-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
J
jimmydiggs
Guest
the point is they will be fine as there's no proof of Heaven or Hell and they should live this life to the fullest and the happiest they can so I don't think "sinning" will matter to them
No proof of heaven or hell?
1) God Exists
2) Christ was crucified and resurrected (son of God)
3)Scripture is inspired
4) Scripture endorses the existance of Heaven and hell
5) From 3) and 4), since scripture is the word of God and presupposes the existance of Heaven and Hell, it is reasonable to conclude that God (knows all that can be logically know) endorses the view that Heaven and Hell Exist.
However, it is not happiness that matters.
Besides, atheism can't tell us how we "Should" live our lives. On atheism, there is no meaning or purpose to life. It would be illusory to believe we can assign meaning and purpose.
J
jimmydiggs
Guest
I don't think you're analogy fits for two reasons.Granted they don't believe in a "God" but Atheists and Buddhists are not the same that's like saying Jews and Christians are.
1) the definition of atheism...
Webster said:Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity
— athe·is·tic\ˌā-thē-ˈis-tik\ or athe·is·ti·cal \ˌā-thē-ˈis-ti-kəl\ adjective
— athe·is·ti·cal·ly\-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb
Atheist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary <--- click
Bhuddists likely are not Methodological Naturalists. Which is where I think the obfuscation exists.
2) the relationship between Judaism and Christiantiy is closer than I think you assume
As far as Jews and Christians, there are many similarities. Jews just lack 27 books and a Messiah.
Christianity is Judaism II:Arrival of the Messiah... Now in theaters nationwide. (humor)
Christianity is only a contiuation of Judaism.
H
Honey12
Guest
what is there to point out? I am happy to hear your opinion
You're not following through with your arguments. Nothing you've said has made any kind of standing point.
the point is they will be fine as there's no proof of Heaven or Hell and they should live this life to the fullest and the happiest they can so I don't think "sinning" will matter to them
Why are you on here? You must disagree with everything posted on this site and think it's some sort of nonsense. Why get on here when you know you're just going to end up in arguments?
J
jimmydiggs
Guest
I thought Atheism and the acceptance of homosexuality was rooted in science, logic, etc etc.. (atleast claimed to be)I didn't say opinions are scientific?!
How is saying God exists proof? there is no actual evidence for existence and why should we be told how to live? we all have the ability to make choices and do what we want. Again no proof Christ was resurrected it's just in a book. The talking snake died out quick, Noah did well suprisingly! My point is you choose to believe in this which to me is nonsense and I choose to believe in the theory of evolution neither of which can be proved beyond reasonable doubt to be true so if someone chooses to be homosexual that is their choice and is neither mine or your place to judge. If God one day shows his face and says " I created this Earth you are just renting it by the way Gays are wrong." Then I'll admit you're right but until that day anyone and everyone can do what they want in their private lives.
J
jimmydiggs
Guest
I was outlining my argument.How is saying God exists proof?
If God exists, Christ was crucified and ressurrected, gives a bit of a "divine endorsement" of scripture, thus providing reason to believe it is inspired, and scripture endorses the Existance of Heaven and Hell, it is reasonable to conclude that God through Christ and inspiration of Scripture, endorses the existance of Heaven and Hell. Given that God knows all that can be logically known, I'll put my trust in him saying it does.
Would you like to challenge God on that?
Now, if you were saying something along the lines of, "just saying God exists isn't proof God exists"... then I have the below for you..
Diggs said:I will not go into depth on this, as I do not wish to digress too far from the topic at hand.
The below are scanned images of argument maps from William Lane Craigs book "On Guard".
Argument From Morality
http://i980.photobucket.com/albums/ae281/135thAB/video008.jpg <— click
http://i980.photobucket.com/albums/ae281/135thAB/video009.jpg <— click
Kalam Cosmological Argument
http://i980.photobucket.com/albums/ae281/135thAB/video002.jpg <– click
http://i980.photobucket.com/albums/ae281/135thAB/video004.jpg <— click
Fine-Tuning of the Universe
http://i980.photobucket.com/albums/ae281/135thAB/video006.jpg <— click
http://i980.photobucket.com/albums/ae281/135thAB/video007.jpg <— click
Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument
http://i980.photobucket.com/albums/ae281/135thAB/video005.jpg <— click
http://i980.photobucket.com/albums/ae281/135thAB/video004.jpg <— click
Here is a debate if you would like. It is one among many.
YouTube - ‪Debate - William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens - Does God Exist?‬‏ <--- click
http://christianchat.com/476745-post57.html <--- click for source of quotation
My question is existance of what? I've addressed the two possibilities above.there is no actual evidence for existence and why should we be told how to live?
I don't know why God would do so, except that it stems neccesarily from his immutable nature.
When I get there, I'll ask him.
If you're wanting to know rather an "ought" question, the answer is similar. IT stems neccesarily from his immutable nature, which his commands are prescriptive.
Although, I suppose there is the practical side of it as well. I think you and I both would prefer a society that doesn't run amuck in moral ineptitude.
Yes, but that doesn't make our choices moral. In fact, most choices are immoral.we all have the ability to make choices and do what we want.
There's a lot of things in books, but I doubt you discredit history, because it's only in books.Again no proof Christ was resurrected it's just in a book.
When you want to discuss facts, I'd be willing to do so.
Some people I'd like to suggest to you for that matter.
Gary Habermas
J.P. Moreland
Craig Blomberg
Craig A. Evans
William Lane Craig
Just a sample..
Probe Ministries said:Quote: Tacitus
Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .
Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources - Probe Ministries <– click
Quote: Pliny the Younger
They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.
Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources - Probe Ministries <— click
Quote:Josephus
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.
Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources - Probe Ministries <— click
(Parts of Josephus are contested)
Quote:Lucian
The Christians . . . worship a man to this day–the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.
Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources - Probe Ministries <– click
GotQuestions said:Quote:
Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).
Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.
The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus’ crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.
Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus’ teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.
Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.
Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.
In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).
Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ? <— click
Craig Blomberg said:Quote: Craig Blomberg
Luke, with the information he provides in his prologue (Luke 1:1–4), seems to have anticipated this threefold division of study of the formation of the Gospels. He speaks of “the things that have been fulfilled among us” as being “handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (vv. 1b–2)—the period of oral tradition. He also states that “many [including at least Mark and Matthew?] have undertaken to draw up an account” of these things (v. 1a)—language in the Greek that most naturally refers to written narratives—the oldest Gospels or Gospel sources. But he, too, having functioned as a careful historian (v. 3a), wanted to write his own distinctive account (v. 3b) in order to commend the truth of the Gospel (v. 4)—the stage of final redaction for theological purposes.If some readers wonder if all this “criticism” really is compatible with belief in the Gospels as inspired books, the answer is clearly yes. Of course, we must carefully examine any given practitioner’s use of each method, for at times much “chaff” is mixed in with the “wheat.” Nonetheless, the basic principles are not only sound, they are demanded if one believes in the accuracy of Luke’s description of how he wrote. Given the similarities among Luke, Mark, and Matthew, and, to a lesser degree, John, it stands to reason that the other evangelists proceeded somewhat similarly. Gospel criticism is not inherently an alternative to belief in the inspiration of the texts, though it has been used that way by some radical critics. Rather, it is a study of the ordinary human means of writing that God’s Spirit superintended so as to ensure that the final product was exactly what God wanted to communicate to his people (cf. 2 Pet. 1:21). (Jesus and the Gospels, p. 80-81)
Some videos..
(Quotation done to seperate from text, and draw attention)
YouTube - ‪The Resurrection of Jesus - Dr William Lane Craig (Part 1)‬‏ <-- click
YouTube - ‪The Resurrection of Jesus - Dr William Lane Craig (Part 2)‬‏ <-- click
YouTube - ‪Did Jesus Rise From The Dead? (Debate)‬‏ <-- click
YouTube - ‪The Resurrection of Jesus - Dr. William Lane Craig‬‏ <-- click
YouTube - ‪Case For The Resurrection of Jesus - Dr. William Lane Craig‬‏ <-- click
YouTube - ‪Is Josephus' account of Jesus a forgery?‬‏ <-- click
YouTube - ‪Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (William Lane Craig)‬‏ <-- click
YouTube - ‪Secular Sources For Jesus Christ - Dr. Gary Habermas‬‏ <-- click
YouTube - ‪The Case For The Resurrection of Christ - Dr. Gary Habermas‬‏ <-- click
YouTube - ‪The Resurrection of Jesus - Gary Habermas Part 1/6‬‏ <-- click
YouTube - ‪The Historical Jesus by Dr. Craig Blomberg -- Part 1 of 6‬‏ <-- click
YouTube - ‪In Search of the Historical Jesus‬‏ <-- click
YouTube - ‪Proof For The Historical Jesus - Michael Licona‬‏ <-- click
YouTube - ‪The Search For The Historical Jesus - J.P Moreland (part 1)‬‏ <-- click
Naw, he's still very much alive today. We just call him the Father of Lies.The talking snake died out quick
Considering the fate of the others, agreed., Noah did well suprisingly!
I don't choose flippantly. I weigh it as a sort of Reductio Ad Absurdum, as well as philosophical truth.My point is you choose to believe in this which to me is nonsense
You're believing it to be nonsense, doesn't make it cease to be reality.
I believe things can be proven to be true, beyond reasonable doubt. I'm not a Po-Mo though.and I choose to believe in the theory of evolution neither of which can be proved beyond reasonable doubt to be true
I would say the Theory of Evolution would compell a person to believe in a God. The possibility of life, is improbable otherwise (I.E. Design/fine-tuning)
On Atheism, where is the justification for "you shouldn't judge!"?so if someone chooses to be homosexual that is their choice and is neither mine or your place to judge.
He did, you're just suppressing the truth in unrigtheousness. (that's what the bible says anyway)If God one day shows his face and says " I created this Earth you are just renting it by the way Gays are wrong."
Anyone and everyone can what they want? So nothing is morally wrong?Then I'll admit you're right but until that day anyone and everyone can do what they want in their private lives.
EDIT: My apologies for the delay, I was speaking to mi madre y mi padre outside.
Also, for the original poster. I'm sorry the thread has digressed from the original topic. I did not intend for it to do so.
Again none of this is proof you can show me as many scriptures as you want it doesn't make it fact. I think you don't get where I'm coming from but that's fine the Christian faith chooses to call homosexuals sinners and honestly they probably take pity on you. what do you think for example on the age of the Earth? Talking snake where is he are they in the wild still?
J
jimmydiggs
Guest
Again none of this is proof you can show me as many scriptures as you want it doesn't make it fact.
I have quoted very little scripture. Most of what I have quoted or referenced are reputable academic sources. Examples such as William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Craig Blomberg, Craig Evans, Mike Licona, J.P. Moreland, John Lennox, etc.. etc...
EDIT: Oh, and don't forget I also quoted Joel Marks, who is an Atheist.
I do, you proclaim what is known as Naturalism, which requires atheism. As the existance of a supernatural entity, would not be natural.I think you don't get where I'm coming from
What is there to be pitied for? I serve the King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords. Atleast, I hope I do. I have all reason to believe I do, but I could be wrong. (improbable from what I know)but that's fine the Christian faith chooses to call homosexuals sinners and honestly they probably take pity on you.
I don't know how old the earth is. I take an instrumentalist approach. I trust scripture on this matter. It does not explicity state the age of the earth, but certainly seems to imply YEC. I accept both 4.5 billion, and thousands.what do you think for example on the age of the Earth?
The snake in the Garden of Eden was likely possessed by the devil. Unless you seek to propose that snakes can live for a very long time. As far as the devil goes, he is not confined to the "wild".Talking snake where is he are they in the wild still?
No i'm an Atheist I'm sceptical there's a supernatural power as there is no evidence to prove so. you take both 4.5 billion and thousands but how can they both be true? You say the snake was probably possessed by the devil so does the devil run hell? also there are so many mistakes in the bible how can you be certain on which parts are real?
J
jimmydiggs
Guest
Your evidential base doesn't allow for there to be any evidence for anything other than Atheism. That's how Naturalism works. It's a philosophy, not a matter of science.No i'm an Atheist I'm sceptical there's a supernatural power as there is no evidence to prove so.
Just an introduction..
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bVrafC1vi0[/video]
That's the thing. I didn't say both were true, in the sense you ask it.you take both 4.5 billion and thousands but how can they both be true?
John Byl said:The instrumentalist considers theories primarily as "useful fictions" that are of great value in summarizing, manipulating, and predicting observations, and is more concerned with their ultimate utility than in their veracity.
The instrumentalist position permitted the affirmation of the epistemological primacy of Divine revelation and stressed the limitations Of unaided human reason while, at the same time, making use of the practical results of scientific inquiry.
Instrumentalism: A Third Option <--- click
In a round-about way, yes. He is not autonomous though.You say the snake was probably possessed by the devil so does the devil run hell?
I know of no mistakes that would effect the veracities of the claim of truth. Perhaps you could present us with one.also there are so many mistakes in the bible how can you be certain on which parts are real?
Okay one mistake for example is that God proclaimed the Earth to be flat but that isn't true if he created it he should know that one?!
Naturalism is more congruent with deism since they believe there is a god who set things in motion and lets nature do the rest. Atheism is no belief in a god.
Did God Create Satan? Does he govern over him or is he separate in ruling Hell alone?
Naturalism is more congruent with deism since they believe there is a god who set things in motion and lets nature do the rest. Atheism is no belief in a god.
Did God Create Satan? Does he govern over him or is he separate in ruling Hell alone?
J
jimmydiggs
Guest
Where in the bible does God say the earth is flat?Okay one mistake for example is that God proclaimed the Earth to be flat but that isn't true if he created it he should know that one?!
A Deist god would still be one that is supernatural. Thus, outside the realm of Naturalism.Naturalism is more congruent with deism since they believe there is a god who set things in motion and lets nature do the rest. Atheism is no belief in a god.
Yes.Did God Create Satan?
My understanding is that it's sort of both. God allows Satan to do certain things. I could be wrong on this.Does he govern over him or is he separate in ruling Hell alone?
J
jimmydiggs
Guest
EDIT:why would God create Satan?
Almost forgot this one...
GotQuestions.org said:To summarize, God knew that Satan would rebel and that Adam and Eve would sin in the Garden of Eden. With that knowledge, God still created Lucifer and Adam and Eve because creating them and ordaining the fall was part of His sovereign plan to manifest His glory in all its fullness. Even though the fall was foreknown and foreordained, our freedom in making choices is not violated because our free choices are the means by which God’s will is carried out.
http://www.gotquestions.org/if-God-knew.html
The above quotation is only a summary. I suggest reading the full artical.
Whatever Satan does, I guess. I'm not sure how to quantify/qualify this aspect.what does he allow him to do?
This isn't a problem, if we understand the passages a little more than fetching them off of a "free-thought" website.check out isa 40:22 or job 26:10
For example..
Tektonics said:Circle the Planet
Is. 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in...
Job 26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.
Prov. 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth...Skeptics will assume from these verses a concept of a flat, circular, pancake-like earth. In each case, the Hebrew word here is exactly the same: chuwg. And here is where we alert the reader to another key word-concept that is missing in Hebrew: There was no varying word for a "sphere" - a three-dimensional circle. It is not that the Hebrews or anyone else lacked the concept of sphericity (for obviously, they could conceive of it plainly when, for example, they ate pomegranates for breakfast), but that they simply did not create a second word for it.
Some may cite in reply here the KJV version of Is. 22:18, "He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house." The Hebrew word here, however, is duwr. This word no more inidicates sphericity than our other word, for it is used by Isaiah elsewhere thusly:
Is. 29:3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.Obviously, the soldiers could not camp in the shape of a sphere around the city. Based on this and other usages, this word appears to be making a statement about a circular pattern rather than giving reference to a given shape.
Does the Bible teach that the Earth is flat? <--- click
Naturalism denies Ghosts, which you have stated you are a naturalist.Again Atheists only deny the existence of a deity but don't talk about ghosts for example so some Atheists believe in ghosts where a naturalist doesn't.
Last edited:
I said I'm an Atheist not all Atheists deny Ghosts or other supernatural elements but Naturalists believe in none of that, they are similar but that's the difference.
see this is down to interpretation mine is different to yours so what makes yours the right one?
So why did God create Satan?
see this is down to interpretation mine is different to yours so what makes yours the right one?
So why did God create Satan?
J
jimmydiggs
Guest
You stated you were a Naturalist. I approached you based on that.I said I'm an Atheist not all Atheists deny Ghosts or other supernatural elements but Naturalists believe in none of that, they are similar but that's the difference.
see this is down to interpretation mine is different to yours so what makes yours the right one?
What is down to interpretation? If you're talking of the verses, it's a matter of language, hermeneutics, and exegesis. Most important with the verses you cited, language. If you seek to deny language as being the issue, I suggest you learn a bit of Hebrew.
This is a repeat question, so I'll give a repeat answer.So why did God create Satan?
GotQuestions.org said:To summarize, God knew that Satan would rebel and that Adam and Eve would sin in the Garden of Eden. With that knowledge, God still created Lucifer and Adam and Eve because creating them and ordaining the fall was part of His sovereign plan to manifest His glory in all its fullness. Even though the fall was foreknown and foreordained, our freedom in making choices is not violated because our free choices are the means by which God’s will is carried out.
If God knew that Satan would rebel and Adam and Eve would sin, why did He create them? <--- click
I'm pretty sure I said I'm an Atheist I can't be bothered to check back but if I didn't then I'll clear that up I am. The bible is down to Interpretation and I have decided to interpret it differently to yourself. what are your views on Genesis 1:6 or Genesis 5:3-4?
why hasn't Satan or God shown themselves to us mere mortals?
why hasn't Satan or God shown themselves to us mere mortals?
J
jimmydiggs
Guest
I'm not contesting your atheism. You stated you don't believe in the supernatural. This would put you at Naturalism. Naturalism is the rejection of anthing supernatural.I'm pretty sure I said I'm an Atheist I can't be bothered to check back but if I didn't then I'll clear that up I am.
So you contest the Hebrew language? I'm confused.The bible is down to Interpretation and I have decided to interpret it differently to yourself.
I had to look over Genesis 1:6 for awhile, and I'm not sure what the problem is. That's why you're pulling it up. I just don't understand what objections could come from it.what are your views on Genesis 1:6 or Genesis 5:3-4?
As far as Genesis 5, yes I believe they lived to be old.
He has. Through his creation.why hasn't Satan or God shown themselves to us mere mortals?
H
Honey12
Guest
I'm pretty sure I said I'm an Atheist I can't be bothered to check back but if I didn't then I'll clear that up I am. The bible is down to Interpretation and I have decided to interpret it differently to yourself. what are your views on Genesis 1:6 or Genesis 5:3-4?
why hasn't Satan or God shown themselves to us mere mortals?
Something that really bothers me is when people act like God owes them something. He gave you life, gave you this world. But he still owes you proof?
No, you owe him.