Total topics: 39
- John the Baptist leaped for joy at the presence of God in the womb of Mary.
- That Mary was chosen by God and called most blessed.
- That the Holy Spirit breathed into Mary and she became pregnant and that this act uniquely distinguishes EVERY other religion from Christianity. Sex between god and man is a pagan product, and rejected by the true God.
- That the angels and the shepherds witnessed the coming of the messiah and the angels worshiped Christ. And the Shepherds visited the new mother and child.
- That the angels sang. An interesting phenomenon given that this doesn't seem to fit with just being a messenger.
- That the angels warned Joseph to leave Bethlehem when Jesus was about two and he did and went to Egypt.
- That Herod died and the Angel told Joseph he could return.
- That Joseph took his family to Nazareth.
- That Jesus' birth was prophesied as was his messiahship.
- That the Scriptures were fulfilled.
- That Jesus grew and then finally was killed on a cross.
- That Jesus rose from the dead.
- That over 500 witnesses saw this over a period of at least a month.
- That almost all of the disciples died for the truth of this event.
- That the church grew exponentially.
- That 2023 years later the church continues to celebrate the birth and death and resurrection of Jesus despite the antagonists.
- That today the numbers of Christians has risen from 12 in about 50 million people to almost 1 in every 4 people in the world.
- That where Christ is preached, new hope and new life changes the people who turn to him.
- That the gospel continues to transform people's lives and the world around them.
- That is the best news that people can know - a reconciliation with God - for ever.
- That Christ will return some day - to judge the world.
- And that every knee will bow - whether you believe or not and whether you think this is nonsense or not. and indeed whether you are alive or have passed on.
- Merry Christmas. May you experience communion with the Christ.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Sadly, though, most will never leap with joy like John the Baptist (Luke 1: 41). They will unfortunately, go through life without ever knowing the good news of the birth of the saviour of the world.
On the flip side however, every day all around the world, millions of people are rejoicing with this news. Their lives changed remarkably with the presence of peace and forgiveness and being adopted into the family of God.
Why anyone would reject this free gift is remarkable. And yet, the irrationality of refusing such a gift seems to be one of the banes of this world.
Merry Christmas people - and a happy and safe new year.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
A while ago, someone on this site was suggesting that God made humanity flawed since they were capable of sinning and inevitably sinned. I can't recall who said it. Nor can I be bothered searching to find where it was said. I disagreed with that characterisation at the time and I still do.
Yet, I would like to discuss further on this point.
I have suggested that the Bible expresses that God made humanity "very good". Indeed without flaw. Yet the question continued to be - why create a person who is capable of sinning? Surely God could simply have created a person with free will who can't sin? And isn't that what we see in heaven? People who are free and yet do not sin? And these are fair questions to an extent.
While researching a different topic, it struck me that in our legal system, to be found guilty of a crime requires not just a guilty act, but also an intention. And while this is a truism for the legal system, I think most people in society miss the point that intention forms part of the guilt along with the act itself.
Hence, in most Western Legal Systems, people need to be able to form intent in order to be found guilty of an offence. They need to be mature enough to realise that something is wrong. This is far more than knowing it was "naughty" or even that they might get in trouble. They have to know it is seriously wrong. Hence we typically have an age of criminal responsibility. In Australia that now is 12 years of age although in some specific jurisdictions, it is up to the age of 14.
Now, of course, that age of criminal responsibility can be rebutted depending upon the maturity of the individual child. But it is a legal presumption.
This, I think, is important.
For humanity to be morally responsible for their actions, indeed legally responsible for their conduct, and even to be considered more than an animal, more than a robot, required God to make humanity with certain attributes.
Firstly, they needed to know the difference between right and wrong.
Secondly, they needed to have the capacity to be able to do wrong.
Thirdly, they needed to know it was wrong to sin.
Without any of these attributes, humanity would simply be an animal that works according to instinct. Or else they would simply be a robot who did everything exactly as they were programmed to do. What they couldn't be - would be a moral and personally responsible human.
As our legal systems have articulated in this respect is entirely consistent with how God created humanity.
So the question remains, did humans know the difference between right and wrong? I think the story of Adam's fall clearly shows that he knew the difference between right and wrong. The story itself however muddies the water with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Was it the tree that gave Adam this knowledge or was the tree the provider of something else? Or did Adam know the difference between right and wrong before eating the tree?
I have discussed this at some length on this site with another member. I can't recall where that discussion took place. And I cannot be bothered looking for it.
Yet, at the time I suggested that humanity knew it was seriously wrong to take the fruit from that tree. They know this since they understood death to be a serious implication of it. Eve herself indicated to the serpent, we are not to eat it, even to touch it. Satan of course - suggested God didn't want them to eat it - since they would become like God. The point is - they knew it was objectively wrong to eat from the tree. Why? Because God has spoken and told them.
There is an issue that needs to be discussed that arises from this discussion. How did Adam and Eve become like God? They didn't take on immortality. They didn't take on supernatural powers. They didn't take on omniscience. So how did they become like God? Satan answers that in v.5 and his answer is also deceptive but helpful.
The answer is not that they suddenly became aware of the difference between right and wrong. They already knew it was right to obey God and wrong to disobey God. They knew it was right to eat from every other tree. They knew it was wrong to eat from this one particular tree. And if we are honest with ourselves, knowing the difference between right and wrong in our world, doesn't make us like God. Most of us have been taught what is right and what is wrong. But knowing that doesn't make us like God. Yes, it separates us from the animals who work by instinct. And it separates us from robots who simply do whatever they are programmed to do. But it doesn't make us like God in any manner at all.
So if learning the difference between right and wrong doesn't make us like God, what is Satan saying in 3:5 and what does God himself mean in 4:22? It is the difference between learning what right and wrong is - and knowing what is right and wrong. The Hebrew word for knowing is more than mere academic or theoretical knowledge. We see it used for instance in "Adam knew his wife and she conceived." And also in other parts of the bible that say that these people "knew the LORD". It is a word that means intimate. That goes into experience.
In Religious circles, one of the attributes of God is that God alone determines what is right and what is wrong. Hence, Christians look to the bible as God's words and say - this is right and this is wrong. Not because Christians decide - but based on the view that the Bible is God's words and are therefore truth and the determiner of right and wrong. It is wrong to murder because God says so. It is wrong to commit adultery because God says so. It is right to be faithful to your spouse because God says so. Now I might agree with all of these things, but not because I determined they were right or they were wrong. The State determines laws and as such has godlike powers. The church does the same.
Yet, this is what happened when Adam and Eve took the fruit. They determined, they took on the view to determine what was right and what was wrong. Hence the first thing they did after "their eyes were opened", was to call what God had declared good, "shameful".
This is what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was about. Not about giving them knowledge about good and evil, but the power to determine what it is themselves. That is how they became godlike. And we would agree I think in principle, that the power to determine what is right is much more powerful than simply knowing what is right. The courts of our land determine what the law is - that is powerful. The legislators determine what is right and wrong. That is powerful. But you and me knowing or understanding what the law is - separates us from the animals, but it is not as powerful and comes nowhere close to the power of those who make it and determine what it is.
So, not only did they need to know what is right and wrong, they needed to have the capacity, or the ability to do wrong. If they didn't have this then they could not be morally responsible for anything. Indeed without this capacity to do wrong, they would be nothing more than an animal or a robot. This is what distinguishes humans from animals.
So no flaws, just the ability to do wrong. But alongside that also the ability to do right. The ability to choose right must also imply the ability to do wrong. Unless someone is God or godlike. Then what they decide to do is entirely up to themselves. This is why God is said to be unable to sin. Whatever he does is right. Humans by eating the tree decided they didn't want to listen to God and his rules. The problem of course is they were still subject to God. Hence he threw them out of the garden. They went out and did pretty much what they wanted. Romans 1 gives us a picture of how this has turned out.
It is possible that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is simply giving the knowledge of good and evil to its recipients and they didn't know it was right or wrong to take the fruit. It is possible that God forbidding them the fruit of the tree was wrong too. Some would argue that this is the case. The problem however with that view is culture. And a terrible understanding of the differences between Greek and Hebrew Philosophy and theology and morality. Only a very poor student would come to that conclusion.
The Greeks following Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates, held to a view of right and wrong which is very different to the Hebrew view. Right and wrong for them (the Greeks) were like absolute natural laws that existed in form, somewhere, and everyone including God was subject to these objective laws. People who hold to this view are those who want to hold God to account. They think God is subject to the law rather than the source of them.
The Hebrew idea is quite different. It said "All laws flow from the character of God. Hence, all laws are subject to God."
So although the view of the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil can simply be understood as them learning what is right and wrong, that requires us to drop completely the Hebrew idea of such things and instead drop into it a Greek understanding. And if we were reading the NT and not the Hebrew, then there is such a possibility, but the Genesis story IS NOT Greek and was written prior to three Greek Philosophers.
The Greek Idea. The Hebrew Idea
absolutes laws God
god law
angels /man angels/man
animals / etc animals / etc
In summary, humanity was not made flawed but rather was made "very good" without any flaws. Yet he was made morally and legally responsible for his actions.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
This is an intriguing dilemma that many in the church have discussed. What do you think?
Should the religious person be in the world but not of it? and what does that mean?
Should the religious person retreat into his or her or their own little worlds or communes?
Should they send their children to public schools or private schools or homeschool?
To what extend should they engage or choose not to engage? Is it simply a matter of preference?
Some might suggest that the mission of the church is to convert as many as possible. If this is an admirable goal, how do they do that and retreat from culture?
Should Christians - be separate - from the world and politics and life completely? Or should the engage in the public square?
And if so. - whose rules should they follow? The rules that suggested by the organisation they are trying to engage with or their own set of principles?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Is it because the world killed the Son of God and decided to celebrate this fact?
Or is there another reason?
It does seem odd that the holiest day of the year for the Christian, Good Friday, which remembers Jesus, dying on a cross, is called good.
Surely it would make better sense to call it Black Friday whilst celebrating his resurrection on the Sunday.
I am not asking this question because I don't know the traditional church explanation, I am asking to begin a dialogue with people who might also have asked this question.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
In a new book recently published about the benefits of infant baptism, the author commenced with an interesting perspective.
He didn't start with proving infant baptism by biblical evidence, but rather he commenced by refuting the arguments commonly used against infant baptism. It is too bad that Melcharaz is not here to discuss this. But I am sure there are some other resident Christians who might be able to extend his arguments.
The author raised the common arguments against and then refuted each one.
1. The silence of infant baptism in the NT. He argued argument from silence is weak since silence also suggests that females should not have communion.
2. The argument that baptism requires faith which equates to capacity which infants can't have. He argued this argument proved too much making it invalid as it also suggested that anyone without capacity is unable to be baptised including adults with extreme autism.
3. The argument of order in the NT. faith always proceeds Baptism. He argued this is actually not true with the authority for baptism derived from Matthew 28 which orders baptism first followed by teaching and discipling.
4. The argument that since infants can't be Christians, baptising pollutes the church. He argued that often adults also leave the faith so therefore they too are polluting the church.
5. The argument that it is a popish hangover. He argues that not everything about the Catholic Church was wrong.
Are there other arguments that are not mentioned? Do any of the Christians here have any comments about these arguments against infant baptism
I note that this is an intriguing method of promoting infant baptism. So far in his argument he has not once argued for infant baptism. Only that the arguments against it don't hold as much water as has been argued. In a sense he is destroying strongholds - and once they are destroyed, he will be in a place to rebuild and make his case.
Obviously for non-christians - this discussion is almost irrelevant and yet within some Christian circles - it clearly is a huge issue.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
It is clear that only humans have developed a religious perspective on this planet.
Other animal and life forms simply are not evolved enough to be able to consider let alone relate to a religious being or religion.
It is ironic therefore that there are some, nominally called atheists that reject this evolution, preferring to live wild like animals and a yesteryear.
Consider for instance - the curiosities that the so called elitists consider culture: living in the wild, eating vegetable, eating rare meat, eating raw meat, living like savages, living free spirited, without control or rules or social norms. Each of these is a desire, so it seems to revert back to animalism. to a time before they were enlightened, spiritually awakened, evolved. eat whatever, copulate with whatever, crap wherever, and the most obvious form of animal thinking, dispense with logical thinking.
Atheism is therefore obviously a non-progressive form of thinking. It's not progressive, it's not conservative, it is simply a revert back to the most primitive means of living.
To disagree with this - prove a more primitive animal than humanity has religion.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
In the existence that exists, why did the non-life evolve to a life form? Does this imply that non-life forms have the ability to be dissatisfied? Or the capacity to want to exist forever? Moreover, how did it come about? Was it intentional, under the guise of the survival of the fittest - although I am not sure how that works. Or was it an accident?
As someone who is not an evolutionist - and what little I thought I knew, seems to becoming more vague every day, so would someone please assist me here.
Now I know that this may well do with the origin of all theories - yet - I am not asking about why or how non-life came into being - we can assume that for the sake of the discussion. I am asking about the evolution from non-life to life.
Now admittedly, having a brain seems better than not having a brain. And the ability to move and communicate seems to be better than not being able to do the same, but they are both value statements.
Thanks - in anticipation.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
If you could articulate the essence of every religion and worldview including atheism in one short sentence, what would it be?
Start with the more well known religions: and add others as you desire. Try and use a positive tone.
Buddhism: a movement desiring inner peace with the world and oneself.
Hindu: a movement hoping to reach enlightenment to be at one with the all in release.
Hebrew: A movement attempting to transform the world into a holy place
Christianity: a movement trying to reconcile God with humanity through Jesus.
Islam: a movement seeking a belief in and submission (worship) to Allah.
Atheism: a movement which seeks to understand the world through the eyes of humanity.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
The oldest manuscripts of the works of Josephus in their original language of Greek date to the tenth and eleventh centuries. Portions of the works are also quoted in earlier manuscripts by other authors, particularly Eusebius (fourth century). There are also versions in other languages, notably a Latin translation made about the fifth century. These are all codexes, bound books, not scrolls.https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/16970/are-there-any-extant-original-first-century-manuscripts-of-any-of-josephus-work
Given that the oldest record of any alleged work of Josephus is not found until the 4th century and then only in portion - we obviously have no eyewitness accounts that he is a real historical figure. He's probably a legend someone dreamed up.
Since he apparently is the main source for many ancient legends we can probably dismiss most of his work as made up.
Perhaps it was just one of many people in the 4th century who wanted to use a famous legend's name to give some credibility to their work. We know many did this sort of thing.
What do you reckon and what evidence would you give to refute the fact that he is just a myth?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
No abuse. No derogatory language. No trolling or abuse.
The NT indicates that Jesus was born of a virgin. Matthew 1:23 indicates this confirms Isaiah 7:14. Luke also confirms Mary was a virgin. Most of the NT does not refer to this event again - although it is picked up in John's Revelation. Silence of the topic is not a valid / compelling argument.
Some scholars indicate rightly that the Hebrew word in Isaiah means young woman not virgin. No one says it is impossible to translate it virgin. The Septuagint - an OT Greek translation by Jewish scholars pre Jesus, did translate the word virgin.
Some scholars indicate that there are better words for virgin if that meant to be the point.
NT Christian scholars would indicate that the translation of the word in the NT from the OT is confirmed firstly, by the inspiration of the Spirit of God who breathed it out and confirmed its meaning. Secondly that the Septuagint which was commonly used at that time by Jews and the Christians, including Paul, translated it that way. thirdly, that the context in the gospels of Matthew and Luke clearly understood it to mean virgin. Fourthly, though it is acknowledged it may well have other meanings and moreover virgin is not its primary meaning, it is not impossible for it to mean virgin since indeed Jewish scholars have translated it that way. Fifthly, the fact that other words could have conveyed virgin better does not prevent this Hebrew from using it. 6thly the context of Is 7:14 does not forbid this translation - or else the translators of the Septuagint would never have done so.
so let's hear what others think.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
no abuse. no derogatory abuses or language.
The Trinity as understood by the church is that God is ONE God. Yet three persons.
The three persons are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is not the Father. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
While I have been away, not through cowardice as some idiots suggest, I am back. Full of life and loving the vigor that goes with this.
I note that some there are MANY people who have asked me questions. In lots of different topics.
What I propose - to try and simplify things is that if people who have asked me a serious question and wish an answer I will reply here.
I will qualify this - particularly for dub dums like Brother. (It is true, I have no respect for it.) These questions must be genuine and in response to what I have written or others if they are serious. I will ignore you if you simply choose to act like an idiot. Yes, I know harder for some than others.
I will NOT answer dumb questions about my profile. I will not answer questions in relation to a different forum. I will not answer questions in relation to debating someone since I think as the dear brother has recognized that forums give ample opportunity to debate. I am not interested in finding out who has the biggest @#$#.
But if you desire a serious answer, I will respond as I am able. I don't know everything. I don't pretend to know everything or to have memorized everything (Stephen).
And if no one wants to ask me a question or to reply to what they written elsewhere. That is a matter for them.
Oh yes, I will respond in my own time. Mostly this will be quickly. Yet, sometimes it may be delayed for external reasons. yet I will reply.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
It's been my experience that Atheists love to show up to religious threads. They get to have their say. They get to destroy their opponents. They get to prove how cool they are in the world of philosophy.
But this is why I say they are cowards. Because they are afraid to reveal what they believe. For instance, what do Atheists believe?
Nothing. One common doctrine. God doesn't exist. An argument based on a negative. That is it. Nothing else. We are not allowed to know what else they believe - because there is no common factor.
Hence why Atheists are COWARDS. They criticize - but without fear of being criticized. That is not criticism. That is safe ground. Bogus. really.
Are there more doctrines for the atheist than there is no God? No. nary a one. LOL! laughable. And weak. Cowardly really. there is no other words that can account for this state of being. A worldview - that is not really a worldview - a position - that is not really a position - a statement that allows no criticism. Imagine if we tried to apply to that any religion? It would be laughed out of the stadium. that is why Atheism is cowardly. One rule for them.
My view is that only people with worldviews should be allowed to contribute in a religious forum. An atheist ought be rejected unless they can provide a worldview to be considered. Unless this occurs - then there is no basis of comparing and contrasting. There is no basis for conversation.
Unless an atheist is able to come up with a worldview - then the atheist's opinions ought not be welcome.
We should not be permitted to criticize others unless we have something alternative to offer. Atheists have nothing to offer - of their own admission - so why ought we subject to ANY of their criticisms. By admitting they have no other doctrines, they admit they use religious doctrines to live their lives.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
It's recorded in Matthew 10:34 that Jesus says:
"Do not suppose I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter in law against her mother in law a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."'
Jesus is quoting from the Micah 7:6.
What is Micah talking about in that particular chapter and why in the world would Jesus quote Micah in his time?
After all, isn't Jesus supposed to the prince of peace ( Isaiah 9:6) Didn't the angels sing at his birth "glory o God in the highest and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests". Luke 2:14
How can Jesus on one hand bring peace and on the hand tell us that he has not come to bring peace? Is the simplistic answer to this that here is one of the many contradictions in the Bible or is there something else going on?
I wonder how many of us have the capacity to think outside of the box. How is it possible to reconcile such statements?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
The essence of God is his independence. Everything is dependent upon him for everything.
The rest of everything is dependent upon God to exist, to think, to grow, to consider. etc.
Even before the Beginning, God was and is and will be.
When everything else began, and life was good or very good - everything understood and accepted total dependence upon God. The distinctive between God and creation.
God even placed humanity into his home on earth.
Then humanity - through temptation - external temptation, decided it did not need God, even though God had clearly enunciated that without God, he would surely die.
And so God seeing what man wanted gave him the earth to live on. an earth where man could be god and do whatever he wanted. A Humanity without God. He has gone out of his way to show he can be independent. He has increased knowledge. He has increased in number. He has increased in wealth. Yet he has destroyed many things along the way. The world is clearly the evidence of what happens when humanity does things without God.
But death remains the looming inevitability for every human. Human in all of his independence cannot overcome death. He might delay it for a while. But ultimately it comes to everyone. And ultimately death proves that humanity is not independent.
God however did not leave humanity entirely to himself. For every person who is prepared to acknowledge his dependence upon God there is hope and there is life. It is not simply coincidence that God himself became a man as the Christ - living totally dependent upon God the Spirit - to overcome the one thing that humanity has never defeated, death.
Jesus died - but rose again. The evidence for his resurrection is significant. It is the best fit for all of the data available - and alone explains - not only why the tomb was empty, all of the witness testimonies, the disciples' martyrdom, and the exponential growth of the church for the next several hundreds of years.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his Son so that whosoever trusts in him will have life and not death. This is God saying - if you want your independence, the cost is death - which ultimately shows you are dependent. If you trust me - then you will have life and life abundantly.
Jesus the savior - reveals implicitly, that all of creation is totally dependent upon God in all things.
The gospel simply tells this story about history.
Everything else - is white noise.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
What is your understanding of heaven and why?
Is the heaven - if it exists - that some people go to when they die - the same one we end up in?
Do we have bodies?
Is Hell real?
If so what is it like?
And heaven - does it consist in time or in eternity?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Although this might seem a question for philosophy and I suppose on one level it is a question of epistemology, it is also pertinent to understand in order to under religious knowledge.
I would suggest that there are 4 basis for knowledge and truth.
Reason - we sit and we think - requires a belief in the immaterial because the laws of logic are not material. We cannot touch them or taste them.
Empiricism, evidential evidence, we see and touch and feel etc. Relies on the material and denies the immaterial.
Pragmatism. If it works it must be true. Says we should not waste our time on the above, because we are here and we think - in the material and immaterial. But indicates that the end justifies the means. There is no real knowledge save except what works.
Transcendental. Revelation. Based on the view that none of the others can consistently and rationally make sense by themselves.
I wonder where you sit. No-one can be more than one consistently. We might give credence to all of them - but one of them is our fall back position.
We cannot flit from one to the next - there is a hierarchy of knowledge and truth for each of us.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Miracles by their very nature are not cause and effect - hence it would be absurd to think they ought to be repeated.
Miracles are also by their nature intended to be rare and unusual.
The only way for an atheist to say miracles don't exist would be to say that "In my experience, I know there can be no miracles because I have done the empirical research on every place on planet earth and in every moment of history that has ever taken place". Or the atheist could could say he has talked to someone who does know everything. ( I think the only person who knows everything is God)
So the statement of knowing miracles are not true is not knowledge - it is prejudicial opinion. Something which does not have any educational value.
What say you?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Don't misunderstand me. But an Atheist can only do one thing. And I have been told this over and over on this forum. There is no Atheistic worldview. There are no atheistic doctrines. There are just atheists who ALL "don't believe in God". In fact this is their only - non-belief. LOL!
So if someone who calls themselves an Atheist - does good or is benevolent to someone - it is not the result of their atheism. In fact that would be impossible. Because if it was - then this would be implying that there are positive beliefs that flow from atheism. But we know that it is not true.
So how then can an atheist do good things if it does not flow from their atheistic view?
It is because they have to borrow from other worldviews - things like morality and goodness and well, everything for that matter. They are really a lot like leaches aren't they?
Atheists therefore only ever do good works and benevolent things when they borrow them from someone else. And given that there is not an atheistic worldview - it must flow from a non-atheistic worldview and understanding of the world. Atheists do good not because they are atheists but because they borrow from religious worldviews. Don't you love this?
So every time an atheist does anything good - they actually reveal a belief in god - and religion even if they with their mouths and their minds are atheists. This is such an amusing thing.
How will the Atheist rationalize this? Well we will wait and find out.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
A question for Atheists and Theists.
Is the world material or immaterial?
Is there anything apart from God that is immaterial?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Why is it that the Jewish calendar amongst all of the calendars in the history of humanity has the day set out like "it was evening and it was morning and this was the 6th day? Jewish Time (simpletoremember.com)
What is so significant about this way of putting the way the day looks that is obviously more than just poetry?
It is because it is an inbuilt design by God to the Jewish people that resurrection is his plan for his people.
In the evening we go to sleep, in other words we die, and then in the morning we rise, we are resurrected.
Now we may be able to suggest this is true of the rest of the world's calendars, after all we go to sleep and then in the morning rise.
Yet, the significance in symbolism is profound. In the Biblical picture - resurrection takes place during the daytime. Not just in the morning. But at the high point of the day.
For the Greek - resurrection comes after the day is finished. Hence, do we have life after we have finished living. For the Jew, it was injected into their belief system from the time they came about that - life or resurrection with God - begins in the daytime - while they were still living and breathing and before the day was finished.
Abraham believed in the resurrection - this is why he trusted God with his Son. Jesus believed in the resurrection this is why he trusted his Father with his Son.
Our Sleep patterns are a picture of resurrection. An inbuilt one.
The pictures are all the way through the OT. Joseph was thrown into the pit - to die - and he was brought out resurrected. Daniel was thrown into the pit of lions to die - but he was resurrected. The three men were thrown into the fire to die - but they came out resurrected. There are many other examples of this picture of resurrection in the OT. This of course was God putting into the hearts and minds of his people about the reality of the resurrection of which Jesus the Son of God would be the first fruits of.
Another interesting side point - the two Jewish religious groups mentioned in the NT, the Pharisees and the Sadducees - were often pitted against each other. They both had polar opposite positions in relation to the resurrection. The Pharisees, believed in the resurrection and the Sadducees did not. And interestingly, this point was one which brought them both together and also caused them division.
The Resurrection of Jesus was effectively prophesied from when Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, it was continuously brought to the Jewish people's attention throughout its history - but not just because of Jesus - who would the highpoint of Resurrection - but then all who sleep in Christ would rise and be resurrected with him on the last day.
Another wonderful little point - at the time Jesus died - Matthew records - many in the graves were brought up from the dead and were seen walking about the city. The point being that Jesus' death was the door by which people are resurrected.
The evening and the morning - a picture - a delightful picture - injected into the psyche of the Jews, but also the rest of the world.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
In Matthew 7 Jesus gives the golden rule. Treat others as you would like to be treated. This of course is UNIQUE to Christianity and perhaps some other religions who have been privy to the bible.
Sometimes people suggest other religions and person such as Confucius and Buddha said the same thing but this would be confusing apples with oranges.
Other statements are mostly put in the negative not in the positive. The difference is profound. The first chooses not to punch their enemy in the face. The latter chooses to build their enemy a hospital. Positive and negative are important to consider.
The other aspect about Jesus’ golden rule that is conveniently forgotten is that it is prefaced with another item which the others do not even contemplate. Love God with all of you heart and soul and mind and then - love others. Omitting this preface distorts entirely the meaning of the second commandment. It is impossible to love others in the way Jesus indicated without first loving God.
Hence it is clear that while other religions and cultures had a similar rule, the two are so significantly different that Jesus’ golden rule is unique.
Do you agree or disagree? Please explain why.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Some seem confused about the meaning of death preferring it to mean other than the ordinary meanings associated with the term.
Physical death- when the body no longer has breath and decays.
Spiritual death - when the spiritual relationship between God and man is severed.
Covenantal death - when the breach of the covenant brings the sanction of covenantal death within the limitations of the specific institution.
Some try and introduce another kind of death associated with ritual with higher orders with a secret society.
Please explain the different types of death you understand and the basis of this understanding.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I say no because they reject that Jesus is God.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I was watching a thunderstorm recently in my hometown. It began as a rumble in the night. Low growling. Splashes of light from the lightening as it moved from one end of the sky to the other. Grey clouds turned to darkness - and the evening turned black. The thunder boomed overhead - the windows shook from the sound - lightening bolts zigged and zagged through the night - even at times looking like they were going to bolt right at me.
The trees outside were bending over - threatening to break in two. The dogs were whimpering inside the doors and wanting to huddle up to us. The mountains in the distance - which we could hardly make out - were shaking and dancing through the rain. The drops were like bullets horizontally and twisting every way with the wind. The roof was creaking - and the noise of the wind was deafening. Nature is pretty awesome - very powerful. Mind blowing and so very dangerous when it wants to be.
Yet, who or what controls nature? Does science control nature? Does humanity in any of it advanced states control it? Does it control itself? Science certainly might help to explain it. And science helps us to explain ourselves. But what controls nature? What is its driving force? What causes it to do what it does? Instinct! Natural forces! latent scientific principles. Aliens?
And as an aside - how do people respond or react or feel about the powerful forces of nature? Are people afraid of thunderstorms? OR do they think oh - well that is just a scientific principle acting out - don't worry about it.
Is there a spiritual element to the forces of nature - or is it just basic science? And if the latter, why does it create such emotional responses?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I am not sure why I am constantly surprised but it never ceases to amaze me how many sheep there are in the human race.
So many people who simply believe everything they read in a newspaper. Or everything their favorite commentators say. Or everything their political party and their elders tell them. Or whatever their school taught them.
What is it with this? Why is there no serious critical thinking any more? Why is it that something is said - repeated and then suddenly it is gospel and you are not allowed or permitted to speak against it?
Colleges used to teach people how to think. Now they seem to be teaching them how not to think. (Or what to think)
We need to get rid of this cancel culture. We need to stop telling other people how to live their lives. We need to stop being pressured and guilted into silence.
If things do not change shortly, there will be an counter - cultural revolution. People can only be silenced for so long.
What are your views about how to deal with these thing? I personally don't believe violence is an acceptable response. Yet this does not mean that a time won't come when it might be necessary.
Let me be clear - I am asking for different views here - to try and address my frustration at the overwhelming number of sheep. And hoping against hope that there is no need for an uprising - and that a progress towards a more natural position can be achieved without resorting to anything more than common sense.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Atheists tend to suggest that there is no evidence the existence of God. Ok. Or perhaps they put it more crudely "they have found no evidence for the existence of God".
For me as a theist, I always find this a rather ignorant suggestion. Atheists also tend to believe that the BoP is on the theist to provide the evidence for the existence of God.
Yet this too for the theist is an absurd suggestion as well. Yes, it is fair for a person making an assertion to demonstrate why they are making that assertion. And it is certainly fair for the opposing side to require that the assertion is demonstrated satisfactorily.
Yet, in the God issue, this is not straightforward and is complicated by many things.
When asked to produce evidence for God's existence, I am actually limited by nothing because everything is evidence for God's existence. Yet, the atheist takes each piece of evidence, not the total of course, and says "sorry that is not evidence". Their most used argument is "that this can be explained by something else". I really do not see how that argument is actually used since it does not refute God or his existence.
What would be helpful in the discussion is this. For an atheist to produce any evidence that GOD does not exist.
And if they did this, then perhaps it might narrow the type of evidence that they tell us they are looking for?
After all, for an atheist to assert they have seen no evidence for the existence of God, implies and asserts that they have been looking for evidence. The question I have is what type of evidence are you looking for? Philosophical? Biological? Geological? Rational? Revelation? Magical? Supernatural? If the atheist refuses to narrow it down, then they are implicitly saying "I shut my eyes to any and all evidence". If you aim at nothing - you hit it everytime.
Now hopefully many of you will see this is sort of reversing the burden of proof - but not really. What I am attempting to do here is to narrow the issues. Currently, the BoP can go nowhere because the atheist refuses to provide the kind of evidence that they say they have not seen. This is an assertion which needs to be satisfied before the theist can actually begin to produce evidence for God.
And it is a fair thing to request. And not unreasonable - at least for people who want to reasonably pursue truth.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Here is a question for all. It places the BoP on any who seek to address it?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
This topic is raised because it is often thrown out against the theist that they do not produce any evidence. I am sure that the implication is that the atheist believes they raise evidence all of the time.
And yet, it seems that, at least from my perspective that the so called evidence from the atheist is innuendo, opinion, hearsay, and simply assertion.
Sometimes there will be implied suggestions that a particular verse says something - but no real evidence to support what they are saying, save and except - they think they know what it means.
So what is evidence? And what is reliable evidence? And what is compelling evidence?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
God is God. He is not supernatural and does nothing that is supernatural. He is divine. This means that he does divine things.
To suggest that God is supernatural is to reveal something insightful about yourself - that your picture of God is not actually god, but human or something akin to it. It also reveals that your understanding of god is clearly flawed.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Despite arguments to the contrary - Atheists believe in doctrines and dogmas.
An atheist chooses not to believe in God despite the evidence to the contrary.
Yet, an atheist MUST believe in the doctrine of EVOLUTION. There is no contrary doctrine.
So, not only is there a non-belief in a deity -
but there is also an affirmation of a positive doctrine - evolution.
What other doctrines exist - for the atheist?
Let us explore.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Some have suggested that God drowned his entire Jewish creation, including zygotes and babies in his great Flood Scenario according to Genesis 7.
I would suggest that this statement is absurdly put. In the first place the Jewish nation did not come into existence until hundreds of years after Noah's Flood. Jacob who was the son of Isaac, who was the son of Abraham, was the first one called Israel. It was not until many years later that the Israelite nations were known as Jews. Whoever were killed at the time of the great flood, it was not the Hebrew Creation.
But leaving that silly statement aside for one moment, for the sake of the sake of the argument, let us assume for a moment that Noah was a Jew. Did God kill the entire Jewish creation? And the answer again must be no.
The story of Noah's Ark is a picture of salvation for 8 persons and thousands of animals. To say the Entire Jewish Creation was horribly drowned is therefore an over reach.
But again let us leave even this picture of salvation aside - for the sake of the argument, let us ask the question whether there were zygotes and babies who drowned during the flood?
And the answer is most likely yes. Did they drown horribly? It certainly is very likely.
So if Noah's flood occurred, literally, and it covered the entire earth, and only 8 people and thousands of animals survived, is it likely that many people - perhaps millions drowned horribly? And my answer would be yes it is very likely. I am sure some would have died by other means - but most would have drowned and I cannot imagine drowning to be a fun affair? Would the zgotes have drowned? I can't say. Most likely their mother's drowned and they lost the ability to keep breathing. It really does not matter how it is spun, the fact is - it would have been horrible - nasty. Incredibly brutal and cruel. There is no getting around this.
The next question that arises is did God do it? Did God drown them? And the answer is yes. God did.
So does this make God a murderer? Does this make what God did wrong?
And I would say no. Murder is a technical term. It is distinguished from killing. It is distinguished from self defence. It is distinguished from lawful punishment.
No one is saying God came down from heaven and literally forced people's heads into the water.
The question really comes down to whether it was lawful for God to put all of these people to death. And the answer is found in Genesis 6:6-7.
"The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continuously." So the Lord said I will blot out man whom I have made from the face of the earth, man, animals and creeping things, birds of the air - for I am sorry that I have made them".
Two really important things here provide an answer for us. God's action took place on two grounds. First, they were evil. Secondly, he had made them.
If he had not made them, he may not have had lawful grounds to destroy them. But they were his possessions and he has the legal right over them to destroy them. Secondly, they were evil- continuously. This was his reason for destroying them. It is not like God looked down at the earth and thought - how lovely they are - all doing the right thing and being so nice - and so I will therefore kill them.
No, God destroyed the creation as it was then known on the basis of the fact that it was evil to its heart - and also on the basis that he had jurisdiction to do so because he had made the earth and all in it.
I will aside the other technical issue of murder being something that only humans are able to do anyway. But the point is - God's actions on that day were lawful. Some might say - well even if they were lawful, it was cruel and unusual punishment. And my response to that is - all forms of capital punishment are according to some - cruel and unusual.
The evil being committed by the people at that time was monsterous and evil. Imagine an entire nation of pedaphiles. And only Noah and his family found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
Now I accept some will reject my reasoning for why I say God's act was lawful. I have provided my justifications for it. God saw their hearts and knew they evil. And secondly, he made them, giving him total jurisdiction.
To dismiss this - you will need to demonstrate that God did not have authority to judge and did not have reason to judge. In other words you will need to find that he acted unlawful in his judgment.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
It has been suggested that God, even Jesus, commanded babies to be smashed to pieces and their woman ripped open. And the verse used to support this suggestion is Hosea 13:16
Which says:
"Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword; their little ones dashed in pieces, and their pregnant woman ripped open". (ESV)
The question which needs to be explored is this verse evidence that God commanded babies to be smashed and woman ripped open?" And the answer is no.
Is there a command within this verse? No. This is a verse in a context of a book by the OT prophet Hosea. Hosea, like most of the OT prophets spoke by way of prophecies, and his language was one like a lawsuit by a complainant, God against the defendant, Israel. In these lawsuits, the prophet would outline the charges and then outline the judgment that would come upon them - should the defendant not repent of their sins.
In this particular verse, Hosea describes a punishment for the people of Samaria because of their rebellion against God. At the time, Samaria, like any other defendant has the right to confess their sins and throw themselves on the mercy of God. What is interesting is it is not a commandment by God. In fact it is merely a warning. A warning of what will occur should they not repent. God is putting Samaria on NOTICE - if you keep doing what you are doing, you will be harmed.
Samaria of course did not want God's help. Nor would they have asked God for help. They wanted to keep doing what they were doing - rebelling against God. And God despite their rebellion against him, still was warning them to come back to him. To repent of their sins - and to trust him. But they did not do this. They just became more and more rebellious - and turned their backs further and further away from God. Rejecting him completely- - they did not want his assistance and they thought that they did not need his help.
When people do not want God's help, in fact if they insist that they hate God for all sorts of reasons, he is cruel they say and evil, is there any obligation on his part to assist them? If he did help them, would they be grateful or would this cause them to be even more resentful.
In this scenario - just like other acts of judgment - God simply let them keep going - and doing what they wanted to do. He took his hand of protection away from them. They did not want it anyway. He simply gave them what they wanted. So when armies - who go about conquering the world, like Babylon, Assyria, Greece, Egypt, etc come marching in too take over and abuse - and exploit - nations which by the way are not under the same obligations as Israel was under the law, then it stands to reason they will be devastated and destroyed. These horrible acts outlined by Hosea of what would happen to Samaria would have been prohibited if this was Israel attacking these people. Hence it is quite reasonable to assume that it was the enemies of God - with their own evil practices who would come in and lay siege to Samaria and kill the babies and pregnant woman.
Evil pagan - non Godly nations seeking power and riches from poor nations. God in this prophecy was warning Samaria of the evil that comes from rebelling against him. The recklessness of not wanting God to help or assist them. They would reap what they had sown.
So it is absolutely incorrect to suggest that God or Jesus commanded anyone to be ripped open and slaughtered. This verse actually reveals the reverse of that lie. God warned them - but they just told him to Piss off. And so he left them to defend themselves according to their wishes and desires.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
The story of Genesis indicates in its pages that within centuries of being created humanity as a whole became so evil they did not deserve to live. God agreed with this position and so as the righteous judge properly and lawfully sentenced humanity to be annihilated. In respect of the rest of the creatures since God owned all of it by virtue of his creative rights, he determined that in order to properly sentence humanity, he would destroy all. So God destroyed everything, every person, every creature.
Yet God also provided a way forward for humanity. Hence he decided to demonstrate grace towards Noah, his family and either two or seven of every kind of creature, depending upon whether they were clean or unclean and in order for humanity to have a second chance. God knew that humanity did not deserve it. Yet, out of his kindness and mercy, he commanded Noah to build an Ark in which his family and all animals - could enter and be safe. Nowhere in any of the passages does it indicate he took fish into the Ark.
The question has been raised - how could Noah fit all of the world's animals in to the Ark? And most skepticism has arisen around the quantity and size of the animals. Not the only skepticism of course. How big was the ark, how did they all get there? Etc. Yet this topic is only about size of the animals - nothing else.
The skepticism seems to arise that due to the very large size of some adult animals in the world, that this proves - ipso facto it could not have happened. Yet the contrary position that the animals or many of the animals or even some of the animals may be infants interestingly changes the dynamics of the skeptic's queries. And this obviously is something that most of them had even considered. I think that is what hurts most. The fact that it is so obvious and yet they still missed it.
Some suggest it defies logic to put infants into the ark. I say it defies logic not to consider the possibility. After all, you don't want adult man eaters in the ark. You don't want adult dangerous animals in the Ark. You don't want adult animals that will clearly take up far too much room in the ark. You want animals that are small, young, fit, and healthy, but not ferocious man eaters that will cause not only havoc for the humans but the other animals as well. Common sense would suggest young and infants would be the most likely candidates.
Now some skeptics suggest that this is preposterous. They suggest that animal infants without full grown mothers will lack proper child -rearing regiments. Of course - there may be some truth to this. It certainly would be ideal if all infants had mothers to mother them and train them. Yet it certainly is not impossible that such infants would not survive without their mother, especially if they are being watched and cared for by others. In fact, there are many stories of wild infants surviving into adult hood without ANY MOTHER whatsoever helping them. But hey, let's not confuse ourselves with the facts.
As for the necessity to teach how to survive in the environment - the story is that after the flood - the world was a totally new environment. If all of the animals are young, then their most ferocious enemy is also going to be young. While the exact picture of what happened after the ark is unknown, if the skeptics are going to speculate, then those who are not so skeptical are also permitted to speculate.
The question remains however, does the bible command that only ADULT animals were permitted to go on the Ark? Or rather does it FORBID Noah taking infants onto the Ark? And the answer for both of these questions is NO. It is therefore quite plausible and reasonable to speculate that such animals were indeed infants or at the worst - not full grown animals. This of course exposes the skeptics as not doing their due diligence before attempting to refute the story. It reveals a bias.
Those who wish to reply to this OP - need only address the particular aspects of whether the Bible forbids infants from entering the Ark or rather the Bible only commanding that adults are put into the Ark.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Brother,
unlike you, I have a life. I do not find excuses to run away. I have no reason to run away. But I do have a life. And to be perfectly frank - I enjoy my life. Even though it is pretty busy. I cannot spend all of my time on this forum. It is unrealistic to think that I am going to respond to every one of your childish responses. I find you a boor and offensive and a fake and a fraud. Honestly, I don't really want to give you air time to continue your charade.
I see your game as one who provokes and bullies until you get what you want. Perhaps this is the reason you are so spiteful towards a being you say you do not believe in. Because he refuses to play your game. My view about debating you has not changed at this time. And I will not debate you formally until you and I can agree on some of the terms of any such debate - including intellectual honesty.
As for running away - it is such a lame thing for you to continue to repeat. My name is not Marty McFly. I could care less for your dares or your challenges or your attempts to label me a coward. It simply is boorish. It strikes me that you know I have thrashed you - and you want a rematch. Perhaps I might give you that. Yet it will be on my terms - not on yours. We will agree to what they are - when I am satisfied you have some intellectual honesty. Unfortunately while you continue to masquerade in your current costume this is highly doubtful to occur any time soon.
I will post https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3557/post-links/199889 to this topic - in order for you to stop your lies about me running away. And also that as I have time I will address them. I think these are all the posts you believe I have not responded too - if there are others I am sure you will find them.
But we warned. I will not respond to rubbish. In other words, I will call rubbish rubbish and leave them in the bin. This also is the only place I will respond to you. I am not going to keep playing your bullish games. And once you have satisfied me - that you have any intellectual honesty, then perhaps we will once again consider whether or not to debate. But as I said above- I am not confident that you are likely to do that while hiding behind a fake persona.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Recently, and probably longer than that - in the religious forum it seems that some people think that they are the arbiter of all wisdom of what is evidence and what is not.
It seems to be quite ok to use the bible by non-believers as evidence of how bad and evil God is when they want to make a point about the evils of religion. So at that point it is considered ok to be evidence.
But then when the same people ask for evidence for why religious people believe certain things - and they use the bible as evidence - it gets rejected.
You cannot on one hand use the bible as evidence to prove God is evil and then reject other people's use of the bible as evidence in relation to matters of the same God and religion. You cannot use the bible as evidence to say God is a murderous serial killer and also reject its usage as evidence for God creating the world in six days. That is just dumb and inconsistent and unhelpful.
Fact is - if you think God is evil because you are using the bible as evidence - then you can't reject it as evidence for anything else relating to religion or God.
And when you do - you make a mockery out of what is evidence and what it is not. And more than that - you make a mockery and fool of yourself.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Sometimes the issue of denominations arises within the context of this forum. Queries are generally along the lines of why do they exist - how many are there- and people often provide all kinds of fanciful reasons for why they subjectively believe it is the way it is.
My particular view is that for the most part denominations are a good thing and should be encouraged. For me, the greater variety of denominations is a strength for the Christian religion because it demonstrates that members and individuals are united by something greater than a simple belief. A greater variety of denominations also puts to death the notion that "they are all brainwashed". Brainwashed people would not have the capacity to leave and start something new.
Christianity at its heart is a decentralised religion - with a head, that is Christ. It is not intended to be centralised around one figure or leader except for Christ. Unfortunately, throughout history, the church and its leaders have, like the world around it, fallen prey to the notion they are somehow privy to information or leadership skills that others do not possess - or that they have been called to a higher calling than the rest of the church. In other words, people in the church, just like people in the world, crave power and authority. And sometimes these people also have the means of attempting to make that happen.
Hence, it is true to say that throughout history that most new churches are started by people or groups that are attracted to power. Another aspect of this is the personality. People with personality - charismatic personality in the main - tend to attract people around them and who motivate that person to go further - to achieve power. Is it a wonder that people with personality - tend to go into politics? Is it a wonder that people who start new political parties are people with personality? It is a rare thing to see a person with no personality start a new church or start a new political party?
In my limited experience, when I see a new church start, it is for a couple of reasons. One, it is church plant from our congregation. One which sees a need and provides a service. So in our area, over the past 25 years, we have seen the growth of several new church congregations - all of our church's particular flavour and yet all distinctly different from each other. Some are quite conservative and others quite contemporary. Others a mixture of the ranges. Yet, all love each other and are able to worship together when it suits or is convenient. They contain young families, professionals, including scientists, lawyers, doctors, engineers, and many tradies - electricians, plumbers, carpenters, and a wide variety of the demographics of our communities. Another reason I see people start new churches is because of differences in music. Our church has variety of music - but sometimes people prefer the old hymns, or the more contemporary sort. Some like to have just an organ - others to have an entire band. Another reason I have seen people start their own church is because of personality. They were in leadership - but clashed with the current leadership - sometimes such people leave and go to another congregation - clash with that leadership and then move on - to another church and the same pattern continues on and on. Sometimes these people get sick of moving on - so they end up staying at home, then after a while starting a home church, normally watching something on tv - and then after a while thinking they can do better themselves. Sometimes people start a new church because the type of church they are looking for does not exist in an area, and after a while of visiting other churches in the area, they get in contact with their own denomination and see if they can start a new one. I can honestly say I have never seen a new one start up because of so called ambiguities of the bible.
But this is my limited experience. For the record I have worked in 4 different church congregations - and been involved within at least 6 different denominations. The churches I have worked in are Baptist and Presbyterian. I grew up in a church of Christ, my wife comes from a Pentecostal church, and I have engaged with Brethren, Anglican and Uniting Churches as well as a very small Presbyterian denomination and very small Methodist church.
Why I posted this topic - is I am interested in other people's experiences of new churches starting - why people think new ones start - and again from their experience - not just their opinion. And whether you can see benefits in it as well as negatives.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
the atheist likes to suggest the following:
An all powerful God could eliminate evil
An all good God would want to eliminate evil.
Evil exists
therefore God probably does not exist.
But the question is - what is evil?
Evil is something but it is not some thing. It is not a thing so God did not need to make it.
In fact God cannot be responsible for making it because it is not a thing.
So what is evil?
Evil is the absence of good. It is the hole in the proverbial donut. It is a shadow - it is coldness - that exists because of a lack of heat.
Evil is therefore not defined by what it is - but by what it is not.
Evil is therefore a departure from a perfect standard of good.
There must be a perfect standard of good to measure good and evil.
Good is closer to the benchmark and evil is further away from it.
Therefore evil is a problem for the atheist not for the theist.
If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality.
If there are no standards of morality - you can't say anything is evil.
Therefore if you recognise evil - this is evidence for God, Not against God.
How would you argue against this?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion