Diversity of Religious Experience, A Problem for Monotheists (from a polytheist prospective)

Author: TheMorningsStar

Posts

Total: 55
Topic's author
#1
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
Intro
Many times theists will bring up religious experience when discussing theism, whether their own or testimony they have heard from others. It is most commonly brought up either for one to validate their own beliefs or when a theist wishes to attempt to use the Argument from Religious Experience in atheism vs theism debate, but this is not the only time it is relevant. Regardless of whether or not the Argument from Religious Experience is good or not I would say that religious experience actually offers a problem to the monotheist. In this thesis I will be primarily using Greer’s argument about religious experience to defend the polytheistic position. As this argument is primarily meant for use against monotheists I think that it would be best to disregard the atheistic position on religious experience and focus on the monotheism vs polytheism aspect of the debate.

Greer’s Argument from the Diversity of Religious Experience
John Michael Greer in his book A World Full of Gods: An Inquiry into Polytheism makes a clear case that within the context of theism, the diversity of religious experience people have better supports polytheism than monotheism. The reason for this is that the monotheist tends to require the use of special pleading in order to justify a monotheistic interpretation of diverse religious experience.

To understand the various monotheistic interpretations Greer used the following analogy (summarized).
A researcher visits a village with five houses to inquire the residents on their beliefs in feline(s). The researcher knocks on the first villager’s door (Villager A) and asks them about their views.

Villager A tells the researcher that of course they believe in the existence of the Cat. The Cat is a tabby and has blue eyes. I leave kibble out for the Cat and the Cat eats it, proving that the Cat is real. I even once experienced the Cat and it looked at me with its blue eyes and proceeded to eat the kibble. Some of the other villagers believe in different cats but they are wrong, the cats they believe in do not exist. They leave out other foods which are probably eaten by hobos.

The researcher then proceeds to go to the next house and asks Villager B about their beliefs. They proceed to tell the researcher that they believe in the existence of the Cat as well. The Cat has short, black hair and green eyes. They put a bowl of milk out for the Cat every day and it is eaten by the Cat. They also had a personal experience of the Cat, having even turned their life around and become sober after their experience. They also say that other villagers have different beliefs about the Cat but they are mistaken, they actually are simply experiencing and feeding rats that some mistake as being Cat. One day Cat will purge the village of these rats and we will see who gets scratched and/or bitten!

The researcher proceeds to the next house and asks Villager C about their beliefs. Villager C also professes belief in the Cat, who is a marmalade tom with orange eyes. Villager C, however, is much more tolerant of the other villager’s views on Cat. After all, they got some info correct, they also think that the Cat has 4 legs, tail, pointed ears, and whiskers. However, Villager C says that the reason they got some information wrong about Cat is because they likely saw the Cat in bad light condition or when the Cat had rolled around in dirt. They also had seen Cat, having seen it on the top of the fence dividing her property with her neighbor’s, thus they know that the Cat isn’t limited to just their property. They put out canned food for the Cat, believing that this is the proper way to feed it, but says it likely is eating the food left out by others as well, just that canned food is more proper.

The researcher proceeds to the next house to ask Villager D. Villager D scoffs when asked, saying that belief in the existence of Cat is nonsensical. They had never experienced Cat and believes that other villagers hadn’t either. What they experienced were hallucinations or misperceptions of non-feline phenomena, oftentimes due to an intense will to believe. They say that if you wish to see Cat badly enough that you will be convinced anything could be Cat. The disappearance of the various foods? Could be hobos or any number of explanations that don’t require the existence of Cat. Villager D also points at the contradictions of Cat. One cat cannot be a tabby, a short black haired, and a marmalade tom at the same time.

The researcher then proceeds to the final house to ask Villager E about their beliefs. Villager E laughs and informs the researcher that there have been three different cats in the village for years, one a tabby, one with short black hair, and one a marmalade tom. Each has its own territory they mostly respect and knows where and when to get the food they each prefer. All of them occasionally go to Villager E’s house as well as they have kibble, milk, and canned food for them. She laughs and says it is funny as she had recently spotted a blue burmese female recently and has had a litter of kittens. How the other villagers react when they see these she cannot imagine.

Each of these five villagers represents a different view one can take. Villagers A, B, and C are ‘mono-felists’. They believe in one Cat but have different views about other people’s experiences. Villager A thinks that none of the cats other people believe in exist at all (existence-exclusive). Villager B thinks that the other cats people believe in are real, just not cats (value-exclusive). Villager C thinks that there is one cat with many faces (inclusive). Villager D is an afelist, they don’t think cats exist at all. Villager E is a polyfelist and believes there are many cats.

Explanation of the Analogy and Monotheist Positions
From the analogy it should be easy to see that the monotheists(monofelists) require special pleading in order to justify the experience of others within their framework, but we can go into more detail here.

Let’s take two people, Jack and Jill. Jack believes in Odin while Jill believes in Yahweh.
If Jill is an existence-exclusive monotheist they hold the view that Odin does not exist and Yahweh does. How do they justify this view? Jill might appeal to the Bible as a sacred text, but Jack can respond that he has the Havamal, the Words of Odin. Jill might appeal to prayers, revelations, and religious experiences she or other believers in Yahweh have… but Jack could do the same with those that believe in Odin. Jill could claim to have experienced miracles, but so could Jack. Jill might appeal to prophets or heroes/martyrs of Christianity, but then Jack could once more do the same. The evidence that Jill can provide as to why Yahweh exists and not Odin also exists for other religions, thus special pleading is ultimately required to justify accepting Jill’s view over Jack’s.

This problem is not solved by Jill taking the view of the value-exclusive monotheist either. How can Jill give evidence that Yahweh is the only God and that Odin is something else? Through special pleading, as, just like above, the reasons Jill can give can be matched with reasons Jack can give.

It also persists if Jill takes the inclusive view. How can Jill justify that Yahweh is the face behind the mask while Odin is a mask? Once more this cannot happen.
One attempt to salvage the monotheistic god would be to say that all experiences are not the face behind the mask but a mask, but this runs into a different problem, how do you justify the experiences of the polytheist? Is Jack so stupid that he cannot tell that Odin, Loki, Freya, etc. are all the same one god? Take an analogy, you sit in your office with the door closed and periodically you hear someone walk by your office with different music playing. Could it be one person? Sure, but why think it is? Especially if what you hear can range from genre to genre, different levels of bass and treble, different volumes, etc.? While it is possible it is one person walking by there is no good reason to think this is the case. So why should one accept the ‘one god many faces’ approach to monotheism? They shouldn’t.

Conclusion
I believe that the thesis has made it clear, religious diversity favors the polytheistic interpretation over the monotheistic one. The monotheistic interpretation requires special pleading and/or unfounded assumptions in order to justify the diversity of religious experience that occurs across the world and throughout time. As such, if religious experience is to be seen as valid then, until evidence/arguments are provided for monotheism, polytheism is more likely to be true.

Topic's author
#2
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
In case anyone is wondering, this argument's purpose is to show that religious experience makes polytheism apriori more likely than monotheism. So if one wishes to argue for monotheism they need to use arguments that exclude multiple gods, as if one uses general theistic arguments it will otherwise lead to polytheism.
#3
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@TheMorningsStar

Yes, I believe there are multiple gods (gamers) creating this simulation and they get 1 point for every living creature they kill.
#4
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,239
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Ha, I totally had never heard this before. Very entertaining read.

If one is willing to accept argument from religious experience as valid evidence, then I would say it does favor the existence of multiple gods over the existence of one god.
#5
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,348
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@TheMorningsStar
If individuals can believe in monotheism with the trinity, why can't all these other Gods 'still be the 'One God.

Romans didn't seem bothered by other societies Gods having different names, often enough I hear, they just claimed they were actually their Gods, just with different names.

Even with multiple religious experiences, what 'matters in the argument to most people, is that to them it implies 'something more.
Though maybe if Baal lit the fire in the Bible, some people would be conflicted.
Though, maybe not,
Given how the Prince of Egypt (1998) Film, compared the Court Magicians Miracles to those of the Hebrew God.

@NoOneInParticular
Omniquantism

Topic's author
#6
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Castin
If one is willing to accept argument from religious experience as valid evidence, then I would say it does favor the existence of multiple gods over the existence of one god.
More than that, monotheistic religions (as opposed to philosophies, like deism) all must accept religious experience as part of how the religion originated, even if they don't think religious experiences today happen. As such it still opens up polytheism is apriori more likely.
Topic's author
#7
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Lemming
why can't all these other Gods 'still be the 'One God
It isn't that it cannot be the case but that it requires one to invoke special pleading that they have the proper interpretation or for one to have an unfounded assumption that these various experiences are of one god. It also requires one to assume that the polytheists that have religious experiences of multiple gods are so foolish to not be able to tell that it is the same entity. While this could be justifiable if given further evidence, Greer's argument still stands (as it only really focuses on the 'prior probabilities' rather than final ones).

Romans didn't seem bothered by other societies Gods having different names, often enough I hear, they just claimed they were actually their Gods, just with different names.
If a god was similar enough they did try to synchronize, yes, but if the god was different enough they viewed it as having discovered a new god. Of course I reject how often they would use their synchronism, but as we know from mythology that some gods went by multiple names it wouldn't be surprising if two people worshipped the same god under different names, I just think you would need to provide good reason to think this is the case to justify the synchronization, and this is something the Romans rarely did.
#8
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Intro

Thanks TheMorningStar for this interesting discussion. I am a monotheist.  I personally would never use religious experience to determine my theology.  I have no issue with it as a matter of interest, but I would never rely upon it to establish either my theology or a belief in god or gods. In fact, generally speaking, if someone claimed that they had some kind of religious experience I would tend to dismiss it as nothing more than personal experience.  Good for that person but unhelpful in relation to my understanding of theology or of God. 

Greer’s Argument from the Diversity of Religious Experience

I have not read Michael Greer's book so make no comment about him or it. I am not sure why a diversity of religious experiences would better support polytheism or monotheism.  The word "tends" is a qualifier.    It does not allow for the other tendencies. Or seems to downplay them.  It would be helpful to know what "special pleadings" are used in this situation. 

To understand the various monotheistic interpretations Greer used the following analogy (summarized).
A researcher visits a village with five houses to inquire the residents on their beliefs in feline(s). The researcher knocks on the first villager’s door (Villager A) and asks them about their views.
Ok, this looks interesting. 

Villager A tells the researcher that of course they believe in the existence of the Cat. The Cat is a tabby and has blue eyes. I leave kibble out for the Cat and the Cat eats it, proving that the Cat is real. I even once experienced the Cat and it looked at me with its blue eyes and proceeded to eat the kibble. Some of the other villagers believe in different cats but they are wrong, the cats they believe in do not exist. They leave out other foods which are probably eaten by hobos.

Which religion or denomination would you put this person at?  Definitely does not fall under any christian denomination that I am aware of. 

The researcher then proceeds to go to the next house and asks Villager B about their beliefs. They proceed to tell the researcher that they believe in the existence of the Cat as well. The Cat has short, black hair and green eyes. They put a bowl of milk out for the Cat every day and it is eaten by the Cat. They also had a personal experience of the Cat, having even turned their life around and become sober after their experience. They also say that other villagers have different beliefs about the Cat but they are mistaken, they actually are simply experiencing and feeding rats that some mistake as being Cat. One day Cat will purge the village of these rats and we will see who gets scratched and/or bitten!
As I said above religious experience is neither here nor there for me.  I would never use it as a basis or proving God exists.  Yet one the other hand, religious experience is real.  It is a matter though of what it is serving.  For example, a life turned around is something that Christians would expect to see in someone who is converted to Jesus. Yet, Christians would not suggest that a life turned around proves God exists or that a person had converted to the correct religion.  There are many people who display life changes who are not even religious. One can think of AA in this example.  Hence, Christians would take the view that a person converted by the Living God would demonstrate change.  Yet not all people who exhibit change are converted.   Hence it cannot be relied upon to prove God's existence. 

The researcher proceeds to the next house and asks Villager C about their beliefs. Villager C also professes belief in the Cat, who is a marmalade tom with orange eyes. Villager C, however, is much more tolerant of the other villager’s views on Cat. After all, they got some info correct, they also think that the Cat has 4 legs, tail, pointed ears, and whiskers. However, Villager C says that the reason they got some information wrong about Cat is because they likely saw the Cat in bad light condition or when the Cat had rolled around in dirt. They also had seen Cat, having seen it on the top of the fence dividing her property with her neighbor’s, thus they know that the Cat isn’t limited to just their property. They put out canned food for the Cat, believing that this is the proper way to feed it, but says it likely is eating the food left out by others as well, just that canned food is more proper.
I find this one amusing as well.   It sounds a bit like a liberal believer.  Yet it beliefs are based on personal experience not just in relation to seeing the cat but also a personal belief in his own view of the cat.  It considers others views incorrect or distorted because of their bad experiences.  Tolerance is very subjective. 

The researcher proceeds to the next house to ask Villager D. Villager D scoffs when asked, saying that belief in the existence of Cat is nonsensical. They had never experienced Cat and believes that other villagers hadn’t either. What they experienced were hallucinations or misperceptions of non-feline phenomena, oftentimes due to an intense will to believe. They say that if you wish to see Cat badly enough that you will be convinced anything could be Cat. The disappearance of the various foods? Could be hobos or any number of explanations that don’t require the existence of Cat. Villager D also points at the contradictions of Cat. One cat cannot be a tabby, a short black haired, and a marmalade tom at the same time.

A skeptical believer in the cat.  OR an atheist based on personal experience.  a Religious experience or a non-religious experience. Interesting. Yet surprisingly accurate position of many atheists who don't believe because they don't have the religious experience. As I said above - if we base our theology on an experience or let our experience determine our theology  it shapes our thinking.  The person who believes in god because of religious experience is no different that the atheist who does not believe because of a lack of experience. The experience of whatever type is not a definer of truth.  

The researcher then proceeds to the final house to ask Villager E about their beliefs. Villager E laughs and informs the researcher that there have been three different cats in the village for years, one a tabby, one with short black hair, and one a marmalade tom. Each has its own territory they mostly respect and knows where and when to get the food they each prefer. All of them occasionally go to Villager E’s house as well as they have kibble, milk, and canned food for them. She laughs and says it is funny as she had recently spotted a blue burmese female recently and has had a litter of kittens. How the other villagers react when they see these she cannot imagine.
This is I assume the polytheistic position. Again based on experience. 

Each of these five villagers represents a different view one can take. Villagers A, B, and C are ‘mono-felists’. They believe in one Cat but have different views about other people’s experiences. Villager A thinks that none of the cats other people believe in exist at all (existence-exclusive). Villager B thinks that the other cats people believe in are real, just not cats (value-exclusive). Villager C thinks that there is one cat with many faces (inclusive). Villager D is an afelist, they don’t think cats exist at all. Villager E is a polyfelist and believes there are many cats.
I like these illustrations.  But really they only confirm that religious experience is not the determiner of God existence.  

Explanation of the Analogy and Monotheist Positions
From the analogy it should be easy to see that the monotheists(monofelists) require special pleading in order to justify the experience of others within their framework, but we can go into more detail here.
Ok. 

Let’s take two people, Jack and Jill. Jack believes in Odin while Jill believes in Yahweh.
If Jill is an existence-exclusive monotheist they hold the view that Odin does not exist and Yahweh does. How do they justify this view? Jill might appeal to the Bible as a sacred text, but Jack can respond that he has the Havamal, the Words of Odin. Jill might appeal to prayers, revelations, and religious experiences she or other believers in Yahweh have… but Jack could do the same with those that believe in Odin. Jill could claim to have experienced miracles, but so could Jack. Jill might appeal to prophets or heroes/martyrs of Christianity, but then Jack could once more do the same. The evidence that Jill can provide as to why Yahweh exists and not Odin also exists for other religions, thus special pleading is ultimately required to justify accepting Jill’s view over Jack’s.
I think you are mixing up religious experience with both reason and special revelation.  Religious experience is not special revelation. Appealing to the bible is special revelation. And it is also appealing to reason and the authenticity and historic reliability of the text. Comparative studies of texts  are helpful especially if one is basing their credibility on it.  Jill seems odd if she is Christian.  Appealing to special revelation is one thing. To then appeal to prayer, general revelation , religious experience, etc is an inconsistent way of appeal.  I agree Jack might use the same things.  I think miracles might be similar - yet, it depends what you mean. Anyone who appeals to a religious experience to prove their point has missed the mark.  Special pleading is still a vague comment here.

This problem is not solved by Jill taking the view of the value-exclusive monotheist either. How can Jill give evidence that Yahweh is the only God and that Odin is something else? Through special pleading, as, just like above, the reasons Jill can give can be matched with reasons Jack can give.
Again the problem rests on your understanding of personal religious experience.   


Inclusivism is a product of polytheism anyway.  It is a polytheistic notion - not mono-theism. Not sure of your point. 

Conclusion
I believe that the thesis has made it clear, religious diversity favors the polytheistic interpretation over the monotheistic one. The monotheistic interpretation requires special pleading and/or unfounded assumptions in order to justify the diversity of religious experience that occurs across the world and throughout time. As such, if religious experience is to be seen as valid then, until evidence/arguments are providedtruth.  for monotheism, polytheism is more likely to be true.
I am not persuaded of your conclusions.    I agree that religious experience is not the correct basis for understanding or determining theology, God or Truth. Nevertheless, the Christian religion is not based on the religious experience historically.  Historically it is based on historical facts.  Religious experiences may or may not be valid.  They may or may not be true - the problem is they are all subjective.  I don't see how religious experience provides a more favourable interpretation for polytheistic ones over mono-theistic ones.  







Topic's author
#9
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Which religion or denomination would you put this person at?  Definitely does not fall under any christian denomination that I am aware of. 
The various villagers represent different positions one can take on the religious experience of others.
Villager A takes the position that all religious experience of others is false (made up, hallucinations, etc.)
Villager B takes the position that they had an experience but that it isn't of Cat (god).
Villager C takes the position they they had an experience of Cat, and the differences is how they view Cat can be explained.
Villager D takes the position that there are no Cats.
Villager E takes the position that there are many Cats.

They aren't supposed to represent religions or denominations, they represent the positions one can take in regards to religious experience.

I would never use it as a basis or proving God exists
This isn't really relevant for the argument though. It does not matter if one person's religious experience cannot be used as evidence to another person, all that matters is if someone acknowledges that religious experience happens (and is real).

But really they only confirm that religious experience is not the determiner of God existence.
The argument isn't supposed to be a determiner, it sets a 'prior probability'. It is that polytheism is apriori more likely than monotheism. It is similar to the atheist's use of the Null Hypothesis. Until arguments for theism are given one should maintain atheism via Null Hypothesis, until arguments that there can only be one god are given one should maintain polytheism via Greer's argument.

I think you are mixing up religious experience with both reason and special revelation.
I do not see how, the section you quote is the section on people trying to justify their religious experience over others by using various arguments. Without reason it is special pleading to take their views, and most arguments that one can give can be argued to require special pleading as similar (or identical) arguments can exist for other religions.

Also, how is appealing to special revelation not require special pleading here? You can say that there is special revelation behind the Bible, what prevents me of saying the same about the Havamal?

Inclusivism is a product of polytheism anyway.  It is a polytheistic notion - not mono-theism. Not sure of your point.
How is it polytheistic?
#10
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret

.
TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a woman to a man, and now unknown, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she/unknown follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT, and obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, an embarrassed LIAR of their true gender, and goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, has turned into a HYPOCRITE, and a LIAR, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind,” scenario, and is a False Prophet,


TRADESECRET’S CONTINUED BIBLE IGNORANCE UPON RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE:  “I personally would never use religious experience to determine my theology.”

Why not Bible fool? Whereas, esteemed Biblical characters did make Religious Experience the fact that our serial killer Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, proved Himself in existing!  With your embarrassing and ungodly quote above, you slap the face of Moses, Jesus’ angel, and Abraham, just to name a few, in directly having Religious Experiences to determine their faith! HELLO, Bible fool, anyone home today, NOT!

1. Remember the Religious Experience of Moses when he came across a burning bush in the desert, and Jesus commanded him to return to Egypt to free his people? (Exodus: 3–4).

2. The Angel of Jesus promised Gideon through Religious Experience the divine deliverance from Israel’s enemy, the Midianites (Judges. 6:11–8:32), Get it Bible fool?

3. In Abraham’s old age, and despite his having no children, the Religious Experience of Jesus promising Abraham that he and his aged wife, Sarah, would have a son through whom Abraham would become the father of a great nation (Genesis 12 and 28). Understood?

4. Within Kings 1 and 2, “Jesus appears to kings and prophets” with numerous warnings and promises in a Religious Experience which they took literally, therefore proving that Jesus existed!

In the New Testament you forgot about one of many Religious Experiences, where in this case, relative to the birth announcements of John the Baptist: “Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John.” (Luke 1: 11:13). Within this Religious Experience John was born, and therefore proving Jesus exists as Yahweh God incarnate! Understand Bible fool?

Now, if you don’t accept that the above RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES didn’t prove that Jesus existed to believe in the faith, then once again you are the continued blatant Bible stupid and ignorant fool by not using religious experieces to determine your faith! Again, you slap the Bible in the face! BLASPHEME!


TRADESECRET, seriously, how many times do I have to Bible Slap you Silly®️ for you to realize that you do not belong within this prestigious forum because you embarrass Christianity and this DEBATEART Religious Forum to no end!  You continue to embarrass yourself in front of the membership at your continued Bible stupid expense like the now departed FAUXLAW did, therefore, when are you going to learn like he had to do to save further embarrassment?! 


NEXT TOTALLY BIBLE IGNORANT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE TRADESECRET WILL BE … ?

.

#11
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret
@Bones

.

RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES ARE TRUE, PRAISE!!!

Unlike the Satanic Bible fool TRADESECRET in not using Religious Experiences as validity of our faith, I have had MANY True Christian Religious Experiences in my lifetime and accept them as being a foundation of truth in that Jesus exists, and is biblically vouchsafed that my faith is true, as shown in my post #10 above! Praise!

As one of MANY examples in myself having a Religious Experience, other than 2nd class women being Sisters of Eve in lining up for me because of my manly looks and Bible intellect, I have a rescue dog that I had to appropriately name “JESUS” for obvious reasons as shown in the image herewith where Jesus appears upon his butt: https://ibb.co/FHTHyvJ

The Religious Experience pareidolia in the image above proves without a doubt that Jesus exists and my faith is true, which is equal to Mexicans seeing the image of Jesus upon taco shells, praise Jesus!

.
#12
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
TRADESECRET -  “I personally would never use religious experience to determine my theology.”

Why not ...? Whereas, esteemed Biblical characters did make Religious Experience the fact that ... Yahweh God incarnate, proved Himself in existing!  With your ... quote above, you ... [insult] the face of Moses, Jesus’ angel, and Abraham, just to name a few, in directly having Religious Experiences to determine their faith!!
NB: I have edited your statements - not taking away the substance just removing the needless blasphemy. 

But at least you are attempting to make an argument. Although I must wonder why?  Still, I am sure it will come out in due course.  To answer you question why not.   My Faith is based on reason not on subjective religious experience.  Your faith on the other hand is based on absurdity.  You reject reason. You reject empiricism. Your faith is therefore irrational.  And just to be clear, I am not talking about your charade as the Brother.  I am talking about your faith as an atheist.  I reject it is a non-faith. And rightly so.  So I will never commence with a religious experience as the determiner of my religion. And for the record, the Bible never EVER talks about faith in the manner you discuss.  And for completeness sake, I never said religious experiences cannot be genuine.  Nor that there are no examples of religious experience in the Bible - the question is - how and what were they used for? I would suggest NEVER to prove God exists. 

1. Remember the Religious Experience of Moses when he came across a burning bush in the desert, and Jesus commanded him to return to Egypt to free his people? (Exodus: 3–4).
Who can forget this amazing and challenging story.  God appeared to Moses and commanded him to return to Jesus.  But respectfully, is this when Moses first began to believe in God or was he already a believer? This picture of the burning bush is an experience. The question is whether it is a religious experience - as defined as a subjective personal experience that no one else could have experienced if they were there too. In other words, is every experience a religious experience? No. of course not. Is every experience related to religion or God a religious experience? Of course not. If you were to walk into a church - and talk to the minister in a church, you would be having an experience - but would it be a religious experience? Of course not.  If I spoke to a Buddhist monk as he walked down the road - is that a spiritual or religious experience? Of course not.  Was Moses' experience subjective or objective? I suggest in the situation it was objective.  Hence it was not a typical religious experience.  It was certainly an experience.  Yet, it did not convince Moses that God existed - since Moses already believed that God existed. One also needs to differentiate between religious experience and special revelation. The two are not the same. 


2. The Angel of Jesus promised Gideon through Religious Experience the divine deliverance from Israel’s enemy, the Midianites (Judges. 6:11–8:32), Get it Bible fool?
Again another great story.  But it is not proving God exists or not.  Gideon already believed God existed.  

3. In Abraham’s old age, and despite his having no children, the Religious Experience of Jesus promising Abraham that he and his aged wife, Sarah, would have a son through whom Abraham would become the father of a great nation (Genesis 12 and 28). Understood?
Again I am not disputing religious experience - whatever that might mean.  Yet it was not a religious experience that convinced Abraham that God was real. 

4. Within Kings 1 and 2, “Jesus appears to kings and prophets” with numerous warnings and promises in a Religious Experience which they took literally, therefore proving that Jesus existed!
Again - the question of religious experiences or any kind of experience is not the issue. It really is not.  The question is the purpose of these so called experiences. And none of them were ever done to prove God exists. 


In the New Testament you forgot about one of many Religious Experiences, where in this case, relative to the birth announcements of John the Baptist: “Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John.” (Luke 1: 11:13). Within this Religious Experience John was born, and therefore proving Jesus exists as Yahweh God incarnate! Understand Bible fool?
Brother, I have never denied the existence of a religious experience - although I have questioned the meaning of what it is.   I think that a so called religious experience by a LDS for instance is one which is a feeling. Or an intuition. Or something subjective that no one else could experience. And yes there are some of these things in the bible. For example dreams. - Although it is also true that when a dream was mentioned -it was also interpreted often by someone else specifically set aside to that.  Joseph or Daniel etc. And the experience in that sense is very often confirmed by independent sources.  So in Daniel's case with Nebuchanessar,  the king was not going to believe Daniel could interpret the dream unless he could also tell the dream for a start. Nebuchadnezzar has to confirm Daniel really knew what he was talking about - and so God gave him the dream and then the interpretation.  The other people in Persia at the time - the experts - just wanted to interpret the dream - because then it could never be disproved.  And they said it is impossible for people to have the same dream as the king. And for intents and purposes that is correct.  Yet, Daniel received the same dream - told the king - who knew then that Daniel was not just having some kind of religious experience - although I am sure you would he was - and so he was ready to also hear the interpretation.   The God of the Bible is a very rational God - and his people are also rational. A religious experience all by itself is simply absurd - if there is not confirmation from independent sources. 

In the story you recite from Luke,  the high priest was struck dumb. Everyone saw this man who could talk was now unable to talk. If it was a religious experience - it was not just for John's dad, it was for everyone else in the family, and his work colleagues and others as well. It was not to prove that God existed either. Zechariah already believed God existed. 

Thanks for at least trying to make an argument. It would be helpful for future discussions for you to consider the difference between a religious experience and other experiences and what is a religious experience as opposed to an experience that occurs within a religious setting. Distinguish between it is personal and subjective or whether other people also experience the same thing.  Then perhaps it will be more fruitful. 

#13
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Which religion or denomination would you put this person at?  Definitely does not fall under any christian denomination that I am aware of. 
The various villagers represent different positions one can take on the religious experience of others.
Villager A takes the position that all religious experience of others is false (made up, hallucinations, etc.)
Villager B takes the position that they had an experience but that it isn't of Cat (god).
Villager C takes the position they they had an experience of Cat, and the differences is how they view Cat can be explained.
Villager D takes the position that there are no Cats.
Villager E takes the position that there are many Cats.

They aren't supposed to represent religions or denominations, they represent the positions one can take in regards to religious experience.
Then the pictures are respectfully unhelpful. It only goes to demonstrate in the case of what I would call a strawman argument.  Atheists for instance - might take a view like D - but if you were to talk to an Atheist they would say that this is incorrect.  In other words, the pictures are to general and not specific enough.  For instance, I am a monotheist. Where do I fit in? I am not A because I do not think that ALL religious experiences are made up. I am not B because some religious experiences might be from God and some might not be from God. I am not C because not every experience that people have is from God. I am not D because I do believe in GOD. I am not E because there is only one GOD.  The problem is the subjective personal experience. 

I would never use it as a basis or proving God exists
This isn't really relevant for the argument though. It does not matter if one person's religious experience cannot be used as evidence to another person, all that matters is if someone acknowledges that religious experience happens (and is real).
I don't agree.  The purpose of religious experience is what is being discussed here. Is it to prove that God exists or gods exist or no god exists? Otherwise there is no real purpose for it.  

But really they only confirm that religious experience is not the determiner of God existence.
The argument isn't supposed to be a determiner, it sets a 'prior probability'. It is that polytheism is apriori more likely than monotheism. It is similar to the atheist's use of the Null Hypothesis. Until arguments for theism are given one should maintain atheism via Null Hypothesis, until arguments that there can only be one god are given one should maintain polytheism via Greer's argument.
I don't agree.  Perhaps you need to explain the difference between religious experience and experience within a religious context. Perhaps you ought to define the difference between spiritual experience and ordinary experience.  I reject the assumption that atheism is the default position.

I think you are mixing up religious experience with both reason and special revelation.
I do not see how, the section you quote is the section on people trying to justify their religious experience over others by using various arguments. Without reason it is special pleading to take their views, and most arguments that one can give can be argued to require special pleading as similar (or identical) arguments can exist for other religions.
Just for the record, special pleading is not a reason to reject its truth. Perhaps we ought to start again.  Please define religious experience. 

Also, how is appealing to special revelation not require special pleading here? You can say that there is special revelation behind the Bible, what prevents me of saying the same about the Havamal?
The Bible is an axiom. The Havamai is not.   The Bible is self-validating. In all of the religious transcripts in the world for major religions current and past, there are VERY VERY few scriptures that are self validating. For example - the Quran is not a self-validating scripture. Nowhere in the Muslim scriptures does the book ever declare it is the Word of God.  No person in the book ever calls the Quran the Word of God from God. Nowhere. It's prophets might after the book has been written - but that is not self-validating, that is post validating. Quite different.  Just because you say one thing is not the same as it being so.  

I have perused and studied  most religious textbooks by most religions. And I think it is vey reasonable to deduce that if God exists and he is going to use a written text to use - that he will in that book - make it clear - over and over again that it is his book.  On the other hand, this does not prove it is God's book. So don't miss my point here.  What we can do - is clear the decks as it were. If a religious book does not claim to be the Word of God, we can remove it from the list of books which are from God.   This of course only leaves very very few. I suggest far less than a handful.  Your Havamai does not fall into the category therefore it would be removed from the list.  It might be a very fine religious book - but it is obviously not an axiom. 


Inclusivism is a product of polytheism anyway.  It is a polytheistic notion - not mono-theism. Not sure of your point.
How is it polytheistic?
Have you ever come across the phrase "the one and the many"? Inclusiveness is a product of the One. It is therefore logically and consistently polytheistic. Hence, inclusiveness tends to be seen in cultures such as eastern nations - India, China, etc and interestingly in the Atheistic ones. Atheism is essentially a polytheistic religion.   The notion of NO GOD turns into everyone is a god. We are all masters of our destinies. No one - can tell us what to do. We are all little gods. 








Topic's author
#14
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
For instance, I am a monotheist. Where do I fit in?
From what I can tell you hold a mix of the various monotheistic views presented, so I don't see how you are struggling here. As each of the three require fallacious reasoning to sustain themselves over the polytheistic interpretation it follows that mixing and matching does the same.

Perhaps you need to explain the difference between religious experience and experience within a religious context.
For the purpose of Greer's argument, a religious experience is an experience one has of a god. It is vaguely defined on purpose as there are a wide range of ways one can hold the experience.

I reject the assumption that atheism is the default position.
You reject the Null Hypothesis? Why?

 special pleading is not a reason to reject its truth
Again, it is about prior probabilities, not final ones. If one view requires a fallacy to support and the other doesn't then the one that doesn't is initially favored. Arguments can be provided to shift probabilities, but that goes beyond the purpose of the argument.

The Bible is an axiom. The Havamai is not.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

 In all of the religious transcripts in the world for major religions current and past, there are VERY VERY few scriptures that are self validating. For example - the Quran is not a self-validating scripture. Nowhere in the Muslim scriptures does the book ever declare it is the Word of God

Your Havamai does not fall into the category therefore it would be removed from the list.

Self validating means that the book declares it is the "Word of God"? Well, then I don't know why you are including the Havamal as one that isn't self-validating when it is explicitly the Words of Odin. Havamal means "Words of Havi", Havi means High One, and the High One is explicitly Odin. As such the name of the text is "Words of Odin". Also, Havamal, not Havamai.

I honestly have no idea how you come to the conclusion that it doesn't declare it is the word of a god when that is literally the name of the text itself.

I also think this standard you are giving is absurd. Why must a book declare it was written by god(s) to be valid? Because you find it "reasonable" that a god would do so? Who says that a holy book necessarily has to be written by god?

Have you ever come across the phrase "the one and the many"? Inclusiveness is a product of the One. It is therefore logically and consistently polytheistic. Hence, inclusiveness tends to be seen in cultures such as eastern nations - India, China, etc and interestingly in the Atheistic ones. Atheism is essentially a polytheistic religion.   The notion of NO GOD turns into everyone is a god. We are all masters of our destinies. No one - can tell us what to do. We are all little gods. 
This sounds, to me, like hogwash coming from a point of view that has no understanding on the philosophy of religion.
#15
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@TheMorningsStar
From what I can tell you hold a mix of the various monotheistic views presented, so I don't see how you are struggling here. As each of the three require fallacious reasoning to sustain themselves over the polytheistic interpretation it follows that mixing and matching does the same.
Respectfully that is a cop out.  I am not a mixture of these three monotheistic views. The views are clearly caricatures and therefore strawman. 


Perhaps you need to explain the difference between religious experience and experience within a religious context.
For the purpose of Greer's argument, a religious experience is an experience one has of a god. It is vaguely defined on purpose as there are a wide range of ways one can hold the experience.
Then that does not help at all. I have never had an experience of God and yet everything I experience is of God.   Therefore I should be an atheist or a pantheist. Yet, neither is not true.   It is too vague to base an argument, let alone to draw any conclusions from. Distinguish it from ordinary experiences. 

I reject the assumption that atheism is the default position.
You reject the Null Hypothesis? Why?
I never said I reject the Null Hypothesis.  I reject the assumption that atheism is the default position.  Atheism is a faith based position. 

 special pleading is not a reason to reject its truth
Again, it is about prior probabilities, not final ones. If one view requires a fallacy to support and the other doesn't then the one that doesn't is initially favored. Arguments can be provided to shift probabilities, but that goes beyond the purpose of the argument.
I suppose I should read the book. You are not making sense. No offence. I will have to read and reread your sentence. 


The Bible is an axiom. The Havamai is not.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
The Bible is an axiom and the Havamai is not.  Perhaps you need to learn about axioms. There are certain axioms in life. Premises that exist and MUST be self-validating. Reason or logic is one.  Experience or empiricism is another.  A third is special revelation.  It is the beginning point that people base their life on.  Each however is self-validating. We do not validate it's authority from another axiom or else it validation actually replaces the axiom.  Yet all are self-validating. This means all are axioms by reference to themselves.  For example to prove the laws of logic we would not suspend the use of the laws of logic to prove its truth. We would use - logic itself - despite the fact that we have not proved its truth. It is self-validating. Similarly - if we were to use the laws of logic to establish the axiomatic nature of empiricism, then we have lost the argument.  What we learn with our senses must be the validation of it. And the same applies to special revelation. Revelation must be self-validating.  It must declare it is the words of God. It must openly say it. Not hiding it. Not inferring it simply in its title. The Bible all the way through it identified the Word of the Lord as authoritative - but it itself also declares it to be the case.  It, like any axiom must be self-witnessing. 

Self validating means that the book declares it is the "Word of God"? Well, then I don't know why you are including the Havamal as one that isn't self-validating when it is explicitly the Words of Odin. Havamal means "Words of Havi", Havi means High One, and the High One is explicitly Odin. As such the name of the text is "Words of Odin". Also, Havamal, not Havamai.
Where does the Havamal declare that it is the Words of Odin within the texts. It certainly at times refers to Odin.  And sometimes it seems to quote his words.  But nowhere does it give us a clue that the book is entirely the Word of Odin. It also seems that the Havamal suggests that these words are Odin's without the book itself - making that point. 

The Bible is quite distinct in this position. 

I honestly have no idea how you come to the conclusion that it doesn't declare it is the word of a god when that is literally the name of the text itself.
The logic is clear.  If God was going to use a book to communicate with his people - he would not make it difficult for people to figure this out.  It would not be secret.  Reasonably, it would declare it is.  Of course, any person could write a book and declare it is god writing it. And that is why I am not saying it proves God wrote the book.  But it the natural deduction - that God would declare any book he wrote. Hence, for a book to not declare it - can be reasonably dismissed as being his writing.  Of course - people who think their religious book is from God but then see this thinking would be dubious. Yet the logic is sound. 

I also think this standard you are giving is absurd. Why must a book declare it was written by god(s) to be valid? Because you find it "reasonable" that a god would do so? Who says that a holy book necessarily has to be written by god?
Of course you think this is absurd. Your book does not declare that God wrote it.  Nor does it declare that is the word of God. That of course is your problem, not mine.  For me, it is enough of a reason to reject it as God's word and as an axiom.  Holy Books could logically be written by non-gods. Hey the Bible is written in that glorious logic of - fully God and fully Man. God used Men to write it for him. Not on behalf of God. Not dictated by God. No as the Spirit breathed out - he moved men to write the words of God.  But your religious book does not even suggest this is the case.  It does not say it was written by holy men on behalf of god. your religious - book interesting as it is - doesn't pretend to be anything like you are suggesting it is. It provides lots of interesting information. Helpful too in some cases.   Yet - this does not make it the Word of God. It is not a self-validating axiom. 


Have you ever come across the phrase "the one and the many"? Inclusiveness is a product of the One. It is therefore logically and consistently polytheistic. Hence, inclusiveness tends to be seen in cultures such as eastern nations - India, China, etc and interestingly in the Atheistic ones. Atheism is essentially a polytheistic religion.   The notion of NO GOD turns into everyone is a god. We are all masters of our destinies. No one - can tell us what to do. We are all little gods. 
This sounds, to me, like hogwash coming from a point of view that has no understanding on the philosophy of religion.
Why? Do you see the difference between the West and the East? Do you not come across the tensions between the individual and the corporate. Whose right is paramount? Should I own a gun to protect myself or should the community be safe from people who have guns?  Should the rights of the individual not to be vaccinated against the rights of the community to be safe from a disease? Which one is paramount? What is more important - the ends or the means? 

Should the ends justify the means or are the means as important as the end? This is the issue of the one and the many.  That you would consider this hogwash demonstrates you have no understanding of the philosophy of religion. Is it just coincidence that in cultures that advocate ONE GOD - like Israel, Islam Nations, and cults like JWs, that there are very strict laws - and very non-inclusive values?  Is it just coincidence that in cultures that advocate many gods like India, and China, that there is variety of eclecticism?  

Why is it that the morality in Eastern Nations is more colored than in Muslim nations? One listens to the voice of absolutes and other of relativism.  

Atheism is more relative - post modern.   The Western Nations have traditionally been more modernistic in their position. Trappings of the Judea Christian heritage.  Yet Atheism as it becomes more dominant in society is heading philosophy and everything else towards non-absolutes.   We live in a non-binary age now.  Morality is as Morality does.  Everyone is their own god. Polytheism.  Not every god has to be superhuman.   Most are just ordinary people who believe they have the right to do whatever they want and to believe whatever they want. This is the essence of deity. 










Topic's author
#16
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
The views are clearly caricatures and therefore strawman.
Really? You are aware that these are legitimate views monotheists have taken within philosophy, right? It seems to me like you have no actual understanding of philosophy beyond apologetics with how you are struggling here.

 Therefore I should be an atheist or a pantheist.
Either you are strawmanning the argument or you are just not grasping it. Do you not understand what prior probabilities are? Because it seems that is the case with what you are saying.

I never said I reject the Null Hypothesis.  I reject the assumption that atheism is the default position.
Are you not aware that the Null Hypothesis when applied to the god claim has atheism as default? Do you not know what the Null Hypothesis is or are you ignorant on what a default position is?

You are not making sense.
I honestly don't know how much simpler I can make it without having you actually take a Philosophy 101 course at this point.

The Bible is an axiom and the Havamai is not.  Perhaps you need to learn about axioms.
I know what axioms are and it seems like you are misusing the term. If you have 'the Bible as an axiom' (whatever you are supposed to mean by that) then you may as well quit this site as debate becomes impossible with you. As such you must be using the term in an entirely different way than it is used in philosophy.

Where does the Havamal declare that it is the Words of Odin within the texts.
You know how when you pick up a book it has a title, right? If the title says that the book is the "Words of Odin" then why would it be necessary to make it clear within the text once more that it is, indeed, the words of Odin.

he would not make it difficult for people to figure this out.  It would not be secret.
You are presupposing the nature that god(s) must have.

Your book does not declare that God wrote it.
My book? I use many books and the one I have mentioned in this thread is explicitly the Words of Odin yet you keep pretending that it isn't. The fact that I outlined this clearly in my last comment and you basically decided to ignore what I said makes me convinced you are not an honest actor and thus I am only responding at this point as a courtesy.

reject it as God's word and as an axiom.
Again, you clearly have no idea what an axiom is in philosophy.

Atheism is more relative - post modern.   The Western Nations have traditionally been more modernistic in their position. Trappings of the Judea Christian heritage.  Yet Atheism as it becomes more dominant in society is heading philosophy and everything else towards non-absolutes.   We live in a non-binary age now.  Morality is as Morality does.  Everyone is their own god. Polytheism.  Not every god has to be superhuman.   Most are just ordinary people who believe they have the right to do whatever they want and to believe whatever they want. This is the essence of deity. 
It is due to this type of stuff that I am convinced that you haven't read anything in philosophy except apologetics. Combine that with your blatant dishonesty when it comes to the Havamal, even after I spelled it out, and it is clear you are not an honest actor. I made this reply as a last courtesy, but if you aren't actually going to be an honest actor then don't bother replying at this point. I get better engagement on these topics on websites that aren't debate focused.
#17
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
@BrotherDThomas
 “I personally would never use religious experience to determine my theology.”
Then you do not understand - or mores likely the case - you have never read 1 Corinthians 2:14

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned". <<<< .  You do know what that means don't you Reverend "tradey" Tradesecrete? It means that for all of your pretence and personas, god here is obviously talking about the likes of you.
Yet you tell us that you had a calling!???? That you are accredited and qualified to preach the word of god? From whom do you claim this authority?

How did you receive this calling: obviously not through a religious experience, was it?  You simply don't know what a religious experience is  as you are unable to judge either way what one is. 

Did Ezekiel  have a religious experience when he is said to have witnessed the chariot of god descend from heaven? Yes or no?

And doesn't god himself say some will have "visions come the day of the lord". ? Yes or no?

What about Habakkuk ? Did he not have a religious experience  and told to write them down? Yes or no?

Did not Jacob experience a  religious experience?  Yes or now?


So when you are ready Reverend "Tradey" tradesecrete.




#18
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret

.
TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a woman to a man, and now unknown, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she/unknown follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT, and obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, an embarrassed LIAR of their true gender, and goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, has turned into a HYPOCRITE, and a LIAR, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind,” scenario, and is a False Prophet,



YOUR QUOTE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS AND NOT RUN AWAY FROM, UNDERSTOOD BIBLE FOOL?: “The God of the Bible is a very rational God - and his people are also rational. A religious experience all by itself is simply absurd - if there is not confirmation from independent sources.”

No confirmation from independent sources? Since when did you worry about this notion since you RAN AWAY in giving Bible citations in your embarrassing thread of Resurrection within the Jewish system as embarrassingly shown below? LOL!!!
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6542-the-implicit-resurrection-within-the-jewish-system?page=1&post_number=7

Relative to your quote above, tell the membership in how rational our serial killer Jesus is, as Yahweh God incarnate, in the following examples, and again, NO RUNNING AWAY as usual, understood Bible fool, where you have already set a record in this forum for doing so!

1. Explain how “rational” it is for Jesus to cause abortions within the women of Ephram and to KILL these women’s babies if they were born as shown in the following link:  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6316-the-meaning-of-death?page=5&post_number=113


2. Explain how “rational” Jesus is when he made his creation eat their children, and how rational the people were when they ate their children!

“And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters, and everyone shall eat the flesh of his neighbor in the siege and in the distress, with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them.” (Jeremiah 19:9)

“Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in your midst, and sons shall eat their fathers. And I will execute judgments on you, and any of you who survive I will scatter to all the winds.” (Ezekiel 5:10)


3. Tell us how Jesus as God is “rational” when He commands that innocent infants will be smashed to pieces, and wives ravished of the Medes. Question, when smashing babies like Jesus wants, do you think it sounds like a watermelon being thrown upon a large rock?  (Isaiah 13:15-18)


Tradesecret, in all of the “Hot Air” you gave me relating to your version of Religious Experiences, you slap Jesus in the face when He gives them to his creation in further proving His stature, and as we’re told, to FEAR JESUS, even though He is all loving and forgiving! (Proverbs 9:10)

NOW,  IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO ADDRESS THE ABOVE 3 PROPOSITIONS OF JESUS AS GOD BEING RATIONAL SHOWN ABOVE, AND HOW THE PEOPLE ARE RATIONAL AS WELL SINCE YOU PROFFERED THIS NOTION IN THE FIRST PLACE!

!!!! BEGIN:

.
#19
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
“I personally would never use religious experience to determine my theology.”
Then you do not understand - or mores likely the case - you have never read 1 Corinthians 2:14
Yes, I have read that passage many times. In fact I have quoted it at you to demonstrate you could not possibly understand the Scriptures because you are not Spiritually alive. Don't patronize me. 


"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned". <<<< . 
You do know what that means don't you ...?
Yes. It means that you ARE unable to understand it. So there is no point in pretending that you do. 

It means that for all of your pretence and personas, god here is obviously talking about the likes of you.
Does it? And who says so? 


Yet you tell us that you had a calling!????
Oh yes and when did I do that? Stop asserting things and prove it. 

That you are accredited and qualified to preach the word of god? From whom do you claim this authority?
Did I? Again prove it. Produce my actual words with the actual link. 

How did you receive this calling: obviously not through a religious experience, was it?  You simply don't know what a religious experience is  as you are unable to judge either way what one is. 
You really have no clue do you? I asked both The Morning Star and Brother to differentiate between an experience and a religious experience. The Morning Star just avoided the question. And I have not yet read Brother's reply - but I predict he will too.  

In relation to a calling - you need to do some homework.    Again - what is the difference between a subjective religious experience and an experience that happens within religious settings? And there is a difference.   Talking with a pastor in a church is the latter. A LDS praying to God for the Spirit to subjectively witness with his Spirit is a religious experience.  Meeting with a pastor in a church is objective experience - the witness of the Spirit for a warm fuzzy feeling is a subjective one. 

If I was called - the question for you - and which you obviously no idea is - whether it was subjective or objective.  How can a call be objective? Again, easy. But you know everything - you figure it out.  

Did Ezekiel  have a religious experience when he is said to have witnessed the chariot of god descend from heaven? Yes or no?
Firstly, I assume you are referring to Ezekiel's vision of the Ark of the Covenant within the temple - as he saw as a priest.  Or are you talking about Elijah or Elisha with the fiery chariot?  In either case, you either get your facts correct or stop interpreting what is not there. 

Secondly, Based on my understanding and distinction between religious experience and an experience  which might be within religious settings or to do with God, then no. Ezekiel did not have a religious experience.  I say he received special revelation from God, so not a religious experience but an objective experience with God.

But for the sake of your argument, , let's assume that I am wrong and he did have a religious experience, did he use it to prove God existed? No. He already believed in God. Did it inform his theology? Well perhaps it did. But would explain how it has?  Yes, he wrote a book. But what was the practical implications of it? How did this revelation of the Temple and its Ark of the Covenant change any part of his theology?  This is your argument - so you prove what you seem to be suggesting. 

And doesn't god himself say some will have "visions come the day of the lord". ? Yes or no?
Absolutely.  Yet again, the question for you is to differentiate between religious experiences and experiences that happen within religious settings or things to do with God.  God giving people dreams and visions are not religious experiences as they are experiences that happen within religious settings and with God.  I do agree that many people do have religious experiences - and these do shape their theology.  But I do not let these so called experiences shape my theology.  I could give you examples - but given your predisposition to use any personal story as some sort of weapon, I won't. 

What about Habakkuk ? Did he not have a religious experience  and told to write them down? Yes or no?
Again I would say No. Habakkuk did not have a subjective religious experience.  After all, how could  a subjective personal experience tell someone else to write something down? 


Did not Jacob experience a  religious experience?  Yes or now?

Nope.    Please distinguish between  experience and religious experience. 
#20
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“The God of the Bible is a very rational God - and his people are also rational. A religious experience all by itself is simply absurd - if there is not confirmation from independent sources.”
That's a great quote. Can I keep it?  Thanks for repeating it.  Please will everyone read it.  It is so good when finally the dum dums start to repeat the truth. Amen Brother. 

Relative to your quote above, tell the membership in how rational ... Jesus is, as Yahweh God incarnate, in the following examples, and again, NO RUNNING AWAY as usual, understood Bible fool, where you have already set a record in this forum for doing so!
Firstly, ipso facto - I am here.  I have not run away.  Logically if I am here then I have not run away. It seems your logic is once again revealed to be weak. Perhaps you are hallucinating?  Yet this is likely as Brother you are IRRATIONAL. And illogical.  And that is just the nice things. 

1. Explain how “rational” it is for Jesus to cause abortions within the women of Ephram and to KILL these women’s babies if they were born as shown in the following link:  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6316-the-meaning-of-death?page=5&post_number=113
Brother dear,  excuse me. Why is that irrational? And let's see if you can do it consistently and logically.  After all, surely you don't believe in absolute morality?  There is no true right or true wrong, is there? The Atheist is the one who is irrational.  Your assertion is that your example shows God to be irrational.    I think that is perfectly rational.  Please show why it is irrational. Thanks. 


2. Explain how “rational” Jesus is when he made his creation eat their children, and how rational the people were when they ate their children!

“And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters, and everyone shall eat the flesh of his neighbor in the siege and in the distress, with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them.” (Jeremiah 19:9)

“Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in your midst, and sons shall eat their fathers. And I will execute judgments on you, and any of you who survive I will scatter to all the winds.” (Ezekiel 5:10)
Of course this is rational. Why would you think otherwise? Well I guess you do, hmm.  Can you explain why? I can't prove a negative obviously. And I think these things are totally rational. Even with your spin on them.   They seem to follow proper cause and effect situations. They seem to flow from induction and deductive methods.  Clearly - it implies there are absolutes. Moral absolutes.    All of this is perfectly rational. Why and how is it irrational? 

I mean given you are a proponent of randomness.  And a proponent of no fixed moral law. And a proponent of no right or wrong.   What are you basing any of these things on in the above example to demonstrate irrationality?  Please explain it to us. Thanks. 


3. Tell us how Jesus as God is “rational” when He commands that innocent infants will be smashed to pieces, and wives ravished of the Medes. Question, when smashing babies like Jesus wants, do you think it sounds like a watermelon being thrown upon a large rock?  (Isaiah 13:15-18)

Yes. More of the same.  Ok. Again, I say this is all very logical and very rational. It is all built on cause and effect and that God is in control of the universe, being the creator infact.  It it rationally in accord with justice.  It in accord with love. It is in accord with perfect rationality. I think your last comment about the water melon is silly.   But why do think this is irrational?   Is there no cause and effect?   Is there a suggestion of randomness or whimsicalness about this? Is it based on some religious experience?   This is your baby Brother. I think God is being perfectly rational.  So you need to show it is irrational.  

Thanks for playing. Next. 

I presume that you will run away and avoid answering my questions. 






#21
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@TheMorningsStar
The views are clearly caricatures and therefore strawman.
Really? You are aware that these are legitimate views monotheists have taken within philosophy, right? It seems to me like you have no actual understanding of philosophy beyond apologetics with how you are struggling here.
Well that hurts.  Stop making assumptions.  These are views that you have been told are out there. It would be nice if you could find one. You can think what you like about me. The fact it is a strawman argument. I called you out and you don't like it. 


 Therefore I should be an atheist or a pantheist.
Either you are strawmanning the argument or you are just not grasping it. Do you not understand what prior probabilities are? Because it seems that is the case with what you are saying.
I grasp it. I just don't agree with it.  I am a monotheist - yet I am none of these - I am not a mixture of them. I don't know anyone who actually holds to one of these views.   Your position of atheist and pantheist was closer to my view than your caracatures were. Ignoring my response or ridiculing is your issue - not mine. 

I never said I reject the Null Hypothesis.  I reject the assumption that atheism is the default position.
Are you not aware that the Null Hypothesis when applied to the god claim has atheism as default? Do you not know what the Null Hypothesis is or are you ignorant on what a default position is?
Only under the presumptions that you are making.  Not under the right assumption.   You are trying to pretend you are coming from a neutral position and yet you try and swing this one in under the radar.  Sorry.  I saw it.  You can't have it. Not unless you let me have mine as well. 

You are not making sense.
I honestly don't know how much simpler I can make it without having you actually take a Philosophy 101 course at this point.
Obviously you are not a teacher.   And don't live in the real world.  Or perhaps you are teacher, just not a very good one.  Your above presumptions do demonstrate a lack of living among real people - and in particular monotheists.  


The Bible is an axiom and the Havamai is not.  Perhaps you need to learn about axioms.

I know what axioms are and it seems like you are misusing the term. If you have 'the Bible as an axiom' (whatever you are supposed to mean by that) then you may as well quit this site as debate becomes impossible with you. As such you must be using the term in an entirely different way than it is used in philosophy.
Why does this not surprise me?  Reason - experience - Revelation are all axioms.  They are all self- validating.  And they are the base authority for what people believe.   None of these axioms are able to validate the other or they lose their status of axiom.   The Bible is Revelation.  IT does not end the debate - it actually enables the debate to continue with a point.   Every person has a bias and a prejudice. You and I both do. I just am honest enough to admit it - but also intelligent enough to know it is the only way to have a productive discussion.  You probably deny it - and then pretend to be neutral. Yet, that does not get anywhere.  If I let you get away with it - then I have conceded the argument and there is no point in continuing.  I am using it very much the way it is used in philosophy. Your statement is wrong. 


Where does the Havamal declare that it is the Words of Odin within the texts.
You know how when you pick up a book it has a title, right? If the title says that the book is the "Words of Odin" then why would it be necessary to make it clear within the text once more that it is, indeed, the words of Odin.
LOL! I can't believe you actually think that gives it any merit. Saying it has a title, wow! The title of the book is where you say it gains its authority.  That is precious. There is nowhere in the book - that indicates it is a "thus saith the Lord".  Not one. Titles are generally put onto a book well after it is written - at least in the older days.  No one anywhere actually believes that the book you have attached yourself to is actually the words of Odin. No one.  Look its your problem - not mine. 

he would not make it difficult for people to figure this out.  It would not be secret.
You are presupposing the nature that god(s) must have.
Yes. I am.   Just like you are presupposing that he would not.  


Your book does not declare that God wrote it.
My book? I use many books and the one I have mentioned in this thread is explicitly the Words of Odin yet you keep pretending that it isn't. The fact that I outlined this clearly in my last comment and you basically decided to ignore what I said makes me convinced you are not an honest actor and thus I am only responding at this point as a courtesy.
LOL! you brought it up. I doubted you were a believer in the book - you are just using it to try and gain some credibility back. The fact is - I indicated that there was less than a handful of religious books which actually declare they are from God.  I never said it proved it came from God. I used deduction to dismiss the books which did not make this claim.  You have attempted to mock that and scorn that view. You have not refuted it.  

The book you produce DOES Not claim to be the words of Odin. The title which more than likely was added afterwards by someone else - at its highest - says - the words of Odin if the translation is correct.  This is not a declaration - it is a title.  The bible simply means book. Most of the books within it - have titles that are simple the first words of the book or letter. Or are attributed later on. No one - historically, would suggest that the title is part of the book. You certainly tried to get around what I was saying. I call that rationalization - not honesty. 

reject it as God's word and as an axiom.
Again, you clearly have no idea what an axiom is in philosophy.
On the contrary you are struggling.  


Atheism is more relative - post modern.   The Western Nations have traditionally been more modernistic in their position. Trappings of the Judea Christian heritage.  Yet Atheism as it becomes more dominant in society is heading philosophy and everything else towards non-absolutes.   We live in a non-binary age now.  Morality is as Morality does.  Everyone is their own god. Polytheism.  Not every god has to be superhuman.   Most are just ordinary people who believe they have the right to do whatever they want and to believe whatever they want. This is the essence of deity. 
It is due to this type of stuff that I am convinced that you haven't read anything in philosophy except apologetics. Combine that with your blatant dishonesty when it comes to the Havamal, even after I spelled it out, and it is clear you are not an honest actor. I made this reply as a last courtesy, but if you aren't actually going to be an honest actor then don't bother replying at this point. I get better engagement on these topics on websites that aren't debate focused.


There are many books written on the One and the Many.  I first came across in in sociology. And then in history. And then in law. I cannot help it if you are ignorant. And not well read. You would get better engagement if you came realising that people are not going to accept your words as gospel and want you to prove your points.  Perhaps a debate site is not what you want.  You want a class full of students who don't think or question - but just receive the wonderful words of wisdom that fall from your lips.  



#22
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret
@Bones


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++  !!!!!  HEADLINE NEWS REGARDING THE EVER SO BIBLE STUPID TRADESECRET  !!!!!  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tradesecrets mental state has now entered into a Satanic Realm by them actually stating as FACT, that the ever loving and forgiving JESUS IS RATIONAL when He committed abortions to innocent life, and would KILL babies that if born, and Jesus is rational in having His creation eat their children, and it is rational for Jesus to have had innocent babies smashed upon the rocks!!!

As long as the Bible ignorant and Satanic Tradesecret remains upon this esteemed Religion Forum, this following post describing the above FACTS that "he/she/unknown" actually stated, will live in infamy at their expense as explicitly shown in the following link!!!!:

As we are all aware, the Bible inept Tradesecret will RUN AWAY from this most disgusting post of theirs above by saying that we are irrational if we do not accept his/her/unknown's horrific propositions as stated in said link shown above!  BLASPHEME!

TO THE MEMBERSHIP: We can only assume that the Bible stupid Tradesecret will be on their way out of this forum soon for the same reasons that the equally Bible fool FAUXLAW had to leave, of which was in total embarrassment, being Bible stupid, and in shame!

.



#23
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret
@Bones

.
TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a woman to a man, and now unknown, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she/unknown follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT, and obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, an embarrassed LIAR of their true gender, and goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, has turned into a HYPOCRITE, and a LIAR, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind,” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions, makes His creation eat their children, and rational when Jesus allowed babies to be smashed upon the rocks,


In addressing your ever so disgusting and Satanic post #20, this is all I have to say to your unbelievable ungodly thinking:

Tradesecet, as if your admittance to being a SEXUAL DEVIANT wasn't sickening enough in the eyes of Jesus, now you have really gone overboard in your post post #20 within this thread, and Jesus and I will never let you live your ungodly post in question down, EVER!


TRADESECRET, YOU ARE DESPICABLE, SICKENING, AND A TOTAL EMBARRASSMENT TO CHRISTIANITY AND THIS RELIGION FORUM, BAR NONE!!!!

.

#24
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
 HEADLINE NEWS REGARDING TRADESECRET  
Cool! Now I am famous.  Keep it up Brother.  Thanks for the references.  

Tradesecrets mental state has now entered into a Satanic Realm by them actually stating as FACT, that the ever loving and forgiving JESUS IS RATIONAL when He committed abortions to innocent life, and would KILL babies that if born, and Jesus is rational in having His creation eat their children, and it is rational for Jesus to have had innocent babies smashed upon the rocks!!!
Sorry Brother, I was afraid you would misunderstand me (I know your logic is terrible and comprehension skills are sadly lacking) but I wanted to act in good faith that perhaps my view of you was incorrect. ) But here we go - I said - and I repeat God is rational.   You produced some verses and asked me whether they were rational. I said yes.    I then asked you how you could argue that it was irrational.  Do you remember that question or have you just forgotten to answer it. AGAIN! 

Your response might be interpreted as "No Tradesecret, I cannot explain why they are irrational - but I will try and bamboozle you with red herrings."  Is there a reason why you cannot prove that they are irrational?  Please explain to the forum why - cause and effect is not rational?  That would be a good start.    God said stop sinning or you will be destroyed.  The people chose to keep sinning despite this reality.  God destroyed them.  Now, that is totally rational for God. The people who were destroyed acted irrationally didn't they?  God said stop - they thumbed their nose at God.   If I said to you as you were playing on the road - there is a truck coming and if you don't move - you will get run over?  Is it rational or irrational for me to tell you to move? AND is it rational or irrational for you to thumb you nose at me?   

Similarly, God telling people to stop sinning or your actions will result in people coming to attack you and kill your children and perhaps force you to eat your children, is that rational or irrational?  Is it rational or irrational for people to keep sinning despite knowing that these things will happen?  When God warns people and puts them on notice to stop sinning, it is very rational to do. In fact it would be cruel and vindictive and even arbitrary if God did not warn them.  On the other hand, to ignore the warnings of God, because you don't believe in him, or because you think he is an idiot, or he won't do what he says he will do, is irrational.  And Brother are clearly irrational because you choose to ignore the warnings from God.  


As we are all aware, Tradesecret will RUN AWAY from this post of his above by saying that we are irrational if we do not accept his/her/unknown's horrific propositions as stated in said link shown above! 
I am not running away.    But I would like to know why you think that God was irrational.    So far, you have just assumed that the things that happen in the above verses are irrational.   You have not given a basis for this so called irrationality except for what you might consider to be a certain "yuck factor".  Not a scrap. Of course I never thought you would.  Not only are you irrational but you are dishonest.  





#25
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
So - for all the forum to see and witness - Brother Thomas HAS AVOIDED my questions.   He is a chicken. and a coward.    


Please answer my questions.  Or else leave the thread and bully someone else.  


#26
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret
@Bones

.
TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a woman to a man, and then to unknown, and now back to a man, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she/unknown follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT, and obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, an embarrassed LIAR of their true gender, and goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, has turned into a HYPOCRITE, and a LIAR, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind,” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks,

Tradesecret as a female:
Tradesecret as a male:
Tradesecret now as an unknown, huh?:
Tradesecret changes back into a male once AGAIN: 

In the link below, I told you to change your gender to a male since that was your last “gender reporting”  by you in your flustering and comical attempts to find out what gender you actually were! Priceless comedy on your part! LOL!

Then in this link below, and "at this time" of 10 hours ago, you changed your gender from "unknown" to now a "male!"  Good boy! Again you did just what I told you to do as shown in the link above! This explicitly shows that you follow my orders to you, and therefore you’re accepting that Jesus and I own you and your Bible inept pseudo-christian faith, THANK YOU! LOL!

Tradesecret, psssssst, on a side note, to help you in this matter above in now changing into a male AGAIN, shhhhhh, mums the word, did you finally wash your hands, dry them, and slowly reached down into your nether-regions and feel around to see what gender you were "at this time?" In doing this action, and hopefully not spending to much time "down there" in ungodly ways of pleasing yourself, you found out that you are a male “at this time?” Shhhhhhh …. LOL!

Tradesecret, are we to expect further gender changes in your ever so WEAK and senseless Profile Page in the future?  Yes? Maybe? Can't answer at this time? Or?

.





#27
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret
@Bones


.
.
TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a woman to a man, and then to unknown, and now back to a man, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she/unknown follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT, and obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, an embarrassed LIAR of their true gender, and goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, has turned into a HYPOCRITE, and a LIAR, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks,


YOUR LAUGHABLE QUOTE  WHERE YOU WANT YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO IN YOUR POST #24! LOL!!!:  "Sorry Brother, I was afraid you would misunderstand me (I know your logic is terrible and comprehension skills are sadly lacking) but I wanted to act in good faith that perhaps my view of you was incorrect. ) But here we go - I said - and I repeat God is rational.   You produced some verses and asked me whether they were rational. I said yes.    I then asked you how you could argue that it was irrational.  Do you remember that question or have you just forgotten to answer it. AGAIN!" 

Tradesecret, in adding more embarrassment towards your presence within this forum, it is sad that your memory is lacking again, I wonder why *cough,* where you seem to have forgotten the FACT that before I address your continued Bible stupidity, you don't get something for nothing, don’t you remember? Therefore, because of your memory loss, I will repeat this notion AGAIN, whereas you are to address YOUR ONE HUNDRED RUNAWAY POSTS that I directed to you that were inspired by Jesus, BEFORE I address your Satanic posts in the name of Satan!  GET IT?!   2+2=4, oil and water don't mix, and you don't get something for nothing until you follow through to the simple LOGICAL proposition above. UNDERSTOOD BIBLE FOOL?  

Now, do you need said 100 reticent posts that I directed to you, and have RUN AWAY from ad infinitum to start your quest in answering them, or will you come up with yet further lame excuses to RUN FROM them again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again?  YOUR CHOICE! 

.
#28
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a woman to a man, and then to unknown, and now back to a man, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,
I have always been male.  Never been female.  Never been unknown.  Only a male.   I am not a runaway.  I love Jesus.  He is my king and my God. 


Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she/unknown follows,
I totally am convinced of the infallibility, inerrancy, and sufficiency of the Scriptures.  Jesus is not the Trinity. He is however the Second Person of the Trinity.  The Father is the First Person and the Spirit is the Third.  Jesus is also fully Man and Fully God.  I belong to the Reformed Tradition of the Protestant Faith in accordance with and in line with the Orthodox practices of the Historic Church.  

the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin,
Brother is the only pseudo Christian on this site.  I have not committed the unforgiveable sin.  Only people who have rejected Christ once and for all have committed this sin. 

the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark,
I understand that the Biblical picture of Noah's Ark is quite different to how people who are unbelievers would understand the language.  Nevertheless, the evidence in support of Noah's Ark is still much weightier than the alternative.  If I am the no.1 fan, then I am doing well. Thanks for the Kudos. 

the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed,
Again, not pseudo.  I say adult children are liable to covenant death, which may well include the death penalty for cursing parents.  This demonstrates that the Bible has a very high view and value on family.  I deny it refers to minors.  

states there is FICTION within the scriptures,
Absolutely.  The Bible contains many different kinds of genres including history, parables, poems, prophecy, Gospel as well as apocalyptical literature.  There is both fiction and non-fiction.  

and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, 
LOL! dum dum speaks again. I deny any guilt. 

AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT,
Nope.  More lies from the fake Brother. The Atheist pretending to be a theist - and one who quotes none other than the permanently banned Harikrish as his source.   Say no more.  LOL! 

and obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery,
Answered above.  

Satanic Bible Rewriter,
LOL! I do not rewrite the Bible. 


an embarrassed LIAR of their true gender, and goes against Jesus in not helping the poor,
I do not tell lies.  I have ever had one gender.   I agree with Jesus in helping the poor. 

has turned into a HYPOCRITE,
Probably! I certainly don't pretend to be perfect.  I make mistakes.  I get things wrong. But I am continuing to learn.  So trying not to be a hypocrite. 

and a LIAR,
Every person in the world lies approximately 10 times a day.  So probably I do lie - from time to time. I am not one who intends to lie.  Yet, there are times when I exaggerate, when I give white lies, and do so.  However, I am not characterized by lies. 

teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario,
Pardon. And your proof for this.  LOL! 

and is a False Prophet, 
I don't make prophecies.  

says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks,
I have explained that it is rational to warn people that their sins will result in judgment.  If Jesus does this, it is Rational.  On the other hand - the person who ignores the warning and continues in their sin despite the warning of pending judgment is IRRATIONAL.  This describes Brother. Brother Irrational. 

YOUR LAUGHABLE QUOTE  WHERE YOU WANT YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO IN YOUR POST #24! LOL!!!:  "Sorry Brother, I was afraid you would misunderstand me (I know your logic is terrible and comprehension skills are sadly lacking) but I wanted to act in good faith that perhaps my view of you was incorrect. ) But here we go - I said - and I repeat God is rational.   You produced some verses and asked me whether they were rational. I said yes.    I then asked you how you could argue that it was irrational.  Do you remember that question or have you just forgotten to answer it. AGAIN!" 
Yes, do you remember? Oh yes you do - but like always - you just run away by avoiding the question AGAIN. 

Tradesecret, in adding more embarrassment towards your presence within this forum, it is sad that your memory is lacking again, I wonder why *cough,* where you seem to have forgotten the FACT that before I address your continued Bible stupidity, you don't get something for nothing, don’t you remember? Therefore, because of your memory loss, I will repeat this notion AGAIN, whereas you are to address YOUR ONE HUNDRED RUNAWAY POSTS that I directed to you that were inspired by Jesus, BEFORE I address your Satanic posts in the name of Satan!  GET IT?!   2+2=4, oil and water don't mix, and you don't get something for nothing until you follow through to the simple LOGICAL proposition above. UNDERSTOOD BIBLE FOOL?  
What I get is this.  I will answer all questions that are not personal.  That cuts out well, almost everything you ask.  I will answer any question in proper form - proper form is NON personal.  

Now, do you need said 100 reticent posts that I directed to you, and have RUN AWAY from ad infinitum to start your quest in answering them, or will you come up with yet further lame excuses to RUN FROM them again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again?  YOUR CHOICE! 

Well if any of the 100 posts do not contain personal attacks - then I am happy to answer. Just start your own thread.  Oh that is right - you don't have the courage to do so.  

Well the ball is in your court. What will you do? My guess is run away by avoiding the answers and by attacking me personally.  LOL! I win every time.  


#29
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret
@Bones




UNKNOWN Tradesecet, We're going to take your dumbfounded post #28 responses one-at-a-time.

#1, YOUR PITIFUL LYING QUOTE REGARDING YOUR 4 DIFFERENT AND CHANGING GENDERS AS DISCUSSED IN MY POST #26 WITHIN THIS THREAD!: "I have always been male.  Never been female.  Never been unknown.  Only a male.   I am not a runaway.  I love Jesus.  He is my king and my God." 

NOT!  The VISUAL FACTS in your various Profile Pages shown below say that you are an ungodly Satanic LIAR for all to see in this forum, period!  Visual facts don't lie, Bible fool! Therefore, your 4 "different profiles" shown below say you were a female, then you were a male, and then you became embarrassingly unknown, then you went back to being a male AGAIN subsequent to me telling you to do so for you to try and save face, which you followed my directions, therefore I easily own you and your faith as shown in the following link:  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6316-the-meaning-of-death?page=7&post_number=166

Tradesecret as a female:
Tradesecret as a male:
Tradesecret now as an unknown, huh?:
Tradesecret changes back into a male once AGAIN: 

Now, since the four links above are VISUAL FACTS in your gender changes, "at the time," we want you to discuss in why you went against Jesus in changing your gender from a female into a male to start off with, as the first 2 links relative to your gender change above explicitly shows, okay?  

Therefore, in the name of Jesus, did you always feel as a young child in growing up that you were really not a female, as the first gender link above shows above, but a male in a female's body?  When you obviously had your gender affirmation surgery in now being a male, as the 2nd gender link shows above, did they have trouble with the Metoidioplasty in adding a "penis" to your nether regions?

Additionally, where did the phalloplasty take the skin from to form your  neopenis?  Was it your arm, buttocks, or where did they take it from on your body? Furthermore, did you opt for a scrotoplasty, where your surgeon hollowed out and repositions your previous female labia majora to form a scrotum, and where said surgeon inserts silicone testicular implants? Obviously you got the largest testicular implants to show manliness, but it isn't shown within this forum! LOL


UNKNOWN Tradesecret, when you address these obvious body changes above, from a female into a male, then we'll discuss your 3rd and 4th gender facts of being unknown, and then being a male again, okay?  Now, I know this is embarrassing for you to discuss, but please, for the sake of you already being a RUN AWAY as shown 100 times from addressing biblical axioms towards you that you ran away from, DO NOT RUN from your ungodly acts as shown herein. whereas Jesus is watching you! (Hebrews 4:13)

!!!! BEGIN:

.





#30
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Which part of not answering personal questions don't you understand? 

Brother, why are you dressed as a man when clearly you are a chicken on a runaway trip?