Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 24 Dec 2000 00:30:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1000 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > I'm trying to show the difference between these court "proofs".
>
> Ok, back to the issue at hand then, how exactly would one
> prove God's existence in a court?
As I said - presenting evidence - most of it being testimony.
Unscientific, non-repeatable in a lab, not-by-your-definition-objective.
> > We're back where we started. I thought we agreed that by definition,
> > God can't be scientifically/objectively proved or disproved.
>
> [Precisely] true. However, you did bring up that you held that God's
> existence could be proven in a court as opposed to a lab, somehow
> implying to me that a court is somehow not objective, but instead
> subjective. See above.
That's because I don't concur with your "definition" of objective as
scientific-observable-and-repeatable-in-a-lab. I concur with the
definition given in my dictionary - Objective: treating or dealing
with facts without distortion by personal feelings or prejudices.
> > I've never said God is perfectly fair or treats everyone the same.
> > I will say He is perfectly just - there's a difference.
>
> Ah yes. Your real counter-point to my point is either:
> A. God is being fair in some way that we can't see (I.E. our
> definition of fair is incorrect)
> B. God need not be fair for reasons beyond our comprehension
Neither A nor B. Again - I've never said God is fair.
Many aspects of Christianity are actually quite UNfair.
> A simple difference of opinion. My argument is based on:
> 1. Under Christian assumption, morality/fairness/truth is universal.
> ie. what's good for me is good for you is good for anyone, etc...
<snipped long series of number statements>
Even IF your sequence followed logically, (and I don't think it does)
a conclusion is only valid if there have been no errors in your steps and
if it precedes from a valid premise. I'm not trying to be insulting here,
but I can't think of a single valid/true premise that I've read from you yet.
You say you've "tried Christianity" and didn't like it, and proceed to state
things about it that you don't like. However the Christ you are describing
is not the Saviour that I know. What you, Tom, etc. are saying about God
doesn't line up with the Bible. (Yes - I'm generalizing here.)
1. David said that he has green blood and his ears are somewhat pointy.
2. I know my blood is red because I've had a bleeding nose.
3. Everyone here on earth also has red blood.
4. Star Trek has Vulcan's who have green blood.
5. Therefore, David must be a Vulcan, or at least not from Earth.
Side note: If David was born a bit south of here in Vulcan, Alberta,
my little illustration isn't going to work so well... 8-)
You see my point about the importance of your premise though, right?
> Obviously, you'll disagree with some of the basic premises...
Aha! :-)
> > I find "David morality" fundamentally flawed - it is based upon
> > an evolutionary foundation of sand.
>
> I agree-- it is a theory only. And it is most difficult to 'prove' because:
> A. we cannot look back in time and observe moral development...
Again - premise - Not only do you assume that morals develop over time,
but more importantly, you base everything on evolution - the foundation
of sand I was referring to. The theory of evolution is absurd, so
consequently any hypothesis you base upon it will also be untrue.
> Which probably brings me to my REAL point, I guess. Assuming that
> what I've stated above is true...
That's the point - it's not. :-)
> ...and we are only capable of agreeing to disagree...
Quite possible.
> ...what is that remaining disagreement founded upon?
> What fundamental bases of my theory do you disagree with?
Your premise is fundamentally flawed.
> > > > > Ah yes, but let's play for a second. What if I say "why should I?"
> > > > > What's your response? That I should do it for my own salvation?
> > > >
> > > > No - Salvation is not based upon works. [2]
> > >
> > > Sorry, the question shouldn't have said "why should I DO good?" but
> > > "why" should I BE good?" "Should I BE good for my own salvation?"
> >
> > No - Salvation is not based upon works. [2]
>
> Um. Ok, I'm obviously not getting through.
>
> Dave: What is human salvation based upon?
> Steve: Salvation is based upon X.
<snipped another series that doesn't work because of incorrect assumptions>
Salvation is "based on" Christ's death on the cross.
There's nothing you can DO or BE to get or earn or merit salvation. [2]
This is now the third time I'm quoting this passage from Ephesians - you
don't seem to be reading it. Salvation "is the GIFT of God; NOT as a
result of" 'X'. All you have to "do" is accept it.
> > > Ok, but then just answer me this. Why should I be good? If man
> > > is inherently evil (selfish) then doesn't man need motivation?
> >
> > Man doesn't need motivation - he needs salvation.
>
> Yes, but if man is selfish, then why should he work towards salvation?
> Why bother? What has the power to make men work towards salvation...
Once again - Please read Ephesians 2:8,9
SRC
[2] Ephesians 2:8,9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of
yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no
one may boast.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| Ok, I've been rather busy as of late, so back to the debate... :) (...) Ok. So we agree now? That our definitions of 'prove' differ? Right? (...) Aha!, would say I, are not testimonials subject to personal feelings or prejudices? Can you fully trust (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) I think I tend to do that-- but don't we all in these sorts of debates? :) (...) Ok, back to the issue at hand then, how exactly would one prove God's existence in a court? (...) Precicely true. However, you did bring up that you held that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
