tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post8183316138656839827..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Christians Often Retreat to the Merely PossibleUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67964942883919048952007-07-17T04:17:00.000-04:002007-07-17T04:17:00.000-04:00DagoodS,I find it humorous that Anonymous wishes s...DagoodS,<BR/><BR/>I find it humorous that Anonymous wishes so much for us to (re)join the faithful that he will ask us to reconsider if more evidence is made available to us (i.e., the rapture, et al.). When we say, "Yes, because we seek to establish truth by those things which can be verified personally" he then pulls back the carpet and says, essentially, "Too bad. You must do it on faith!"<BR/><BR/>It's the old Charlie Brown routine.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous, assuming that the rapture happened tomorrow and DagoodS and I were both became interested in rethinking our positions, of what benefit is it to us to rush to judgment and believe on faith when, if we but wait a day, we can have the actual evidence we desire?<BR/><BR/>Is perhaps living and dying in a 7-year (insert your particular church's doctrine here) tribulation world any <I>worse</I> if, at the end, we have achieved eternal life anyway?<BR/><BR/>I really don't see the justification for believing on faith here.OkiMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05694796843392602909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52852554682816301102007-04-12T22:17:00.000-04:002007-04-12T22:17:00.000-04:00Maybe you might find this interesting then:Hebrews...Maybe you might find this interesting then:<BR/><BR/>Hebrews chapter 11.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25554005674673266052007-04-12T20:16:00.000-04:002007-04-12T20:16:00.000-04:00Anonymous 725 (and I think 802), if you were refer...Anonymous 725 (and I think 802), if you were referring to Anonymous 605 that posted immediately before Anonymous 802, I presumed everyone knew that was a theist sarcastically posting as an atheist. <BR/><BR/>It is not so much that I can’t believe something by faith. In fact, if you think about it, we ALL have a little faith in something. Not everything we believe is proven by evidence.<BR/><BR/>More that I want to make sure I have faith in the right thing. It has been my experience that most people do. No one wants to spend his or her life believing the wrong thing. No Christian wants to strive and argue and preach on something that turns out to be 100% wrong. That’s why we all study, and grow. Hopefully.<BR/><BR/>With my current state of knowledge, having faith in a god is not the correct thing. For all I know, tomorrow I could be presented with evidence or an argument or proof that would change that. Or, if tomorrow I observe a miracle that could change it too. Assuming I am competent to recognize it as such, eh?<BR/><BR/>Do I need a miracle to believe in a god? No. Would it go a long way? (especially a miracle that seems to be exclusively in Christian beliefs) As I said—absolutely.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43919741542666402062007-04-12T19:25:00.000-04:002007-04-12T19:25:00.000-04:00Sorry DagoodS, I was refering to what Anon said on...Sorry DagoodS, I was refering to what Anon said on the previous post. I just think that it's interesting that it takes a miracle for you to believe rather than having faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5239293422245608402007-04-12T16:52:00.000-04:002007-04-12T16:52:00.000-04:00You see, God doesn't delight in evil for the sake ...You see, God doesn't delight in evil for the sake of evil. Evil comes to pass that good may come of it. What good? And how does the existence of evil serve this good end?<BR/>Once again Jonathan Edwards:<BR/><BR/>It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God's glory should be complete; that is, all the parts of His glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent, that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all...Thus it is necessary, that God's aweful majesty, His authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God's glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of His goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all. If it were not right that God should permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God's holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in His providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God's grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much happiness soever He bestowed, His goodness would not be so much prized and admired....So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which He made the world; because the creature's happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of His love. And if the knowledge of Him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect.<BR/><BR/>Is God less glorious because He ordained that evil be? The answer is no. God is more glorious for having conceived and created and governed a world like this with all it's evil.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78121498244911701352007-04-12T16:29:00.000-04:002007-04-12T16:29:00.000-04:00Chris, yes it's possible that God exists. However,...Chris, yes it's possible that God exists. However, it's extremely implausible that the <B>Christian</B> God exists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-879322701041586952007-04-12T15:01:00.000-04:002007-04-12T15:01:00.000-04:00John, I haven't read the above comments, so forgiv...John, I haven't read the above comments, so forgive me if I'm being redundant. You're right that retreating to the "merely possible" in every debate doesn't help the Christian cause much. However, modal arguments are more appropriate in some contexts than in others. For instance, if my interlocutor claims that such-and-such is impossible, then my job is clear -- show that it is possible, and I'm done. If someone argues that such-and-such is improbable, well, that's another story. For instance, in the problem of evil debate I was having with Lee, the essence of the atheist argument is that there cannot be any good reasons for God to permit evil. This is a modal claim. Thus, the job of the theist is to show that there might be some good reasons, and to suggest a few candidates. That's ALL the theist needs to do, in this case. So we need to carefully examine each debate on a case-by-case basis to see what the claims are and what is required of the defense.<BR/><BR/>By the way, do you think it is possible that God exists?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14316937277548018841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81270115383526179882007-04-12T13:04:00.000-04:002007-04-12T13:04:00.000-04:00If I could digress to the query, "Can God create a...If I could digress to the query, "Can God create a rock He can't move?". <BR/><BR/>If I understand correctly, omnipotence in regard to deity would mean that one could not be overcome by one's own creation - omnipotence means that a deity would be all-powerful.<BR/><BR/>If one views it a weakness or fault that God could not create a rock He couldn't lift, I suppose that is a matter of opinion - I myself find it consistant with the definition of omnipotent.Beautiful Feethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14868646492757287704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30485754050764400792007-04-12T12:00:00.000-04:002007-04-12T12:00:00.000-04:00Calvin, that's a fine summary of the Calvinistic p...Calvin, that's a fine summary of the Calvinistic position. I think I'll use what you wrote in a future post to show why Calvinism is morally bankrupt. It's time for me to go for the thelological jugular vein. Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57243716683774559412007-04-12T10:59:00.000-04:002007-04-12T10:59:00.000-04:00We affirm that the doctrine of imputation both of ...We affirm that the doctrine of imputation both of our sins to Christ and of His Righteousness to us, whereby our sins are fully forgiven and we are fully accepted.<BR/><BR/>John,<BR/><BR/>To understand the Reformed view of Calvinism you have to make a distintion between God's positive and His negative decrees. The reformed view teaches that God positively or actively intervenes by working on the hearts either by common grace or saving grace. God doesn't create unbelief in the reprobate He removes His hand and leaves them to themselves to sin by their own choices and follow their own evil desires. All that God has to do to harden someone's heart is remove His hand. He lets them have their own way. It's not that God put's His hand on their heart and creates evil, He merely removes His hand from them and lets them do their own will. In God's ultimate act of judgement He gives sinners over to their sins. He abandons them to their own desires. He gives grace to the elect by working faith in their hearts. He gives justice to the reprobate by leaving them in their own sins. One group recieves mercy. The other group receives justice. God has established a world where sin will necessarily come to pass but not by His positive agency. Sun brings about warmth and light by it's essential nature but brings about cold and dark by dropping below the horizon. Sin isn't the fruit of any positive agency of God, but arises from the with-holding of His action and energy, and under certain circumstances, necessarily follows on the want of His influence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9330717628696493912007-04-12T05:15:00.000-04:002007-04-12T05:15:00.000-04:00Perhaps I took the question too literally?“If the ...Perhaps I took the question too literally?<BR/><BR/>“If the rapture happened tomorrow; would you believe in Christ?”<BR/><BR/>Notice the question was NOT “if an event resembling the rapture” or “if a bunch of people you don’t know disappeared.” The question itself presumed that a miracle had occurred. True, to some extent it was an answer presumed in the question. Like asking, “If you saw a miracle, would you believe in miracles?” By virtue of a miracle existing within the question, I presume the question of the existence of miracles is off the table.<BR/><BR/>I was attempting to be judicious and respond to what the commenter was asking, rather than nit-pick the thing.<BR/><BR/>In my upbringing the Rapture was the immediate disappearance of true Christians. (Whether the clothes were left behind is a matter of debate.) We were provided images of planes going down because the pilot and co-pilot were both saved. Of cars crashing on highways. Of major interruptions in the travel, communication and commerce industry due to all the people simply vanishing. A Super-Duper Y2K, if you will.<BR/><BR/>(And even as a Christian I wondered how anyone could explain that sufficiently. Especially to the non-true Christians that had at least read the Bible and I would think could figure it out.)<BR/><BR/>If such an event occurred, despite my skepticism, this would be a great deal of new information. Information I did not have before. Information that would cause me to re-evaluate my position. Having been a Christian most of my life, and being aware of the event of the Rapture, it seems most probable that I would turn back to my default position of Christianity.<BR/><BR/><B>Anonymous 802:</B> <I> So, if all the Christians dissapeared you would probably celebrate rather than realize that you missed the rapture.</I><BR/><BR/>I am truly baffled as to why you would say that. I can’t speak for everyone, of course, I answered the question from my own perspective. If the Rapture, as portrayed by the Christianity I know, happened tomorrow, my wife would disappear. My children would disappear. My brothers and sisters would disappear. So would their spouses. And all of my nieces and nephews. My father and his wife would disappear. My aunts and uncles and cousins would disappear. (My family reunion would turn into me and a few chirping crickets.)<BR/><BR/>You think I would <B>celebrate</B> that situation? Most of my friends, and their spouses and their children would disappear. Some of my clients would disappear. <BR/><BR/>What type of monsters do you take us for, that we would “celebrate” such a horrendous impact on our lives?DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-28100420520591809672007-04-11T20:02:00.000-04:002007-04-11T20:02:00.000-04:00So, if all the Christians dissapeared you would pr...So, if all the Christians dissapeared you would probably celebrate rather than realize that you missed the rapture.<BR/><BR/>The end times:<BR/><BR/>"Men would rather hide under the rocks then come to God."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81184218776764881832007-04-11T18:05:00.000-04:002007-04-11T18:05:00.000-04:00Dagoods said,"A miracle that I saw? Ab-so-lut-e-ly...Dagoods said,<BR/><BR/><I>"A miracle that I saw? Ab-so-lut-e-ly I would. In fact, it would be quite helpful."</I><BR/><BR/>I wouldn't. I'd give it a naturalistic interpretation. Furthermore, miracles are IMPOSSIBLE. So, it looks like dagoods disagrees with many top notch atheists. You go boy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-18749478265449784972007-04-11T16:46:00.000-04:002007-04-11T16:46:00.000-04:00It's unbelievable what an unbeliever believes to u...It's unbelievable what an unbeliever believes to unbelieve.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82639577545215824912007-04-11T16:27:00.000-04:002007-04-11T16:27:00.000-04:00You don't understand. There may exist a God. I don...You don't understand. There may exist a God. I don't think so, but he might exist.<BR/><BR/>What you don't understand is that if such a God existed you'd have to accept so many things that are merely possible it renders any conclusion beyond the belief in God as utterly implausible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26453783310826612232007-04-11T16:06:00.000-04:002007-04-11T16:06:00.000-04:00This us hilarious.You fool,You're whole worldview ...This us hilarious.<BR/><BR/>You fool,<BR/>You're whole worldview implies that your own rationality somehow evolved out of mere contingency. <BR/><BR/>The irony of your post is sickly thick. Do you see?<BR/><BR/>Your whole worldview is premissed on a giant appeal to blind possibility. It's what you premiss your whole faith in your own reason on.<BR/><BR/>Idiot, rethink your position.<BR/><BR/>Lovingly,<BR/>A Christian.Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11364929893068291749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91816764870092097302007-04-11T13:05:00.000-04:002007-04-11T13:05:00.000-04:00Your sins are forgiven FOR THE SAKE OF HIS NAMEFor...Your sins are forgiven FOR THE SAKE OF HIS NAME<BR/><BR/>For your names sake O Lord pardon my guilt.<BR/><BR/>He has covered me with the garments of salvation. He has covered me with the robe of righteousness.<BR/><BR/>Christ's name and therefore God's name and God's honor is at stake whenever we fly to Jesus for refuge and bank on HIS WORTH instead of our own.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3127634280882832332007-04-10T22:50:00.000-04:002007-04-10T22:50:00.000-04:00John,We need righteousness to be acceptable to God...John,<BR/><BR/>We need righteousness to be acceptable to God. But we don't have it. What we have is sin. So God has what we need and don't deserve - righteousness. And we have what God hates and rejects - sin. What is the answer? The answer is Christ who died in our place. God lays our sin on Christ and punishes them in Him. And in Christ's obedient death, God fulfills and vindicates His righteousness and imputes it to us. Our sin on Christ, His righteousness on us. The great exchange. Justification is the positive reconing of Christ's righteousness to us and also the non-reconing of sins. Christ's righteousness is credited to us; our sins are not credited to us. As the apostle Paul teaches the forgiveness of sin includes the positive imputation of Christ's righteousness.<BR/><BR/>Does that make sense?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25622622310364800922007-04-10T18:30:00.000-04:002007-04-10T18:30:00.000-04:00John,Christ's death is the atoneing sufferings(our...John,<BR/><BR/>Christ's death is the atoneing sufferings(our sin is imputed to Him) which propitiate the wrath of God against us on the one hand, and on the other hand His death is the climax of a perfect life of righteousness imputed to us. God's forgiveness of our sin must include the positive imputation of Christ's righteousness where we are accepted as righteous for Christ's sake. We receive it when we trust in Christ.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81678015471064302852007-04-10T18:09:00.000-04:002007-04-10T18:09:00.000-04:00I thank you for your honesty DagoodS. It is good ...I thank you for your honesty DagoodS. It is good to know that you are strong enough to believe if you see a miracle. However, it is better to believe by faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85876307351911098962007-04-10T12:54:00.000-04:002007-04-10T12:54:00.000-04:00Metaphysical possibility (actualizability) is broa...Metaphysical possibility (actualizability) is broad logical possibility<BR/><BR/>Epistemic possibility (imaginability) is strict logical possibility - merely free from contradiction<BR/><BR/>There is no logical impossibility strictly speaking, in the proposition - The prime minister is a prime number; but we should not say that there is a possible world in which this proposition is true. Propositions that are not strictly logical contradictory can be metaphysically impossible - This table could have been made of ice or Socrates could have been a hippopotamus.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>God's righteousness is His commitment to do what is ultimately right and uphold the honor of His name and the worth of His Glory. Sin belittles the infinite worth of God by choosing to value something in the world more than God. If God passed over sins and let sinners go without just punishment He would be unrighteous. He would be saying that the scorning of my worth is not significant; the belittling of my glory is unimportant. The dishonoring of my name doesn't matter. For a Holy God to pass over sin that deserves condemnation would be unrighteous. Our sin was imputed to Christ and Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. God's forgiveness of our sin must include the positive imputation of Christ's righteousness and the imputation of Christ's righteousness must include the forgiveness of sin. Justification is God's act of pardoning sinners and accepting them as righteous for Christ's sake. This justifying sentence is God's bestowal of acceptance for Jesus' sake. As the last Adam, our representative head acting on our behalf, Christ obeyed the law that bound us and endured the punishment that we deserved, and so merited our justification. Our justification is on a just basis, with Christ's righteousness recond to our account. He has covered me with the garments of salvation, He has covered me with the robe of righteousness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72601241274177214602007-04-10T10:04:00.000-04:002007-04-10T10:04:00.000-04:00Anonymous 747: If the rapture happened tomorrow,...<B>Anonymous 747: </B> <I> If the rapture happened tomorrow, (I don't care if you beleive it will happen or not), if the rapture happened tomorrow, would you believe in Christ?</I><BR/><BR/>A miracle that I saw? Ab-so-lut-e-ly I would. In fact, it would be quite helpful.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78647264035661928722007-04-10T09:39:00.000-04:002007-04-10T09:39:00.000-04:00Calvin, you are mixing two notions here. A king or...Calvin, you are mixing two notions here. A king or a judge may punish an offender with a jail or prison sentence (more humane than how your God thinks sinners need to be treated). Okay so far? That's what governments do to criminals.<BR/><BR/>But such punishments have nothing to do with whether the king, the judge, the victims or the people in general forgive the criminal.<BR/><BR/>Susan Smith or Charles Manson may get out of prison one day, and it might be said they "paid their debt to society" (whatever that means). But no one has to forgive them simply because they were punished. Conversely, there might be family members who suffered at their hands who have already forgiven them prior to them serving their whole prison sentence.<BR/><BR/>What's the relationship between forgiveness and punishment (or justice)? I see none. There is none.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58379751119634398312007-04-10T04:13:00.000-04:002007-04-10T04:13:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20680306208957549532007-04-10T04:06:00.000-04:002007-04-10T04:06:00.000-04:00Can anyone logically explain how space and time me...Can anyone logically explain how space and time merge to make "spacetime"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com