'."

Highlighted the "You think.." and then the question marks so you can see them.

I'm sorry that you inferred incorrectly. What I said was what I said, and I wasn't hiding the fact that they were questions.

And is that not an accurate summary of what you were implying?

I asked you why they didn't state the obvious. The obvious, according to you, was "the obvious being that they were not convinced or that their mind was not compelled to accept the offering as 'true'."

Are you unable to render a hypothesis as to why they don't just state the obvious?

Perhaps they were launching a rocket.

 

"You declared that it couldn't be anything because you don't accept everything as proof."

If not speaking relative to me then you are speaking relative to others.

Because when I am analyzing the evidence, argument, data, I am doing so relative to me. I cannot analyze it relative to others... that is for each of them to do relative to their own being.

According to your interpretation therefore, yours is opinion regarding what I am doing.

Your being redundant for what reason?

My vision is good.. no need for the extra verbiage to point out what is already obvious to me.

I'm sorry that you implied what you implied.

Neither is yours.

And you did not understand that?

Why should I play 'guessing games'?

Perhaps they were fantasizing having sex with the Invisible Pink Panda?

 

And in the context of what I said: "You declared that it couldn't be anything because you don't accept everything as proof. That's great and all, but other people can accept anything and everything they want as proof to back up an assertion, as long as it compels their mind. "

I was criticizing you for trying to make the conversation relative to how you saw the definition.

I was speaking generally.

Then perhaps you should say "That isn't proof to me" instead of just saying that it isn't proof.

Yessir, and I am not the only one that has formed that opinion about what you do. Others have drawn the same conclusion based on your actions.

How was I being redundant?

Do you not understand what a question mark entails when it is placed at the end of a sentence?

I'm not sure what you mean by guessing games. I've seen you interpret motives and form opinions about what people inferred before, I don't know why you would run away from doing so now.

 

You did a very poor job of "being critical". Want to try again?

Generally is not necessarily factually.

why? Do you have a problem with my manner of expression when I am speaking relative to my own being?

OPINION.. Got it.

Repeating the same ole song and dance and not providing any "PROOF" that compels my mind to accept what you say as 'true'.

You mean like the one above and following this text? If you do, then the answer is yes.

Who is running away. I am responding to each of your comments and questions.

 

First let me say that if it wasn't for Atonement we'd all be doomed since every last single one of us are sinners!... excluding babies and children not of culpable/accountable age. We'd all face punishment for our sins and rightfully so!

The sinners who believe in Christ will be pardoned, the sinners who don't believe in Christ will be punished for their sins. Every sinner gets to make their choice on their own free will.

Would you rather see all us sinners get punished which would of course include yourself?

You sir, have no mercy! But our Lord God does have mercy, because He loves everyone of us and though He wants everyone to be saved, He knows we won't all be saved because many, such as yourself, find the Atonement to be nonsense and thus won't believe.

It is through God's grace He has given us a way to redeem ourselves, Scripture tells us, "But now God has shown us a way to be made right with Him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago. We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are."---Romans 3:21-22 NLT

And so your analogy is way off base, no wonder you view Atonement as nonsense, you got to refrain yourself from making a false analogy, an analogy that you consider similar when if fact it is by itself nonsense. You are right now incapable of understanding the significance of the Atonement which leads you to falsely conclude it is nonsense.

The fact is there is nothing that can compare to the grace that God has given us...nothing...nothing at all.

There is a passage in the Bible written just for guys like you who see the Atonement as being nothing more than nonsense

"The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God. As the Scriptures say, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and discard the intelligence of the intelligent."

So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world's brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. Since God in His wisdom saw to it that the world would never know Him through human wisdom, He has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe.

It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs in heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it's all nonsense."---1 Corinthians 1:18-23 NLT

 

Thanks for condemning me to your imaginary hell.....really makes me want to spend eternity with you.


Seriously, if you are representative of who I get to see in your heaven, I am totally good going anywhere else.

 

I didn't forget anything. It is obvious you have forgotten. It was WanRen who stated to know when Moses died and to know his birthdate. He was the one who gave you the link.

Aren't you taking notes as we go along?...lol

Make a note of this post in your notebook right now!...lol

 

sick and twisted, that's what this is.

explain why someone can't just feel REALLY bad for all their crap, and still get into your fancy club? what's the difference between regret and repent? it's same thing, in this context.

if the proviso is regret AND worship, explain why that doesn't bother you. a demand for worship is - in every possible manifestation - seriously corrupt. it serves no purpose whatsoever other than to feed a psychopathic ego. worship does not = obedience, though I know you guys like to think it does. in fact any obedience gained via fear or demand (outside a balanced and tangible relationship between parents and children - where the balance is demonstrated in practical terms daily) is likely to be poor quality, and extremely tenuous. which would explain much about the failure of xians to live a christlike life. anyway, explanations please!

 

And you agreed. Even calling me foolish or similar for having it pointed out.
So was wanren right about moses?

 

Well yes, sinful men carried out the crucifixion. Jesus wasn't guilty of anything yet these evil men found a way to crucify Him.

These evil men did not know it but they were actually carrying out/fulfilling what was prophesied to happen as written in the OT.

Jesus was the "sacrificial lamb" that Almighty God sent into the world, the lamb that was sinless, the lamb that would pay for all the sins of mankind by shedding His innocent blood on the cross.

Scripture tells us, "For God loved the world so much that He gave His one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent His Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through Him."---John 3:16-17 NLT

You are sounding like a conspiracy theorist, here you are some 2,000 years after the crucifixion and you believe you have it all figured out.

Sorry to disappoint you but I'm happy to say you are wrong, the Atonement is not nonsense...well of course it is to people like you who are non-believers but to us Christians, the Atonement is the bridge that covered the gap that was between God and mankind. Now we can be made right with God by accepting and having faith in our Lord Savior Jesus Christ.

What Jesus represents is mankind's Lord Savior!

 

So the crucifying of Jesus was "evil"...done by evil men....but yet it is what God WANTED to happen?

So by extension, God is evil.

 

So it is IMPOSSIBLE to calculate the mass of ice on the Earth...and how much water it would create if melted....and how much the infusino of such water into the world's oceans would raise the sea level?

Such a thing is impossible to calculate???

 

No, he thinks that math calculations aren't accurate representations of reality, or at least that is the vibe he is sending off.

 

You are the one who is saying "impossible", but I would always be suspect that an error had occurred, I mean after all, it is something that would be done by man using man-made equipment..... "remember the Challenger".

 

You're always suspect that an error occurred because the Challenger exploded?

 

Yeppir! Do you have another explanation that shows no errors were made?

 

Maybe math is biased by Satan?


- - - Updated - - -

Do you ever try to PROVE your assertions? Or just say "pooh-pooh" to scientific analysis?

Why don't YOU calculate the amount of ice on Earth...its relative mass....and how far sea levels would rise if it all melted?

Or are you scared you would prove you wrong? Then you're in a paradox, aren't you?

 

What frequency is that "vibe" oscillating at? by the way... I see you are still trying to portray yourself as a mind reader.. implying that you know what I 'think'.