This is not evidence. This is an opinion combined with his faith. This clip has about as much to do with the scientific method as my opinions on the taste of a tuna sandwich.
My interpretation of "hell" is from the word of the bible it is clear to see and needs to interpretation it is a place of fire and eternal punishment.
I read the bible for what it says you read the bible and make things up and ignore silly things like jesus saying hell is in the centre of the earth how can you say the bible is true the word of jesus is true the resurrection is true and it is all evidence in the bible then you "I dont know where hell is"when if jesus is true he told the world.
@ahhninjadragon Wait...I ignore the teachings of hell!?!?!?!? Cite it. Cite the comment I made proving that. And again...once again...you have no clue on how to interpret Sacred Scripture. Prove this then...where in the Bible, does it say, that truths of the Bible will be proven by the Bible and the Bible ONLY?
@ahhninjadragon And gigantic mistake number two, friendo...I dont rely on my personal interpretation of the Bible -- AND NEITHER DO YOU, BECAUSE YOU'RE REFERENCING OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK. I can provide same links to EXACTLY what you're claiming to be "personal interpretation." As to the reference of "not knowing" the precise location of Hell...Well theologically speaking, no human can. Scripturally speaking, no human in totality can, but I NEVER denied it's possibility there. Yikes.
@NilDesperandum777 The bible is storys written a generation after the event and is not verifiable in any way tell my how its been verified how has the resurrection been verafied when it has two differnt accounts in the bible and one ancient first hand account that talks about a talking cross and the clouds opend and jesus streached into heaven so that makes heaven above the clouds.
@ahhninjadragon I've answered enough of your questions in a row. It's your turn. THIRD TIME: "I've asked you this question concerning your interpretation methodology: ".Where in the Bible, does it say, that truths of the Bible will be proven by the Bible and the Bible ONLY?" Are you going to avoid this or answer it? You want to talk about cherry-picking....ANSWER THE QUESTION."
"because English is your second language or what"Don't patronize me!!
Stop saying Matthew 5 all the time and comment on what I say not repeating Matthew 5 you havent refuted a single point I made all you say is "because English is your second language" your "It's your personal interpretation" but you dont say why.
answer this If god/jesus loved people why did he create hell as punishment for people he made in a way that they cant honestly believe in him is that not hate
"dont love your enemies" but they should have human rights "not love"that would be stupid I dont love someone who killed my family thats sick.
Why are you stuck on this silly point is is because you think it makes jesus look silly.
My point is the bible is HYPOCRITICAL its says one thing then says the opposite on another page the OT god is jesus so when he killed all the people in the OT he didnt love them did he.
@ahhninjadragon AGAIN. Youre missing the context and assuming that what Christ is speaking about is rejecting justice, when He 's not. The reason this "silly point" is being constantly referred to, is because your initial criticism of the OT, becomes a moral precdent as to why NT ethics are rejected. You mention 20fh century norms like genocide and the rejection of slavery, in Westenr jurisprudence, where do you think those realities gained greatest opposition and why? (Cont.)
@ahhninjadragon (From Cont.) As to the notion of the Bible being hypocritical, not really given your logic. You once cited the Midianites but conveniently left out any supporting text as to the Hebrew rational for defence, similarly as to having left out Matt 5 following verses -- interesting. And again as to love, time and time again, exertion of patience is the norm, Now according to you there should be a limit to patience, except where it suits your prejudice it would seem.
God is love-love you enemy-god commits genocide=love is evil, jesus is god=jesus is evil.
I didnt put Matt 5 following verses because the first was hypocritical enough the following just makes it more clear it hypocritical.
the only justis jesus talked about ever was in hell love your enemys because they burn in hell for eternity I wouldnt wish that on my worst enemy but jesus made hell so he can, hows that love.
@ahhninjadragon The problem isn't the text. It's your personal interpretation of it. And the reason you logically didn't include the following verse to the verse you selected on hate in Matthew 5, is because the following verse undermined your original assertion that the Bible teaches hate, etc. Here's the thing...there are moral standards, moral absolutes in this world. You reference them whether you like it or not, but you did not evolve into them from nothing. (Cont.)
@ahhninjadragon (Cont.) Your "clear examples" are presented as someone who completely refuses to parse even the most overt nuance ie, Matthew 5 shows Christ talking about Love, and yet you dismiss them entirely over a verse He uses in order to contrast HOW NOT TO HATE. Further, you confuse righteousness with malevolence. I don't know if it's because English is your second language or what, but you're not seeing clearly. Either that or choosing not to.
Oh yes he will fight satan on earth with a big war in a place called armageddon in northern Israel(funny its near where the book was written)
Why does god need a war if he can speak a word and create the heavens and the earth why does he fight satan on earth. do you not think, that does not make sense?That would only make sense to a sheep herding nomads in the bronze age palestine. and yes thats the new testament.
What are you on you just cant make thing up and change everything round to fit your belief.
You need to learn about theology you dont even know how your religion started and how it has progressed and is still progressing to later forms.there is more than one book.
Are you saying catholics do not follow christ? if you are, your a moron and need to learn about religion.
@ahhninjadragon What the hell are you talking about!? A) You think Mormonism is Christianity. To non-Christians, to the secular, that might be, but to the Catholic Church, to the Orthodox Church, Mormon theology isn't canonical. So the fact you don't know that basic difference, is where my charge of prejudice is supported in that by thinking they are the same thing -- when they aren't -- you demonstrate ignorance and/or prejudice. That's a fundamental fact, you missed. (Cont)
@ahhninjadragon (From Cont.) As to you wanting to believe that I somehow don't understand the origins of Christianity, that's something I bet you tell yourself to comfort you prejudice when speaking with Christians. The theological truth that you again miss here is the supplemental complementary relationship between the OT and the NT. And apparently, you dont have the ability to reconcile your OT criticism with your NT criticism for what it is. Prejudicial and ignorant. (Cont2.)
@ahhninjadragon (From C.2) Did you claim that the Bible teaches hate? Yes, citing the OT. When you cited Matt 5, did you refer to Christ's concept of "loving enemies" as something "stupid"? Yes, you did -- going on to say, that one should select those to love to keep it "special", correct? Yes. Well, don't you see how HYPOCRITICAL it is, to on one hand call the OT hateful and wrong, while saying "loving one's enemies" is "stupid"? You're essentially endorsing what you faulted.
@NilDesperandum777 "dont love your enemies" but they should have human rights "not love"that would be stupid I dont love someone who killed my family thats sick.
Why are you stuck on this silly point is is because you think it makes jesus look silly.
My point is the bible is HYPOCRITICAL its says one thing then says the opposite on another page the OT god is jesus so when he killed all the people in the OT he didnt love them did he.
@NilDesperandum777 How can something be "special" If you give it to every one, that by definition is HYPOCRITICAL.To be "special" there needs to be a distinction of separation.the people I love have a distinction of separation from everyone else If I extent that to everyone then it is not "special" it's common! its not black or white if I dont love someone it doesnt mean I hate them Im indifferent.
@ahhninjadragon It's special because it's beyond human conception. The fact you can't conceive of it's boundaries now, should at the very least -- if you're intellectual honest -- at least spark a sense of honest investigation. To be chosen, doesn't mean that everything else is excluded from benefit. And besides, can't something be both special and common? Think of countries where maternity leave is a year...All Norwegian mothers get that. Common? Yes. Special? What do you think?
"because English is your second language or what"Don't patronize me!!
Stop saying Matthew 5 all the time and comment on what I say you havent refuted a single point I made all you say is "because English is your second language" your It's your personal interpretation but you dont say why.
answer this If god/jesus loved people why did he create hell as punishment for people he made in a way that they cant honestly believe in him is that not hate
@NilDesperandum777 What are you talking about Quantum superposition or nuance whats that got to do with the bible? if its in there that would impress me.
@ahhninjadragon My goodness...are you that...like...??? Are you allergic to research or something? Can you not link concepts? Quantum superposition...if one thing can be in a few places and remain one thing, doesn't that scientific discovery hold weight in your mind with respect to something being one thing "special", while being "common"? And as for nuance...really...I mean...you dont think nuance is in the Bible? lol...really? How old are you?
@NilDesperandum777 Get a dictionary look up special, research that one word find out what it means dont make it up, look at the comman meaning not your special meaning.
@ahhninjadragon No, I think you need to stop looking at definitions as inherently isolated applications. It's a function of mental dexterity that you appear not to have when it comes to this discussion. Point is, if there is an uncommon application, wishing there wasn't doesnt remove it, now does it? When God calls Israel "chosen" does it mean, that the rest of creation is to be rejected?
@ahhninjadragon There is nothing big about Quantum Mechanics!? Right...reality is just so ...small. Really...Energy and Matter, the constituents of existence...No, kiddo, I meant Macro. And sometimes, the difference is vast. I guess you really are a contrarian just for the sake of it.
@NilDesperandum777 I dont need to research Quantum Mechanics its one of my loves(yes it is special) If you new anything about Quantum superposition you would know it is a break down in the point particle model and not thought of the true nature of things a better idea is string theory where the math does not contain the hyper state.
@ahhninjadragon - If you can't mentally ascend to the claim that Physics, and Quantum Mechanics possesses an inherently grand, large,macro,big application...then the only person you're fooling here, is you. Providing a personal belief with an addendum impromptu definition three replies down the road doesnt add to the appearance of your credibility, it detracts from it. It was an obvious point, and that you missed it demonstrates you're simply a very prejudiced person.
@NilDesperandum777 Why do you avoid my questions why do you make a flippant remark the base of the conversation and ignore the points here you went from the meaning of "special" to yea Quantum Mechanics is a big thing.
@ahhninjadragon You've avoided my questions over and over. That you can't parse large answers to certain questions ismt my problem. You asked me to stop referencing Matt 5. Why? Because YOU don't get the point? Tough. You charging the Bible as teaching this blind hate, then manipulating a verse to do so, requires a specific repetitious response, if at first you dont get "IT". And "IT" is, if the following verse refutes the charge, where's your incontravertible claim? (Cont)
@ahhninjadragon (From Cont.) And it didn't go from "special" to QM haphazardly.The attempt was to convey that some things that are special in and of themselves can be commonly applied. Every one has a birthday, are they all no special to that person? Im not going to go through the QM ex. again. It escaped you, but to this Q: ". If god/jesus loved people why did he create hell as punishment for people he made in a way that they cant honestly believe in him is that not hate" (C2)
@ahhninjadragon (From C2) Number of assumptions, not the first of which is that "God made people in a way that they cant honestly believe in Him." You'd have to unpack that and justify it. "If God loved people..." So the other option is God exists and doesn't love people? The fact that you exist rather than don't exist is a question you haven't addressed yet. If God loves the people He created and possesses and unlimited imagination, why create you and not another? (C3)
@ahhninjadragon (From C3) Hell: As to it's nature and the manner in which people go there. The overwhelming consensus is that through free will and choice, people choose to be away from God. As to Hell's nature - here are differing claims.Which hell? If you knew which Hell you'd differentiate wouldnt you? But let me guess...you'll develop an answer to follow on those variations because you actually know them, but chose to strategically unveil your logic henceforth, yes?
@ahhninjadragon 1. You're asserting God exists? Define "are". 2. Does a person's disbelief in God constitute necessary evidence that God created their disbelief? 3. That's an untenable assertion. 4. Theologically speaking, assuming it's Christianity, does disbelief equate with damnation? And what is the exact nature of "Hell"? Or do you just not know the differences in the "hells" mentioned in Scripture or in theology? Again...you havent replied to my question below re:"verse".
@NilDesperandum777 1 im not asserting Im useing what the bible says in a logical argument to Reductio ad absurdum.that is a week argument "you stated a statment in the context god exists so you think god exists",a childs argument then like a child you say Define "are".
@ahhninjadragon Hardly. The reason I ask the question, was given your indistinct definitions, I don't know if you even know what the Biblical definition in each instance is. It's hardly logical to assert amorphous terms, and certainly terms which apparently only one side actually knows. It's not logical to assume you actually understand what you're asking, given you haven't demonstrated a working knowledge thus far. Nice try.
@ahhninjadragon Im saying your characterization is limited. What does "are" mean to you? It's a simple question. I realize you need to ask more than you answer as a tactic of deflection, but asking you to define "are" is an important distinction. I realize you don't care whether it's important, but entire disciplines engage in the question of being and identity all the time.
@ahhninjadragon And the truth of the matter is, friend, by any consideration to those that actually have a working theological understanding, your position, your demonstration and your arrogance in the face of actual knowledge is the only reasonably characterized juvenile contribution to this point.
@NilDesperandum777 All you do is Ad hominem and call me juvenile can you not be disrespectful and talk on the issues is that what christian debates are "your not as smart as me" and "I know about theological understanding you dont" or "your arrogance".I say your argument is silly or the argument is childish I dont call you those things you do this to get away from the point as always how is attacking me making your point learn some morality before you answer.
@ahhninjadragon Well if you actually read the comment, it reads that your contribution is juvenile. So...you;ll forgive me if I don't quite get your continued "God made flippancy" wont you? Like...you think it's going to be one way, where you reject out and out obvious examples, call my argument childish when it demonstrably isn't and I'm going to just sit here and absorb it based on your twisted sense of one thing or another? FYI: Christians aren't intellectually arrested
@ahhninjadragon AGAIN. The point of Matt 5 springs to mind. You're willing to take a verse entirely out of context as a basis for your charge but when corrected on context of the verse, and validity of the charge of the assertion, you call that silly and childish. It is intellectually impossible for that to be the case in that case..but if everything is perpetually relative, which it seems to be in your world, then as you implied, it's about what "feels good", logic be damned.
@ahhninjadragon And what you're doing, is invoking ad hominem to hide behind. I have repeatedly addressed your questions and concerns, FAR more than you have with mine. And so when you ask a question, have an answer provided and refuse to answer the answer and question contained within, you reveal your motives to be less than honourable as advertised. So please, spare me the ridiculous moral indignation.
2 not sure what you mean, but god made us this way so why punish us for the way he made us why would he not make us all believe and then we would all go to heaven that would be a good thing to do. not make everything hazy but clear to all.
@ahhninjadragon Again. You're presuming to know the salvific ends of people on the basis of an undefined critieria. If you mean doubters go to Hell, that's not necessarily true. So the inference is inherently wrong. You have to deduce what God is in order to appropriately qualify His character and attributes and thus intentions. Strictly speaking from Scripture, it's to be Divine. As for belief and evidence, it begs the question, why so many scientists believe and have believed
@NilDesperandum777 Another fact about Quantum Mechanics matter is not the constituents of existence its is the "mass" created as a partical moves through the higgs field, particles make a wake in the higs field that is what is observible.
@ahhninjadragon LOL. No one asked or requires further demonstration that you: A) Feel the need to demonstrate a late understanding of QM after the fact and B) Somehow believe that by being needlessly oppositional to a point that's plain that somehow your rant on minutiae removes the fact that you didn't get the plain point in the first place...LOL...You might as well just point a single word response like "EIGENVALUES!" to get the same non-sequitur impact across, lol...wow...
@NilDesperandum777 Just because someone doesnot agree with you does not mean they dont understand your bad logic. sometimes Im flippant its just how god made me lol (as you can see)that does not mean I dont understand it means I dont care much for the idea.
@ahhninjadragon It's not bad logic though. If you exclude a foundational verse from the context of a charge like "the Bible is full of hate, here's Matt 5 v. but Ill exclude it's actual context because it's someone else's 'personal interpretation'" , then sorry fella, the problem isn't my logic, it's your conclusions which seem to abbrogate facts when it doesn't suit your "logic". I mean...who really takes that verse, excludes the following verse, and uses it in your argument?
@ahhninjadragon "Some people dont believe fact" So you're essentially proving my point from eariler then? That in spite of fact you dont believe one thing or another?
3 god who can do anything made people, he could make them to believe or not to believe either he wasnt all powerful and couldnt make everyone believe or he was malevolent and wished to see people in hell I cant think of a 3rd option.
@ahhninjadragon By controlling their free will to believe or not in essence contradicts the need for faith. TO many, He has provided evidence of His existence. And if you are as you say you are using The Bible for your argument, you would cite the verse in which Christ declares that it is God's desire that NONE should perish. and that ALL may be ONE. John 17:21
@NilDesperandum777 Its not free will to believe in a something that is fact Its not my free will to believe in gravity, free will has nothing to do with facts if god is real that would be a fact not a choice.NONE should perish then why are there so many in hell according to the bible, why do I need to believe now why cant I change my mind after I die after talking to god why the cut of point
@ahhninjadragon Unless a person suffers from a mental disability, we live in a universe that demands introspection, question and contemplation towards an understanding that eventually concludes in knowledge and opinion. To this free will in intellectual ascent is necessary. To many, God exists because of evidence that leaves no other rational choice. The problem I suspect in your case is, you havent examined what constitutes evidence and what evidence there is. (cont)
@NilDesperandum777 Unless a person suffers from a mental disability we live in a world that the use of evidence is imperative to understanding. no evidence no conclusion can be made. No evidence for god so no conclusion can be made.now your going to say there is What evidence?name one thing that is tangible and does not relay on word of mouth if you say word of mouth then you must believe in mahabharata as well.
@ahhninjadragon "if you say word of mouth then you must believe in mahabharata as well." Man...and you want me to be civil to you? lol -- So apparently, Phd historians,philosophers and legal scholars should obey your criteria for evidence? lol .. Again and again, you demonstrate that you are prejudiced. I assume when those in your family say, they love you, or your friends "like you", you inform them that they are lying based on the absence of falsifiable evidence. (Cont.)
@ahhninjadragon (From Cont.) You need to learn a number of things before you type another "i" with any semblance of arrogance, not the least of which is what constitutes evidence. Perhaps "A Treatise on the Law of Evidence" by Simon Greenleaf? The historicity of the Resurrection of Christ presupposes "evidence" and "proof". The arguments for the existence of God are "out there". With someone so completely unreasonable and uninformed, why would or should, I do your leg work?
@ahhninjadragon "Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise." - Simon Greenleaf
@NilDesperandum777 "Every document" the Sunnah mahabharata the iliad koran Golden Verses of Pythagoras Great Hymn to the Aten Buddhist texts Pāli Canon Lotus Sutra The Donghak Scripture The Five Classics books of Confucianism Pyramid Texts The Book of the Dead Book of Caverns Book of Gates Book of the Heavenly Cow Litany of Re harry potter etc etc etc.....
@ahhninjadragon You have no clue what the rules of evidence are. You have no clue what constitutes appropriate interpretation. I mean...reasonable evidence presumes a number of obvious factors. And case in point, Einstein...with respect to historicity, The Bible has approximately 24 times the number of verifying texts as the Iilad does, and no one questions it's authenticity. JK Rowling ever claim Potter to be the Messiah? Of course not. And fantastic example again. yikes!
@ahhninjadragon Even atheist Biblical scholars conclude that the claims on the face of historicity constitute "evidence" and "proof". Like...seriously..how dense do you have to be not to understand cursory rules of evidence while you engage in a subject as entirely dependent upon them as Christian Apologetics!? Talk about coming to a gunfight with a knife.
@ahhninjadragon "In examining the evidence of the Christian religion, it is essential to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice, and open to conviction" "In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether is it possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true" - Simon Greenleaf
@ahhninjadragon (From Cont.) Once again, I'm not certain what your understanding of Hell is. And as to the definition of "many" according to Christ, it's assuredly only required that one person be in Hell in order for God to say that many will be there. Remember, it's Christ that examples the Good Shepherd by saying it is worth it for Him to go after the one lost sheep, even though the 99 remain safe. The reason it's better to believe now, is because for some (Cont2)
@NilDesperandum777 HELL Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." Luke 16:24 cries: ". . .I am tormented in this FLAME."
Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,"
Revelation 20:15 says, " And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE."
@ahhninjadragon Any quotes about the reward of belivers there, or is the whole of Scripture about the damned? I mean...it's a reality, but it's a reality in context of something incomprehensibly beautiful. If you're focusing on the punitive side of the Gospel, you're actually not, logically and honestly researching the narrative totality of Christian Theology. And again, it's your choice. But to engage in prejudice is foolhardy, to constantly do so willingly is masochistic.
@NilDesperandum777 Alot of the storys pre date the bible and have story that got into the bible with a few changes like the names places and the god (garden of eden,flood,creation etc) focusing on the parts of the bible should people only look at the good bits cherry pick like you.
@ahhninjadragon Again, cite where I've cherry-picked. In fact, do you ever directly respond to my questions? I've asked you this question concerning your interpretation methodology: ".Where in the Bible, does it say, that truths of the Bible will be proven by the Bible and the Bible ONLY?" Are you going to avoid this or answer it? You want to talk about cherry-picking....ANSWER THE QUESTION.
@ahhninjadragon Here's the thing though, friendo...The Bible isn't and was never meant to be taken as strictly literal. The truths are truths, but they are conveyed in a number of narrative devices, and IF YOU WATCH AND ACTUALLY LISTEN TO VIDEOS WHERE LENNOX OR CRAIG SPEAK, YOU'D KNOW THAT. Or if at the every least you actually studied credible Bibilcal scholarship you might have picked up this very PUBLC PIECE OF SCHOLARLY KNOWLEDGE. Seriously..go do some research.
@NilDesperandum777 So the bible is not to be taken literaly when it is written that jesus said somthing he didnt say it (like the sermon on the mount) its just a story not to be taken literaly. is it because it never happened.
Why would someone write a biography of the most important person to have lived and let the reader make up what he ment because he wrote it in a code that is ridiculous.The 2000years ago the believed it 100% and people killed over the word.who knows better you or them.
@ahhninjadragon I've answered enough of your questions in a row. It's your turn. FOURTH TIME: "I've asked you this question concerning your interpretation methodology: ".Where in the Bible, does it say, that truths of the Bible will be proven by the Bible and the Bible ONLY?" Are you going to avoid this or answer it? You want to talk about cherry-picking....ANSWER THE QUESTION."
@ahhninjadragon That's not what I said. Answer the question I've asked you FOUR TIMES. And as to your hypothetical, seriously...come up with one that's less prejudicial. You claim to be intellectually honest, right? Or do you just selectively understand English?
@ahhninjadragon And it wasn't a "biography". Let me guess the norms of historical and journalistic record are also just entirely subjective? And if you can't understand the difference between a recorded , eyewitness account that conveys truthful information, and metaphors designed to convey real truth, then..shouldnt you hand in your Atheist Brights Card? lol
@NilDesperandum777 NOT a biography What is a biography if its not eyewitness accounts about someone. Just METAPHORS so is jesus a metaphor was the resurrection is heaven hell or god.
@ahhninjadragon You're such a prejudiced coward, lol -- Aaaaaand again:ANSWER THE QUESTION, lol."Where in the Bible, does it say, that truths of the Bible will be proven by the Bible and the Bible ONLY?
@NilDesperandum777 ."Where in the Bible, does it say, that truths of the Bible will be proven by the Bible and the Bible ONLY?thats what you said not the bible I asked for proof you cite the bible I say thats not proof then you say this rubbish I want proof that is NOT the bible give me one dont ask me the question I asked you and say it so ignorantly its marked as spam and I dont get it till I read back.
@NilDesperandum777 Why would I read someone else about the bible when I can read the bible.If I want to read harry potter I dont read a review and think I have read it.Why do I need to be told what to think about the bible I have a mind of my own and they leave out thing like I a virgin is rapped she needs to marry the rapist.Deut 22:28-29 says, if a man rapes a virgin, he can marry her for 50 Shekels.I can see thats wrong can you or do you need to be told by john lennox.
@ahhninjadragon You mean..you call your claims informed, and yet you dont know why that it's impossible for continuous personal revelation in Biblical interpretation? Besides, it's already established you're citing other people's works. The point is, by reading any of the books in Scripture, you defer to the authority that selected those books. And THEY selected those books according to THEIR inspired and collective rationale. Your personal interpretation is incomplete.
@NilDesperandum777 Again if I dont agree whith you doesnt mean I dont understand continuous personal revelation in biblical interpretation is rubbish just another was to cherry pick and make things up to suit them.
@ahhninjadragon YES it does. Here's the facts. The reason those books and letters were compiled they way they were was in accordance to collective apprehension, directed through inspiration that conformed to those truths maintained since the beginning. There were numerous interpretations that were REJECTED on the basis of erroroneous interpretation. What you are doing, is cherry picking, because you're rejecting the interpretation of canonical authority.(Cont)
@ahhninjadragon Untrue, it's you that's ignorant to whole slew of discipline norms. It's why you're afraid my questions. Because I KNOW, that you don't have an informed clue as to what you're asking. You're simply a troll. Rude, uninformed and afraid. 1) Where in the Bible, does it say, that truths of the Bible will be proven by the Bible and the Bible ONLY? 2) Is the Letter to the Galatians a biography?
@NilDesperandum777 Evil as a word yes but that does not mean that good and bad do not exist but it will follow current understandings as we get more knowledgeable like people who thought schizophrenia was evil incarnate but we developed and we now know its not "demons" its a sick person who needs help.If we get rid of the idea of evil for things and move forward with understanding and knowlage we will be better as people.
@ahhninjadragon LOL Dawkins, like Nietsche is saying to do away the EXISTENCE, the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of EVIL, not the "word". TALK ABOUT CHERRY PICKING. HOw do you think Abortion is justified? HOw do you think Eugenical theories of abounded in Nazi germany towards killing off "useless eaters" came about? Or how and where "population control" and "euthanasia" gains support from? You have NO IDEA, what the majority of Atheist scholars in science believe concerning "evill"
@NilDesperandum777 evil does not exist does it only in the acknowledgement of it by painting people with it. it stops people looking for the cause of bad things and understanding them and working to end them.It is a loaded word that has no meaning apart from the religious sense to hate things they paint as evil like wiches me science etc.
@ahhninjadragon Brilliant. So for you, "evil the word does not exist" but then good and bad do. So how would you define" bad"? Ogh and ah...Is Letter to The Galatians a biography? ;)
@ahhninjadragon It's not the word, it's the obstacle of morality as defined by the Judeo-Christian worldview. You really need to educate yourself and stop providing your personal philosophies as the definition of one thing or another, because in almost every instance you are entirely wrong. You don't even know your own worldview's arguments on evil. It's not a removal of "superstitions" it's a removal of ethics and virtue that would make Islam look like a vacation resort.
@ahhninjadragon You dont know the position of Atheisms leading figures on the concept of "evil", and you're just making up reasons you THINK they're rejecting the concept, but your PERSONAL interpretation is incorrect as evidenced by the testomony and actions within the Eugenical movement, past and present.. So, this hyper-individualistic doctrine you have going on is BS, and demonstrated to be so. You're just used to less informed people not being able to call your ignorance.
@NilDesperandum777 I dont care about position of atheists (Im not a sheep)Telling me Im wrong is not an argument give me one reason Im wrong.
Why do you always attack me, Idont know this about atheists and my personal that, my doctrine, the people I talk to are stupid, and Im ignorant. why cant you talk on the issues not me What is wrong with you
@ahhninjadragon I've given you NUMEROUS reasons why youre wrong, the problem is you can't see simple concepts, and saying to me that I havent spoken to you on the issues is farsical. I asked you a simple question several times, and you havent answered one. Example: You say evil doesnt exist but "good and "bad" do. Define "bad".
@NilDesperandum777 evil does not exist does it only in the acknowledgement of it by painting people with it. it stops people looking for the cause of bad things and understanding them and working to end them.It is a loaded word that has no meaning apart from the religious sense to hate things they paint as evil like wiches me science etc.
@ahhninjadragon IT WASNT POSED AS A QUESTION -- WAS IT? So..you didnt answer my question specifically before. there's nothing there that reads "bad is defined as something negative or unhelpful." Given that "evil" is commonly held as a synonym for "bad" and that morality deals with right and wrong behaviour, defining "bad" without "evil" removes moral objectivity and allows subjective interpretation of "negative" and "unhelpful". So rape is merely an unhelpful act?
@NilDesperandum777 adding the word evil to rape does not change the act in any way it is still "negative" and "unhelpful". how is the word evil doing anything apart from a stigma.
@ahhninjadragon So if your mother or daughter or sister or wife or grandmother were raped would you inform them that it's of your opinion that the word "evil" is an unecessary stigma and that for the betterment of everyone concerned, "unhelpful" and or "negative" would be a more apt descriptor? What evil does in description is proivde the shortest route to an intended meaning of something that otherwise couldnt be stated more accurately. It leaves no ambiguity like "unhelpful".
@NilDesperandum777 In court it is not deemed as evil so to say it would be redundant.I would say one of the worst crimes where committed and justis would need to be served.I would not say its evil and its satan fault as he is the created evil that is what a mad man would say.
@ahhninjadragon Well, given that you are apparently completely ignorant to the rules of evidence, I'll just ask if you think judges in courtrooms dont call crimes evil? Is that what you think? And I didn't ask you about Satan or fault, I asked you about the moral concept of evil and by default good, and youre saying if a family member of yours was raped that you would actually tell them not to call the act of rape, "evill"? Is this right?
@NilDesperandum777 no I would not call it evil because I dont believe it has a meaning why would I call something a word with no meaning I may as well say rape is lkfjg it means the same to me as evil.
@ahhninjadragon Then you would disagree with dictionary defintions and synomyms, as well as judges who regard the actions of various criminals as 'evil" not to mention a society's history worth of psychologists and philosophers, including Plato, etc...What matters however is the consistency of interpretation by those immersed in the study of morality and society.My specific question was, would actually tell your relatives if raped that they were wrong in calling rape evil?
@ahhninjadragon Nice try, but the problem here isn't your inability to switch burden on to me, but to account for your ongoing inconsistencies. One of which is the fact that you regard defining the Bible by the Bible, despite the FACT that doing so is contrary to both traditions. Secondly, the language gap is obviously a problem for you, that or your prejudice increases the longer you engage. Third, your responses tend to be vague...just like the one I'm replying to now.
@NilDesperandum777 how can I reply to you last argumentum ad hominem make a point from your position and stop defamatory statments towards me because that does not add to the argument.
@ahhninjadragon If you're still afraid to respond to statements and questions, it might be best for you to stop this, and your pretense and go off and study a little more before attempting to this little charade you've got going. Ad Hominem...lol...OK...Here's a test again to that. Q: Where in The Bible does it state that only the Bible should be used to interpret The Bible?
@NilDesperandum777 Why would I answer that question again like I said the last 2 times I dont believe it says that in the bible. what are you saying dont refer to the bible because it doesnt give a good interpretation of the bible do you realize how moronic that is.
@ahhninjadragon The truth is you don't KNOW what it says one way or the other. And the reason it's important to note that the only reason you can refer to any of it, is because of specific traditional interpretations and methods of interpretation. So if you take it out of intended context without proper direction...you actually begin to sound like a moron to those who know differenty. And you displayed over and over that point precisely, unknowingly.
@NilDesperandum777 The say evil because it is a loaded word not because it adds anything to a case what is the differance from bad and evil how bad can you be before you become evil I am told alot that Im evil because I dont believe in god "am I evil" who is the arbiter of evil god how can he tell us whats evil in a court
@ahhninjadragon Right. Judges load terms in the pronouncement of justice just to be dramatic, lol. OK. Problem with that is, most of society aren't sociopaths and psychopaths. As to people calling you "evil" for disbelief, that's your hang up, and theirs, but it's not necessarily a theological truth. And curious, what possible charge could you possibly have against Christians or The Bible if evil, doesn't exist? Doesn't your criticism fall on it's face? Of course it does.
@NilDesperandum777 sociopaths and psychopaths are not evil they are people with a social disorder and need help and need to be recognised to stop problems in socity to call them evil means that you dont understand physiological problems.The bible wrong if I call it evil is because Im using you words
@ahhninjadragon Sociopaths and psychopaths do not recognize social norms, boundaries, express appropriate behaviour...the reference isn't that they are inherently "evil", but that they do not acknowledge or recognize sufficient examples or definitions of morality. Seriously, your language problem is not my problem. It's yours.
@NilDesperandum777 I never said sociopaths and psychopaths where social norms dont put words in my mouth.I said they were recognised disorders and not evil as you said they were.
can you not write a sentence without an insult at the end.
@ahhninjadragon I could write a sentence without taking a shot at you, if you could actually read a sentence and respond directly to it, instead of what you think or wish was there. Case in point, I didn't call them evil. Secondly, I didnt say you said they were socially normal. You really, really, really need to either read more slowly and or more accurately. You're not interested in knowledge, you're interested in fitting facts to fit your conclusions. Bad mix.
the hole book as I know it relies on the fact that the gospel writers can be shown to be honest and I dont believe they are so how is that evidence?
you brought it up, in the contexts of evil,you know you did.
you lead the conversation to the fact that we are talking how "they were socially normal"when I wasnt I said they were psychologically handicapped normality has nothing to do with it we arnt talking about that
@ahhninjadragon Well, let's be honest here...I mentioned Greenleaf a few times and you didnt so much as bat an eye to the mention or the quotes I provided, and now you're providing an opinion stating that you "know the book" ? Firstly, it's three volumes, and a textbook used at Harvard with respect to the rules of evidence. The book that you are claiming to "know" is called The Testimony of The Evangelists...(Cont)
@NilDesperandum777 I never read the book, but I did what you do to the bible. I listen to what other people say and use it because according to you thats the best way to get the truth of it. so you cant have it both ways
@ahhninjadragon (From Cont.) ....NOT The Treatise On The Law Of Evidence as I had mentioned. So....you messed up and you, sir are a liar. You have not read The Testimony Of The Evangelist by Greenleaf or The Treatise On The Law Of Evidence, which mentions nothing about the Gospel writers. You surfed and found a little blurb and tried to pass of the opinon as your own...but you dont know what youre talking about...again. And that's a fact.
@ahhninjadragon And as for , "you lead the conversation to the fact that we are talking how "they were socially normal"" AGAIN, not what I said. LEARN TO READ. Here's the sentence only a few posts down: "Secondly, I didnt say you said they were socially normal." SO....how exactly do you get what you wrote? Seriously, face it, your English is either not nearly as good as you think, or you have a a real problem with comprehension..not to mention honesty.
@NilDesperandum777 I was talking about The Testimony of The Evangelists the clue was in the title the book relies on the fact that The Testimony of The Evangelists is true and I dont think it is.I didnt read it never said I did and will never read it either as it is self consistent argument like yours hence no evidence.try reading somthing that is not one sided
@NilDesperandum777 you are good at turning the conversation on attacking me instead of building an argument against me.it doesnt work on me I dont have as much hate as you.
@ahhninjadragon Doesn't justice imply moral standards? Measured in "rights" and "wrongs" ? Defined by moral absolutes? So...The Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide...just "negative" events?
@NilDesperandum777 justice is a human standard not a moral one, measured in human rights and there is no absolutes thats why the law changes all the time The Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide are just "negative" events if they were not they would be positive and they are not.evil does not add anything.
@ahhninjadragon That's by far the dumbest thing you've stated by far...even Wikipedia defines justice as : " a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, or equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics; justice is the act of being just and/or fair." Essentially, one would have to be insane to define "justice" without a moral standard. I mean...are you practicing semantics to improve your English or what?
@NilDesperandum777 There are many types of justis im talking abou legal justis, in america it is ilegal to add religious prejudice to law and justis so you cant have a moral standpoint (partly because differnt religions have differnt morals) do you not understand this
@ahhninjadragon Are you insane? Do you forget my recommendation to read Simon Greenleaf's Treatise? Or on the call to regard the rules evidence after you actually stated that testimony isn't considered evidence? I mean, are you actually insane? Asking you if judges call criminal acts "evil" in a court of law is a straight forward demonstration, that society over the centuries regard moral definitions of "evil" and "good" as imperative, and that your little "proof" is obscure.
@ahhninjadragon Or how about you throwing question after question while implying that I would call Christ a liar!? Rather than actually respond to my comments and questions, you simply ignore them and fly over with another topic and another question...and you ask what's wrong with me!? You're ignorant and rude. Why exactly are you not answering questions that prove you dont know what youre takling about? The answer s obvious but Id like to see if youre brave enough to answer.
@NilDesperandum777 I answerd you question you asked me to define hell and I give you what I know from the bible because thats all I know about hell how is that not answering
@ahhninjadragon No, you did not answer my specific question concerning the different types of Hell that are known in Christian and Judaic theology. You fired off some verses asking if I was calling Christ a liar. How is that answering a specific question with a specific answer? And then when I asked you to show where in the Bible is states to use only The bible to answer about the Bible, you ignored it numerous times..do you have an actual answer to that question or nothing?
@NilDesperandum777 The question was define hell and I did,Why do you want me to talk for christians and jews ask them about their hells I only know what Ive read in the bible i dont know all the differnt interpretations people make up why ask me.
@ahhninjadragon No it wasn't. Entalied in the question was your knowledge of Hell as hinted to that there was more than one definition. I even gave you a hint. By all means go back. And....it makes ZERO sense to claim to know what Hell is from The Bible and then on the other hand call those definitions "made up" as though it was unimportant. It's like saying Rowling didnt intend for themes of good and EVIL to be present in the Potter series when she claimed that theyre in there.
@NilDesperandum777 You even said there I quote "Entalied in the question was your knowledge of Hell" and I told you all I know is what is in the bible and gave you the sorse how is that not answering the question I have answered it about 5 times now do you not understand if people have knowlage that is not in the bible where did they get it from god but jesus is god he said it was in the centre of earth how was he wrong and people right...........
@ahhninjadragon And it actually speaks to the other question I asked concerning authority and selection.. There's a reason certain books were included and others excluded, and one would think that if you were going to criticize a book, you'd at least have a working knowledge of what those who compiled the Books thought when they were doing it. It's like telling people that The Bible is actually called The Koran, just because you "feel it" because of personal interpretation.
@ahhninjadragon If you go back into the thread you'll see I asked you specifically as to the different types of Hell. So when you skip on without acknowledging the question, it presents as though you are prejudice and of no interest in answers that actually disprove your claims. Like...Galatians for example...Or the question on evidence...or on sound Biblical exegesis...At what point do you say, if I dont know and someone else does...maybe I should think things over?
@NilDesperandum777 I answerd you question you asked me to define hell and I give you what I know from the bible because thats all I know about hell how is that not answering then you chnged the subject that the bible was interpretation then when I showed you that it cant be the word of god and interpretation you changed the subject to evil and when you logic runs out youll change the subject again.
@ahhninjadragon (From Cont.) It's obvious you're not interested in a mature exchange. You're interested in mudslinging.You claim your personal interpretation is sound and "Biblical" so...ANSWER THE QUESTION, lol."Where in the Bible, does it say, that truths of the Bible will be proven by the Bible and the Bible ONLY? You can always say you dont know ;)
@ahhninjadragon And again...ANSWER THE QUESTION, lol."Where in the Bible, does it say, that truths of the Bible will be proven by the Bible and the Bible ONLY?" Like...your English can't be that bad, can it?
@ahhninjadragon Oh..and while you're at it....NAME a society in the West that actually adheres to that verse. Maybe we'll cite Stalin, or Pol Pot's soceital norms next, lol
@NilDesperandum777 Society in the west dont because they would end up like the middle east eho do thats why we are progressive and we would be more progressive if we got rid of it all together.Im glad you see that to follow the bible literally would not be good and because you put the west means you know of all the african christians who do and it made their live hell on earth(burning witches goes on to this day stonning etc)
@ahhninjadragon The West is progressive because of Judeo-christian virtues buffered on Greek concepts of democracy. Take Israel. The beacon of democracy in the Middle East and entirely guided by ethics straight out of evolved OT precepts. That notion of a living evolving document is likely alien to you, but so is everything else in theology apparently. It's the same evolution that guided the discovery of the scientific method. (Cont.)
@ahhninjadragon (From Cont.) And you're entirely incorrect. If Judeo-Christian ethics were done away with, and we were left to morons like richard Dawkins who believes like Niestzche that in order for atheism to hold true that the concept of "evil" would have to be done with, then organizations who advance Eugenical issues would have no problem killing people according to utility. So no, you're entirely mistaken again.
@NilDesperandum777 You are dont know what your talking about Dawkins believes like Niestzche NO get rid of concept of "evil"NO Eugenics is a moral a cultural thing that would most atheists would not hold.not like the genocide in the bible.dont tell lies like that its not Christian.
Do you want biblical law so you can stone children if they are bad or adulterers
@ahhninjadragon You don't know you're own poster boy, Richard Dawkins position then. He does believe in removing the concept of evil, every bit as much as other Eugenicists do. And Eugenics isn't a "cultural thing" that was invented, supported, continued and funded to this day primarily by Atheists. Read Edwin Black's War on the Weak. Morality is religious in origin. Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton coined the term. You dont even know your own worldview history let alone mine. LOL
Zzzzzzzzzz
Roper122 2 days ago
I like his face!
BigLebowsk 2 weeks ago
This is not evidence. This is an opinion combined with his faith. This clip has about as much to do with the scientific method as my opinions on the taste of a tuna sandwich.
iihippoii 2 weeks ago 3
fail
HannoverFisk 2 weeks ago
My interpretation of "hell" is from the word of the bible it is clear to see and needs to interpretation it is a place of fire and eternal punishment.
I read the bible for what it says you read the bible and make things up and ignore silly things like jesus saying hell is in the centre of the earth how can you say the bible is true the word of jesus is true the resurrection is true and it is all evidence in the bible then you "I dont know where hell is"when if jesus is true he told the world.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon Wait...I ignore the teachings of hell!?!?!?!? Cite it. Cite the comment I made proving that. And again...once again...you have no clue on how to interpret Sacred Scripture. Prove this then...where in the Bible, does it say, that truths of the Bible will be proven by the Bible and the Bible ONLY?
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon And gigantic mistake number two, friendo...I dont rely on my personal interpretation of the Bible -- AND NEITHER DO YOU, BECAUSE YOU'RE REFERENCING OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK. I can provide same links to EXACTLY what you're claiming to be "personal interpretation." As to the reference of "not knowing" the precise location of Hell...Well theologically speaking, no human can. Scripturally speaking, no human in totality can, but I NEVER denied it's possibility there. Yikes.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 The bible is storys written a generation after the event and is not verifiable in any way tell my how its been verified how has the resurrection been verafied when it has two differnt accounts in the bible and one ancient first hand account that talks about a talking cross and the clouds opend and jesus streached into heaven so that makes heaven above the clouds.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ahhninjadragon I've answered enough of your questions in a row. It's your turn. THIRD TIME: "I've asked you this question concerning your interpretation methodology: ".Where in the Bible, does it say, that truths of the Bible will be proven by the Bible and the Bible ONLY?" Are you going to avoid this or answer it? You want to talk about cherry-picking....ANSWER THE QUESTION."
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
Good reasoning, fagget.
RobotShark55 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The problem is the text!
"because English is your second language or what"Don't patronize me!!
Stop saying Matthew 5 all the time and comment on what I say not repeating Matthew 5 you havent refuted a single point I made all you say is "because English is your second language" your "It's your personal interpretation" but you dont say why.
answer this If god/jesus loved people why did he create hell as punishment for people he made in a way that they cant honestly believe in him is that not hate
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
"dont love your enemies" but they should have human rights "not love"that would be stupid I dont love someone who killed my family thats sick.
Why are you stuck on this silly point is is because you think it makes jesus look silly.
My point is the bible is HYPOCRITICAL its says one thing then says the opposite on another page the OT god is jesus so when he killed all the people in the OT he didnt love them did he.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon AGAIN. Youre missing the context and assuming that what Christ is speaking about is rejecting justice, when He 's not. The reason this "silly point" is being constantly referred to, is because your initial criticism of the OT, becomes a moral precdent as to why NT ethics are rejected. You mention 20fh century norms like genocide and the rejection of slavery, in Westenr jurisprudence, where do you think those realities gained greatest opposition and why? (Cont.)
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon (From Cont.) As to the notion of the Bible being hypocritical, not really given your logic. You once cited the Midianites but conveniently left out any supporting text as to the Hebrew rational for defence, similarly as to having left out Matt 5 following verses -- interesting. And again as to love, time and time again, exertion of patience is the norm, Now according to you there should be a limit to patience, except where it suits your prejudice it would seem.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 your delusional I gave you clear examples.
God is love-love you enemy-god commits genocide=love is evil, jesus is god=jesus is evil.
I didnt put Matt 5 following verses because the first was hypocritical enough the following just makes it more clear it hypocritical.
the only justis jesus talked about ever was in hell love your enemys because they burn in hell for eternity I wouldnt wish that on my worst enemy but jesus made hell so he can, hows that love.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon The problem isn't the text. It's your personal interpretation of it. And the reason you logically didn't include the following verse to the verse you selected on hate in Matthew 5, is because the following verse undermined your original assertion that the Bible teaches hate, etc. Here's the thing...there are moral standards, moral absolutes in this world. You reference them whether you like it or not, but you did not evolve into them from nothing. (Cont.)
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon (Cont.) Your "clear examples" are presented as someone who completely refuses to parse even the most overt nuance ie, Matthew 5 shows Christ talking about Love, and yet you dismiss them entirely over a verse He uses in order to contrast HOW NOT TO HATE. Further, you confuse righteousness with malevolence. I don't know if it's because English is your second language or what, but you're not seeing clearly. Either that or choosing not to.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NilDesperandum777 Whay does god not stop satan if he is so powerful?
Oh yes he will fight satan on earth with a big war in a place called armageddon in northern Israel(funny its near where the book was written)
Why does god need a war if he can speak a word and create the heavens and the earth why does he fight satan on earth. do you not think, that does not make sense?That would only make sense to a sheep herding nomads in the bronze age palestine. and yes thats the new testament.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
What are you on you just cant make thing up and change everything round to fit your belief.
You need to learn about theology you dont even know how your religion started and how it has progressed and is still progressing to later forms.there is more than one book.
Are you saying catholics do not follow christ? if you are, your a moron and need to learn about religion.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon What the hell are you talking about!? A) You think Mormonism is Christianity. To non-Christians, to the secular, that might be, but to the Catholic Church, to the Orthodox Church, Mormon theology isn't canonical. So the fact you don't know that basic difference, is where my charge of prejudice is supported in that by thinking they are the same thing -- when they aren't -- you demonstrate ignorance and/or prejudice. That's a fundamental fact, you missed. (Cont)
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon (From Cont.) As to you wanting to believe that I somehow don't understand the origins of Christianity, that's something I bet you tell yourself to comfort you prejudice when speaking with Christians. The theological truth that you again miss here is the supplemental complementary relationship between the OT and the NT. And apparently, you dont have the ability to reconcile your OT criticism with your NT criticism for what it is. Prejudicial and ignorant. (Cont2.)
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon (From C.2) Did you claim that the Bible teaches hate? Yes, citing the OT. When you cited Matt 5, did you refer to Christ's concept of "loving enemies" as something "stupid"? Yes, you did -- going on to say, that one should select those to love to keep it "special", correct? Yes. Well, don't you see how HYPOCRITICAL it is, to on one hand call the OT hateful and wrong, while saying "loving one's enemies" is "stupid"? You're essentially endorsing what you faulted.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NilDesperandum777 "dont love your enemies" but they should have human rights "not love"that would be stupid I dont love someone who killed my family thats sick.
Why are you stuck on this silly point is is because you think it makes jesus look silly.
My point is the bible is HYPOCRITICAL its says one thing then says the opposite on another page the OT god is jesus so when he killed all the people in the OT he didnt love them did he.
.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 How can something be "special" If you give it to every one, that by definition is HYPOCRITICAL.To be "special" there needs to be a distinction of separation.the people I love have a distinction of separation from everyone else If I extent that to everyone then it is not "special" it's common! its not black or white if I dont love someone it doesnt mean I hate them Im indifferent.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon It's special because it's beyond human conception. The fact you can't conceive of it's boundaries now, should at the very least -- if you're intellectual honest -- at least spark a sense of honest investigation. To be chosen, doesn't mean that everything else is excluded from benefit. And besides, can't something be both special and common? Think of countries where maternity leave is a year...All Norwegian mothers get that. Common? Yes. Special? What do you think?
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NilDesperandum777 The problem is the text!
"because English is your second language or what"Don't patronize me!!
Stop saying Matthew 5 all the time and comment on what I say you havent refuted a single point I made all you say is "because English is your second language" your It's your personal interpretation but you dont say why.
answer this If god/jesus loved people why did he create hell as punishment for people he made in a way that they cant honestly believe in him is that not hate
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777
spe·cial/ˈspeSHəl/
Adjective:
Better, greater, or otherwise "different" from what is usual: "a special effort".
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon Maybe going to the macro example will help...Google "Quantum superposition"...and while you're at it, "nuance".
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 What are you talking about Quantum superposition or nuance whats that got to do with the bible? if its in there that would impress me.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon My goodness...are you that...like...??? Are you allergic to research or something? Can you not link concepts? Quantum superposition...if one thing can be in a few places and remain one thing, doesn't that scientific discovery hold weight in your mind with respect to something being one thing "special", while being "common"? And as for nuance...really...I mean...you dont think nuance is in the Bible? lol...really? How old are you?
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 Get a dictionary look up special, research that one word find out what it means dont make it up, look at the comman meaning not your special meaning.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon No, I think you need to stop looking at definitions as inherently isolated applications. It's a function of mental dexterity that you appear not to have when it comes to this discussion. Point is, if there is an uncommon application, wishing there wasn't doesnt remove it, now does it? When God calls Israel "chosen" does it mean, that the rest of creation is to be rejected?
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 I think you meant micro not macro there is nothing big about Quantum mechanics or a small nuance difference.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon There is nothing big about Quantum Mechanics!? Right...reality is just so ...small. Really...Energy and Matter, the constituents of existence...No, kiddo, I meant Macro. And sometimes, the difference is vast. I guess you really are a contrarian just for the sake of it.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 I dont need to research Quantum Mechanics its one of my loves(yes it is special) If you new anything about Quantum superposition you would know it is a break down in the point particle model and not thought of the true nature of things a better idea is string theory where the math does not contain the hyper state.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon - If you can't mentally ascend to the claim that Physics, and Quantum Mechanics possesses an inherently grand, large,macro,big application...then the only person you're fooling here, is you. Providing a personal belief with an addendum impromptu definition three replies down the road doesnt add to the appearance of your credibility, it detracts from it. It was an obvious point, and that you missed it demonstrates you're simply a very prejudiced person.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 Why do you avoid my questions why do you make a flippant remark the base of the conversation and ignore the points here you went from the meaning of "special" to yea Quantum Mechanics is a big thing.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon You've avoided my questions over and over. That you can't parse large answers to certain questions ismt my problem. You asked me to stop referencing Matt 5. Why? Because YOU don't get the point? Tough. You charging the Bible as teaching this blind hate, then manipulating a verse to do so, requires a specific repetitious response, if at first you dont get "IT". And "IT" is, if the following verse refutes the charge, where's your incontravertible claim? (Cont)
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ahhninjadragon (From Cont.) And it didn't go from "special" to QM haphazardly.The attempt was to convey that some things that are special in and of themselves can be commonly applied. Every one has a birthday, are they all no special to that person? Im not going to go through the QM ex. again. It escaped you, but to this Q: ". If god/jesus loved people why did he create hell as punishment for people he made in a way that they cant honestly believe in him is that not hate" (C2)
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon (From C2) Number of assumptions, not the first of which is that "God made people in a way that they cant honestly believe in Him." You'd have to unpack that and justify it. "If God loved people..." So the other option is God exists and doesn't love people? The fact that you exist rather than don't exist is a question you haven't addressed yet. If God loves the people He created and possesses and unlimited imagination, why create you and not another? (C3)
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon (From C3) Hell: As to it's nature and the manner in which people go there. The overwhelming consensus is that through free will and choice, people choose to be away from God. As to Hell's nature - here are differing claims.Which hell? If you knew which Hell you'd differentiate wouldnt you? But let me guess...you'll develop an answer to follow on those variations because you actually know them, but chose to strategically unveil your logic henceforth, yes?
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777
1 God made people as they are, 2 some people dont believe in god 3 he made people in a way they dont belive in god
4 people who dont believe in god go to hell in pain and suffering for ever.
if all these 4 point are correct then god made people to suffer in hell for ever how can you conclude anything else how is this a good thing
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon 1. You're asserting God exists? Define "are". 2. Does a person's disbelief in God constitute necessary evidence that God created their disbelief? 3. That's an untenable assertion. 4. Theologically speaking, assuming it's Christianity, does disbelief equate with damnation? And what is the exact nature of "Hell"? Or do you just not know the differences in the "hells" mentioned in Scripture or in theology? Again...you havent replied to my question below re:"verse".
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 1 im not asserting Im useing what the bible says in a logical argument to Reductio ad absurdum.that is a week argument "you stated a statment in the context god exists so you think god exists",a childs argument then like a child you say Define "are".
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon Hardly. The reason I ask the question, was given your indistinct definitions, I don't know if you even know what the Biblical definition in each instance is. It's hardly logical to assert amorphous terms, and certainly terms which apparently only one side actually knows. It's not logical to assume you actually understand what you're asking, given you haven't demonstrated a working knowledge thus far. Nice try.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 Are you saying Im wrong god did not make people as they are.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon Im saying your characterization is limited. What does "are" mean to you? It's a simple question. I realize you need to ask more than you answer as a tactic of deflection, but asking you to define "are" is an important distinction. I realize you don't care whether it's important, but entire disciplines engage in the question of being and identity all the time.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon And the truth of the matter is, friend, by any consideration to those that actually have a working theological understanding, your position, your demonstration and your arrogance in the face of actual knowledge is the only reasonably characterized juvenile contribution to this point.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 All you do is Ad hominem and call me juvenile can you not be disrespectful and talk on the issues is that what christian debates are "your not as smart as me" and "I know about theological understanding you dont" or "your arrogance".I say your argument is silly or the argument is childish I dont call you those things you do this to get away from the point as always how is attacking me making your point learn some morality before you answer.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon Well if you actually read the comment, it reads that your contribution is juvenile. So...you;ll forgive me if I don't quite get your continued "God made flippancy" wont you? Like...you think it's going to be one way, where you reject out and out obvious examples, call my argument childish when it demonstrably isn't and I'm going to just sit here and absorb it based on your twisted sense of one thing or another? FYI: Christians aren't intellectually arrested
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon AGAIN. The point of Matt 5 springs to mind. You're willing to take a verse entirely out of context as a basis for your charge but when corrected on context of the verse, and validity of the charge of the assertion, you call that silly and childish. It is intellectually impossible for that to be the case in that case..but if everything is perpetually relative, which it seems to be in your world, then as you implied, it's about what "feels good", logic be damned.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon And what you're doing, is invoking ad hominem to hide behind. I have repeatedly addressed your questions and concerns, FAR more than you have with mine. And so when you ask a question, have an answer provided and refuse to answer the answer and question contained within, you reveal your motives to be less than honourable as advertised. So please, spare me the ridiculous moral indignation.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777
2 not sure what you mean, but god made us this way so why punish us for the way he made us why would he not make us all believe and then we would all go to heaven that would be a good thing to do. not make everything hazy but clear to all.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon 2 some people dont believe fact I know as I am one of those.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon Again. You're presuming to know the salvific ends of people on the basis of an undefined critieria. If you mean doubters go to Hell, that's not necessarily true. So the inference is inherently wrong. You have to deduce what God is in order to appropriately qualify His character and attributes and thus intentions. Strictly speaking from Scripture, it's to be Divine. As for belief and evidence, it begs the question, why so many scientists believe and have believed
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 Another fact about Quantum Mechanics matter is not the constituents of existence its is the "mass" created as a partical moves through the higgs field, particles make a wake in the higs field that is what is observible.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon LOL. No one asked or requires further demonstration that you: A) Feel the need to demonstrate a late understanding of QM after the fact and B) Somehow believe that by being needlessly oppositional to a point that's plain that somehow your rant on minutiae removes the fact that you didn't get the plain point in the first place...LOL...You might as well just point a single word response like "EIGENVALUES!" to get the same non-sequitur impact across, lol...wow...
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 Just because someone doesnot agree with you does not mean they dont understand your bad logic. sometimes Im flippant its just how god made me lol (as you can see)that does not mean I dont understand it means I dont care much for the idea.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon It's not bad logic though. If you exclude a foundational verse from the context of a charge like "the Bible is full of hate, here's Matt 5 v. but Ill exclude it's actual context because it's someone else's 'personal interpretation'" , then sorry fella, the problem isn't my logic, it's your conclusions which seem to abbrogate facts when it doesn't suit your "logic". I mean...who really takes that verse, excludes the following verse, and uses it in your argument?
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 2 some people dont believe fact I know as I am one of those.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon "Some people dont believe fact" So you're essentially proving my point from eariler then? That in spite of fact you dont believe one thing or another?
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777
3 god who can do anything made people, he could make them to believe or not to believe either he wasnt all powerful and couldnt make everyone believe or he was malevolent and wished to see people in hell I cant think of a 3rd option.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon By controlling their free will to believe or not in essence contradicts the need for faith. TO many, He has provided evidence of His existence. And if you are as you say you are using The Bible for your argument, you would cite the verse in which Christ declares that it is God's desire that NONE should perish. and that ALL may be ONE. John 17:21
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 Its not free will to believe in a something that is fact Its not my free will to believe in gravity, free will has nothing to do with facts if god is real that would be a fact not a choice.NONE should perish then why are there so many in hell according to the bible, why do I need to believe now why cant I change my mind after I die after talking to god why the cut of point
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon Unless a person suffers from a mental disability, we live in a universe that demands introspection, question and contemplation towards an understanding that eventually concludes in knowledge and opinion. To this free will in intellectual ascent is necessary. To many, God exists because of evidence that leaves no other rational choice. The problem I suspect in your case is, you havent examined what constitutes evidence and what evidence there is. (cont)
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 Unless a person suffers from a mental disability we live in a world that the use of evidence is imperative to understanding. no evidence no conclusion can be made. No evidence for god so no conclusion can be made.now your going to say there is What evidence?name one thing that is tangible and does not relay on word of mouth if you say word of mouth then you must believe in mahabharata as well.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ahhninjadragon "if you say word of mouth then you must believe in mahabharata as well." Man...and you want me to be civil to you? lol -- So apparently, Phd historians,philosophers and legal scholars should obey your criteria for evidence? lol .. Again and again, you demonstrate that you are prejudiced. I assume when those in your family say, they love you, or your friends "like you", you inform them that they are lying based on the absence of falsifiable evidence. (Cont.)
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon (From Cont.) You need to learn a number of things before you type another "i" with any semblance of arrogance, not the least of which is what constitutes evidence. Perhaps "A Treatise on the Law of Evidence" by Simon Greenleaf? The historicity of the Resurrection of Christ presupposes "evidence" and "proof". The arguments for the existence of God are "out there". With someone so completely unreasonable and uninformed, why would or should, I do your leg work?
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon "Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise." - Simon Greenleaf
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 "Every document" the Sunnah mahabharata the iliad koran Golden Verses of Pythagoras Great Hymn to the Aten Buddhist texts Pāli Canon Lotus Sutra The Donghak Scripture The Five Classics books of Confucianism Pyramid Texts The Book of the Dead Book of Caverns Book of Gates Book of the Heavenly Cow Litany of Re harry potter etc etc etc.....
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon You have no clue what the rules of evidence are. You have no clue what constitutes appropriate interpretation. I mean...reasonable evidence presumes a number of obvious factors. And case in point, Einstein...with respect to historicity, The Bible has approximately 24 times the number of verifying texts as the Iilad does, and no one questions it's authenticity. JK Rowling ever claim Potter to be the Messiah? Of course not. And fantastic example again. yikes!
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon Even atheist Biblical scholars conclude that the claims on the face of historicity constitute "evidence" and "proof". Like...seriously..how dense do you have to be not to understand cursory rules of evidence while you engage in a subject as entirely dependent upon them as Christian Apologetics!? Talk about coming to a gunfight with a knife.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon "In examining the evidence of the Christian religion, it is essential to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice, and open to conviction" "In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether is it possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true" - Simon Greenleaf
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon (From Cont.) Once again, I'm not certain what your understanding of Hell is. And as to the definition of "many" according to Christ, it's assuredly only required that one person be in Hell in order for God to say that many will be there. Remember, it's Christ that examples the Good Shepherd by saying it is worth it for Him to go after the one lost sheep, even though the 99 remain safe. The reason it's better to believe now, is because for some (Cont2)
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 HELL Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." Luke 16:24 cries: ". . .I am tormented in this FLAME."
Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,"
Revelation 20:15 says, " And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE."
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon Any quotes about the reward of belivers there, or is the whole of Scripture about the damned? I mean...it's a reality, but it's a reality in context of something incomprehensibly beautiful. If you're focusing on the punitive side of the Gospel, you're actually not, logically and honestly researching the narrative totality of Christian Theology. And again, it's your choice. But to engage in prejudice is foolhardy, to constantly do so willingly is masochistic.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 Alot of the storys pre date the bible and have story that got into the bible with a few changes like the names places and the god (garden of eden,flood,creation etc) focusing on the parts of the bible should people only look at the good bits cherry pick like you.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ahhninjadragon Again, cite where I've cherry-picked. In fact, do you ever directly respond to my questions? I've asked you this question concerning your interpretation methodology: ".Where in the Bible, does it say, that truths of the Bible will be proven by the Bible and the Bible ONLY?" Are you going to avoid this or answer it? You want to talk about cherry-picking....ANSWER THE QUESTION.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon Here's the thing though, friendo...The Bible isn't and was never meant to be taken as strictly literal. The truths are truths, but they are conveyed in a number of narrative devices, and IF YOU WATCH AND ACTUALLY LISTEN TO VIDEOS WHERE LENNOX OR CRAIG SPEAK, YOU'D KNOW THAT. Or if at the every least you actually studied credible Bibilcal scholarship you might have picked up this very PUBLC PIECE OF SCHOLARLY KNOWLEDGE. Seriously..go do some research.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 So the bible is not to be taken literaly when it is written that jesus said somthing he didnt say it (like the sermon on the mount) its just a story not to be taken literaly. is it because it never happened.
Why would someone write a biography of the most important person to have lived and let the reader make up what he ment because he wrote it in a code that is ridiculous.The 2000years ago the believed it 100% and people killed over the word.who knows better you or them.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ahhninjadragon I've answered enough of your questions in a row. It's your turn. FOURTH TIME: "I've asked you this question concerning your interpretation methodology: ".Where in the Bible, does it say, that truths of the Bible will be proven by the Bible and the Bible ONLY?" Are you going to avoid this or answer it? You want to talk about cherry-picking....ANSWER THE QUESTION."
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon That's not what I said. Answer the question I've asked you FOUR TIMES. And as to your hypothetical, seriously...come up with one that's less prejudicial. You claim to be intellectually honest, right? Or do you just selectively understand English?
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon And it wasn't a "biography". Let me guess the norms of historical and journalistic record are also just entirely subjective? And if you can't understand the difference between a recorded , eyewitness account that conveys truthful information, and metaphors designed to convey real truth, then..shouldnt you hand in your Atheist Brights Card? lol
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 NOT a biography What is a biography if its not eyewitness accounts about someone. Just METAPHORS so is jesus a metaphor was the resurrection is heaven hell or god.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon So the Letter to the Galatians is a biography?
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ahhninjadragon You're such a prejudiced coward, lol -- Aaaaaand again:ANSWER THE QUESTION, lol."Where in the Bible, does it say, that truths of the Bible will be proven by the Bible and the Bible ONLY?
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NilDesperandum777 ."Where in the Bible, does it say, that truths of the Bible will be proven by the Bible and the Bible ONLY?thats what you said not the bible I asked for proof you cite the bible I say thats not proof then you say this rubbish I want proof that is NOT the bible give me one dont ask me the question I asked you and say it so ignorantly its marked as spam and I dont get it till I read back.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 Why would I read someone else about the bible when I can read the bible.If I want to read harry potter I dont read a review and think I have read it.Why do I need to be told what to think about the bible I have a mind of my own and they leave out thing like I a virgin is rapped she needs to marry the rapist.Deut 22:28-29 says, if a man rapes a virgin, he can marry her for 50 Shekels.I can see thats wrong can you or do you need to be told by john lennox.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon You mean..you call your claims informed, and yet you dont know why that it's impossible for continuous personal revelation in Biblical interpretation? Besides, it's already established you're citing other people's works. The point is, by reading any of the books in Scripture, you defer to the authority that selected those books. And THEY selected those books according to THEIR inspired and collective rationale. Your personal interpretation is incomplete.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 Again if I dont agree whith you doesnt mean I dont understand continuous personal revelation in biblical interpretation is rubbish just another was to cherry pick and make things up to suit them.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon YES it does. Here's the facts. The reason those books and letters were compiled they way they were was in accordance to collective apprehension, directed through inspiration that conformed to those truths maintained since the beginning. There were numerous interpretations that were REJECTED on the basis of erroroneous interpretation. What you are doing, is cherry picking, because you're rejecting the interpretation of canonical authority.(Cont)
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 So you dont know how authentic the bible is then.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ahhninjadragon Untrue, it's you that's ignorant to whole slew of discipline norms. It's why you're afraid my questions. Because I KNOW, that you don't have an informed clue as to what you're asking. You're simply a troll. Rude, uninformed and afraid. 1) Where in the Bible, does it say, that truths of the Bible will be proven by the Bible and the Bible ONLY? 2) Is the Letter to the Galatians a biography?
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon Do you agree with Richard Dawkins (and others) that in order for the Atheist agenda to move forward that "evil" must cease to exist?
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 Evil as a word yes but that does not mean that good and bad do not exist but it will follow current understandings as we get more knowledgeable like people who thought schizophrenia was evil incarnate but we developed and we now know its not "demons" its a sick person who needs help.If we get rid of the idea of evil for things and move forward with understanding and knowlage we will be better as people.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon LOL Dawkins, like Nietsche is saying to do away the EXISTENCE, the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of EVIL, not the "word". TALK ABOUT CHERRY PICKING. HOw do you think Abortion is justified? HOw do you think Eugenical theories of abounded in Nazi germany towards killing off "useless eaters" came about? Or how and where "population control" and "euthanasia" gains support from? You have NO IDEA, what the majority of Atheist scholars in science believe concerning "evill"
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 evil does not exist does it only in the acknowledgement of it by painting people with it. it stops people looking for the cause of bad things and understanding them and working to end them.It is a loaded word that has no meaning apart from the religious sense to hate things they paint as evil like wiches me science etc.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon Brilliant. So for you, "evil the word does not exist" but then good and bad do. So how would you define" bad"? Ogh and ah...Is Letter to The Galatians a biography? ;)
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon It's not the word, it's the obstacle of morality as defined by the Judeo-Christian worldview. You really need to educate yourself and stop providing your personal philosophies as the definition of one thing or another, because in almost every instance you are entirely wrong. You don't even know your own worldview's arguments on evil. It's not a removal of "superstitions" it's a removal of ethics and virtue that would make Islam look like a vacation resort.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 How do I not know my world view ITS MINE so dont tell me what I think .
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon You dont know the position of Atheisms leading figures on the concept of "evil", and you're just making up reasons you THINK they're rejecting the concept, but your PERSONAL interpretation is incorrect as evidenced by the testomony and actions within the Eugenical movement, past and present.. So, this hyper-individualistic doctrine you have going on is BS, and demonstrated to be so. You're just used to less informed people not being able to call your ignorance.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 I dont care about position of atheists (Im not a sheep)Telling me Im wrong is not an argument give me one reason Im wrong.
Why do you always attack me, Idont know this about atheists and my personal that, my doctrine, the people I talk to are stupid, and Im ignorant. why cant you talk on the issues not me What is wrong with you
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon I've given you NUMEROUS reasons why youre wrong, the problem is you can't see simple concepts, and saying to me that I havent spoken to you on the issues is farsical. I asked you a simple question several times, and you havent answered one. Example: You say evil doesnt exist but "good and "bad" do. Define "bad".
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 I did define bad something that has a negative or unhelpful effect.and I asked you define "evil".
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NilDesperandum777 evil does not exist does it only in the acknowledgement of it by painting people with it. it stops people looking for the cause of bad things and understanding them and working to end them.It is a loaded word that has no meaning apart from the religious sense to hate things they paint as evil like wiches me science etc.
you never answered how this is wrong
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon IT WASNT POSED AS A QUESTION -- WAS IT? So..you didnt answer my question specifically before. there's nothing there that reads "bad is defined as something negative or unhelpful." Given that "evil" is commonly held as a synonym for "bad" and that morality deals with right and wrong behaviour, defining "bad" without "evil" removes moral objectivity and allows subjective interpretation of "negative" and "unhelpful". So rape is merely an unhelpful act?
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 adding the word evil to rape does not change the act in any way it is still "negative" and "unhelpful". how is the word evil doing anything apart from a stigma.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon So if your mother or daughter or sister or wife or grandmother were raped would you inform them that it's of your opinion that the word "evil" is an unecessary stigma and that for the betterment of everyone concerned, "unhelpful" and or "negative" would be a more apt descriptor? What evil does in description is proivde the shortest route to an intended meaning of something that otherwise couldnt be stated more accurately. It leaves no ambiguity like "unhelpful".
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 In court it is not deemed as evil so to say it would be redundant.I would say one of the worst crimes where committed and justis would need to be served.I would not say its evil and its satan fault as he is the created evil that is what a mad man would say.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon Well, given that you are apparently completely ignorant to the rules of evidence, I'll just ask if you think judges in courtrooms dont call crimes evil? Is that what you think? And I didn't ask you about Satan or fault, I asked you about the moral concept of evil and by default good, and youre saying if a family member of yours was raped that you would actually tell them not to call the act of rape, "evill"? Is this right?
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 no I would not call it evil because I dont believe it has a meaning why would I call something a word with no meaning I may as well say rape is lkfjg it means the same to me as evil.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon Then you would disagree with dictionary defintions and synomyms, as well as judges who regard the actions of various criminals as 'evil" not to mention a society's history worth of psychologists and philosophers, including Plato, etc...What matters however is the consistency of interpretation by those immersed in the study of morality and society.My specific question was, would actually tell your relatives if raped that they were wrong in calling rape evil?
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 do you not read my answers do you just ignore them is that what you do when you read the bible
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon Nice try, but the problem here isn't your inability to switch burden on to me, but to account for your ongoing inconsistencies. One of which is the fact that you regard defining the Bible by the Bible, despite the FACT that doing so is contrary to both traditions. Secondly, the language gap is obviously a problem for you, that or your prejudice increases the longer you engage. Third, your responses tend to be vague...just like the one I'm replying to now.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 how can I reply to you last argumentum ad hominem make a point from your position and stop defamatory statments towards me because that does not add to the argument.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon If you're still afraid to respond to statements and questions, it might be best for you to stop this, and your pretense and go off and study a little more before attempting to this little charade you've got going. Ad Hominem...lol...OK...Here's a test again to that. Q: Where in The Bible does it state that only the Bible should be used to interpret The Bible?
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 Why would I answer that question again like I said the last 2 times I dont believe it says that in the bible. what are you saying dont refer to the bible because it doesnt give a good interpretation of the bible do you realize how moronic that is.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon The truth is you don't KNOW what it says one way or the other. And the reason it's important to note that the only reason you can refer to any of it, is because of specific traditional interpretations and methods of interpretation. So if you take it out of intended context without proper direction...you actually begin to sound like a moron to those who know differenty. And you displayed over and over that point precisely, unknowingly.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777Is evil against the law no
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon But they have call the actions of criminals as being evil against the moral standards of the society they have offended, correct?
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 The say evil because it is a loaded word not because it adds anything to a case what is the differance from bad and evil how bad can you be before you become evil I am told alot that Im evil because I dont believe in god "am I evil" who is the arbiter of evil god how can he tell us whats evil in a court
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon Right. Judges load terms in the pronouncement of justice just to be dramatic, lol. OK. Problem with that is, most of society aren't sociopaths and psychopaths. As to people calling you "evil" for disbelief, that's your hang up, and theirs, but it's not necessarily a theological truth. And curious, what possible charge could you possibly have against Christians or The Bible if evil, doesn't exist? Doesn't your criticism fall on it's face? Of course it does.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 sociopaths and psychopaths are not evil they are people with a social disorder and need help and need to be recognised to stop problems in socity to call them evil means that you dont understand physiological problems.The bible wrong if I call it evil is because Im using you words
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon Sociopaths and psychopaths do not recognize social norms, boundaries, express appropriate behaviour...the reference isn't that they are inherently "evil", but that they do not acknowledge or recognize sufficient examples or definitions of morality. Seriously, your language problem is not my problem. It's yours.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 I never said sociopaths and psychopaths where social norms dont put words in my mouth.I said they were recognised disorders and not evil as you said they were.
can you not write a sentence without an insult at the end.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon I could write a sentence without taking a shot at you, if you could actually read a sentence and respond directly to it, instead of what you think or wish was there. Case in point, I didn't call them evil. Secondly, I didnt say you said they were socially normal. You really, really, really need to either read more slowly and or more accurately. You're not interested in knowledge, you're interested in fitting facts to fit your conclusions. Bad mix.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 Simon Greenleaf's Treatise
the hole book as I know it relies on the fact that the gospel writers can be shown to be honest and I dont believe they are so how is that evidence?
you brought it up, in the contexts of evil,you know you did.
you lead the conversation to the fact that we are talking how "they were socially normal"when I wasnt I said they were psychologically handicapped normality has nothing to do with it we arnt talking about that
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon Well, let's be honest here...I mentioned Greenleaf a few times and you didnt so much as bat an eye to the mention or the quotes I provided, and now you're providing an opinion stating that you "know the book" ? Firstly, it's three volumes, and a textbook used at Harvard with respect to the rules of evidence. The book that you are claiming to "know" is called The Testimony of The Evangelists...(Cont)
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 I never read the book, but I did what you do to the bible. I listen to what other people say and use it because according to you thats the best way to get the truth of it. so you cant have it both ways
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon (From Cont.) ....NOT The Treatise On The Law Of Evidence as I had mentioned. So....you messed up and you, sir are a liar. You have not read The Testimony Of The Evangelist by Greenleaf or The Treatise On The Law Of Evidence, which mentions nothing about the Gospel writers. You surfed and found a little blurb and tried to pass of the opinon as your own...but you dont know what youre talking about...again. And that's a fact.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon And as for , "you lead the conversation to the fact that we are talking how "they were socially normal"" AGAIN, not what I said. LEARN TO READ. Here's the sentence only a few posts down: "Secondly, I didnt say you said they were socially normal." SO....how exactly do you get what you wrote? Seriously, face it, your English is either not nearly as good as you think, or you have a a real problem with comprehension..not to mention honesty.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 I was talking about The Testimony of The Evangelists the clue was in the title the book relies on the fact that The Testimony of The Evangelists is true and I dont think it is.I didnt read it never said I did and will never read it either as it is self consistent argument like yours hence no evidence.try reading somthing that is not one sided
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 you are good at turning the conversation on attacking me instead of building an argument against me.it doesnt work on me I dont have as much hate as you.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon Doesn't justice imply moral standards? Measured in "rights" and "wrongs" ? Defined by moral absolutes? So...The Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide...just "negative" events?
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 justice is a human standard not a moral one, measured in human rights and there is no absolutes thats why the law changes all the time The Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide are just "negative" events if they were not they would be positive and they are not.evil does not add anything.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon That's by far the dumbest thing you've stated by far...even Wikipedia defines justice as : " a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, or equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics; justice is the act of being just and/or fair." Essentially, one would have to be insane to define "justice" without a moral standard. I mean...are you practicing semantics to improve your English or what?
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 There are many types of justis im talking abou legal justis, in america it is ilegal to add religious prejudice to law and justis so you cant have a moral standpoint (partly because differnt religions have differnt morals) do you not understand this
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon Are you insane? Do you forget my recommendation to read Simon Greenleaf's Treatise? Or on the call to regard the rules evidence after you actually stated that testimony isn't considered evidence? I mean, are you actually insane? Asking you if judges call criminal acts "evil" in a court of law is a straight forward demonstration, that society over the centuries regard moral definitions of "evil" and "good" as imperative, and that your little "proof" is obscure.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon Or how about you throwing question after question while implying that I would call Christ a liar!? Rather than actually respond to my comments and questions, you simply ignore them and fly over with another topic and another question...and you ask what's wrong with me!? You're ignorant and rude. Why exactly are you not answering questions that prove you dont know what youre takling about? The answer s obvious but Id like to see if youre brave enough to answer.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 I answerd you question you asked me to define hell and I give you what I know from the bible because thats all I know about hell how is that not answering
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon No, you did not answer my specific question concerning the different types of Hell that are known in Christian and Judaic theology. You fired off some verses asking if I was calling Christ a liar. How is that answering a specific question with a specific answer? And then when I asked you to show where in the Bible is states to use only The bible to answer about the Bible, you ignored it numerous times..do you have an actual answer to that question or nothing?
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 The question was define hell and I did,Why do you want me to talk for christians and jews ask them about their hells I only know what Ive read in the bible i dont know all the differnt interpretations people make up why ask me.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon No it wasn't. Entalied in the question was your knowledge of Hell as hinted to that there was more than one definition. I even gave you a hint. By all means go back. And....it makes ZERO sense to claim to know what Hell is from The Bible and then on the other hand call those definitions "made up" as though it was unimportant. It's like saying Rowling didnt intend for themes of good and EVIL to be present in the Potter series when she claimed that theyre in there.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 You even said there I quote "Entalied in the question was your knowledge of Hell" and I told you all I know is what is in the bible and gave you the sorse how is that not answering the question I have answered it about 5 times now do you not understand if people have knowlage that is not in the bible where did they get it from god but jesus is god he said it was in the centre of earth how was he wrong and people right...........
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon And it actually speaks to the other question I asked concerning authority and selection.. There's a reason certain books were included and others excluded, and one would think that if you were going to criticize a book, you'd at least have a working knowledge of what those who compiled the Books thought when they were doing it. It's like telling people that The Bible is actually called The Koran, just because you "feel it" because of personal interpretation.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon If you go back into the thread you'll see I asked you specifically as to the different types of Hell. So when you skip on without acknowledging the question, it presents as though you are prejudice and of no interest in answers that actually disprove your claims. Like...Galatians for example...Or the question on evidence...or on sound Biblical exegesis...At what point do you say, if I dont know and someone else does...maybe I should think things over?
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 It still stands do you think jesus was wrong when he said hell was in the centre of the earth.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NilDesperandum777 I answerd you question you asked me to define hell and I give you what I know from the bible because thats all I know about hell how is that not answering then you chnged the subject that the bible was interpretation then when I showed you that it cant be the word of god and interpretation you changed the subject to evil and when you logic runs out youll change the subject again.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ahhninjadragon (From Cont.) It's obvious you're not interested in a mature exchange. You're interested in mudslinging.You claim your personal interpretation is sound and "Biblical" so...ANSWER THE QUESTION, lol."Where in the Bible, does it say, that truths of the Bible will be proven by the Bible and the Bible ONLY? You can always say you dont know ;)
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ahhninjadragon And again...ANSWER THE QUESTION, lol."Where in the Bible, does it say, that truths of the Bible will be proven by the Bible and the Bible ONLY?" Like...your English can't be that bad, can it?
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon Oh..and while you're at it....NAME a society in the West that actually adheres to that verse. Maybe we'll cite Stalin, or Pol Pot's soceital norms next, lol
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 Society in the west dont because they would end up like the middle east eho do thats why we are progressive and we would be more progressive if we got rid of it all together.Im glad you see that to follow the bible literally would not be good and because you put the west means you know of all the african christians who do and it made their live hell on earth(burning witches goes on to this day stonning etc)
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon The West is progressive because of Judeo-christian virtues buffered on Greek concepts of democracy. Take Israel. The beacon of democracy in the Middle East and entirely guided by ethics straight out of evolved OT precepts. That notion of a living evolving document is likely alien to you, but so is everything else in theology apparently. It's the same evolution that guided the discovery of the scientific method. (Cont.)
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon (From Cont.) And you're entirely incorrect. If Judeo-Christian ethics were done away with, and we were left to morons like richard Dawkins who believes like Niestzche that in order for atheism to hold true that the concept of "evil" would have to be done with, then organizations who advance Eugenical issues would have no problem killing people according to utility. So no, you're entirely mistaken again.
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago
@NilDesperandum777 You are dont know what your talking about Dawkins believes like Niestzche NO get rid of concept of "evil"NO Eugenics is a moral a cultural thing that would most atheists would not hold.not like the genocide in the bible.dont tell lies like that its not Christian.
Do you want biblical law so you can stone children if they are bad or adulterers
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@ahhninjadragon You don't know you're own poster boy, Richard Dawkins position then. He does believe in removing the concept of evil, every bit as much as other Eugenicists do. And Eugenics isn't a "cultural thing" that was invented, supported, continued and funded to this day primarily by Atheists. Read Edwin Black's War on the Weak. Morality is religious in origin. Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton coined the term. You dont even know your own worldview history let alone mine. LOL
NilDesperandum777 1 month ago