tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post115143021246666926..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Which Part fits in Which Slot, Again?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1154758684847393912006-08-05T02:18:00.000-04:002006-08-05T02:18:00.000-04:00It's the reason-pushers, man! With their "gateway...It's the reason-pushers, man! With their "gateway" facts:<BR/><BR/>"Go ahead, try one... Just a little fact, it won't hurt none. C'mon, the first one's free, how's about that?"<BR/><BR/>The question is: who's pushing who? Slip the possibility of natural occurence into the miracles so the Believers will start to question, or suggest the miraculous happening naturally so the Atheists will consider the mundane miraculous...?<BR/><BR/>It's the crystal meth of the masses!Thursdayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13716639373048900646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1154709234385989782006-08-04T12:33:00.000-04:002006-08-04T12:33:00.000-04:00DaGoods; that's a great post and your rebuttals to...DaGoods; that's a great post and your rebuttals to comments are very well thought out. I agree that theists contend one must ignore reason and facts in favor of faith. At the same time, they cite bible passages, presented as fact, in order to make an argument. CSLewis tried to use logic in his apology. So it appears that facts and logic are OK only on one side of the debate.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624845176861980009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1152216256289074672006-07-06T16:04:00.000-04:002006-07-06T16:04:00.000-04:00I also wanted to check in with DagoodS to see if h...I also wanted to check in with DagoodS to see if he's up for some D-blog activity.<BR/><BR/>Just checking. it's the busy time of year where I work, so there's no time pressure, but I also don't want to leave the impression that I have lost interest.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1152216119758131172006-07-06T16:01:00.000-04:002006-07-06T16:01:00.000-04:00Simon: I call you a kook because you think Christ...Simon: I call you a kook because you think Christians believe in "magic spells". And because you are funny -- you make me laugh. You kook.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1152187796389056132006-07-06T08:09:00.000-04:002006-07-06T08:09:00.000-04:00dbull,I already know the standard reply. Most of ...dbull,<BR/><BR/>I already know the standard reply. Most of the people here have pretty heavy backgrounds in bible, and have even quoted the same scriptures, which might give you pause...at least. That seems like a simple reaction to me rather than a considered response. From what you have said, you believe: in miracles because the bible tells you so, you believe in Jesus, because the bible tells you to. That's certainly your prerogative, I once believed that way to. I decided at one point that I could not reasonably say I knew those things to be true. It would seem you've relegated me, (us?) to the ranks of those who "refuse to listen," (though you say 'they,' your point is made). If we would but "listen," we would all believe as you...it's so simple.paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437206493901034134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1152121446048555102006-07-05T13:44:00.000-04:002006-07-05T13:44:00.000-04:00So, why do you have faith? Because I have heard th...So, why do you have faith? Because I have heard the message through the Word of Christ and believed it.<BR/><BR/>Where did it come from?<BR/><BR/>Romans 10:17<BR/>Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.<BR/><BR/> and how do you know where it came from? The Word of God tells me where it came from, belief in the message of the Word of Christ. Since the Word of God is literally Christ, it came from Jesus.<BR/><BR/>Hebrews 11:1<BR/>Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.<BR/><BR/>My faith is based on believing what is written in the Word of God. To attempt to explain the mechanics of "how" a man has faith beyond what is written in the bible becomes speculative. <BR/><BR/>Each believer has a testimony. Our testimony encapsulates why each of us believes. In the end, proof seekers have a million and one "yea but's" in their arsenal to throw a believers testimony out the window so where does that leave us? How can we explain that Jesus performed His miracles in the sight of many, yet some believed in Him as the Son of God and some did not, when they all witnessed the same events? This is what impacts me so greatly, the idea that Jesus could raise a dead man before people's eyes and they still did'nt believe in Him. If that was'nt proof enough for men, what would be?<BR/><BR/>"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. <BR/> 22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[c] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' <BR/><BR/> 25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.' <BR/><BR/> 27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' <BR/><BR/> 29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' <BR/><BR/> 30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' <BR/><BR/> 31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "<BR/><BR/>They won't be convinced even if someone rises from the dead!!!!!<BR/>Why? They refuse to listen.Brother Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04645401412444899487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1152101109519362602006-07-05T08:05:00.000-04:002006-07-05T08:05:00.000-04:00dbull,Because one does not espouse your particular...dbull,<BR/><BR/>Because one does not espouse your particular faith in God that does not mean they are automatically an evolutionist, which you seem to imply. There are other alternatives, for instance, "I don't know." <BR/><BR/>You state: "...these fact claims require faith in order to substantiate them as fact."<BR/>It seems to me that therein lies a problem. As I read it (in the bible), "faith" would be the substance in substantiate in the absence of what would be considered a "fact." So it seems that faith replaces fact, it does not subtantiate anything, rather it is a substance that enables one to believe in things not seen as facts. <BR/><BR/>So, why do you have faith? Where did it come from and how do you know where it came from?paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437206493901034134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151870345600659852006-07-02T15:59:00.000-04:002006-07-02T15:59:00.000-04:00Dagoods said:You claim that your belief is based u...Dagoods said:<BR/><BR/>You claim that your belief is based upon faith, but look at all the facts you allege in your post:<BR/><BR/>“My King said…” <BR/>“Jesus raised dead…”<BR/>“turned water into wine…”<BR/>“fed thousands…”<BR/>“did this before their very eyes…”<BR/>”they still didn’t believe…”<BR/><BR/>“Jesus said…”<BR/><BR/>Every one of these are fact claims.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps what I have'nt made clear is that these "fact" claims, require "faith" in order for them to substantiate as "fact". I have faith, and believe that they are facts, you do not have faith and claim they are not facts There is a 100% correlation between having faith and believing the fact, and not having faith and not believing the fact (in our discussion). Therefore the entire discussion hinges on faith or lack of it, which is why I go back to it as the starting and ending point of any discussion of the Creator. For a disciple of Jesus to attempt to represent the kingdom from any other stand besides one of faith is foolish. Faith comes before fact, once faith is established, we could talk about a great number of facts, but as things stand we cannot. I claim Jesus was the Son of God, and I do so by faith. I claim he is the Son of God as a fact, but can only believe this with faith. The same goes for everything else we could discuss regarding Christianity. Faith comes before fact. By faith I belive the Lord created mankind, without faith people believe that things like the human body developed from some single celled blob in the ocean. Considering the incredible complexity of the human body and the statistical probabilities against such things happening, which takes more faith brother? It all comes down to faith, which I do not hide behind, but stand on as a foundation. If anyone is hiding, it's my Lord, so that men cannot find Him unless they do so in accordance with His will, through faith.<BR/>~Cheers<BR/>BrotherDBrother Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04645401412444899487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151861019618694152006-07-02T13:23:00.000-04:002006-07-02T13:23:00.000-04:00Centurion, you believe in magic spells and you cal...Centurion, you believe in magic spells and you call me a kook...?Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13905592870063005287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151744778737519482006-07-01T05:06:00.000-04:002006-07-01T05:06:00.000-04:00DagoodS, it seems your post deals with quite a lot...DagoodS, it seems your post deals with quite a lot of issues related to "miracles": what do the Christians say a "miracle" is, should there be an explicit reason for a miracle occuring, some of the listed "miracles" in the Bible seem impossible given someone's calculations (by the way, where did you find that information? I can't find it on the web.)<BR/><BR/>I'd like to only focus on one issue for the moment: the definition of miracles. <BR/><BR/>You mentioned a few times that you searched out a definition of miracles from Christian sources which seemed to "disagree". Just because people disagree on a definition doesn't debunk the occurence of miracles. <BR/><BR/>My question is, if they disagree, do <I>you</I> have a definition of "miracle" to propose? After establishing a defintion, it may be easier to discuss whether a miracle can occur in the first place.<BR/>Thanks, -HRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151719161234331752006-06-30T21:59:00.000-04:002006-06-30T21:59:00.000-04:00What is so scary about those who operate by "faith...What is so scary about those who operate by "faith" alone is their ability to turn so vicious when the faith is threatened. True logic doesn't turn vicious, it simply self corrects. If a previosly "logical" argument fails a later and improved test, it is discarded. But, faith never allows you to discard a failed hypthesis of truth. So, that becomes the problem, how to rescue a failed hypthesis?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151695979367440782006-06-30T15:32:00.000-04:002006-06-30T15:32:00.000-04:00DBULL, Perhaps I was not clear in my first respons...DBULL, Perhaps I was not clear in my first response.<BR/><BR/>You claim that your belief is based upon faith, but look at all the facts you allege in your post:<BR/><BR/>“My King said…” <BR/>“Jesus raised dead…”<BR/>“turned water into wine…”<BR/>“fed thousands…”<BR/>“did this before their very eyes…”<BR/>”they still didn’t believe…”<BR/><BR/>“Jesus said…”<BR/><BR/>Every one of these are fact claims. It is these—the basis of your faith—that we question. DID Jesus say? DID Jesus raise the dead? DID many not believe?<BR/><BR/>Or are you saying that you have faith in these claims, and even they have no proof? That is the basis of faith, remember.<BR/><BR/>What do you do about Paul, by the way? There was an individual that was more intimately acquainted with the events of First Century Palestine than any of us could ever hope to be. Yet he did not believe by “simple faith.” Quite the opposite. The only thing that made him believe was a cold, hard fact—a vision from Jesus. It took God himself to appear to Paul to get him to believe. Paul even talks about doing miracles in order that the Gentiles might believe. Rom. 15:19. Again, a cold, hard fact.<BR/><BR/>I would take your faith claim more seriously (and all the contributors to this blog are intimately familiar with living by faith—we did it for decades, too) if you didn’t keep throwing out facts as the basis of your belief. It is only when I want to examine those facts that, as another poster pointed out; you “retreat” to your faith.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151683939567316242006-06-30T12:12:00.000-04:002006-06-30T12:12:00.000-04:00It was mentioned that I "hide behind my faith" and...It was mentioned that I "hide behind my faith" and am contributing nothing meaningful here, but I would contend that I'm not hiding behind anything. I've already disclosed that I'm a disciple of Jesus, and as a disciple I attempt to represent the kingdom that I belong to in accordance with the guidance and laws of the King of that Kingdom, which is Jesus Christ. My King said we (believers) operate by faith, so as His disciple should I offer something else to you (fact)? Spiritual truth is spiritually discerned. For me to argue back and forth about so called facts or lack of facts with a person or people who cannot see with the sight that only the Holy Spirit gives, would be like me shouting to Stevie Wonder "Why can't you see what color my shirt is?" Someone also mentioned the fact that God did show Himself to mankind openly when Jesus came to this earth. What I find enlightening about this is that Jesus raised the dead, turned water into wine, fed thousands with a couple fish/loaves of bread, and He did this before their very eyes, AND THEY STILL DID'NT BELIEVE. If my Lord raised the dead in front of men's eyes and they still did'nt believe, and men like this still fill this planet, what argument could a man like me possibly offer to chage the minds of those men? So, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here, rather I am attempting to clarify the position of how a man may approach God and verify His existence in this life: through faith. I already know this answer will not suffice for you. The arguments I've seen are quite intricate and display great worldly wisdom, which is precisely why they cannot detect or enter into the kingdom of Heaven. Jesus said that a man has to be like a little child, and have faith like a little child to enter this kingdom. I can hear the mockery and contempt already. Once again, my Lord's wisdom trumps the world's wisdom. Simple faith opens the doorway to heaven, but there's nothing simple, and no faith to work with in this discussion, right? I would be a liar if I said I had nothing to base my faith on, I have 37 years of experience watching love and faithfulness follow me everywhere I've been, but I can't "prove" a lick of it. As for the arguments of what God can or cannot do,I'll quote another brother: <BR/><BR/>"The atheist distorts the biblical definition of omnipotence in order to "prove" that God cannot exist. Contrary to their claims, omnipotence does not include the ability to do things that are, by definition, impossible. Neither does omnipotence include the ability to fail. By defining omnipotence as requiring one to have the ability to fail, atheists have defined omnipotence as being impossible. Of course, an omnipotent God would never fail, and this argument falls apart as illogical itself."<BR/><BR/>I think it's fair to say that nobody who visits your site will ever be able to prove the existence of God, but nobody will be able to prove He does'nt exist either. This leaves men with the choice to either 1. chase their own tails with arguments that will never amount to proof either way.<BR/>or <BR/>2. Give up trying to prove anything either way.<BR/>or<BR/>3. Choose the simple faith that saves men, because debate never saved a single soul.<BR/><BR/>I applaud you because I think you are reasonable men. I pray that the Lord will open the eyes of your heart so that you may see things as He sees them.<BR/>Cheers brothers~DBrother Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04645401412444899487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151629849747463192006-06-29T21:10:00.000-04:002006-06-29T21:10:00.000-04:00Jeremy,A faith in evolution or any other scientifi...Jeremy,<BR/><BR/><I>A faith in evolution or any other scientific theory is no different than the faith that I have in my god.</I><BR/><BR/>This has already been well-addressed. I would simply add that with the presuppositions of science, we assume that we <I>will not encounter</I> some "magic" or otherwise unknowable event. By the definition of "miracle", then, we may as well throw our hands in the air. The point/philosophy of science is that we can <I>know and understand</I> the universe. If magic / miracles come in, not only are we rendered blind, but dumb and deaf as well. We cannot understand, or hope to, nor explain even that which we cannot understand. It is like a giant hole, or abyss, into which nothing can be perceived but darkness. How deep does it go?<BR/><BR/>How deep? Do you believe that magic is necessary to hold atoms together, or do the strong and weak nuclear forces suffice? Was Einstein right about the constancy of light, or are there magic ways to speed it up? How deep? How much of our beautiful and sane universe do we surrender to the darkness of ignorance? Are there goblins? Ghosts? Demons? In the room with you now? Floating all around? Leprechauns?<BR/><BR/>This sounds sarcastic, but I am trying to emphasize a point--ignorance knows no bounds. If we surrender our minds to "goddidit" we may as well go back to cave painting, because we will have no systematic way to apply the "give up" phrase. When do you <I>know</I> where to draw the line on what God is doing "magically"? And if <I>everything</I>, then we lose autonomy in every meaningful way, our bodies and souls are but part of this magical, cartoon universe, and the insanity of a boundless ignorance engulfs us.nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151615934908658822006-06-29T17:18:00.000-04:002006-06-29T17:18:00.000-04:00The word limit, btw, is to maintain focus. It's h...The word limit, btw, is to maintain focus. It's hard to ask a preposterous question in 150 words, and it's pretty hard to make a preposterous answer in 500 words -- which is why the last contestant at D-Blog needed so many more words to make his point.<BR/><BR/>And you're right: it's a lot more like a mutual interview than it is like an actual debate. What I have tried to do in that blog is create the "cross" without all the mind-boggling hoppla that happens in most debates up to the cross.<BR/><BR/>The topic of the miraculous seems like a great topic for D-Blog. I hope your holiday brings you back in the right state of mind to say "yes" and ask some serious questions about what Christian theology (particularly reformed theology) says about miracles and the action of God in this time-space place.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151615637500558152006-06-29T17:13:00.000-04:002006-06-29T17:13:00.000-04:00It's an open invitation, so take your time. Thank...It's an open invitation, so take your time. Thanks for the thick skin.<BR/><BR/>As for the euthanistic prayer warrior (praying to put you out of her misery), sorry 'bout that. Both sides have kooks, though I will admit my side's are more entertaining but maybe less actually-harmful.<BR/><BR/>Well, except for Simon. You guys have a real gem in Simon.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151607973584587132006-06-29T15:06:00.000-04:002006-06-29T15:06:00.000-04:00"Ta-da!" LOL!!!"Ta-da!" LOL!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151594878756111262006-06-29T11:27:00.000-04:002006-06-29T11:27:00.000-04:00DagoodS, you've got this all wrong. Jesus had a se...DagoodS, you've got this all wrong. Jesus had a sense of theatre - that's why he had the angels come down and roll away the stone from his tomb. It's like a magician's "TA DA!"Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13905592870063005287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151591110936810602006-06-29T10:25:00.000-04:002006-06-29T10:25:00.000-04:00martin lack, I apologize if my frivolity makes it ...martin lack, <BR/><BR/>I apologize if my frivolity makes it appear as if I am “full of myself.” I do take these topics quite seriously, and study them with fervor. My personality is such, though, that I tend to see the humorous side of life, and interject with some lightheartedness in my writings.<BR/><BR/>It <B>is</B> a bit ridiculous to hold that Jesus, as a God, has the capability to create a universe, can flood the entire earth, come back from the dead, teleport from place to place, yet has to remove the rock to get out. Unfortunately, that is exactly the story portrayed in the Gospels, that Christians attempt to persuade me happened.<BR/><BR/>I addressed the fact that removing the rock so people could see was unnecessary. Did Paul need to see the empty tomb?<BR/><BR/>Further, claiming that a God created this entire universe and one human female in one moment of time, by eating one bite of fruit, screwed it up SO bad, that only by killing himself, God was able to save a select few from billions and trillions and quadrillions of years of excruciating torture, to be honest, seems a bit ridiculous to me. Perhaps we can discuss with each other and provide insight as to why it is not ridiculous?<BR/><BR/>I am glad that you mentioned 1 Cor. 1:22-23, but I am not sure you understand the full implication of that. Do you understand what Paul is stating?<BR/><BR/>“The Jews seek a sign…” What is a “sign” to a Jew? A Miracle. The Gospels consistently portray “signs” as Miracles. According to which Gospel you read, that generation will get no signs (Mark), one sign (Matthew and Luke) or many signs. (John.) Signs are always miracles.<BR/><BR/>“The Greeks seek wisdom…” Reasoning. Logic. Debate Rationale. <BR/><BR/>And what does Paul preach? He practically crows about the fact that he preaches neither! Ponder that for a moment. Paul is specifically stating that the Jews are looking for miracles, and the Christians aren’t providing any!<BR/><BR/>Paul never once mentions a miracle in Christ’s ministry in his writings. Not even when it would be helpful (like discussing resurrection, bringing up Jarius’ daughter or Lazarus?). <BR/><BR/>If Paul thought claiming miracles occurred was a stumbling block to people becoming Christians, why do you think so many Christians preach about miracles today?<BR/><BR/>1 Cor. 1:22-23 demonstrates admirably, that at the time Paul was preaching (i.e. before the stories of Jesus were fully formed) he did not hold to Christ performing any miracles. Paul, like you, would have found the question of Jesus and the rock equally pathetic, because movement of that rock would constitute a miracle, and that was not what Christianity was about.<BR/><BR/>Romans 1:20 is not much better. To demonstrate a God, Paul appeals to nature. Not Jesus. Not his ministry. Not death, burial and resurrection. Not miracles. Not all the things that make Christianity stand out from any other theistic belief. Just nature.<BR/><BR/>And there, Paul was writing to Jews, who would arguably have been in contact with the events happening previously. Christians would have a much stronger case if Paul had said, “Those pesky Gentiles really know there is a God, because we all can see the tomb where Jesus was, the rock, and the missing body. We all heard about his miraculous wonders, and how Peter immediately converted 3000 people.” Remember, he is writing to people that Christians must maintain knew about the resurrection!<BR/><BR/>Yet what does he pull out as his best argument to preach to the choir? Nature.<BR/><BR/>I devote so much time to this stuff, martin lack, as penance for all the years I swallowed it hook, line and sinker without truly devoting my time to this stuff.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151588456470750592006-06-29T09:40:00.000-04:002006-06-29T09:40:00.000-04:00siehjin,Part of the reason that Christians want to...siehjin,<BR/><BR/>Part of the reason that Christians want to only look at the “big picture” of miracles, is that the story starts to break down in the details. All questionable stories do. That is why those promulgating them tend to waive their arms and block our vision from those pesky details.<BR/><BR/>If the water didn’t cover the earth, why have an Ark at al? Perhaps send Noah (and the animals) to higher ground? Traditionally (although it is unclear) it was claimed that it took 100 years to build the ark. Assuming a travel rate of 2 miles per day, and only moving 5 days a week, with a few directions, Noah could have walked out of a “basin” 100,000 miles wide in the same period of time!<BR/><BR/>And what exactly is a “proto-type” animal? What is a “clean” proto-type animal and an “unclean” proto-type animal? How fast would the rate of evolution be, given proto-type animals? When did this rate cease, or has it? This defense creates more problems than it harms.<BR/><BR/>I have read both ETDAV by Josh McDowell. (I don’t remember which edition, which is unfortunate. You do know, I presume, that later editions correct mistakes caught in the earlier editions.) A one-sided presentation that is heavily weighted. Not exactly balanced reporting. If you have read them, perhaps you can point out one or two things that you felt were sufficiently persuasive, and we can address them in a separate blog?DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151588373942868252006-06-29T09:39:00.000-04:002006-06-29T09:39:00.000-04:00centuri0n, Never fear offending me. Certainly not...centuri0n, <BR/><BR/>Never fear offending me. Certainly not over something as silly as a name. In real life, I am called so many things, it makes little difference. I am difficult to offend.<BR/><BR/>On behalf of a client, I was once pursuing an elderly lady for money. The judge ruled against her (again) and it was apparent funds were to be removed from her bank account and provided to my client. After the hearing (imagine the nicest grandmotherly figure you can) she invited me over, and said in her soft-spoken voice:<BR/><BR/>“Sir.”<BR/>“Yes?”<BR/>“I want you to know that I will be praying to God every single day that this will be the day you die.”<BR/><BR/>Stunned, I could only mutter, “Er…hope that works out for ya.”<BR/><BR/>With that going for me, any name-changing, inadvertent or not, is pretty irrelevant, eh?<BR/><BR/>I am still weighing the debate idea. My initial reaction was to do so, more from the standpoint that 150 words/500 words would be an exciting challenge. I tend to be verbose—could I limit myself and still be coherent? However, it also would seem to be more of an interview than a debate, with that limitation.<BR/><BR/>And paul asked a good question. What is the point of the debate? If it is to “encounter” Christianity through Calvinism, I have already done so. I was born, bred, and raised in Calvinism. I have personally interacted with Pastors, Deacons, Elders, Teachers, Associates, Missionaries, and Leaders, all of whom chose to abandon our conversations.<BR/><BR/>Still thinking on the idea, though.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151588296202757462006-06-29T09:38:00.000-04:002006-06-29T09:38:00.000-04:00Jeremy, in one particular forum I frequent “apolog...Jeremy, in one particular forum I frequent “apologist” is considered an insult worthy of moderator intervention. Some consider it a compliment, others not. You are free to consider yourself as you choose.<BR/><BR/><I> I do not believe that it is possible to know the exact methods used in the miracles described in the Bible because none of us were there.</I><BR/><BR/>Exactly. And once we concede that we do not know what methods or how the miracles occurred, how can we say that miracles even happened at all? Perhaps it was a natural event. Or perhaps the authors did not understand what was occurring and inadvertently attributed it to a supernatural, rather than a natural event.<BR/><BR/>Imagine a person in 1500 BCE seeing a plane cross the sky! What we know is possible naturally, they would presume was supernatural. Was it the same with earthquakes? Volcanoes? Unusual storms? Influx in the insect populations? <BR/><BR/>I appreciate your honesty in indicating it is not possible to know. However, once we enter that arena, then claiming something was a “miracle” as compared to natural must also be recognized as unknown. So why claim it is a miracle in the first place?<BR/><BR/>How do I, as in infidel, determine which miracles were written down for me to know that God was involved in certain events, and which ones are human creations? We know the story of Joseph Smith being informed by an Angel of fantastic gold plates buried nearby. Certainly sounds miraculous. Was God involved in that event? <BR/><BR/>Or those screaming preachers (*cough, cough “Benny Hinn”*) that claim to have turned fillings to gold, and straightened backs, and made people who limp run. Again, sounds miraculous. Was God involved in those events? Or every single Catholic Saint. A requirement is to perform a miracle. Was God involved in those events?<BR/><BR/>Or taking back to my blog. If this story of the rock rolling was written for me to understand that God was involved in some way, is it inappropriate for me to ask “How?” and not be satisfied with four different answers<BR/><BR/>1) God made the earthquake to roll the rock.<BR/>2) God sent an angel to roll the rock.<BR/>3) God rolled the rock.<BR/>4) We have no clue.<BR/> <BR/>All of which make no sense for a teleporting Jesus.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for recognizing that we all believe in different ways, and with different forms of persuasion. What is curious is that the Christian God does not understand that. He only seems to be able to communicate in one fashion. A one-dimensional God.<BR/><BR/>And I can’t help notice that by sheer coincidence, the God only seems to communicate in the exact same way the theist feels a God should communicate. If a theist believes by faith, by golly God communicates by faith. If a theist believes by experience, God communicates by experience. If a theist believes by a still, small, internal voice, God communicates by a still, small voice. I have been informed countless different ways in which God communicates, but each theist seems to inform me there is only one way, and it happens to fit that particular theist.<BR/><BR/>Even you, as a human, recognize that we all communicate differently, and modify your interaction based upon my differences. If I use reason, people tend to reason with me. If I am visual, they provide illustration. If I speak in English, they don’t write to me in Spanish.<BR/><BR/>You would think that the creator of humans, <I>at the least</I> could figure that out. Some people need visual. Some need experience. Some need faith. Some need reason. Some need argument. Some need personal interaction. Heck, some need a hug! Yet over and over, I am told that how I desire communication is wrong, incorrect, unworthy, ridiculous, and the very last way in which God would ever, EVER communicate to humans.<BR/><BR/>At some point I would write myself off as an abhorrent anomaly—the only human that communicates in such a fashion, and just too tough for God to single out. Except I see a fellow over that that communicates just like me, and is just as questioning. A female over here that understands the difficult in communicating to a God that isn’t there. And over time, I have become convinced that it isn’t the fact that God can only communicate in one fashion—it is that the theist can only hear a God in one way, and for lack of ability to demonstrate said God, must claim that is the ONLY way in which God can speak.<BR/><BR/><I> A faith in evolution or any other scientific theory is no different than the faith that I have in my god.</I> This is a common statement made because of the confusion of the English language using the word “trust” and “faith” synonymously. They are not in terms of a spiritual “faith.”<BR/><BR/>For example, I may claim that I have “faith” in my wife not having an affair. However, the more correct term is “trust.” I base my trust on the fact that I have no evidence to demonstrate an affair, she indicates she loves me, she has never had an affair before, there are only a few hours in which she could have an affair, and when she comes how with a boatload of groceries, it is more evidence of grocery shopping than affairs.<BR/><BR/>We have “trust” in the theory of evolution, because the facts support it, the fossil records support it, it has predictive abilities, and science based upon evolution has produced expected results.<BR/><BR/>Spiritual faith, by its very definition, is belief in the <B>absence</B> of facts. Not based upon reasonable conclusions from facts. That is trust. You may say you “trust” Christianity based upon certain facts, but once you bring in faith, the facts must hit the road.<BR/><BR/>Jeremy, I confess that evolution does not always seem logical or reasonable to me, either. Part of that is my infinitesimal knowledge of the subject, frankly. However, to posit something else, we might as well term “magic” and then wrestle with the concepts of this difficult “magic” that bring us no closer to a resolution as to how we came into being, and actually introduces contradictory conclusions seems to be even less logical and reasonable.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151587337212464432006-06-29T09:22:00.000-04:002006-06-29T09:22:00.000-04:00You guys are really in love with yourselves, aren'...You guys are really in love with yourselves, aren't you... How is that you are able to devote so much time to this stuff... It is absolutely pathetic to suggest that Jesus could not get out of the tomb unless the stone was rolled away...<BR/><BR/>Assuming, of course, that you accept the historicity of the basic storyline presented in Mel Gibson's "<I>The Passion of Christ</I>", is it so difficult to accept that God moved the Stone so that people could see in...<BR/><BR/>Oh, I forgot, you don't accept that God exists, so bang goes that argument, eh? Still, this is not exactly "<I>shock news</I>".. is it!<BR/><BR/>"<I>Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles</I>".<BR/>(I Corinthians 1:22-23)<BR/><BR/>"<I>For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. </I>".<BR/>(Romans 1:20)Martin Lackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10920084847131073355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151583315929247172006-06-29T08:15:00.000-04:002006-06-29T08:15:00.000-04:00centuri0n,"I could answer "evangelism," but I'll b...centuri0n,<BR/><BR/>"I could answer "evangelism," but I'll bet you don't think Calvanists believe in evangelism."<BR/><BR/>Heck, so it's a Calvanist thing, I wouldn't understand? Still, I wish you'd indulge me and try. I've "encountered Christianity" quite a bit actually, but why would it be important to you for me to encounter it?paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437206493901034134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151559430278550702006-06-29T01:37:00.000-04:002006-06-29T01:37:00.000-04:00hallo! =)didn't c.s. lewis write something about m...hallo! =)<BR/><BR/>didn't c.s. lewis write something about miracles? erm, i think the book title IS miracles. what do u guys think of what he wrote? i think he kinda defends the idea of miracles from a big-picture point of view. dunno if the nitty-gritty details that DagoodS has pointed out can ever be explained though.<BR/><BR/>i'm inclined to take Bible stories like the creation account and the flood to be myths (hmm, that's probably c.s. lewis's influence again) that illustrate eternal truths rather than factual accounts.<BR/><BR/>but some defences of noah's ark i've heard are that:<BR/>1. the water didn't actually cover the whole earth, just the basin or plain where ppl were staying (they hadn't dispersed to cover the whole earth yet)<BR/>2. the animals were all the prototypes only, which eventually evolved into the myriad species we have today.<BR/>doesn't really save it though.=)<BR/><BR/>the ressurection story is different, it had to really happen otherwise christianity's a total sham. erm, doesn't josh mcdowell's 2 books 'evidence that demands a verdict' and 'more evidence...' defend it quite well?siehjinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14032187450130767227noreply@blogger.com