The reason my Father loves me is that I LAY DOWN my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
That was crystal clear, as clear as the next verse, the moment He died on the cross.
"Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head and GAVE UP His spirit."
That is the amazing sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. He gave His life voluntarily so that we could be saved, just to take it back gloriously so that we could have eternal life. That is how God showed his love toward us sinners. Can't you see how lovely was that?
Anyone who accepts Jesus as their savior is immoral. The Bible says we are all guilty of sin and deserve to die in hell. But if we accept the sacrifice of Christ for our sins, we are forgiven. Sorry, but that is simply evil.No one ( God or human) should EVER be punished for the wrong doings of another. And anyone who accepts the death of Christ for their own sins is immoral.Well, I won't allow an innocent person to pay for my "sins." I guess only people with no conscience can get into heaven.
@000SMITH000 have you ever even read the bible? it was Jesus' gift to us. he atoned for all of our sins. so no you are wrong about "anyone who accepts Jesus as their savior is immoral" that is heresy, take that somewhere else. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
@777tWill777 I was a Christian for 28 years. I have read the Bible (cover to cover) many times. But God's "plan" for salvation is immoral. It is always wrong for an innocent person to be punished for the crimes of the guilty. Period - case closed. Can you can give me an example of when it's alright to kill an innocent man for something a criminal did? It is not a "gift" that an innocent man was murdered for your sins. It is sick and immoral. I have a conscience and I won't accept it.
@000SMITH000 You think Jesus was murdered... You call yourself a Christian for 28 years... Read the Bible again... It was God's plan, and Jesus with joy decided when and where he would die...so that those who repent of their sins and seek Him could be forgiven of those sins and become part of God's family as His child... Just sayin'
@brmfam Jesus WAS murdered. Whether he know about it or not doesn't change the immorality of it. Whether he went along with the plan "with joy" or not doesn't make the plan moral. It doesn't matter what Jesus knew or thought.....the immoral part comes when the sinners ( like you and I) allow an innocent man ( Christ) to be punished for the crimes that WE committed. WE are the immoral ones to set back and accept this so-called "gift" from God. It is sick and immoral.
@000SMITH000 without Jesus atoning for our sins, we would all end up in hell. before Jesus was born they used burnt sacrifices to atone for them. Jesus came and died on the cross for US. for you to call it immoral is a joke. he did it for his people. he sounds like a great man and one who is the least bit selfish. so if you dont accept it thats your problem and you will have to deal with it on judgement day
@777tWill777 Jesus WAS a great man and not the least bit selfish. I agree with you. But he did nothing to deserve the punishment he received. It was immoral for God to kill him for our deeds. That was simply wrong. AND....it is immoral and wrong for any of us to accept his sacrifice. If we are guilty, it is up to each of us to face our punishment. If that means I go to hell, so be it. At least I will have a clear conscience, while those in heaven will have blood on their hands.
@000SMITH000 you aren't too bright.... Jesus gave himself up so we don't have to go to hell for it. it's not "immoral" at all. It's what God and Jesus wanted for his people. you are a heretic.
@777tWill777 I may not be "too bright", but I know right from wrong. It doesn't matter if Christ gave himself willingly or not. The fact is, he had done nothing wrong. The Bible says WE ( you and I) are the sinners who deserve punishment. It is ALWAYS wrong to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. And...it is ALWAYS wrong to accept another's death as payment for YOUR crimes. I don't know why Christians can't see this. It is quite simple.
@000SMITH000 That is why it is called SACRIFICE. If not Christ, the Eternal God who became flesh, then who? You already made your decision. Anyway, i hope you will enjoy HELL. if that's even possible
@chainsaregone007 I realize it was a sacrifice ( that's how sheepherders in the Middle East operated 2000 years ago.) Most of us thinking adults have moved on and progressed past that Bronze Age mentality. Only Christians keep holding on to that lunacy. But sacrificing an innocent man in place of the guilty is immoral. Plain and simple. I will definitely enjoy hell. I'll be there with folks like John Lennon, Mark Twain, and Carl Sagan. You'll be in heaven with..Jerry Falwell!! HAVE FUN!!!
LOL..."we're" done with you? Are you the spokesman for all Christians? Maybe YOU have surrendered, but I think others will decide for themselves if they are "done" with me. By the way....by giving up so easily, you have failed in your duties as a christian ( read 1Peter3:15). I don't think god is very happy with you right now. Quick...hit your knees and beg for forgiveness!!!!! LOL...LOL...LOL
@000SMITH000 haha. thanks by the way. but you know the reason why i said that to you? because you no longer able to hear for yourself the truth. we cannot scratch "itching ears" with "two-edged sword". And you already made your choice, well enjoy the pure-flaming Wrath of God in effect. Poor soul.. there is still time for you to repent. Isaiah 55:6 Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near.
@chainsaregone007 No thanks, I don't think I will be calling on the lord anytime soon. I have no fear of any "pure flaming wrath of god". Because, of course, there is no god. But you may continue living your life in fear, if you want.
@000SMITH000 That doesn't matter. You still have to face God on Judgment Day whether you believe in it or not. If I step onto the freeway when a massive truck is heading for me and I say, "I don't believe in trucks!," my lack of belief isn't going to change reality.
@chainsaregone007 Trucks are real, they exist. My advice to you is that you don't step in front of one. However, your god is not real. He does not exist and there will be no judgment day. So my advice to you is to stop being afraid of things that don't exist. That is reality.
@000SMITH000 is it not you who are afraid? you're afraid of the truth because you want to satisfy your sinfulness. you want to please your own god, that is yourself.
@chainsaregone007 I do not fear the truth, I embrace it. The truth is, there is no god. If you have evidence of a god, I'd love to hear it. But we both know you have none. Have a good life. Stop living in fear. Enjoy reality.
@000SMITH000 I have a bunch of evidences for you to know, external and internal; visible and invisible; natural and supernatural. only you blind fools weren't able to see that. As the scripture say "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and their ways are vile.." Psalm 53:1.
You are worse than demons for even the demons believe there is one God--and shudder.(James 2:19)
@chainsaregone007 Yes you claim to have evidence, but you still haven't produced any. By the way, there is no such thing as "invisible" or "supernatural" evidence. Those things are in your head and can't be counted as evidence of anything. All evidence would have to be natural and, of course, visible to all. Yes, "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." But the wise man says it out loud.
@000SMITH000 whatever dude.. that will be your problem on judgement day not mine because i accepted Christ's gift to me for all the things i've done. you've been warned, so your blood will be on your hands. peace out.
@777tWill777 Actually, my blood will be on God's hands. He is the one forcing me to make an immoral decision. He is the one condemning me to hell. If God can't see how immoral his own plan is, it makes me wonder just how "smart" God really is.
A man walked into a barren field, one that would never produce any crops, and he found a treasure. The treasure was worth more than anything that the man could ever have or ever would have. So he buried the treasure and went into the world and sold all of his possessions. People called him crazy for selling all he had. After he had done this, he bought the field. People called him crazy for buying a barren field. He gave up all he had for a treasure worth more than this life could ever produce.
People who never repented Paul Washers way (constant repentance) that according to him are not saved and will face the wrath of GOD-
Jesus Christ, Mary Magdelene, All 12 Apostles, the Gentiles saved under the preaching of the Cross (Acts 10:44-46) the Phillipian Jailer; the thief on the cross; Paul the Apostle; Abraham; Moses; Sarah; Joseph & his12 brethen; Rahab the Harlot; Ruth; demon possesed man; leper; blind Bartimaeus; myself (Anita Fuentes); and millions more around the world.
so great a reminder, in this life, not to get so caught up in the 'trappings', but to give your life away to things worthwhile, I praise God for this guy
Dear friend you find enjoyment and happyness through Jesus Christ. I wanted someone to speak to, but that someone never came...The one that came to me was Jesus Christ himself. So since than i decide it to follow him. He has kept me happy ever since. So why put your faith in what your carnal mind and body desires? For we wersetle againts it. Pray before you read the bible so that you might be shown the truth.
Christ once said "count it joy you are persecuted for me". Not many are willing to accept that persecution or difficulty for Christ. It says that many seeds fell in many different conditions and some died because they didn't have a root. THe gospel withered away because the difficulties were too much for it to grow. Its not about happiness, though joy is a part of our experience with God. The point is not happiness. What is the point? Salvation from sin.
@aaronkehl Amen. I am joyfull and happy because Christ is in my life he has taken contorl, i have given everything to him. Everything i have belongs to him and i will use it for his honor and glory not mine. Importantly i am joyfull and happy because he has save me from everything and will continue to do so never failing God.. Jesus Christ is my life.
You simply stop chasing what you want and start chasing what God wants. What does He want ? read the bible friend it is the mind of Christ it has all His likes and dislikes there. The truth is you have to die and be unified with Christ in death and resurection.... like Paul " i live but no I, it is Christ thats lives in me"
too vague - no specifics - TELL US what we can and cannot like or enjoy.
*
All you're saying is to die to self but never defining the specifics - like driving, keeping a job, keeping a car, paying rent, having dinner with friends
that pretty much sums up everybody's life - saved or unsaved
how do remain employed IF we really DIED to self ?
But first seek the Kingdom of God and all of this things shall be added unto you. So turn to Jesus Christ and find out the truth if you care for your friends speak to them about the gospel, there you would find out if they still want to be your friends or not. All of what you said is part of life money we need it to survive, work so you don't become lazy, friends we need thoes who follow Christ; are great friends. So you are save by being born of the spirit and stop sining againts God.
Its time of Elija,If baal is god follow him.And if The Holy one of Israel is God then follow him,The scripture has it all.God bless you and keep up his work::
Dragos, If I thought for a moment you were here to ask honest questions for your benefit, I would help if I could. To me, it appears you're here hoping to drag off a bunch of young Christians with nothing more than a bunch of empty, foundationless, overused, brain-dead atheist drivel and criticism of something you obviously know nearly nothing about. I have yet to see one honest, intelligent argument come from you. Try reading Dinesh D'Souza or Josh McDowell.
The Cross of Jesus is not something to be batted around in philosophical discussions to indulge our lust for a status of intellectual superiority. It is the alter where such arrogance and stupidity are utterly slaughtered. It is where the division is made between those who will put on full display their cowardice, insincerity, injustice, and sin as they turn away the love and sacrifice of Jesus Christ before they perish into the place of their choosing and have no more chance to turn back.
well, uhh...daniell...we are command to defend the faith..1 Tim (or is it peter) 3:15 said to be ready to give an answer for the hope within...Just obey stripture.
Hi Kyle, you're right. My wife and I believe this strongly. Several of our family members are involved in missionary work. Eileen and I and some of our family have been providing training to our churches in evangelism. We've provided other kinds of training, too, and may do some more in the area of apologetics and cult evangelism, and I'll be teaching on effectual prayer on Tuesday. We're praying for guidance. We know we have a calling for strategy, prayer, evangelism, internationally.
Hi Kyle, thank you so much. Actually the earlier remark was not meant to rebuke anyone but rather something a challenge for me, too. I think Sean McDowell or Dinesh D'Souza made a comment like this, too, that our focus needs not to be on winning a battle but winning souls. I have a high regard for Dragos, and whenever there is an atheist addressing issues honestly, they're just as important and precious as anyone else, even if I was a little hard. I need to learn to be patient, too.
I understand that my worldview can't account for everything. You can't seem to understand that yours can't either.
But if you think that accountability is so much required for a worldview to be valid, why do you ask me about it when you could ask yourself about god?
Well, I am asking you about it is because if you cannot account for it, you are actually proofing the Christian worldview more valid then you think. The bible make it clear that the unbeliever know my God to exist and they are suppressing the truth in unrightousness. (ROmans 1:18) Whenever you used the Christian's tool to argue angainst God, we christian is pointing out to the fact that you are using them without giving God the glory he deserve.
Yes, god exists, in you. If you're gonna claim he exists outside you have to give an account for that.
You should understand that every worldview has a set of preconditions to existence that just are what they are, they could never be otherwise. In yours it's god, in mine are logical absolutes.
Sorry, but slapping a label on those conditions doesn't mean you can account for them better.
"In yours it's god, in mine are logical absolutes"
I have talked to many atheist before, and one consistent one had describe there worldview as this: "absolute is simply a word people came up with to connote something that does not exist. it is part of our imagination, like perfection. or infinity."
Let me get one thing as straight as I can: In an atheist worldview, absolute cannot be adhere to. (cont...)
The logical absolutes are the three laws of logic. They are not literally "laws". It's not like things that exist follow these laws. They're for us, to describe how things that exist behave.
If you're gonna assert that the behavior of existence is going to change, you'll have to demonstrate that someway. Existence behaves consistently with itself. That's true for every worldview.
And as for accountibility for God: Both of us admit that without God, there is can be no accountibility. So I cannot account for God, not that I cannot do so, but without him I cannot account for anything.
(cont...) The reason why absolute cannot be adhere to is because atheism materialism will enevitably lead to revativtism. You are living in a constantly changing world, full of matter that is moving around...how on earth does absolute exist in such world view?
If the assumption that God is the foundation of proof is only a bold assertion, then so is the assumption that there is an answer for everything that does not require a God to exist, which is the premise for choosing the direction of study for the atheist, which leaves the atheist ignorant to the study of the contrary. You seem here to convert people, and bothered if someone upsets your goal. You intrude and treat your opponents as intruders. Typical atheist. Altering history and facts.
We, humans, established certain standards of proof.
You can't just assert that god is the foundation of proof and nothing can be proven without god, you have to prove that, using our current established standards of proof.
That's why it is a standard of proof, because everyone agreed to that. When everyone can see something, it's proof that it exists, according to our standard.
You're just taking our standard of proof and giving credit to god.
You cannot prove anything to someone who refuses to look at the evidence or asks an infinite chain of "how do you knows" expelling all premises. Your approach is dishonest honest as it establishes atheism as a premise and uses it to prove God does not exist. Or maybe you're trying to get someone to ask you if you searched the whole universe before making that determination there is no God so you can say he should be detectable everywhere. But by what contrast is detection accomplished?
I totally agree with that, I would have to prove that there is no danger, but only AFTER you prove that there is a god. You'd also have to prove wrong every religion that doesn't have a hell.
I'm not saying that there is an answer to everything that does not require a god. But the assertion that something requires a god to exist or behave the way it does is groundless. It's actually your religion that claims it has an answer for everything.
What are you talking about in your last reply? The reason someone doesn't accept your "evidence" is because it's bad evidence, unreliable evidence, that does not meet the standard of science OR an individual.
You telling someone that jesus appeared in your dream is not good enough evidence.
I don't know how you would figure I was trying to divert you with a red herring fallacy, but that wasn't my intention in the least. I am employing a Reductio ad absurdum, as you can see in this question I am about to ask you: How does me causing the button A to be pressed describe anything. (It would looked nicer if the question was: How does me causing the letter A to appeared describe anything, but I guess it did not get your consentment)
The law of causation establishes the cause-effect relationship between you pressing the button and the thing that the button is supposed to do happening.
Well you know...how come when I say "God created the world" you say it doesn't describe anything. But when you say "the law of causation establish this relationship between me and the button" describe something.
You misunderstood what I meant by "describe". Descriptive in this sense means that it points out how the universe behaves.
When you say "god created the world", it doesn't say anything about the behavior of the universe. How does, for example, god creating the world say anything about why when X does something, Y happens?
To correct you: The jews and the christians did not explain a natural phenomon through "god". They knew that it was nature, creation - but they believed that it was created and sustained by god. They believed and still believe that god is in power over nature and that he can influence the laws of nature. But in general they believed that the natural forces were set by god but that them were not god himself.
Have you removed your second last message and mine?
Are you a sceptic who doubts everything? If you are that, you really can know nothing for sure!
Are you a materialist?
Science only exists because there were men who believed that nature and creation is in a order, that was set by an uncreated creator =god, and therefore they started to explore nature!
Science exists because men wanted to find an explanation to things. Gods like Zeus or Ra vanished as they became unnecessary, because science explained how storms form, how the sun "rises", etc.
As soon as science can explain how the universe formed, your god will be useless too.
Science already replaced hobgoblins holding your feet to the ground with gravity and the diversity of species with evolution.
Christianity proclaimed that God is not a part of nature, like in a storm or things, but outside of creation. So the gods who were believed to be part of nature, disappeared. That is why men started to figure out how thinks work and second because they believed that it is possible, as there is an order in nature because of a god who has ordered everything.
Science will never be able to explain how the universe was formed!
You don't get the point. A "god" is a way of explaining things. That's how they explained natural phenomenon back then. And that's how you "explain" the existence of the universe. "God created it" isn't an explanation. It doesn't, in any way or form, explain the process of forming the universe.
"were" is the key word. People started to think and they realized how ridiculous and unnecessary this story is.
That you have no answer how the universe was created prooves that the fact that god created the world is a good and fitting explanation for the how-question.
Once again:Science can only figure out how the machine works and it does so in many details.But it will never be able to explain who invented and put the machine together.That you don´t find the inventer and creater of the machine within the machine does not proove that there is no inventer and creator. So here are the limits of science.
Alexprise was bringing up the First Cause arguement, but I would argue something else...the law of causation, is it material or immaterial? If material is it made out of atom? If not, then how can you claim that a thing cause another in a materialistic worldview?
But just because I pressed the button "A" and the letter A appear in my screen, how can I say that The button A "cause" the letter A to appear in my sceen?
Sorry, I didn't mean to make what I say so unclarify, here is a better example of what I mean: whenever it rained, the grass is wet. And the next time we go for a walk, we see the floor is wet. We say, the floor is wet, therefore, it must have been raining. But how do we know the rain cause the wetfloor? Can it be possible that the hoses cause the wetfloor. If it can be, then we cannot adiquately say the rain cause the wetfloor, or the Button A cause the letter A.
Then can I say that God cause the grass wet? If not because it would fall into the category "god did it" fallacy, then could I say whenever you say "the button A "cause" letter A to appear in the screen" That is a "law of causation did" fallacy?
Because the law of causation doesn't claim to do supernatural things. The law is for us humans, it's descriptive. It's used by us to describe things. The universe behaves the way it behaves whether or not we created this law.
What I mean is that the universe isn't subject to the law of causation. We use it to describe how the universe behaves.
Supernatural doesn't explain how things are done. Otherwise, we can simply say, God did it and that would end the point of the how-question.
The law of causation is untouchable, simply a machanism which we used to describle thing...it is a ghost. It manafest in this world but we cannot used any emperical mean to understand it. This is why I asked, why is the law of causation not a supernatural thing?
And I think you got descriptive and prescritive wrongly. Descritive is when I say, I see a dog, and I see a cat. Prescriptive is when I say, The dog is probably going to chase the cat. IN the case of the law of causation, it is prescritive, it doesn't tell us about the universe, simply what it is going to function as.
"Because the law of causation doesn't claim to do supernatural things"
The law of causation say what ever have an effect have a cause. The natural universe is made out of atom, and as you would know atomic things are visible and subjected to changes. The law of causation isn't atomic. It isn't subjected to change else else the world is in chaos. That sound supernatural to me.
The law is an abstract. It isn't supernatural because it's used to describe natural phenomenon.
It is descriptive. The universe doesn't follow that law. We, through general consensus, created this law. The law is for us, to be able to describe and understand the universe. The universe behaving according to that law is just us having understood the behavior of the universe.
The universe behaves the same, whether or not we were here to create that law.
"When you try to prove something, you can't use it as a premise." -Dragos1591
"The law is an abstract. It isn't supernatural because it's used to describe natural phenomenon."
Hold on, let me get this straight. The law of causation is a "natural" thing, that is used to describe natural thing. The reason it is true is because it we can see it "describing natural thing."...Is it me or is the bible claim that the unbeliever in his heart of heart know God exist, is coming alive.
We are talking about whether the law is natural or supernatural. You hold that "It isn't supernatural," therefore, it is natural.
I am saying, how do you know it is natural?
Becareful not to say because it manafest in this world or else that would contradict your other statement: "When you try to prove something, you can't use it as a premise."
"Observing the law of causation in the natural world is proof for the law being natural."
We are trying to proof the law of causation is natural correct? Looked at the arugment aganin: "Observing the law of causation (what is yet to be proven) in the natural world is proof for the law being natural. (conclusion, with what is yet to be proven)"
You said in the thrid paragraph:"I will repeat: the law doesn't cause the "cause and effect". The law simply points to the cause-effect relationship between two things"
What I said is that the law is descriptive. The universe only "appears" to obey the law, because we created the law for ourselves in order to describe the way the universe behaves. The universe isn't told what to do by that law, it simply behaves the way it behaves.
X (The law of causation) Describe Y( The universe), therefore, X(the law of causation) doesn't need to be proven.
Now, suptitute X for (the bible) describe Y (The universe), therfore X(the bible) doesn't need to be proven. If you can refute this argument without using double standard, I'll be glad to hear the fallacy.
By the way, the bible say, "In the beginning, God created the world." If the bible doesn't need to be proven because it describe the world as made by God, then I just establish my point.
I was predicting you would get to the "how" stuff. To which, you did not answer my previous question: how did you get from the button A and the letter A to the button A "cause" the letter A?
No, I don´t think that there is a difference in principle between a machine and the universe!
Let us agree on this point: You cannot "know" that there is a god, but what is also true is that you cannot "know" there there is NO god! Okay? Sciene can prove neither!
But nevertheless I think there are enough and many hints that point to the existence of god!
If you really are interesed in this topic read the book of John Lennox: God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
Of course I cannot know whether there is or not a god, I always admitted that.
What you need to understand is that god doesn't exist just because science doesn't know how to explain something or just because we don't know.
What would be those hints that point to the existence of god? And please don't say anything about the bible, it's too unreliable (alot of contradictions, plain wrong information, supernatural improbabilities without any evidence).
Everything has to be according to the nature of god - it has to be logical! That is why nothing will last that is irrational and illogical! The universe only exists because it is logical! And that is so, because God is logical! If God wouldnt be subject to his logical nature he would contradict himself - and that cannot be! Read: "The reason for god" from Timothy Keller.
God's nature has to be logical implies that god is subject to the logical absolutes.
If all you're gonna do is assert that god is necessary and that the universe couldn't have existed without god, you're wasting my time.
Yes, the bible is full of contradictions. I can't be bothered to copy everything here, go search on google: "bible inconsistency" "bible contradictions".
Yes, God is subject to his own nature - he is his own absolute!
I already telled you why god is necessary! Read my further messages! Tell me, why god is unnecessary?
Tell me your worldview, so that we can figure out what you really believe! How came everything in existence? Will you tell me, that you believe in eternal materia? I´m existed!
Comment removed
tgillspy2 4 days ago
the Sovereignty of Jesus in this matter:
John 10 :11
Jesus said, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd LAYS DOWN his life for the sheep. "
what does He mean by that? the next verses gives the answer.
chainsaregone007 7 months ago
John 10:17-18
The reason my Father loves me is that I LAY DOWN my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
That was crystal clear, as clear as the next verse, the moment He died on the cross.
chainsaregone007 7 months ago
Comment removed
chainsaregone007 7 months ago
John 19:30
"Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head and GAVE UP His spirit."
That is the amazing sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. He gave His life voluntarily so that we could be saved, just to take it back gloriously so that we could have eternal life. That is how God showed his love toward us sinners. Can't you see how lovely was that?
chainsaregone007 7 months ago
Comment removed
chainsaregone007 7 months ago
Anyone who accepts Jesus as their savior is immoral. The Bible says we are all guilty of sin and deserve to die in hell. But if we accept the sacrifice of Christ for our sins, we are forgiven. Sorry, but that is simply evil.No one ( God or human) should EVER be punished for the wrong doings of another. And anyone who accepts the death of Christ for their own sins is immoral.Well, I won't allow an innocent person to pay for my "sins." I guess only people with no conscience can get into heaven.
000SMITH000 9 months ago
@000SMITH000 have you ever even read the bible? it was Jesus' gift to us. he atoned for all of our sins. so no you are wrong about "anyone who accepts Jesus as their savior is immoral" that is heresy, take that somewhere else. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
777tWill777 9 months ago
@777tWill777 I was a Christian for 28 years. I have read the Bible (cover to cover) many times. But God's "plan" for salvation is immoral. It is always wrong for an innocent person to be punished for the crimes of the guilty. Period - case closed. Can you can give me an example of when it's alright to kill an innocent man for something a criminal did? It is not a "gift" that an innocent man was murdered for your sins. It is sick and immoral. I have a conscience and I won't accept it.
000SMITH000 9 months ago
@000SMITH000 You think Jesus was murdered... You call yourself a Christian for 28 years... Read the Bible again... It was God's plan, and Jesus with joy decided when and where he would die...so that those who repent of their sins and seek Him could be forgiven of those sins and become part of God's family as His child... Just sayin'
brmfam 7 months ago
@brmfam Jesus WAS murdered. Whether he know about it or not doesn't change the immorality of it. Whether he went along with the plan "with joy" or not doesn't make the plan moral. It doesn't matter what Jesus knew or thought.....the immoral part comes when the sinners ( like you and I) allow an innocent man ( Christ) to be punished for the crimes that WE committed. WE are the immoral ones to set back and accept this so-called "gift" from God. It is sick and immoral.
000SMITH000 7 months ago
@000SMITH000 without Jesus atoning for our sins, we would all end up in hell. before Jesus was born they used burnt sacrifices to atone for them. Jesus came and died on the cross for US. for you to call it immoral is a joke. he did it for his people. he sounds like a great man and one who is the least bit selfish. so if you dont accept it thats your problem and you will have to deal with it on judgement day
777tWill777 9 months ago
@777tWill777 Jesus WAS a great man and not the least bit selfish. I agree with you. But he did nothing to deserve the punishment he received. It was immoral for God to kill him for our deeds. That was simply wrong. AND....it is immoral and wrong for any of us to accept his sacrifice. If we are guilty, it is up to each of us to face our punishment. If that means I go to hell, so be it. At least I will have a clear conscience, while those in heaven will have blood on their hands.
000SMITH000 9 months ago
@000SMITH000 you aren't too bright.... Jesus gave himself up so we don't have to go to hell for it. it's not "immoral" at all. It's what God and Jesus wanted for his people. you are a heretic.
777tWill777 9 months ago
@777tWill777 I may not be "too bright", but I know right from wrong. It doesn't matter if Christ gave himself willingly or not. The fact is, he had done nothing wrong. The Bible says WE ( you and I) are the sinners who deserve punishment. It is ALWAYS wrong to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. And...it is ALWAYS wrong to accept another's death as payment for YOUR crimes. I don't know why Christians can't see this. It is quite simple.
000SMITH000 9 months ago
@000SMITH000 That is why it is called SACRIFICE. If not Christ, the Eternal God who became flesh, then who? You already made your decision. Anyway, i hope you will enjoy HELL. if that's even possible
chainsaregone007 7 months ago
@chainsaregone007 I realize it was a sacrifice ( that's how sheepherders in the Middle East operated 2000 years ago.) Most of us thinking adults have moved on and progressed past that Bronze Age mentality. Only Christians keep holding on to that lunacy. But sacrificing an innocent man in place of the guilty is immoral. Plain and simple. I will definitely enjoy hell. I'll be there with folks like John Lennon, Mark Twain, and Carl Sagan. You'll be in heaven with..Jerry Falwell!! HAVE FUN!!!
000SMITH000 7 months ago
@000SMITH000 apostate. we're done with you
chainsaregone007 7 months ago
Comment removed
000SMITH000 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LOL..."we're" done with you? Are you the spokesman for all Christians? Maybe YOU have surrendered, but I think others will decide for themselves if they are "done" with me. By the way....by giving up so easily, you have failed in your duties as a christian ( read 1Peter3:15). I don't think god is very happy with you right now. Quick...hit your knees and beg for forgiveness!!!!! LOL...LOL...LOL
000SMITH000 7 months ago
Comment removed
chainsaregone007 7 months ago
@000SMITH000 haha. thanks by the way. but you know the reason why i said that to you? because you no longer able to hear for yourself the truth. we cannot scratch "itching ears" with "two-edged sword". And you already made your choice, well enjoy the pure-flaming Wrath of God in effect. Poor soul.. there is still time for you to repent. Isaiah 55:6 Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near.
chainsaregone007 7 months ago
@chainsaregone007 No thanks, I don't think I will be calling on the lord anytime soon. I have no fear of any "pure flaming wrath of god". Because, of course, there is no god. But you may continue living your life in fear, if you want.
000SMITH000 7 months ago
@000SMITH000 That doesn't matter. You still have to face God on Judgment Day whether you believe in it or not. If I step onto the freeway when a massive truck is heading for me and I say, "I don't believe in trucks!," my lack of belief isn't going to change reality.
chainsaregone007 7 months ago
@chainsaregone007 Trucks are real, they exist. My advice to you is that you don't step in front of one. However, your god is not real. He does not exist and there will be no judgment day. So my advice to you is to stop being afraid of things that don't exist. That is reality.
000SMITH000 7 months ago
Comment removed
chainsaregone007 7 months ago
@000SMITH000 is it not you who are afraid? you're afraid of the truth because you want to satisfy your sinfulness. you want to please your own god, that is yourself.
chainsaregone007 7 months ago
@chainsaregone007 I do not fear the truth, I embrace it. The truth is, there is no god. If you have evidence of a god, I'd love to hear it. But we both know you have none. Have a good life. Stop living in fear. Enjoy reality.
000SMITH000 7 months ago
@000SMITH000 No way.
chainsaregone007 7 months ago
@000SMITH000 I have a bunch of evidences for you to know, external and internal; visible and invisible; natural and supernatural. only you blind fools weren't able to see that. As the scripture say "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and their ways are vile.." Psalm 53:1.
You are worse than demons for even the demons believe there is one God--and shudder.(James 2:19)
chainsaregone007 7 months ago
@chainsaregone007 Yes you claim to have evidence, but you still haven't produced any. By the way, there is no such thing as "invisible" or "supernatural" evidence. Those things are in your head and can't be counted as evidence of anything. All evidence would have to be natural and, of course, visible to all. Yes, "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." But the wise man says it out loud.
000SMITH000 7 months ago
@000SMITH000 whatever dude.. that will be your problem on judgement day not mine because i accepted Christ's gift to me for all the things i've done. you've been warned, so your blood will be on your hands. peace out.
777tWill777 9 months ago
@777tWill777 Actually, my blood will be on God's hands. He is the one forcing me to make an immoral decision. He is the one condemning me to hell. If God can't see how immoral his own plan is, it makes me wonder just how "smart" God really is.
000SMITH000 9 months ago
The holy spirit bless this pastor!
bonggamanzano 10 months ago
This is awesome!!!
dmpilarta 11 months ago
A man walked into a barren field, one that would never produce any crops, and he found a treasure. The treasure was worth more than anything that the man could ever have or ever would have. So he buried the treasure and went into the world and sold all of his possessions. People called him crazy for selling all he had. After he had done this, he bought the field. People called him crazy for buying a barren field. He gave up all he had for a treasure worth more than this life could ever produce.
ingramw1202 11 months ago
The problem is we down-size the single most important event ever to a simple prayer, a two-second "devotion".
BrooksisaChristian 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
People who never repented Paul Washers way (constant repentance) that according to him are not saved and will face the wrath of GOD-
Jesus Christ, Mary Magdelene, All 12 Apostles, the Gentiles saved under the preaching of the Cross (Acts 10:44-46) the Phillipian Jailer; the thief on the cross; Paul the Apostle; Abraham; Moses; Sarah; Joseph & his12 brethen; Rahab the Harlot; Ruth; demon possesed man; leper; blind Bartimaeus; myself (Anita Fuentes); and millions more around the world.
PureGraceEvangelism 1 year ago
"u dont need so much trappings-u only need to REALIZE where the treasure is found -IN THE CROSS OF CHRIST!"
veralau93 1 year ago
FANTASTIC !
Jen8973 1 year ago
so great a reminder, in this life, not to get so caught up in the 'trappings', but to give your life away to things worthwhile, I praise God for this guy
mweiss7586 2 years ago
JESUUUUUS!!! =D=D
micael16 2 years ago
WOW! This is an extremely powerful message one we all need to be reminded of. Thank you for this video. ELOHIM bless you always. <(^8
netta2158 2 years ago
very powerful video amen it's all about Christ
archdelux 2 years ago
Dear friend you find enjoyment and happyness through Jesus Christ. I wanted someone to speak to, but that someone never came...The one that came to me was Jesus Christ himself. So since than i decide it to follow him. He has kept me happy ever since. So why put your faith in what your carnal mind and body desires? For we wersetle againts it. Pray before you read the bible so that you might be shown the truth.
evomitzu 2 years ago
Christ once said "count it joy you are persecuted for me". Not many are willing to accept that persecution or difficulty for Christ. It says that many seeds fell in many different conditions and some died because they didn't have a root. THe gospel withered away because the difficulties were too much for it to grow. Its not about happiness, though joy is a part of our experience with God. The point is not happiness. What is the point? Salvation from sin.
aaronkehl 2 years ago
@aaronkehl Amen. I am joyfull and happy because Christ is in my life he has taken contorl, i have given everything to him. Everything i have belongs to him and i will use it for his honor and glory not mine. Importantly i am joyfull and happy because he has save me from everything and will continue to do so never failing God.. Jesus Christ is my life.
evomitzu 2 years ago
@evomitzu i'm glad for you thats great
aaronkehl 2 years ago
@aaronkehl Amen God Bless you dear brother. =)
evomitzu 2 years ago
@evomitzu may the God and father of Jesus Christ bless u too
aaronkehl 2 years ago
OK great - now WHAT do I do ? How does one lay down his life ?
stop working? live on the beach ? do what ?
scottidee 2 years ago
You simply stop chasing what you want and start chasing what God wants. What does He want ? read the bible friend it is the mind of Christ it has all His likes and dislikes there. The truth is you have to die and be unified with Christ in death and resurection.... like Paul " i live but no I, it is Christ thats lives in me"
nobunaga888 2 years ago
too vague - no specifics - TELL US what we can and cannot like or enjoy.
*
All you're saying is to die to self but never defining the specifics - like driving, keeping a job, keeping a car, paying rent, having dinner with friends
that pretty much sums up everybody's life - saved or unsaved
how do remain employed IF we really DIED to self ?
scottidee 2 years ago
But first seek the Kingdom of God and all of this things shall be added unto you. So turn to Jesus Christ and find out the truth if you care for your friends speak to them about the gospel, there you would find out if they still want to be your friends or not. All of what you said is part of life money we need it to survive, work so you don't become lazy, friends we need thoes who follow Christ; are great friends. So you are save by being born of the spirit and stop sining againts God.
evomitzu 2 years ago
Its time of Elija,If baal is god follow him.And if The Holy one of Israel is God then follow him,The scripture has it all.God bless you and keep up his work::
kisumudalahera 2 years ago
Zeus is the coolest, imo.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Do not reason with our minds for the things of god. But rely, trust, have faith and believe in the word of god and the word only.
rmah20 2 years ago
Dragos, If I thought for a moment you were here to ask honest questions for your benefit, I would help if I could. To me, it appears you're here hoping to drag off a bunch of young Christians with nothing more than a bunch of empty, foundationless, overused, brain-dead atheist drivel and criticism of something you obviously know nearly nothing about. I have yet to see one honest, intelligent argument come from you. Try reading Dinesh D'Souza or Josh McDowell.
danieljdick 2 years ago
The Cross of Jesus is not something to be batted around in philosophical discussions to indulge our lust for a status of intellectual superiority. It is the alter where such arrogance and stupidity are utterly slaughtered. It is where the division is made between those who will put on full display their cowardice, insincerity, injustice, and sin as they turn away the love and sacrifice of Jesus Christ before they perish into the place of their choosing and have no more chance to turn back.
danieljdick 2 years ago
Groundless babble.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Groundless babble is exactly what the atheist has to offer. Nothing but empty criticism with no answers to anything.
danieljdick 2 years ago
well, uhh...daniell...we are command to defend the faith..1 Tim (or is it peter) 3:15 said to be ready to give an answer for the hope within...Just obey stripture.
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Hi Kyle, you're right. My wife and I believe this strongly. Several of our family members are involved in missionary work. Eileen and I and some of our family have been providing training to our churches in evangelism. We've provided other kinds of training, too, and may do some more in the area of apologetics and cult evangelism, and I'll be teaching on effectual prayer on Tuesday. We're praying for guidance. We know we have a calling for strategy, prayer, evangelism, internationally.
danieljdick 2 years ago
I'll pray for your mission work, god bless you!
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Hi Kyle, thank you so much. Actually the earlier remark was not meant to rebuke anyone but rather something a challenge for me, too. I think Sean McDowell or Dinesh D'Souza made a comment like this, too, that our focus needs not to be on winning a battle but winning souls. I have a high regard for Dragos, and whenever there is an atheist addressing issues honestly, they're just as important and precious as anyone else, even if I was a little hard. I need to learn to be patient, too.
danieljdick 2 years ago
Comment removed
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Amen to that, God help us both.
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Comment removed
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Comment removed
kylemorne100 2 years ago
No, you can't assume and assert that god is the foundation of proof. That's just a bald assertion.
Our current foundation of proof is the scientific method, because it's the most reliable.
If you're gonna claim that god is the foundation of proof you have to prove that using the scientific method.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Comment removed
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Well, the scientic method, can't account for many things like numbers, love, or itself.
kylemorne100 2 years ago
And plus, the scientific method is only for the Christian worldview.
kylemorne100 2 years ago
The scientific method is for all humans.
I understand that my worldview can't account for everything. You can't seem to understand that yours can't either.
But if you think that accountability is so much required for a worldview to be valid, why do you ask me about it when you could ask yourself about god?
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Well, I am asking you about it is because if you cannot account for it, you are actually proofing the Christian worldview more valid then you think. The bible make it clear that the unbeliever know my God to exist and they are suppressing the truth in unrightousness. (ROmans 1:18) Whenever you used the Christian's tool to argue angainst God, we christian is pointing out to the fact that you are using them without giving God the glory he deserve.
kylemorne100 2 years ago
What christian tool am I using?
Yes, god exists, in you. If you're gonna claim he exists outside you have to give an account for that.
You should understand that every worldview has a set of preconditions to existence that just are what they are, they could never be otherwise. In yours it's god, in mine are logical absolutes.
Sorry, but slapping a label on those conditions doesn't mean you can account for them better.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
"What christian tool am I using?"
"In yours it's god, in mine are logical absolutes"
I have talked to many atheist before, and one consistent one had describe there worldview as this: "absolute is simply a word people came up with to connote something that does not exist. it is part of our imagination, like perfection. or infinity."
Let me get one thing as straight as I can: In an atheist worldview, absolute cannot be adhere to. (cont...)
kylemorne100 2 years ago
You missed my point. Twice.
The logical absolutes are the three laws of logic. They are not literally "laws". It's not like things that exist follow these laws. They're for us, to describe how things that exist behave.
If you're gonna assert that the behavior of existence is going to change, you'll have to demonstrate that someway. Existence behaves consistently with itself. That's true for every worldview.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
There's a set of preconditions to existence that are just what they are (in your case it's god).
The laws of physics/logic/other act as a representation of what we observe about the universe.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Comment removed
kylemorne100 2 years ago
And as for accountibility for God: Both of us admit that without God, there is can be no accountibility. So I cannot account for God, not that I cannot do so, but without him I cannot account for anything.
kylemorne100 2 years ago
(cont...) The reason why absolute cannot be adhere to is because atheism materialism will enevitably lead to revativtism. You are living in a constantly changing world, full of matter that is moving around...how on earth does absolute exist in such world view?
kylemorne100 2 years ago
If the assumption that God is the foundation of proof is only a bold assertion, then so is the assumption that there is an answer for everything that does not require a God to exist, which is the premise for choosing the direction of study for the atheist, which leaves the atheist ignorant to the study of the contrary. You seem here to convert people, and bothered if someone upsets your goal. You intrude and treat your opponents as intruders. Typical atheist. Altering history and facts.
danieljdick 2 years ago
Comment removed
kylemorne100 2 years ago
You missed the point.
We, humans, established certain standards of proof.
You can't just assert that god is the foundation of proof and nothing can be proven without god, you have to prove that, using our current established standards of proof.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
But our standard of proof can't be accounted for without God.
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Yes it can.
That's why it is a standard of proof, because everyone agreed to that. When everyone can see something, it's proof that it exists, according to our standard.
You're just taking our standard of proof and giving credit to god.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
You cannot prove anything to someone who refuses to look at the evidence or asks an infinite chain of "how do you knows" expelling all premises. Your approach is dishonest honest as it establishes atheism as a premise and uses it to prove God does not exist. Or maybe you're trying to get someone to ask you if you searched the whole universe before making that determination there is no God so you can say he should be detectable everywhere. But by what contrast is detection accomplished?
danieljdick 2 years ago
I totally agree with that, I would have to prove that there is no danger, but only AFTER you prove that there is a god. You'd also have to prove wrong every religion that doesn't have a hell.
I'm not saying that there is an answer to everything that does not require a god. But the assertion that something requires a god to exist or behave the way it does is groundless. It's actually your religion that claims it has an answer for everything.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
What are you talking about in your last reply? The reason someone doesn't accept your "evidence" is because it's bad evidence, unreliable evidence, that does not meet the standard of science OR an individual.
You telling someone that jesus appeared in your dream is not good enough evidence.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
How about the thing in the past will be like in the future.
kylemorne100 2 years ago
When you press "button A", letter "A" appears on the screen. Therefore, button A caused the letter A to appear on the screen.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Since I pressed the "button A," the letter "A" appeared on my screen. It can be said that I caused the letter A to apeared on the screen, right?
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Comment removed
Dragos1591 2 years ago
No. You caused the button A to be pressed.
I can't help but notice that you changed the subject when I asked how "In the beginning, god created the world" describes anything.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Comment removed
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Comment removed
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Comment removed
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Comment removed
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Comment removed
kylemorne100 2 years ago
I don't know how you would figure I was trying to divert you with a red herring fallacy, but that wasn't my intention in the least. I am employing a Reductio ad absurdum, as you can see in this question I am about to ask you: How does me causing the button A to be pressed describe anything. (It would looked nicer if the question was: How does me causing the letter A to appeared describe anything, but I guess it did not get your consentment)
kylemorne100 2 years ago
The law of causation establishes the cause-effect relationship between you pressing the button and the thing that the button is supposed to do happening.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
How does this describe anything in the earth?
kylemorne100 2 years ago
What?
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Well you know...how come when I say "God created the world" you say it doesn't describe anything. But when you say "the law of causation establish this relationship between me and the button" describe something.
kylemorne100 2 years ago
You misunderstood what I meant by "describe". Descriptive in this sense means that it points out how the universe behaves.
When you say "god created the world", it doesn't say anything about the behavior of the universe. How does, for example, god creating the world say anything about why when X does something, Y happens?
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Comment removed
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Well the weird thing about this is, without God, the law of causation doesn't really describe anything.
kylemorne100 2 years ago
And why is that?
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Well, uniformity of nature haven't been proven...
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Wait a sec, what does logic have to do with that?
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Logic?
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Yes, the laws of logic.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Woow hold on, I thought we were decussing the law of physic
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Sorry, I just watched a different vid and my mind is on that.
Let me start for the beginning:
You're saying I can't prove that existence is going to be the same forever, correct?
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Not really, nature can't be proven to be the same forever.
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Didn't you say this "uniformity of nature" is that?
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Oh my bad, well I made it sound like that but it isn't like that. It isn't my idea, it from athother philospher called Mill Staurt I think.
kylemorne100 2 years ago
To correct you: The jews and the christians did not explain a natural phenomon through "god". They knew that it was nature, creation - but they believed that it was created and sustained by god. They believed and still believe that god is in power over nature and that he can influence the laws of nature. But in general they believed that the natural forces were set by god but that them were not god himself.
alexpritze 2 years ago
Have you removed your second last message and mine?
Are you a sceptic who doubts everything? If you are that, you really can know nothing for sure!
Are you a materialist?
Science only exists because there were men who believed that nature and creation is in a order, that was set by an uncreated creator =god, and therefore they started to explore nature!
alexpritze 2 years ago
You can't know everything for sure either way.
Science exists because men wanted to find an explanation to things. Gods like Zeus or Ra vanished as they became unnecessary, because science explained how storms form, how the sun "rises", etc.
As soon as science can explain how the universe formed, your god will be useless too.
Science already replaced hobgoblins holding your feet to the ground with gravity and the diversity of species with evolution.
Science is simply more capable/reliable.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Thats simply wrong.
Christianity proclaimed that God is not a part of nature, like in a storm or things, but outside of creation. So the gods who were believed to be part of nature, disappeared. That is why men started to figure out how thinks work and second because they believed that it is possible, as there is an order in nature because of a god who has ordered everything.
Science will never be able to explain how the universe was formed!
Most scientists where theists back then.
alexpritze 2 years ago
You don't get the point. A "god" is a way of explaining things. That's how they explained natural phenomenon back then. And that's how you "explain" the existence of the universe. "God created it" isn't an explanation. It doesn't, in any way or form, explain the process of forming the universe.
"were" is the key word. People started to think and they realized how ridiculous and unnecessary this story is.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
That you have no answer how the universe was created prooves that the fact that god created the world is a good and fitting explanation for the how-question.
Once again:Science can only figure out how the machine works and it does so in many details.But it will never be able to explain who invented and put the machine together.That you don´t find the inventer and creater of the machine within the machine does not proove that there is no inventer and creator. So here are the limits of science.
alexpritze 2 years ago
Ok, go away, you're not bringing any arguments.
If you think us not knowing how the universe formed is proof that god created it, you're hopeless and you're wasting my time.
Don't you think there's any difference between a "machine" and an universe?
I'm talking about people and gods in general.
Your problem is that you can't accept a simple "I don't know". You'd rather resort to an invisible 2000 year old man than give an honest answer.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Alexprise was bringing up the First Cause arguement, but I would argue something else...the law of causation, is it material or immaterial? If material is it made out of atom? If not, then how can you claim that a thing cause another in a materialistic worldview?
kylemorne100 2 years ago
When someone says "the law X is material" he means that it's manifestation is observable in the material world.
The law itself is not a "thing".
Dragos1591 2 years ago
If it is manitest in the observable material, then how do we observe the law of causation?
kylemorne100 2 years ago
The manifestation is the only observable aspect of the law of causation.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Comment removed
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Can you give me an example of the manifestation of the law of causation?
kylemorne100 2 years ago
What do you need examples for? Can you not understand the law? Any effect has a cause.
Here's a poor example: You press the "A" button and the letter A appears on your screen.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
But just because I pressed the button "A" and the letter A appear in my screen, how can I say that The button A "cause" the letter A to appear in my sceen?
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Sorry, I didn't mean to make what I say so unclarify, here is a better example of what I mean: whenever it rained, the grass is wet. And the next time we go for a walk, we see the floor is wet. We say, the floor is wet, therefore, it must have been raining. But how do we know the rain cause the wetfloor? Can it be possible that the hoses cause the wetfloor. If it can be, then we cannot adiquately say the rain cause the wetfloor, or the Button A cause the letter A.
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Comment removed
kylemorne100 2 years ago
The problem is you're assuming that the only thing that can get the grass wet is rain.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Comment removed
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Comment removed
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Then can I say that God cause the grass wet? If not because it would fall into the category "god did it" fallacy, then could I say whenever you say "the button A "cause" letter A to appear in the screen" That is a "law of causation did" fallacy?
kylemorne100 2 years ago
You can say whatever you want, but it doesn't make it true.
"Law of causation" caused X isn't a fallacy.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Comment removed
kylemorne100 2 years ago
"God" cause X, is a fallacy...but "Law of causation" caused X isn't a fallacy"
What I say may not be true, but care explain why what you say is true?
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Because the law of causation doesn't claim to do supernatural things. The law is for us humans, it's descriptive. It's used by us to describe things. The universe behaves the way it behaves whether or not we created this law.
What I mean is that the universe isn't subject to the law of causation. We use it to describe how the universe behaves.
Supernatural doesn't explain how things are done. Otherwise, we can simply say, God did it and that would end the point of the how-question.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Why isn't the law of causation a supernatual things?
kylemorne100 2 years ago
The law of causation is untouchable, simply a machanism which we used to describle thing...it is a ghost. It manafest in this world but we cannot used any emperical mean to understand it. This is why I asked, why is the law of causation not a supernatural thing?
kylemorne100 2 years ago
And I think you got descriptive and prescritive wrongly. Descritive is when I say, I see a dog, and I see a cat. Prescriptive is when I say, The dog is probably going to chase the cat. IN the case of the law of causation, it is prescritive, it doesn't tell us about the universe, simply what it is going to function as.
kylemorne100 2 years ago
"Because the law of causation doesn't claim to do supernatural things"
The law of causation say what ever have an effect have a cause. The natural universe is made out of atom, and as you would know atomic things are visible and subjected to changes. The law of causation isn't atomic. It isn't subjected to change else else the world is in chaos. That sound supernatural to me.
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Comment removed
kylemorne100 2 years ago
The law is an abstract. It isn't supernatural because it's used to describe natural phenomenon.
It is descriptive. The universe doesn't follow that law. We, through general consensus, created this law. The law is for us, to be able to describe and understand the universe. The universe behaving according to that law is just us having understood the behavior of the universe.
The universe behaves the same, whether or not we were here to create that law.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Comment removed
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Comment removed
kylemorne100 2 years ago
"When you try to prove something, you can't use it as a premise." -Dragos1591
"The law is an abstract. It isn't supernatural because it's used to describe natural phenomenon."
Hold on, let me get this straight. The law of causation is a "natural" thing, that is used to describe natural thing. The reason it is true is because it we can see it "describing natural thing."...Is it me or is the bible claim that the unbeliever in his heart of heart know God exist, is coming alive.
kylemorne100 2 years ago
We use it to describe natural phenomenon.
Are you trying to say we can't observe the law describing the behavior of the universe accurately? I don't get what you're saying.
I am telling you what the law is about, I'm not trying to prove that it is correct or whatever.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
We are talking about whether the law is natural or supernatural. You hold that "It isn't supernatural," therefore, it is natural.
I am saying, how do you know it is natural?
Becareful not to say because it manafest in this world or else that would contradict your other statement: "When you try to prove something, you can't use it as a premise."
kylemorne100 2 years ago
No, it wouldn't contradict it. If I said "it is natural because it is natural" or "because it has to be natural" then it does contradict.
Observing the law of causation in the natural world is proof for the law being natural.
The law can't even be supernatural, because it was created to describe the behavior of the natural world only.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
"Observing the law of causation in the natural world is proof for the law being natural."
We are trying to proof the law of causation is natural correct? Looked at the arugment aganin: "Observing the law of causation (what is yet to be proven) in the natural world is proof for the law being natural. (conclusion, with what is yet to be proven)"
kylemorne100 2 years ago
No one has to prove the law of causation. No one obeys this law. We created it to describe the behavior of the universe.
I will repeat: the law doesn't cause the "cause and effect". The law simply points to the cause-effect relationship between two things.
That's not observing, that's imagining. And an imaginary world is not reality.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
No one obeys this law. '
Hey, how did this letter come about?
kylemorne100 2 years ago
What do you mean?
Dragos1591 2 years ago
You said in the thrid paragraph:"I will repeat: the law doesn't cause the "cause and effect". The law simply points to the cause-effect relationship between two things"
So I was pointing to this sentence:
"No one obeys this law."
How did this sentence come about?
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Now that I look, I think the better term is "Nothing" instead of "No one".
Other than that I see no problem.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
"No one has to prove the law of causation. "Nothing" obeys this law."
Well, as you remember, we started this whole conversation with you asking me: Why do I believe God made the world?
I said, I believe God made the world because without God, you can't prove anything.
If "No one has to prove the law of causation." then I guess my point is establish would it not?
kylemorne100 2 years ago
If that is what you think you missed my point.
What I said is that the law is descriptive. The universe only "appears" to obey the law, because we created the law for ourselves in order to describe the way the universe behaves. The universe isn't told what to do by that law, it simply behaves the way it behaves.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Comment removed
kylemorne100 2 years ago
X (The law of causation) Describe Y( The universe), therefore, X(the law of causation) doesn't need to be proven.
Now, suptitute X for (the bible) describe Y (The universe), therfore X(the bible) doesn't need to be proven. If you can refute this argument without using double standard, I'll be glad to hear the fallacy.
kylemorne100 2 years ago
By the way, the bible say, "In the beginning, God created the world." If the bible doesn't need to be proven because it describe the world as made by God, then I just establish my point.
kylemorne100 2 years ago
How does it describe anything? It merely states that god created the world.
It doesn't say how, it doesn't say anything about the world.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
I was predicting you would get to the "how" stuff. To which, you did not answer my previous question: how did you get from the button A and the letter A to the button A "cause" the letter A?
kylemorne100 2 years ago
I can say the same about unicorn: Observing the unicorn in my dream in the natural world, is proof of the unicorn being natural. :)
kylemorne100 2 years ago
Comment removed
kylemorne100 2 years ago
No, I don´t think that there is a difference in principle between a machine and the universe!
Let us agree on this point: You cannot "know" that there is a god, but what is also true is that you cannot "know" there there is NO god! Okay? Sciene can prove neither!
But nevertheless I think there are enough and many hints that point to the existence of god!
If you really are interesed in this topic read the book of John Lennox: God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
alexpritze 2 years ago
Of course I cannot know whether there is or not a god, I always admitted that.
What you need to understand is that god doesn't exist just because science doesn't know how to explain something or just because we don't know.
What would be those hints that point to the existence of god? And please don't say anything about the bible, it's too unreliable (alot of contradictions, plain wrong information, supernatural improbabilities without any evidence).
Dragos1591 2 years ago
@Drago
Everything has to be according to the nature of god - it has to be logical! That is why nothing will last that is irrational and illogical! The universe only exists because it is logical! And that is so, because God is logical! If God wouldnt be subject to his logical nature he would contradict himself - and that cannot be! Read: "The reason for god" from Timothy Keller.
alexpritze 2 years ago
God's nature has to be logical implies that god is subject to the logical absolutes.
If all you're gonna do is assert that god is necessary and that the universe couldn't have existed without god, you're wasting my time.
Yes, the bible is full of contradictions. I can't be bothered to copy everything here, go search on google: "bible inconsistency" "bible contradictions".
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Yes, God is subject to his own nature - he is his own absolute!
I already telled you why god is necessary! Read my further messages! Tell me, why god is unnecessary?
Tell me your worldview, so that we can figure out what you really believe! How came everything in existence? Will you tell me, that you believe in eternal materia? I´m existed!
alexpritze 2 years ago
No, the laws are not his own nature. He is subject to them. You can't label the logical absolutes to be god.
You're the one asserting that he is necessary, therefore you are the one who has to give a reason. Yo