We Need Another Christianity Thread

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
What country is your country, Ben?[/quote]

Norway.

Don’t get me wrong, the church here serves it’s purpose in regards to weddings, funerals and so on. However a survey a few years back concluded that 72% of the population did not believe in a personal god. Some would still call it a “christian” country, but I think that is a ludicrous statement considering the low church attendance. We are in reality an atheist nation.
[/quote]

Ben your country didn’t get to where it is by being atheist. Atheism is a recent development. Your country is at the periphery of Europe, so it has been able to avoid the devastation of Europe’s wars. Last but not least your country has been very fortunate to enjoy a bonanza from the North sea oil fields, so a good deal of your prosperity is a matter of luck.

Just because your country is mostly atheist now, you would be a fool to believe that could not change within your lifetime and the change could be to something you find to be much worse than Christianity.

Since 1990 420,000 immigrants have moved into Oslo and they now make up twenty nine percent of the population. A large number of them are muslims and in Norway they see a land of nonbelievers that is ripe for takeover.

One of my answers to your remark that Christianity is bullying is you should go visit Saudi Arabia and get some perspective on what real religious bullying is. I would also like to suggest that you take a look at what early Christianity was like before it was institutionalized and made an instrument of the Roman state.

The early Christianity that came from Jesus was very tolerant and allowed for a wide range of belief or even disbelief. ie the Gospel of Thomas (aka the doubting Thomas). If you consider the ideology that Jesus taught, I think even as an atheist you can find merit to much of what he was teaching.

The fact that Norwegians have no religious foundation whatsoever is not going to serve them well in maintaining their culture against the growing islamization of their country. Your attitude of rah rah rah it’s so great we are atheist here is going to come back to haunt you. [/quote]

Christianity is benign these days compared to a country like Saudi Arabia. That doesn’t mean we should forget how the church acted in Europe (and the rest of the world), when they were strong.

About Norway, it has something like a 10% immigrant population, and yes they primarily live in Oslo. They are mostly Pakistani and Somalian, not to mention a shit load of Swedes. And no, they are not twirling their fucking mustaches planning to take over the country. Take your fear mongering somewhere else.
[/quote]

What you are failing to grasp is that the church you speak of is the church of Rome. Before the Romans took Christianity over and made it a branch of government it was very benign. The bad behavior that many like yourself are so quick to point out was a direct result of that institutionalization. It is not a result of the ideology that came from Jesus.

In twenty one years Oslo has gone from a handful of immigrants to twenty nine percent of the population being immigrant. That is a radical change. Without a national will to stop the change it will continue. Right? You are in denial. You believe that you can carry on in blind faith that there will not be consequences and all will be well, despite blatant evidence to the contrary.

It is not fear mongering to point out that you Norwegians have embarked upon a dangerous course without any thought given to negative consequences. Part of the reason for your ignorance and denial is your atheism. You have so convinced yourselves of your own intellectual superiority because you are atheists that you cannot see your extreme arrogance.

You have no understanding of people of faith because you have none of your own. Yet you presume to know better how muslims are going to integrate into your society than people who have religion in their life and understand the role it plays for people of faith.

I have news for you. In islam a nonbeliever is worse than a Christian, worse than a Jew, even worse than a Buddhist or a Hindu. They think you atheists are abhorrent. their scripture tells them to chop your heads off. You are crazy if you believe you are going to turn them into atheists.

You Norwegians are like babes in the woods. You have no clue as to what you dealing with.

Last by not least welcome to the Asylum aka PWI.

142

[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< What is your evidence?[/quote]I have legs now so only have a minute but this guy’s a classic LOL!!! First he goes on a campaign denying that anything can be known for certain and then he demands evidence for something.

Ben, you can get a head start by looking at the last several pages of the “Freewill” and “Why did God create Satan Part 2” threads. There, I even gave the advantage of looking me over first. Well, not exactly because it doesn’t really matter where you start. You’ll wind up where everybody does. I decided to forego the long road and just ask you for something OBjective you know for certain. We agree that you exist anyway.
Ahh shoot. Start with this page: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/free_will?id=4523136&pageNo=11 Read carefully, assume nothing. (I hope that wasn’t just wasted breath right there.) Cortes is a quality banter buddy BTW. I respect him very much. I wept for a week when Elder Forlife got busy and bowed out. He’ll be back though. Read all those pages and you will be quite prepared. If you want to. I’m not tryin to tell ya what to do.

My epistemology is actually quite simple. It’s just absolutely foreign to sinful autonomous man.

143

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
Sloth,

There is absolutely no moral indignation in what I wrote.[/quote]

Well, I’m not going to do 20 pages of quoting your own language. Florelius, an atheist or agnostic, unless I’m mistaken, seemed to pick up on it immediately. I’ll leave it to the reader.

We’re not debating it’s interest. Not at the moment, at least. We still tons of ground to cover. We’re debating your implying that it wouldn’t have any such interest. Or that you have any capacity to judge it’s moral worth. You decided to take the floor, so defend.

It’s not as if my God has to keep checking a timer on a roasting turkey, or something. He just knows.

You did say this earlier, "2. I am not atheist. There seems to be a grand scheme that forces nature to obey it, and I’m fine with it if you want to call that “God.”

I will ‘cease and desist as my time requires’ This is my time wasting period, having spent much of the day reviewing for finals. As to sense, I’ll let the reader decide that too. Time to update myself on the night’s news.

144

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
What country is your country, Ben?[/quote]

Norway.

Don’t get me wrong, the church here serves it’s purpose in regards to weddings, funerals and so on. However a survey a few years back concluded that 72% of the population did not believe in a personal god. Some would still call it a “christian” country, but I think that is a ludicrous statement considering the low church attendance. We are in reality an atheist nation.
[/quote]

Ben your country didn’t get to where it is by being atheist. Atheism is a recent development. Your country is at the periphery of Europe, so it has been able to avoid the devastation of Europe’s wars. Last but not least your country has been very fortunate to enjoy a bonanza from the North sea oil fields, so a good deal of your prosperity is a matter of luck.

Just because your country is mostly atheist now, you would be a fool to believe that could not change within your lifetime and the change could be to something you find to be much worse than Christianity.

Since 1990 420,000 immigrants have moved into Oslo and they now make up twenty nine percent of the population. A large number of them are muslims and in Norway they see a land of nonbelievers that is ripe for takeover.

One of my answers to your remark that Christianity is bullying is you should go visit Saudi Arabia and get some perspective on what real religious bullying is. I would also like to suggest that you take a look at what early Christianity was like before it was institutionalized and made an instrument of the Roman state.

The early Christianity that came from Jesus was very tolerant and allowed for a wide range of belief or even disbelief. ie the Gospel of Thomas (aka the doubting Thomas). If you consider the ideology that Jesus taught, I think even as an atheist you can find merit to much of what he was teaching.

The fact that Norwegians have no religious foundation whatsoever is not going to serve them well in maintaining their culture against the growing islamization of their country. Your attitude of rah rah rah it’s so great we are atheist here is going to come back to haunt you. [/quote]

Christianity is benign these days compared to a country like Saudi Arabia. That doesn’t mean we should forget how the church acted in Europe (and the rest of the world), when they were strong.

About Norway, it has something like a 10% immigrant population, and yes they primarily live in Oslo. They are mostly Pakistani and Somalian, not to mention a shit load of Swedes. And no, they are not twirling their fucking mustaches planning to take over the country. Take your fear mongering somewhere else.
[/quote]

What you are failing to grasp is that the church you speak of is the church of Rome. Before the Romans took Christianity over and made it a branch of government it was very benign. The bad behavior that many like yourself are so quick to point out was a direct result of that institutionalization. It is not a result of the ideology that came from Jesus.

In twenty one years Oslo has gone from a handful of immigrants to twenty nine percent of the population being immigrant. That is a radical change. Without a national will to stop the change it will continue. Right? You are in denial. You believe that you can carry on in blind faith that there will not be consequences and all will be well, despite blatant evidence to the contrary.

It is not fear mongering to point out that you Norwegians have embarked upon a dangerous course without any thought given to negative consequences. Part of the reason for your ignorance and denial is your atheism. You have so convinced yourselves of your own intellectual superiority because you are atheists that you cannot see your extreme arrogance.

You have no understanding of people of faith because you have none of your own. Yet you presume to know better how muslims are going to integrate into your society than people who have religion in their life and understand the role it plays for people of faith.

I have news for you. In islam a nonbeliever is worse than a Christian, worse than a Jew, even worse than a Buddhist or a Hindu. They think you atheists are abhorrent. their scripture tells them to chop your heads off. You are crazy if you believe you are going to turn them into atheists.

You Norwegians are like babes in the woods. You have no clue as to what you dealing with.

Last by not least welcome to the Asylum aka PWI. [/quote]

No, I’m sad to say so but you have no news for me. You hardly need to convince me that Islam is dangerous, and you make an interesting point about the Romans and how the church has been corrupted over time. However this thread is about getting Christians to admit to the contents of their own holy book, not Islam, or Norway. I’d be happy to talk about it if you’d care to start a thread on the subject.

145

I do realize my mistake in bringing up my home country like I did, it wasn’t a good move in regards to keeping the thread on track.

146

He just knows, huh? Well that’s convenient. How do you know what he knows?

But we’re getting way off track.

We can’t move forward until someone points out what exactly are the filthy lies about christian doctrine in my OP. And don’t give me that “it’s too general” crap, it’s right to the point and very short.

147

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
He just knows, huh? Well that’s convenient. How do you know what he knows?[/quote]

Pretty much the same way we know anything–a mix of faith and reason. Don’t tell me your will that bends nature to it’s ‘grand scheme’ was arrived at through telescope or microscope.

All of it. Why didn’t you post a brief summary of an actual Christian point of view and begin making specific criticisms? All we have is your emotionally laced (bored, doormats, etc.) point of view of what the Christian point of view is. You elected yourself to speak for us, so begin making your case. Not sure what the point is, since you’ve admitted that not even your caricature would speak to the existence, revelation, or moral nature of the Christian God. Seriously, you’ll most likely have to wait tomorrow for any response. But start shooting straight, or cease and desist.

148

Gregory,

“God owes EVERY person an eternity in hell for their own crimes, defined by Him. Rather than give EVERYONE what they deserve, He pays the just penalty of some Himself and saves them from their own sin.”

“He’s not going to hell because He’s never heard of Jesus. He’s going to hell because He is a criminal who is guilty and deserving of his sentence.”

You’re saying that:

  1. God owes everybody an eternity in hell, because of the sins of Adam and Eve. Except for a lucky few that he fancies.

  2. That our transgressions before God are SO GREAT, because of his holiness and what have you, that this holy and perfectly just creature will have us tortured for eternity. This doesn’t count as sin, because hey, it’s not against God now is it, just his playthings.

How does this disprove my view on christianity?

I never thought I’d say this, but I owe TheBodyGuard an apology for calling him an old fuck. lol

149

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
He just knows, huh? Well that’s convenient. How do you know what he knows?[/quote]

Pretty much the same way we know anything–a mix of faith and reason. Don’t tell me your will that bends nature to it’s ‘grand scheme’ was arrived at through telescope or microscope.

All of it. Why didn’t you post a brief summary of an actual Christian point of view and begin making specific criticisms? All we have is your emotionally laced (bored, doormats, etc.) point of view of what the Christian point of view is. You elected yourself to speak for us, so begin making your case. Not sure what the point is, since you’ve admitted that not even your caricature would speak to the existence, revelation, or moral nature of the Christian God. Seriously, you’ll most likely have to wait tomorrow for any response. But start shooting straight, or cease and desist.
[/quote]

OK someone tell me now, what’s the joke? Who gave this idiot a keyboard?

150

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:

OK someone tell me now, what’s the joke? Who gave this idiot a keyboard?[/quote]

And to think, I started to give you some benefit of the doubt, as bizarre as your dogmatic deism is. Welcome to ignore, again. I’ve some suspicion you’re already there under another alias.

151

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Raw Finn wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Nothing to me is more illogical that atheism. It requires you to believe that all existence has it’s dependence ultimately on nothing.[/quote]
Like squating_bear suggested, it may be that God is not dependent on time. But we could theorize the same thing about the materialization of world / universe without any subject creator. It makes just as much sense. Because if you don’t have to explain what became before God, it is the same as saying that you don’t need to explain what became before materia that just happened to be. Just like God just happened to start being. Maybe there has always been materia - maybe there has always also been a God.
[/quote]

God cannot be time dependent, and many things in the universe and in fact in existence are time independent. We interact with timelessness all the time. I am not sure what time has to do with it?
If God were an abstract of the material world then he would in fact be a fairy tale. God, by definition is the creator, that on which all must ultimately derive their existence. Whether this happens in temporal succession or not, it irrelevant to the issue. That doesn’t mean that causation isn’t at the core of our understanding it, it’s that causation isn’t dependent on time necessarily, though our interaction with it is generally a temporal succession.

So why couldn’t it be that first became materia, then God, then maybe both were destroyed for some reason, then God came first, materia second, then some unicorn force, whatever… This is essentially the egg before chicken or the other way around debate, if you believe there is a God. If you don’t believe, then it is just that the world came to be without God. What’s so illogical about either or any of the options I gave? No one can know. You can merely believe. And isn’t that what it comes down to?[/quote]

I am going to spare you walking you through the process, this link is the basis off of which I argue. Cosmology is the root of the argument for the existence of God. What this does is necessarily prove by logic alone that a ‘Necessary Being’ must exist. From their I can make a damn strong inductive case that this ‘Necessary Being’ is God. It’s not long so I hope you do read it, because I will refer to it.
It has arguments and counter arguments alike. It’s a good idea to know what’s already known in order not to retread the same tired old information.

I cannot make a good argument that a unicorn exists, I can make an incredibly good argument that God exists.

Now be warned this guy Tirib is probably going to troll my posts and make cockamamie ad hoc statements and try to refute them with epistle Romans from the Bible. You can do with it what you want but I will not be responding to him, I ignore his posts. If you have any questions about any points he makes you can ask me.
Yes, we’re both Christian, but the similarities end there. I don’t need and I won’t be using Scripture to make my points. Scripture is for believers, not non-believers. So I leave it out of the discussion.[/quote]

Fair enough. Though I still think unicorn force would be cool.

But why a Christian God? This is the biggest question for me.

152

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Raw Finn wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Raw Finn wrote:

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:No postulation of certainty is unassailable. It’s a trite answer, but the only one I can give. >>>[/quote]Are you saying that you don’t know anything for sure?
[/quote]

Not at all. Cogito ergo sum. I know I exist on some level. How much I can trust my senses is another issue altogether.

Fine, lets start there then. I exist, I know this.[/quote]
You believe you exist because you have the possible illusion / hallucination of thinking. Read: possible.

How could Descartes prove that WE ARE on the basis that we SEEM to think? I disagree with the guy. Where’s the logical certainty?[/quote]

That’s not what he asserted. He asserted that he has an awareness and that ‘that’ at least must exist. Becuase ‘awareness’ is a something, not a nothing. He never ‘seemed’ to think. His assertion is that what we call ‘thinking’ is an awareness an that exists. He did make a mistake, but it’s not his epistemology, it was his possession. If was the foray in to skepticism.[/quote]
So he meant that something exists even if it was just an illusion? If not, thanks anyway for the explanation. Made me think.[/quote]

No, he was trying to determine the ‘nature’ of existence. He was going on, not what ‘seems’ to exist, or what is obvious, but what can he ‘prove’ exists. His process included purging all physical existence or anything that can be perceived by physical senses. In short, since senses can be deceived, they are not reliable sources of information.
He drilled down on what he can ‘know’ to exist. In his mind the only think he could prove to him self was that this experience of ‘thinking’ was the only thing he knew was happening. In other words he knew that he was aware of something. He knew that something has to exist otherwise he could not be aware of it. Nothing can’t be perceived at any level, so Descartes basically proved that ‘existence’ exists. Whether we interpret it accurately or not is another matter, but something rather than nothing exists, or you could’t perceive it indeed, there would be no ‘you’ illusory or otherwise.[/quote]
Thanks, I get it now. So we can know there is at least something.

153

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:<<< How does this disprove my view on christianity? >>>[/quote]Meanwhile back at the ranch. Forget your view of Christianity for a minute would ya please?

Now. I’m asking nicely. Do you believe that any object of knowledge can be known for certain? We agree that you exist. That is a subjective proposition on your part that I unhesitatingly concede. Do you believe for instance that mathematics are certain. Nevermind. I’m not gonna get a straight answer outta you. Hang on

Ok, I’m back. Due to my laziness tonight and consequent unwillingness to properly edit the tagging, I’ll re-paste this piece in a seperate post. This was to Groo a while back. A sharp kid wallowing in the meaninglessness of his unbelief.

154

From a while back that I never finished like I’d hoped, but good nuff fer now"

[quote]groo wrote about a month ago:<<< I am not an objectivist but I am not sure if thats what you are asking exactly. Constructivist is probably closest to where I am in thinking about knowledge. I’ll grant you that this at least socially reduces to relativism which I do find troubling .I definitely don’t think the infallibilist definition of knowledge is correct. You can probably know all synthetic analytic statements, but at the base of these it would be claimed there is some inference. I’d certainly say we all act like we know these things. >>>[/quote]You are treating us to a combination of attempted impression with the scope of your philosophical erudition and a somewhat wise intuitive reluctance to allowing yourself to be exposed to potential vulnerability by committing to anything too specific until you see where I’m goin. Judging by the rest of your post, which I did read but didn’t quote, I’d say it’s a bit more of the former than the latter.

I am not trying to trap you with interrogational trickery. My point is very simple. Until we settle HOW we know anything at all, the question of WHAT we know is meaningless. Ethics are down the road from here. I’m not even dealing directly in that currency at all for the moment. I’m asking you to name for me just one piece of knowledge of any kind the certainty of which you consider unassailable. Once you do that (if you do), I will ask you by what intellectual mechanism you have come to so regard this object of knowledge. We will politely (I think, you seem a pleasant enough fella) wrangle back and forth for a few posts trying to establish what exactly I mean by that too, but eventually you will settle on the conventions of logic.

You will no doubt declare that without logic no discussion of anything whatsoever can be made intelligible. I will agree, but ask you to explain how YOU are certain of even this, at which point you, being a rather astute lad, will then realize in earnest the towering profundity of your previous statement concerning certainty. “Or at the very least I act as if I believe this. Pragmatically everyone does.” Ohhh that’s a HALLELUJAH worthy bullseye right there my friend. At this point, in your case I’m bettin I can stop talkin for a while (which will thrill BodyGuard) because you, also having a dose of intellectual honesty by the common grace of God, will then take yourself the rest of the way home. You will realize that the bedrock first principles, beyond which your intellectual autonomy will not allow you to go, are entirely ill equipped to provide you with the very pragmatic certainty that you yourself have proclaimed as a universal truism among us human critters.

Now having been robbed of objective certainty in the only place it really matters, you will then be left to ponder from whence arises this pragmatic certainty under which you are forced to inescapably live lest you begin experimenting with objectionable pastimes such as leaping from tall buildings to see what happens (a humorous hypothetical). It will be about here that you will find knocking on your forehead the distasteful and disgusting conclusion that this certainty that you find yourself universally and incessantly dependent upon is apprehended wholly by faith and a faith no more objectively rational, even from your own autonomous standpoint than that of us idiot Christians.

But AHA!!! You may possibly retort with something like “yeah but at least I have science and modern discovery to make what I believe MORE certain than what you believe”. Poppycock and balderdash I say. Science and modern discovery depend upon the very logic you will have already concluded is uncertain for both their method and interpretation. In the realm of ultimate questions UNcertainty is as good as falsehood because were dealing with like the ultimate ya understand. Might be certain or even probably certain ain’t cuttin it.

Now to today’s exchange:

[quote]groo wrote:<<< There are philosophers that think you can know things beyond a doubt. >>>[/quote]I know. Elder Forlife would manhandle every one of em. I mean that. My hat is off. From within the sinful realm of human autonomy he is the most invincible warrior for truth I think I’ve ever seen. His methods and conclusion are unassailable if you guys are right. For all the razzing I give Pat, he only goes scattered n braindead when dealing with me because he absolutely despises what I believe to the point of irrationality. Pat’s a very intelligent guy though who gets the tip of my hat fairly often as well for different reason than Elder Forlife does. However before he beamed out for a few weeks here Elder Forlife was spanking Pat’s little pink autonomous Catholic bottom. Not because Pat’s a moron, but because he’s defending the utterly indefensible which is moral and ontological/teleological certainty on the foundation of an uncertain contingent god which puts him right square in the middle of Elder Forlife’s own world of autonomy.[quote]groo wrote:<<< Some of them would say the facts of reality are self evident. >>>[/quote] Would they now? And you don’t find this to be a statement of faith? [quote]groo wrote:<<< The Tractatus is like this. It presents no arguments really. Its mostly stated as a series of self evident facts that Wittgenstein felt should be obvious to anyone intelligent. >>>[/quote]Or this?[quote]groo wrote:<<< You keep bringing up statements of arithmetic as things you know to be true everywhere. This isn’t exactly the way they are understood. Its not a paradox for example to state something like: 2+2=4 in this room but in that room 2+2=5. [/quote]Fine. Yes I’m aware of “modified” addition and other such mental masturbation. Try n live any part of your life or engineer a space voyage to a place where 2+2=5 in a reality not based on the fact that it equals 4. I’m not interested in hypothetical brain games though some will surely accuse me of incessantly engaging in exactly that.

Instead of trying to impress me with how much reading you’ve done (which is quite impressive btw) please tell me what YOU believe. Not, “well this school says this and this dude has some points about that”. No, what do YOU believe to be true about anything and why?

155

[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< But, it was, I repeat, a damned good summary of the absolute core of what pretty much every religious discussion we’ve had on this board over the past year or more has been leading to. [/quote]Why thank you Cortes. But don’t ya see,(Van Til always said that) this is the absolute core of EVERY discussion, even if only unconsciously assumed, which is usually the case. Not just religious, but philosophical and scientific as well. People everywhere simply meander through life making universal uninterrupted use of a set of intellectual rules without even once ever questioning either their origin or validity. They simply proceed as if it’s a preeminent given that logic governs their reality in such a way that not one coherent thought word or deed would be possible without it.

My contention is… hang on… they’re right!!! With one fatal flaw. By every "religious’ definition there is, they worship logic itself instead of the super-logical God who has created us in is image and in so doing has lent us a finite derivative version of HIS logic. Only He has the full version. That’s why when someone asks “how can God decree evil and not be it’s author and thereby responsible for it?” or “How can God choose individuals to save and damn and those individuals still be free and responsible?” my profound, goose bump inducing answer is… “I dunno” LOL!!! I don’t even pretend to try n know.

Seriously. I use the same logic everybody else does, except that by His grace I’m freed to operate it properly under His divine tutelage with Him defining it’s parameters to me and not the other way around. “Why that’s just a circular statement of blind faith”. From our limited standpoint? Of course it is. I have flatly stated that myself.

I do not and have never claimed to know everything, but I do KNOW that HE knows everything and that is where my certainty derives from. Once again. A child does not know what his father knows, but he knows that his father knows it. He has no idea how Daddy’s grown up world operates. He simply trusts that Daddy does. I do the same. Jesus Himself said that we must come to Him as little children.

Is this what He meant? You better believe this is what He meant. I don’t understand MOST of the skull popping statements God makes about Himself in the bible, but I know He does. Let’s try just one. “And God said ‘let there be light’… and there was light”. WoohooHOOO!!! LOL!!! Lemme know when yer thesis is done on that one LOL!!! (I’m not laughin at ya BTW). I’m sure you get my point.

I don’t have a “problem of evil” for instance because intellectually speaking evil is no problem for me. Why is there evil? (or why did God create Satan?) Because almighty God decreed it to His own glory. He orders it so that He can display both His love, mercy and tenderness on one hand and His holiness, wrath and justice on the other.

Couldn’t He have created so as to avoid all this suffering and accomplished the same thing? I don’t know that either. I just know that He didn’t and therefore this way is better for Him which by definition makes it better period because everything and everyone belongs to Him.

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. Romans 11:36. Romans is the King’s feast of the truth of Jesus Christ. That book could be studied for 10 lifetimes.

156

Another old oft repeated one:
2+2 does not equal 4 without God because two, plus, equals and four all have no meaning without Him. The statement I just made has no meaning without Him. Every upcoming protestation to the contrary has no meaning without Him. As my man Van Til was fond of saying. God is Himself the emplacement upon which men mount the very weapons they attempt to use to destroy Him. They can’t help it.

Pagans jump and down, stamp their feet with red face glowing while they demand there be no circular reasoning. That is humorous at best. When forced to face the foundation of their alleged beliefs, every time it comes down to the laws of logic. Laws which are invisible, immaterial, absolute and universal. Sound familiar? When I demand proof of the validity of the laws of logic they are trapped either re-appealing to those same laws which is circular or hypothetically looking somewhere else which destroys their authority.

Of course I also engage in circular reasoning and make no pretense otherwise because ALL finite reason is by definition and in the nature of the case eventually circular. It never reaches the termination point of ultimate resolution because it’s like finite see? The dead logic of unbelievers circles around THEM and hence never ultimately explains anything whatsoever. Mine circles around an infinite intellect and ultimately explains everything. They by utterly preeminent unconditional faith in themselves loudly proclaim what they fallaciously perceive as the brilliance of their own unavoidably content-less existence. I by utterly preeminent unconditional faith in the triune God of Christianity loudly proclaim HIS brilliance and rest assured that He is the explanation for everything.

It’s not that unbelievers do not advance true knowledge and hence contribute much good to the world. Of course they do, but they do it in spite of and not because of their own foundational beliefs. It’s only because my foundational beliefs are true that anything they do bears fruit. They hate that. They hate God. They are His enemies. Same as I was. That’s why Paul told us in Romans 1 that they “suppress” or as the Greek has it, they “hold under” the truth in their unrighteousness. Picture a beach ball in the water. They keep holding it down, while it keeps popping up. That’s how they attempt to hide from their true selves and the God who created them. Paul says they are without excuse. God has reveled Himself unavoidably everywhere and especially IN themselves as created in His very image fractured though it is in sin.

THAT is the discussion that has to happen or any quibbling about this or that particular proof or evidence has no genuine framework to even legitimately take place.

157

[quote]orion wrote:<<< So, the only way one can “know” is if one already believes what you do, i.e is one of the initiated true believers who have access to knowledge that is hidden from the rest of us. >>>[/quote]Nothing is hidden from anybody. Absolutely EVERY possible and actual object of knowledge, physical, logical, empirical etc. screams that the God I serve is not only real but also the only moral authority in existence anywhere and for all time and eternity. That is the real rub.

The problem is not with the objective knowledge of God which is in altogether plain sight utterly everywhere. The problem is with the corruption of sinful man who WILL NOT see it because he CANNOT see it because he will not see it because he cannot see it and so on. He cannot see it because he’s dead and symptomatic of this death is also his refusal to see it.

This has nothing whatever to do with gnosticism or manicheanism which holds that matter is inherently evil while spirit is good and the object of true worship is the wholesale suppression of all things material in an effort to transcend the body into pure idealistic spirit. In a nutshell.

158

Here is a definition of God that I accept as being exceedingly biblical.

From the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646:
CHAPTER II.
Of God, and of the Holy Trinity.

I. There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty.

II. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.

III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

159

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

I by utterly preeminent unconditional faith in the triune God of Christianity loudly proclaim HIS brilliance and rest assured that He is the explanation for everything.
[/quote]

Couldnt a follower of another deity say all the same things about theirs, though? What would make your claim more true than theirs?

160

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:I by utterly preeminent unconditional faith in the triune God of Christianity loudly proclaim HIS brilliance and rest assured that He is the explanation for everything.[/quote]Couldnt a follower of another deity say all the same things about theirs, though? What would make your claim more true than theirs?[/quote]It’s late man and I need sleep, but did you read the definition from scripture set forth by the Westminster divines in the 17th century? That God alone provides the infallible certainty that we all unavoidably operate under.

I believe if you look and consider, you can see why. I have to get some sleep, but I perceive this to be an honest question from you and I will try to answer more fully later.