I have no inherent objection to standard atheist cliches like "circular logic" the moment the Bible is even mentioned but do try to make sure the phrase is at least applicable.

freeminer wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

freeminer wrote:

giving the mole a name doesn't make it easier to whack him.

Don't tell me, tell all those other Christian moles who refuse to identify with you ( ie, your "names" )

 

so you ask for a label then when you're given several you go off on an interminable whinge!

You believe in Jesus Christ but aren't a Christian? How'd you pull that off? 

I suppose  to be fair to you, you have to pay your atheist dues with this kind of bluster........even now, talk is cheap. 

ok, but as an argument, it's a bit flaccid ain't it? 

we'll just take it as read that you can't

very simple - the only way you can deny it is with the use of an absolute, without it your denial would be absurd, ie irrational...since a relative absolute cannot exist by definition................irrational, of course, pretty well describes your position.

Vastet wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Yay! Another Calvinist who claims that no one is good according to God (except, of course, for him [he hopes]) 

It never ceases to amaze me that a religion which preaches humility can inspire such arrogance.

so you'd just like us all to roll over.........tough

do you have evidence that he has?

my kids want all their Christmas presents at once too. 

I have no inherent objection to standard atheist cliches like "circular logic"

Vastet wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Yay! Another Calvinist who claims that no one is good according to God (except, of course, for him [he hopes]) 

It never ceases to amaze me that a religion which preaches humility can inspire such arrogance.

so you'd just like us all to roll over.........tough

 

so you'd just like us all to roll over.........tough

The state of being in accord with fact or reality.

Jesus said "I am the truth" ie, he defined himself as the infinite absolute which we know to be necessary  for truth to exist.  Everything else is relative

 

 

Vastet wrote:

The state of being in accord with fact or reality.

 

Vastet, your definition of "truth"  will never satisfy a crazy Christian like freeminer.  Prepare for his more truthful definition of truth which I suspect should be coming your way any minute, now.

 

freeminer wrote:

Jesus said "I am the truth" ie, he defined himself as the infinite absolute which we know to be necessary  for truth to exist.  Everything else is relative

 

    Bingo !   I knew it was just a matter of time before this religious baloney was trotted out.  Thanks freeminer, ....that's the truthiest, most truthful definition of truth I've ever encountered !  And that's the truth  ... so help me Jesus !!!!

I have a large, friendly and highly intelligent dog, a Border Collie. He will sit in rapt attention and listen to me talk to him for hours at a time, his tail wagging and a big grin on his face. I could spend a lot of time discussing algebra with him, and he would listen patiently, his tail endangering the coffee table with each swipe, but alas, in the end, he would not be able to solve a quadratic equation... he's a dog, after all.

In much the same way, I will not discuss science with a creationist, you might listen, you might even smile politely, but in the end, I'm wasting my time because you after all, accept a magical solution.

So, let talk about the magic.

How does your god do it?

How does your god manipulate the laws of physics, manipulate matter and energy to 'create' anything?

How does the magic work?

You believe in Jesus Christ but aren't a Christian? How'd you pull that off? 

You're not a Calvinist but you believe that everyone is depraved but you.

You claim to be a member of an movement created by John Calvin,

t al. but you're not a Calvinist. Learn your history.

Oh, and you have no idea what assertions Christ made because the people who put those words in his mouth were Pauline converts who wrote long after Jesus' death.

You remember Paul, he created the religion that Calvin felt the need to "reform" because it wasn't easy enough.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

freeminer wrote:

 

this is all good, run-of-the-mill , standard atheist entertainment and I've seen plenty of this stuff. The trouble is it doesn't amount to a big enough bag of figs to service a decent shit. There isn't one good argument in any of it...........just tumbleweed.

 

  Don't Christians love to exclaim how their God values giving humans that vaunted free will ?  If you don't feel that we are worthy of your time then exercise your free will, otherwise you can interact with us here and allow us to continually feed on the remains of your pathetically weak arguments.  It's your choice , praise God !!

all good stuff.....but here's a debating tip..........mere assertions that an argument is weak, don't mean a bean.

all good stuff.....but here's a debating tip..........mere assertions that an argument is weak, don't mean a bean.

You claim that Jesus said none was good but god. Since you claim to speak for God you must think you are the only one that is good. Doesn't hurt that God conveniently agrees with all you say and do.

Quote:

I have a large, friendly and highly intelligent dog, a Border Collie. He will sit in rapt attention and listen to me talk to him for hours at a time, his tail wagging and a big grin on his face. I could spend a lot of time discussing algebra with him, and he would listen patiently, his tail endangering the coffee table with each swipe, but alas, in the end, he would not be able to solve a quadratic equation... he's a dog, after all.

In much the same way, I will not discuss science with a creationist, you might listen, you might even smile politely, but in the end, I'm wasting my time because you after all, accept a magical solution.

oh dear, and your attempt to grab the intellectual high ground started off with just so much promise..........and then you spoilt it all with this "magic" nonsense.

Quote:

So, let talk about the magic.

yes, lets

Quote:

How does your god do it?

How does your god manipulate the laws of physics, manipulate matter and energy to 'create' anything?

How does the magic work?

well these all amount to the same question don't they?

Firstly, the notion that God  "manipulates" existing laws reveals a misunderstanding of the nature of God. If God were subject to pre-existing laws such that he could only manipulate them, he would, by definition, not be God. Where 'laws' exist, the first response of a rational mind is to conjecture that a 'law-giver' exists. Thus the fact that we perceive that order exists in the universe is a very real problem for the evolutionist not the creationist. ie the former proposes that order 'appears' out of disorder, contra the Laws of Thermodynamics and driven only by chance.

 

Secondly, here is a definition of "magic":

 

 

mag·ic

  AC_FL_RunContent = 0;var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "", "6");interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fsp.dictionary.com%2Fdictstatic%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FM00%2FM0038800.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=568f7b24&u=audio"); interfaceflash.addParam('wmode','transparent');interfaceflash.write(); /ˈmædʒɪk/ Show Spelled[maj-ik] Show IPAnoun 1. the art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of sleight of hand, deceptive devices, etc.; legerdemain; conjuring: to pull a rabbit out of a hat by magic. 2. the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature. Compare contagious magic, imitative magic, sympathetic magic. 3. the use of this art: Magic, it was believed, could drive illness from the body. 4. the effects produced: the magic of recovery. 5. power or influence exerted through this art: a wizard of great magic. i can confirm that Christians don't believe that God uses such techniques.  

Thirdly, regarding his methods, God gives us sufficient but not exhaustive information. He has not yet shared with us the mechanics of the creative processes he's used in this universe but he has left us to discover a good deal about the results.

Now I'd like to ask you some questions. 

Do you only use technologies you understand?

Do you, for example only enter a building once you've personally checked the structural engineer's calculations?

Do you only place your faith in places your personal knowledge extends to?

  

You claim that Jesus said none was good but god. 

Since you claim to speak for God you must think you are the only one that is good.]/quote]

1] I haven't made any claim

2] This is a non sequitur and contradicts my citing of Christ.

 

Quote:

Doesn't hurt that God conveniently agrees with all you say and do.

I just quote him

Quote:

You are a member of the reformed movement -

what IS the "Reformed movement"? Most of the evangelical Church is within the Reformed tradition. It simply indicates that I am not Catholic, Orthodox nor Coptic. It indicates that I belive sola scriptura, sola fidei. 

Quote:

Calvin was one of those who started it. Again, learn your history.

non sequitur, Calvin was wrong about a good deal, as was Luther. Furthermore if YOU learn  YOUR history you will learn that the phrase, "reformed tradition" is little more than a convenience anyway since the gospel was kept alive through groups such as the Paulicians and the Waldenses throughout southern and central Europe and the Rhine valley. John Huss was a dissenter a hundred years before Luther. I rather suspect you are in no position to teach me church history!

Quote:

I didn't need to create the schism- Paul did that for me. You need to read your bible as well. I didn't say Paul created Catholicism - Paul created Christianity.

you'd be advised to stop digging this particular hole........the establishing of the Church which Jesus promised is very well documented. Here it is from Acts 2, written by Luke. 

⁴²And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. ⁴³And awe^[d] came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. ⁴⁴And all who believed were together and had all things in common. ⁴⁵And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. ⁴⁶And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, ⁴⁷praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

 You think Paul "created" Christianity because someone told you that converts were first called "Christians" in Antioch as a result of Paul's ministry. You think the term "christian" necessarily indicates that a man is regenerate. You are inference prone. Critique Christianity by all means but learn what one IS first.

Quote:

Calvin need  to reform Catholic Christianity because going to confession and getting forgiveness still wasn't easy enough.

you are sadly misled. Religion is popular  precisely BECAUSE it is easier to live by a set of rules. Paul tells you that the regenerate are to live by grace not law a very long time before Calvin was a twinkle. Luther nailed that door because of the corruption of Rome. ........he made it clear enough!       

Quote:

Paul's view of just believing without that nasty repentance and doing good was too hard.

 

yes religios think faith is too easy! ..........they all think they can earn their salvation because deep down they really ARE good enough. Christians don't repent once they've done it - they confess. James tells you, faith without works is dead.

Quote:

 If you want an example you can start with Jesus saying that the Law needed to be followed (though he fulfilled it) and Paul abolishing the Law by placing his followers under grace.

this is your most insightful comment. Paul actually says you have a choice. Here is what he says about law.

¹²For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. ¹³For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. ¹⁴For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. ¹⁵They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them ¹⁶ on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

In other words, yes, the law continues to exist. It existed in the first place to bring men to an awareness of sin. The whole point of the law is that no-one can keep it! As long as men continue to think that they CAN and that they can make themselves 'good enough' by their own efforts, then THAT is the basis on which they will be judged. Some of us realised that our own efforts would never be good enough. For people like that, God says, "I will write my law on their hearts". In other words, by accepting the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit undertakes to guide a person moment by moment as to what the law of God IS. That is why when he breaks it, a christian 'confesses' ie recognises sin for what it is, rather than repents. He became a christian in the first place by repenting. 

 

Quote:

How much easier do you want it?

I accepted it as a gift..........why do you find it so difficult?

Firstly: Another definition of 'magic' involves effecting change in the real world by means outside of nature.

This is what you lay claim to.

You've not shown that such means exist,

indeed that anything at all exists outside of nature.

The argument is typical, "it must be this way or else I am wrong".

It's just an unsupported claim, and as such, can be dismissed.

I could patiently explain the flaw in your mention of the laws of thermodynamics, that they apply only to closed systems, not to open, dynamic systems with a constant flow of energy. (That big thermonuclear engine in the sky we call the 'sun' being one source). But I won't waste my time on science, you believe in magic, in spite of your denial.

Secondly: "And god said..." sounds like an incantation to me.

The early shaman's imagined their god to be much like themselves, using words to effect the magical changes they desired...

Christians do in fact believe that incantations (prayers) are effective,

that such magical acts can drive illness from the body...

that their god can simply say things like "Lazarus come forth..." and the magic works...

deny, deny deny all you like...

just don't piss on my boots and tell me it's rain.

Thirdly: Let's not digress... it's YOUR belief in magic I want to plumb...

I don't need advanced knowledge of electronics to flip a light switch.

However, if I claim that the light arises from the actions of invisible spirits that dwell in the wiring,

I do need to show how the spirits do what they do.

So to sum up, you can not actually give a step by step account of how your god does what you claim it does,

yet you reserve a right to snipe away at a science

you ill understand

and don't actually believe in.

You deny that what is called 'magic' is involved,

yet you describe what can only be called magic as the cause of all things.

You claim a realm outside of nature.

.. magic...

yet offer no support.