Christains never use the real power of their argument

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#141
#141
No, you're wrong. I never accused you of anything. That's something you fabricated and then publicly posted.

Reread my last post carefully. What I did is state that your apparent refusal to be willing to educate yourself with respect to discussion topics that you were making false assertions about with qualified publications written by biblical scholars was a red flag. Your behavior will reveal whether or not you're here to participate in genuine discussions and debates.

So, let's proceed on the premise that you are here to participate in good faith. I would love to discuss the topic you initiated (e.g. evidences for God) with you further. However, as I stated before, the evidences encompass every sphere of human knowledge. So, where would you like to start? What area do you feel most comfortable discussing? It's a simple question.


ColinCat said:
Oh so because I'm not doing what you would like me to, I'm suddenly a troll and you mention bannable behaviour. You think pretty highly of yourself.

This is the final interaction I will have with you.
Click to expand...
 
AngelFrog

AngelFrog

Senior Member
#142
Feb 16, 2015
648
58
28
#142
I think when someone attempts to say I am not a Christian in a protracted backhanded way, claiming you shall be pursuing the rest of your post with polite intent is disingenuous at the very least.

I say that to you and to those who follow in your footsteps in that regard. And I shall ignore all else from here on after I've said my piece.

As to your pronouncement that orthodox Christians agree on the essentials of the faith, that would have to meet the criteria of absolute. And it does not.

Anyone who has ever set in on a meeting where Calvinists and Arminians are in dialog about the essentials of faith would know that. At that is but one sect of examples.

I forgive you.

maxwel said:
AngelFrog,

You bring up many interesting points, all worthy of serious discussion.

That doesn't mean I agree with them, but those are all real issues that concern people,
so they should be openly and politely discussed.
( I also appreciate your conclusion, that regardless of issues within Christianity, Collin should still be concerned with seeking God.)


I want to make one point here about disagreements among Christians.

Within orthodoxy, various denominations actually DO agree on fundamental issues.
These are often referred to as "essentials of the faith".

People can of course, put any label on themselves they wish,
and then claim to believe anything they wish... but that doesn't make it honest or rational.
I can "call" myself a proctologist, and then say I believe in putting hampsters up our bums.
:)
Giving myself the "label" of proctologist doesn't make it so...
nor does it give my beliefs any validity.

Yes, it's ok for us to relax and laugh a bit... even when discussing serious things.
Maybe it will keep us from killing each other, lol.

So... although anyone can give themselves a label of "christian",
it doesn't necessarily make it so.
And within Orthodoxy, denominations DO agree on "essentials of the faith".

: )
Click to expand...
 
p_rehbein

p_rehbein

Senior Member
#143
Sep 4, 2013
30,196
6,538
113
#143
ColinCat said:
When was this evidence you presented? Why hasn't this evidence stormed the international media as the answer to the biggest question ever?


OK I'll answer...

Yes I am aware of those emotions. No they are not a tangible thing but I can see the effect of them, yes
Click to expand...
And are you 100% sure they are real? I would thinks so.

Is God real? Yes. Can you see Him? No. BUT just as these are real, and we know they are real because of the "change" they have on a persons life, so do we know God is real.

Every born again Christian experiences a life changing spiritual rebirth. This rebirth is not visible, HOWEVER, the effect/result of this rebirth is more than visible to all who know the person. The transformation from the old man to the new man is so very real that all will see.

Now. I know you will reject this evidence of God being real, because you have invested ALL of your credibility and unbelieving life to denying that God is real. And, to be honest, you are NOT here to learn of or discover God, you are only here to create doubt and dissention among the children of God. Do you do it in a courteous way? Yes, but the effect is the same. A servant of the anti-Christ, just like the anti-Christ can assume the appearance of an angle if need be.

You will never (in this life) acknowledge the Lord God, for to do so, you will have to also acknowledge that your ENTIRE life has been a lie, and one serving the devil himself. He was a liar from the beginning, and remains so. That is who you serve. Just the way it is.

The "reality" of God is clearly visible in the "rebirth" of His children. Born again Christians are the evidence of God's existence. Does that mean they are perfect? No. But the transformation from what they used to be to what they become is undeniable, even to a liar.
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#144
#144
*cricket* *cricket* *cricket*
 
maxwel

maxwel

Senior Member
#145
Apr 18, 2013
9,339
2,427
113
#145
AngelFrog said:
I think when someone attempts to say I am not a Christian in a protracted backhanded way, claiming you shall be pursuing the rest of your post with polite intent is disingenuous at the very least.

I say that to you and to those who follow in your footsteps in that regard. And I shall ignore all else from here on after I've said my piece.

As to your pronouncement that orthodox Christians agree on the essentials of the faith, that would have to meet the criteria of absolute. And it does not.

Anyone who has ever set in on a meeting where Calvinists and Arminians are in dialog about the essentials of faith would know that. At that is but one sect of examples.

I forgive you.
Click to expand...
Angelfrog,
I never said, or implied, directly or indirectly, that you are NOT a christian.

I try to be articulate.
I try to say exactly what I mean... no more, and no less (though I surely sometimes fail at this).

So if you reread my post, and you keep that in mind, you'll see that it isn't an attack on you at all.

I am disagreeing with ONE of your propositions... that "Christians pretty much all disagree".
I think that's only "partially" true... and I explain my thoughts on that.

When I brought up a separate issue, the issue that "some people only PRETEND to be Christians"...
that had nothing to do with you at all.
That was aimed at atheists who accuse Christians of crazy things, while many of the "christians" they accuse aren't really Christians at all.
This had nothing to do with you.
If you thought it did, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

If I ever criticize you, it won't be in a "backhanded" way... it will be clear and straightforward.
:)
:)
 
Last edited:
Yeraza_Bats

Yeraza_Bats

Senior Member
#146
Dec 11, 2014
3,632
175
63
35
#146
ColinCat said:
I really have no idea what your talking about.

"I can fly".. "No you can't.." "Well theres no proof that I can't and you believe I can't, with no proof!!!! So why don't you apply your own logic to the fact that I can!!"


That's pretty much what your doing.
Click to expand...
Haha thats not the same at all, thats taking what we know as basic human anatomy, something we have an actual real knowledge about based mostly on the fact that we /are/ human beings and comparing it to something that we dont actually know anything about at all. You /know/ that people cant fly, how can you definitively show me there is no God at all?

Its not hard to understand, and you even did it again :p You are claiming something as fact with nothing to back it up whatsoever.
 
Red_Tory

Red_Tory

Senior Member
#147
Jan 26, 2010
611
17
18
#147
AgeofKnowledge said:
True correspondence with respect to the Christian worldview and reality. Paganism doesn't have it, Christianity does. See, that was easy.

Instead of asking such elementary questions, why not put forth the effort to answer the questions you're asking. That's what people with integrity do. You do have integrity don't you?

Here's a good choice to start with: 'Why I Am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe.'



Enjoy. When one's right then they aren't all wrong.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it would be best if you selected a particular essay instead of the entire book. Arguing by assertion via saying "it's true because it's true, here read this book that you don't have" might not be the most effective tactic.

Interestingly enough, having only performed a cursory reading Dr. Geisler's essay entitled "WHY I BELIEVE THE GOD OF THE BIBLE ISTHE ONE TRUE GOD," I'd say it's a bit of a flop in light of Colin's question. In employing Thomist arguments he essentially relies on a philosophical foundation laid by pagans that proves the existence of this pagan "God of the philosophers."

Yeah, God is pure actuality. The immaterial, omnipotent, transcendent, eternal, and supremely simple sustaining power for all things that live, move, and have their being (quote from a pagan, remember?). The problem is that many pagan thinkers would agree with all of this - and these arguments do not prove the truth of Christianity.

I think Colin was asking for something more along the lines of an argument that works for Christianity and not other religions. We can bang on about God having no potentiality all day long, but then a Muslim or a straight-up vanilla classical theist might come and make precisely the same argument. Think about Dr. Geisler's statement in the essay:

Dr. Geisler in "Why I am a Christian" said:
In order to show it is reasonable to believe the God of the Bible is the God whoactually exists, two things are necessary: (1) to provide good reasons that a theistic God(who possesses the unique characteristics previously described) actually exists, and (2) toshow that there cannot be two such beings.
Click to expand...
Er, Norman is wrong - there is a heck of a lot more that is necessary. Even if one did prove the existence that the God of classical theism exists, that doesn't demonstrate that He is a Triune being, that He made a special covenant with the Jews, that He inspired a holy text, or that He became flesh and dwelt among men. Saying "it's reasonable to believe in a theistic God" does not equate to "it is reasonable to believe in the God of the Bible." One might easily retort that if you hear the beating of hooves then you should think "horses," not "unicorns."

So which essay in this book do you think best exemplifies the contention that there is a "true correspondence with respect to the Christian worldview and reality" that is not in some way shared by the pagan thinkers that Geisler bases his arguments on?
 
C

ColinCat

Banned
#148
Sep 14, 2014
966
2
0
#148
Red_Tory said:
Perhaps it would be best if you selected a particular essay instead of the entire book. Arguing by assertion via saying "it's true because it's true, here read this book that you don't have" might not be the most effective tactic.

Interestingly enough, having only performed a cursory reading Dr. Geisler's essay entitled "WHY I BELIEVE THE GOD OF THE BIBLE ISTHE ONE TRUE GOD," I'd say it's a bit of a flop in light of Colin's question. In employing Thomist arguments he essentially relies on a philosophical foundation laid by pagans that proves the existence of this pagan "God of the philosophers."

Yeah, God is pure actuality. The immaterial, omnipotent, transcendent, eternal, and supremely simple sustaining power for all things that live, move, and have their being (quote from a pagan, remember?). The problem is that many pagan thinkers would agree with all of this - and these arguments do not prove the truth of Christianity.

I think Colin was asking for something more along the lines of an argument that works for Christianity and not other religions. We can bang on about God having no potentiality all day long, but then a Muslim or a straight-up vanilla classical theist might come and make precisely the same argument. Think about Dr. Geisler's statement in the essay:



Er, Norman is wrong - there is a heck of a lot more that is necessary. Even if one did prove the existence that the God of classical theism exists, that doesn't demonstrate that He is a Triune being, that He made a special covenant with the Jews, that He inspired a holy text, or that He became flesh and dwelt among men. Saying "it's reasonable to believe in a theistic God" does not equate to "it is reasonable to believe in the God of the Bible." One might easily retort that if you hear the beating of hooves then you should think "horses," not "unicorns."

So which essay in this book do you think best exemplifies the contention that there is a "true correspondence with respect to the Christian worldview and reality" that is not in some way shared by the pagan thinkers that Geisler bases his arguments on?
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I'm asking. I'm not interested in nice little analogies about the wind, which a member of any religion can use to describe any god.

I'm not interested in how believers can suddenly transform themselves because they believe. That also can be said about any religion and any god.

I want to hear a case for a specific god.. Not a case that can apply to any god.
 
mailmandan

mailmandan

Senior Member
#149
Apr 7, 2014
25,043
13,049
113
58
#149
Proverbs has much to say about fools. They despise wisdom (Proverbs 1:7, 22, 10:21, 23:9); they are right in their own eyes (Proverbs 12:15); they are deceitful (Proverbs 14:8) and scornful (Proverbs 10:23, 14:9). The wise are also given instruction on how to deal with fools in Proverbs. Instructing a fool is pointless because his speech is full of foolishness (Proverbs 15:2, 14) and he does not want wisdom and understanding (Proverbs 18:2).

 
You must log in or register to reply here.