-->
@Stephen
Proverbs 4:23
"Keep your heart with all vigilance,
for from it flow the springs of life."
There it is.
That is the scripture he is referencing.
Does "the scripture" actually say this at all,.... anywhere?
Posts
Read-only
Total:
263
Proverbs 4:23"Keep your heart with all vigilance,for from it flow the springs of life."There it is.That is the scripture he is referencing.
But it is NOT as you say at post 88 above, the topic of this fkn thread , IS IT???? FFS!!!
Is it any wonder you know not these scriptures?
-->
@ludofl3x
I intended to establish a starting point for reasoning and claim the biblical God is the One who meets the criterion. I'm curious as to how any other worldview makes sense of starting points or first causes.
We've been through this already (I'm cutting out a bunch of stuff we've reviewed on other threads). Your proposition "God did it" doesn't "make sense" of anything either, and I'm not claiming to have an answer to "how did the universe get here." That has little to do with atheism at all, and honestly I don't care how it got here, that knowledge would in no way illuminate that way I live my life, because there is no evidence I see for any god. I'm ready to change my mind, but I need a reason to do so, and no god has ever given me one. Your insistence that your specific god did it relies on presupposition of such a character (Rather than demonstration of such a character: you are using the story about this character to support its veracity, this is the claim not the evidence, you refuse to understand or acknowledge this), special pleading (everything has a beginning therefore God started it, and god doesn't have a beginning, contradicting your reason for God to begin with) and a bunch of other distractions ("What's your worldiview, mine's truer, how do you make sense of morality, I make sense of the whys of life by adding santa claus to the mix and calling it an answer") from the crux of the matter: there is no demonstration of this character at all.
We just invent purposes to cope. We derive our existence from a mindless, meaningless universe that is without purpose and meaning.
Clearly this makes you uncomfortable. But this is what makes the most sense, I'm sorry.
What is the sufficient reason for the first cause? You don't have one. You can't say why something should exist. All you can say is that it does exist.
I don't have one, nor do I need one. And yes, it exists, it's the one thing we can agree on. That's all I can say, and all I care about. The life I have and what I do with it, it's only my responsibility and I'm not part of some giant plan that no one ever gets to see.
But, everywhere you look, you see meaning and purpose.
No, I specifically do not. I do not see "meaning" or "purpose" in the vastness of the universe. I see vastness and apparent unimaginable emptiness. I don't then observe that and say "Well, someone must have meant for it to be this way, so it was probably Jesus." I don't see meaning in famines, I don't see purpose in pediatric cancer, I don't see the capital W why in meteor showers. You do, and that reason? Jesus loves us all, so so much, especially the pastor in I think Kenya yesterday who stabbed himself and his wife on the altar of their church, and he loves us so much that he gives us school shootings to remind us. Oh, wait: the bad stuff isn't DIRECTLY done by Jesus even though he'd know they were going to happen, all that stuff, that's MAN doing it because we departed from Jesus...
I'm sorry, but none of that makes any "sense." Maybe I'm off topic here, I don't know.
-->
@Stephen
So now you don't even know what your own topic is about.
-->
@Stephen
Steven, you have to understand something. When you call me names and make pretense of having any understanding about these things when it is plain even to skeptics that you are incapable of admitting you are wrong, it only confirms in my mind that you are immature and haughty.
-->
@ludofl3x
I screwed up the last post (lost an hour of response due to editing) and am frustrated enough to let it sit for a few days.
-->
@Mopac
The hole is Mop's ultimate reality, it fits the puddle perfectly.
-->
@Mopac
So now you don't even know what your own topic is about.
FROM POST ONE TITLED:
This elusive verse has baffled me for a long time. Why can I not find it ?
John 7:38 King James Version has Jesus saying:
38 "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."
" as the scripture has said"
Where do the scripture actually say " out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."?
THAT ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ IS WHAT THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD IS ABOUT.
AND You nor anyone else has been able to answer this genuine question. instead I have had to put up with unnecessary babel and bullshit from both you and others. Why can you not simply say if or not you know which scripture is from or simply say that you do not know.
It took Ethang - Popoff - 5 TWENTY posts!!!!!! of garbage of utter bilge and bullshit before he could admit to not knowing the answer to the question but then foolishly appended that to add :
"it was in a scripture now lost to history". Has if he would know!
When you call me names
What names have I called you?
and make pretense of having any understanding about these things
I detect that your are calling me a liar in a veiled tone. I am not pretending. I know the bible inside out the New Testament in particular, and more than you will ever live to know them. That is not calling you names.
when it is plain even to skeptics that you are incapable of admitting you are wrong,
I am more that capable of admitting my mistakes. Which is something your religion doesn't afford you. You have a script and have to stick to it through thick and this even when clearly proven to be wrong.
LISTEN!
You show me with FACTUAL evidence where I am wrong and I will gladly throw my hands up to my mistakes and of being wrong. I have asked you to do this many times now, but you keep failing to produce.
Stop calling me a liar. Stop telling me I am wrong and Stop telling me I do not know these scriptures. If you want to keep up and insist with those accusations START by producing some clear, factual EVIDENCE!!!
you are immature and haughty.
That ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^sound like name calling to me.
-->
@PGA2.0
Maybe take a smaller piece of what you want to respond to, these posts shouldn't take an hour of your time! I get it you have a lot to say, but what good's it do if it's too long to read? I post from work, so I don't have a ton of time anyway. Also, leave out the transcription of bible verses, the bible is just a book to me unless you can convince me otherwise, but you wouldn't need the bible to do the convincing. Just offering some friendly advice.
-->
@ludofl3x
The point was and is to respond to your points to show the weakness of the argument against God because that is what is being done here. Sometimes that is not feasible. Obviously there is more to say than what I post but I want to challenge you to see that what you have incorporated into an explanation of existence cannot make sense of itself. That should speak volumes in itself. Do you realize the doubt and lack of faith you exhibit in your position response after response?
Your words at times appear open to evidence of God but then betray themselves by an unwillingness to take the bias somewhat out of your responses. They also display that you do not have the answers.
I.e.,
What is the sufficient reason for the first cause? You don't have one. You can't say why something should exist. All you can say is that it does exist.I don't have one, nor do I need one.
I don't care how it got here, that knowledge would in no way illuminate that way I live my life, because there is no evidence I see for any god. I'm ready to change my mind, but I need a reason to do so, and no god has ever given me one.
What you appear to be missing is that your worldview is the mirror at which you look at every aspect of life. How you begin is important. If it is wrong you build your worldview structure from a faulty foundation that affects every aspect of what you think. Not only this but you are aided by a secular culture that indoctrinates you in avoiding critical thinking by funnelling how you think to some extent. I understand this since I was involved in a peer group during my youth. I was submerged from Africa culture into Canada culture and a culture shock took me decades to sort out. I understand to some extent how cultures affect people and how buzz words and demonizing language is used to change cultures by the very gatekeepers of that society. I have looked at the propaganda techniques Nazi Germany used to alter mindsets. I see the same thing happening in your country today. But more than this, I see worldviews that lack what is necessary to make sense of life's ultimate questions and even the "I don't care" enough attitudes to not even look into these questions yet there is an interest that betrays the statements made. I see worldviews that are so inconsistent. They borrow from the Christian framework without realizing they do so. I wonder why others would do that and not be curious enough to investigate their foundations, then I realize that to do so would mean either a paradigm shift or living with the irrationality of that inconsistency.
People say they do not care why then spend a lot of time debating these very positions of why we are here. They agree that there is no ultimate meaning to the universe and then spend a lifetime looking for it but exclude the way that finds that meaning.
-->
@PGA2.0
Your words at times appear open to evidence of God but then betray themselves by an unwillingness to take the bias somewhat out of your responses. They also display that you do not have the answers.
I don't claim to have the answers.
Obviously there is more to say than what I post but I want to challenge you to see that what you have incorporated into an explanation of existence cannot make sense of itself. That should speak volumes in itself. Do you realize the doubt and lack of faith you exhibit in your position response after response?
As I've already explained, your answer doesn't seem to "make sense" of any of that stuff either, it just sticks an answer in there and pretends it has to be correct, as far as I can see. I don't claim to "make sense of why man is here" or "Make sense of life" or "of origins." I'm not even sure the answers exist. I look at the evidence as to how life developed, how this planet formed, etc. etc. and make my assessments based on the inference from evidence. I've never seen compelling evidence for any god at all, and I certainly don't see any evidence for any SPECIFIC god. You don't have any to present, or you'd have done so before somehow invoking Nazi propaganda, culture shock, persecution complexes, etc (all distractions from this point). Of course I have doubts about my own positions! It's what keeps us curious and as a whole drives us toward solutions.
One last brief problem: "Making sense" is not the same thing as "true" or "correct." And "you're wrong" does not then default to "I'm right." Black holes don't 'make sense', subatomic particle behaviors don't 'make sense,' the distance between celestial objects doesn't 'make sense', but they're all true and real. I've used this example with you before: the Grecoroman pantheon of gods makes far more sense of the world than the Christian monotheistic view of an all loving super awesome god with a grand plan. You don't think they're real or true.
-->
@ludofl3x
I look at the evidence as to how life developed, how this planet formed, etc. etc. and make my assessments based on the inference from evidence. I've never seen compelling evidence for any god at all
The evidence is in your own statement above, I've been over this with you a couple times and you seem to basically ignore it. Life developed and planets form is key right there, both those terms are an indicator of a Creator. This of course is an interpretation of how you personally view the evidence but then it comes down to which one makes more sense, which one fits better. This is how you begin a case for God on a surface level. Planet forms and then life develops.....how does such a thing even occur without intelligence because again you're accepting that inanimate forces of nature somehow develop and form things just because lol, I mean come on Ludo....processes are associated with minds, with intelligence.
I'm not saying this is PGA's argument but I've spoken to you at length about all this. It's called correlation, that is the interpretation of the evidence.
Atheists tend to focus on the steps that occur during a process but refuse to see how the outcome as a whole and what it produces could be associated with a Creator. And I understand coming from somewhat of a rational point of view how you would dismiss it, but on the other hand when something is so blatantly obvious I have to shake my head and wonder what really are you looking at? Have you ever put a fish tank together or constructed any habitation for a pet on your own? the process is very similar...this of course is a very simple analogy or example as we are dealing with things that already exist but I would have you consider that very same idea about God but on a much larger scale.
You have a desire or an idea, you carry out that idea through a process....first you need an environment or area (solar system) where you then can build a habitation/housing (planet)….then within that habitation you must have the appropriate environment according to what creature you wish to house...temperature, water source and heat source, all the appropriate arrangements....then a food source of course (plants, fruits ect ect)...then comes the acclimation process (evolution) and beginning the process of acclimating your pet to the habitation you built. Now you have an environment where sentient and intelligent creatures may flourish....all this took place because you first had an idea and then you implemented that idea. This is the same exact thing with God and creation. It is the very processes you observe that indicate there first is an intelligent source behind those processes AKA God.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Life developed and planets form is key right there, both those terms are an indicator of a Creator.
How? Let's see.
Planet forms and then life develops.....how does such a thing even occur without intelligence because again you're accepting that inanimate forces of nature somehow develop and form things just because lol, I mean come on Ludo....processes are associated with minds, with intelligence.
Oh, through the argument from incredulity and a dab of special pleading, got it. I'm sorry, but you're making a leap. This is the "everything has a beginning argument except the creator" argument.You then devolve into the god of the gaps argument, basically pushing god back as far as there is to go: the big bang. This argument is as bad as Mopac's ultimate reality: that anything exists is evidence of something outside of what we know exists is faulty. I also like that both you and PGA grant, graciously, that 'rational minds' would likely reject your reasoning :).
And I understand coming from somewhat of a rational point of view how you would dismiss it
-->
@ludofl3x
God fits in the gaps because he exists Ludo, it's not special pleading it's commonsense but you can label it and mock it all you like. It's funny how when someone puts forth good reasoning, correlation and something that makes sense you just label it and laugh, well the laugh is on you because your position is even more absurd. What you accept as rational minds is subjective so that means very little here. I'm just trying to put together a foundation for you but it's obvious you are sold out to just guessing. That's fine good for you.
-->
@ludofl3x
If you're comparing my reasoning to Mopac's claim you aren't paying attention. Mopac is unable to connect God to this "Ultimate Reality" so it's an empty claim. Whereas I connect God to intelligent processes which we are able to observe with our own eyes. Admittedly it's an interpretation (as is your position) but that does not follow that it is untrue, one interpretation is obviously superior to the other. If you have a better idea of how anyone could connect the dots for you to have you consider a Creator exists I'm all ears.
Since obviously there is no way the scientific method could reach that information for you or anyone else and I can't pull a demonstration out of my azz for you to be convinced I'm left with spoon feeding you commonsense and rationale (which you delightfully scoff at).
-->
@EtrnlVw
Can common sense be wrong?
-->
@EtrnlVw
The reason I do not commit the folly of trying to prove God is because proof isn't the issue. It is an unawareness of what God means.
I don't need to prove that The Ultimate Reality is God. That is what we are talking about. If you refuse to accept what it is we are talking about, there is nothing to prove.
In otherwords, the kind of skepticism I am met with is not rational, in fact it is quite insane. Seeing that is a matter of believing that I speak in lucid terms, not woo, and considering what I say.
Lack of charity is what keeps the God deniers in the dark. And so it is shown once again that nihilistic thinking is wholly destructive and only retards the development of those who have been suckered into it.
-->
@Mopac
I completely understand what the Ultimate Reality means because I already have accepted it. However it means nothing to anyone accept you and I if you are unable to connect God with that Reality. So while you keep spouting it, it's just an empty claim for those who don't accept God exists. Once they accept God exists then the term has meaning, otherwise it is a pointless term.
-->
@Mopac
In otherwords, the kind of skepticism I am met with is not rational, in fact it is quite insane.
That's where you go off the tracks Mopac, the fact you don't see that is insane. It's actually insane to try and force the term on anyone who has yet to FIRST accept God exists, otherwise again, it's a meaningless phrase.
-->
@ludofl3x
Can common sense be right? if common sense COULD be right, wouldn't that be the first step in accepting something? so if that's the case why do you dismiss it?
-->
@Mopac
It is an unawareness of what God means.
Not really, it is an unacceptance that God exists. The term is easy to accept once God's existence is accepted, then it makes sense. They don't believe there is an awareness that encompasses all of creation. They won't accept there is any conscious Reality that exists independent of individual material form.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Anyone who says there is no Ultimate Reality is insane.
Point blank.
That is what God means. There is no connection to be made. If someone refuses to accept our understanding of these concepts, is it any wonder that they don't understand? Is it any wonder that they are superstitious?
I can't make anyone believe in God. My purpose here is to make evident that the atheists rejection of God is not due to lack of evidence, but the impurity of their own hearts, lack of charity, hubris, and an irrational aversion to being taught sound doctrine.
Is it not evident that these people have made up their minds and are willfully ignorant?
I know what I am doing. I won't be here much longer.
-->
@ludofl3x
Your words at times appear open to evidence of God but then betray themselves by an unwillingness to take the bias somewhat out of your responses. They also display that you do not have the answers.I don't claim to have the answers.
Neither do you have a worldview that is necessary for making sense of your existence. But that says nothing to you. Thus, you are welcome to live your life on that basis. I have learned a long time again that you cannot convince someone of evidence against their will. There will always be another 'what if.'
Obviously there is more to say than what I post but I want to challenge you to see that what you have incorporated into an explanation of existence cannot make sense of itself. That should speak volumes in itself. Do you realize the doubt and lack of faith you exhibit in your position response after response?As I've already explained, your answer doesn't seem to "make sense" of any of that stuff either, it just sticks an answer in there and pretends it has to be correct, as far as I can see. I don't claim to "make sense of why man is here" or "Make sense of life" or "of origins." I'm not even sure the answers exist. I look at the evidence as to how life developed, how this planet formed, etc. etc. and make my assessments based on the inference from evidence. I've never seen compelling evidence for any god at all, and I certainly don't see any evidence for any SPECIFIC god. You don't have any to present, or you'd have done so before somehow invoking Nazi propaganda, culture shock, persecution complexes, etc (all distractions from this point). Of course I have doubts about my own positions! It's what keeps us curious and as a whole drives us toward solutions.
Again, that is because I claim you can't make sense of your worldview without borrowing from mine.
Since you don't claim to make sense of it or are unable to how can you rule out God as the most reasonable answer to existence? Yet you seem to from my perspective. You look at the universe from a naturalistic perspective. You work from a closed box, that is that only what is contained in the box is able to explain the box.
Again, my purpose is not to provide evidence of God until I understand the person I communicate with is open to dialogue. I'm sick of being shut down just when I'm gearing up. It is a two-way street and although I willingly answer questions I do not see the same commitment. I'm honest with my worldview examination. I'm willing for others to ask the tough questions and try to answer them. I do not see the same response from atheists, generally speaking.
The Nazi example and the propaganda example are only ways to express how I believe you have been indoctrinated into a particular point of view. I'm sure you could claim the same with me. Understand this, however, there is no neutrality. You are committed to a particular frame of thinking. With the Nazis, we have evidence of how they shaped their culture. Every society is shaped to an extent. With the Democrats, liberal, leftist, the media, the education system, Hollywood, the Arts, a particular worldview bias is always present and presented to your thinking. It is the mode of indoctrination. You may not be aware of it which would be a shame. Many have taken to documenting how from the Age of Enlightenment the focus and paradigm shift has taken place to shape a naturalistic worldview as the measure of all things.
One last brief problem: "Making sense" is not the same thing as "true" or "correct."
It can be.
And "you're wrong" does not then default to "I'm right."
True. All I can do is present evidence and reason in the process. Sometimes a person is not open to evidence. Thus, why would I throw pearls before the swine? Thus, we start with claims to feel out whether someone is open to the evidence. Whether you accept evidence or not depends largely on how committed and enhardened you are to your worldview.
Black holes don't 'make sense', subatomic particle behaviors don't 'make sense,' the distance between celestial objects doesn't 'make sense', but they're all true and real.
Because we don't yet understand something does not necessarily mean it does not make sense. God's thoughts and ways are higher than ours.
Nevertheless, the Christian worldview is logical, rational, and makes sense of existence.
From a necessary Being comes other beings.
From personal, intelligent, mindful, logical, loving Being comes other beings of the same likeness.
From a necessary moral Being comes other moral beings.
I've used this example with you before: the Grecoroman pantheon of gods makes far more sense of the world than the Christian monotheistic view of an all loving super awesome god with a grand plan. You don't think they're real or true.
Show me the evidence for such beings.
@golfer
It's really quite simple, men create gods and it matters not how you spell it or what name men give to it. That is reality.
Yours was originally created as a member of the Canaanite Pantheon of gods.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Can common sense be right? if common sense COULD be right, wouldn't that be the first step in accepting something? so if that's the case why do you dismiss it?
Please tell me you are not a trial lawyer. Actually, I know you're not a trial lawyer, that's said in jest.
You know it was common sense once that humans sneezing was in fact our bodies trying to expel demons, and common sense dictated that if you said "bless you" fast enough, the demon you just sneezed out couldn't get back in? My point is "it's common sense" is not in and of itself an argument. It's a place to start your hypothesis, and then you try to prove it wrong (NOT PROVE IT RIGHT). I don't outright dismiss common sense answers, like it's common sense that the GrecoRoman pantheon is clearly still operating the earth all the time. Otherwise why else would there be famines or floods? It's just common sense that Neptune didn't get his fair share of sacrifices from Sri Lanka through 2005, so, what else was he supposed to do? He sent a tsunami and killed 250K people. Common sense!
-->
@PGA2.0
Since you don't claim to make sense of it or are unable to how can you rule out God as the most reasonable answer to existence?
I don't rule it out. I haven't seen evidence to support it, and furthermore I've never seen convincing evidence of anything that is clearly supernatural. Without any supporting evidence for a claim, why would I keep including it as part of the "most likely" answer? It's exactly as likely to me as aliens or fairies or magic or in a giant's eye. I work from what I can see. If you'd like to present evidence, go ahead. You never do, because you want me to do what you do: accept the proposition and THEN build support underneath it. That's not how it works. You build supporting evidence to arrive at a conclusion, rather than look at a conclusion (as you have done, as EternlView does) and then work backwards to find "just so" support.
I'm willing for others to ask the tough questions and try to answer them. I do not see the same response from atheists, generally speaking.
You're willing to answer them so long as no one questions your answer: Jesus. Meaning of life? Jesus. Purpose of life? Jesus. Origin of life? Jesus. These aren't answers insomuch as they are guesses, because you cannot demonstrate them or prove them in any way, one, and two, "Jesus" isn't even answering the question. It's akin to "What's your favorite pizza topping?" "Star Wars." I don't speak for all atheists. I think I've shown I'm open to dialogue. What I'm not open to is you saying "The bible is true," then me saying "can you tell me how you know?" and you responding "BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS TRUE AND IT SAYS IT'S TRUE." That's not dialogue and it's not an honest engagement of the question.
From a necessary Being comes other beings.From personal, intelligent, mindful, logical, loving Being comes other beings of the same likeness.From a necessary moral Being comes other moral beings.
Demonstrate the first premise: why is a being necessary, start there.
Show me the evidence for such beings.
Not until you tell me you'll accept it as real. Frustrating, right? My evidence: earthquakes and hurricanes and tsunamis that kill indiscriminately, both christian and non christian, unpredictably and without explanation, are more easily explained by grecroman patheistic feuds than they are by a personal loving god who just wants to love up on everyone but accidentally maybe kill thousands of people or cripple their way of life, for not loving him even though he would have programmed them not to love him.
-->
@ludofl3x
We in the Orthodox Church know what we believe is true because ours is an experiential faith.
The scriptures don't say in vain, "he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
You can see how this is a reasonable statement if you accept that God means "The Ultimate Reality".
If you don't believe The Truth exists, no amount of appealing to truth is going to convince you. You have to first believe, and then faithfulness will lead you into knowledge.
When you get stuck on the existence of God, you are getting stuck on the question, "Prove to me that it is true that there is truth!". It should be plain to see that this is an unreasonable request. It is unreasonable for many reasons.
Something is only proof if it is accepted by the hearer, and that leads to a change of mind. All someone has to do is stubbornly refuse to ever change their mind and they wouldn't be lying when they say, "There is no proof!", as for them it is not proof.
-->
@Mopac
The rest of your post is completely pointless, as there is literally no other proposition anyone needs to accept as true before they examine it, but I wanted to offer this: saying things this way is probably the main reason people around here react to your posts in the way they do. I know it's a big contributor for me, because you sound like a haughty asshole. I've made this suggestion before and you don't heed it, but still, a refresher is in order. Of course, even without this, you sound like an haughty asshole saying things that basically amount to "If you don't accept my definition of words, you're insane / stupid," but most people won't get that far. Either say "We believe" or "the Orthodox church," but "we in the orothodox church" or your usual "we orthodox" really are grating.We in the Orthodox Church know what we believe is true because ours is an experiential faith.
also, this is not true either. I don't have to accept proof in order for it to be proof. Proof is determined by demonstration, not by any one individual's acceptance of a demonstration. It doesn't matter if I accept, for example, that the sun affects most plant growth on earth. It does.
Something is only proof if it is accepted by the hearer, and that leads to a change of mind.
-->
@ludofl3x
You aren't willing to put in the efdort to confirm what I say because you have your mind made up.
I'm feeling pretty secure. The things I speak of are very simple. It is not arrogant for me to say that the biggest obstacle to understanding these things is heart of the hearer.
What can be said? Our faith is not about logical proofs. It is about living in a manner appropriate to someone who loves The Truth. That being the case, Orthodox Christianity is a beacon of love and sanity in an unloving and insane world.
I'm feeling pretty secure. The things I speak of are very simple. It is not arrogant for me to say that the biggest obstacle to understanding these things is heart of the hearer.
What can be said? Our faith is not about logical proofs. It is about living in a manner appropriate to someone who loves The Truth. That being the case, Orthodox Christianity is a beacon of love and sanity in an unloving and insane world.
-->
@ludofl3x
(as you have done, as EternlView does)
If you wish to know the origins of my beliefs and experiences just ask. The common sense approach is not for me, it's for you. That's not how I arrived where I am, that's just a way to get you to look at things differently, or at the very least consider.
That is what makes these conversations so difficult, all the unnecessary assumptions.