A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-06-2014, 10:13 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
How about the rest of us just let Jermy talk to himself. He isn't listening to us anyway. Perhaps he will get bored and lonely and go away.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
21-06-2014, 10:22 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 09:48 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 07:31 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I am not talking about atheism?

Are you sure about that?

Because if I supply at least one post in which I have talked about atheism, your statement is shown to be false.

A tiny percentage of posts speaking of sometbing does not entail what you are speaking about.

What exactly is this "tiny percentage" you speak of? What is its numerical value and how did you arrive at that number?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 10:37 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
CricketsCricketsCrickets

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
21-06-2014, 01:53 PM (This post was last modified: 21-06-2014 02:05 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 07:37 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 07:35 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Dude is suffering form dementia. He fried his brain on either alcohol or drugs. He can't remember from one post to another what he claimed he was doing here. He said he was here to "talk to atheists". Preaching is not "talking" except in the delusional world of an intellectually dishonest piece of shit.

"from" dementia.

Slander will not advance your cause of showing your views to be more tenable and mine to be untenable.

This is usually done through argumentation and presentation of evidence.

And yes you know and I know that I have been here talking to atheists about atheism and other things for some time now.

YOU are the one who implied your previous lifestyle, before Jebus, was unhealthy, sinful, and he saved you. Dementia is a reasonable conclusion based on YOUR "Oh Jebus made me all better" shit. And BTW, how convenient. You utterly FAILED to respond to anything in the my post before that, you dishonest troll.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
21-06-2014, 02:31 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 07:31 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  bla bla bla.
The QUESTION IN FRONT OF YOU, is to demonstrate or state the origins of the CRITERIA your (supposedly non-capricious) deity used in formulating her "commands". The question is not "divine command morality" but the ORIGINS of it. You have evaded one again the point in question, OR you don't get what the question really is. THIS is the question :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
YOU have not, and cannot answer it.

I answer this below.

(21-06-2014 07:31 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wrong. There are no "divine commands". HUMANS cooked them up, and presented them as divine commands, then changed them when it was convenient.

Ok Bucky. This is your argument. Now support it. What reason(s) do you give to hold the above to be true?


(21-06-2014 07:31 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Prove they are "divine" commands.

Now you have moved goalposts. First you asked me to explain where God gets the principles God uses to define sin. I answer below that these principles are expressions of God's nature and character as a maximally great being who is essentially compassionate, loving, caring, and good. I.e. these commands are expressions of His nature and character and are expressions of who God essentially is.

Now you ask me to prove that God exists in response to what I have said which is moving goalposts. To do this I would present several arguments for the existence of God which you would have to engage. Since I have already done this several times, simply reference them in their related threads.

(21-06-2014 07:31 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  1. Thank you for proving you're not here for anything other than preaching, you lying SOB.
2. You have in no way, but ONLY PRESUPPOSED your god to BE "just and loving". Your reasong is circular, and totally Presuppositionalist.

Not at all, for there exists several arguments for God's existence that aim to show that not only does He exist, but that He grounds objective moral values and duties. Once again, these arguments are available for you to review at your leisure. Since you have failed to demonstrate that my arguments are bad, the charge of presupposition is without merit.


(21-06-2014 07:31 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Prove it.
(Copy pasta bullshit).

A list of Presuppositional assertions and NOT ONE WORD of proof.
The moon is made of green cheese is just as valid.

Once again, you are asking for proof that God exists who issues commands to human beings. Reference my various arguments for God's existence in this forum and those on the internet.

(21-06-2014 07:31 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Prove it.
Then you don't know the definition of either "bondservant" or "slave".
I see you NEED, I repeat NEED to assert your moral superiority, because we all know you were once (and remain) a moral reprobate by your own admission.

What I was or am now in has nothing to do with the arguments I present for the existence of God. What I am concerned with is what is true.

Either God exists and His divine commands constitute what is moral and immoral for us or He does not.

If God exists and His divine commands constitute what is moral, then what is morally superior is determined by Him, not you, not me, or anyone else.

(21-06-2014 07:31 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Exactly. Your motives are essentially self-serving, and selfish. You NEED your Jebus blankey. We all get that. You think by coming here, and arguing, it will make you look reasonable. You are delusional, and you are trying to prove to YOURSELF you aren't.

You are clearly here to debate. The first rule of debate is : "know your audience". Posting shit from William L. Craig demonstrates you haven't the first clue about debate.

I seek to serve God because He is the Only One truly worthy of serving and worshiping. In serving Him, paradoxically, I am served. The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever says that shorter catechism.

When we drink water and eat food for the preservation of our life, we are not being selfish, we are simply taking care of ourselves. Though some may consider this to be self-serving, it is not selfish. Likewise, when I serve God, I am taken care of by Him. This no more makes me selfish than you drinking water and eating food makes you selfish. You are not selfish for doing those things, neither am I if I serve God because He is worthy of serving and worshiping.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 02:37 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
[Image: 3014260]

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
21-06-2014, 03:31 PM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2014 04:26 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 02:31 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Ok Bucky. This is your argument. Now support it. What reason(s) do you give to hold the above to be true?

Wrong.
It's not an "argument". Scholars know the origins of human texts are human. The extraordinary claim is they are something else. There is no evidence they are "something else". They fit perfectly historically with the history and values of the cultures which produced the texts. Any claim to their origins, other than human, is what has to be supported here. Human origins is the default position, (unless of course one is a Presupposisionalist, which once again you have demonstrated).

(21-06-2014 02:31 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Now you have moved goalposts. First you asked me to explain where God gets the principles God uses to define sin. I answer below that these principles are expressions of God's nature and character as a maximally great being who is essentially compassionate, loving, caring, and good. I.e. these commands are expressions of His nature and character and are expressions of who God essentially is.

You have explained nothing. At all. You've made a series of assertions with no support. I asked where your god GETS the CRITERIA to MAKE THE judgement about what is "maximally bla bla bla". All you did was restate your position. You did not answer the question, and the goal-posts were not moved. You can't answer the question, so you NEED to attempt evasion.

(21-06-2014 02:31 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Now you ask me to prove that God exists in response to what I have said which is moving goalposts. To do this I would present several arguments for the existence of God which you would have to engage. Since I have already done this several times, simply reference them in their related threads.

Don't bother. You failed at that. You're too delusional to admit what is right in front of you.

(21-06-2014 02:31 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Not at all, for there exists several arguments for God's existence that aim to show that not only does He exist, but that He grounds objective moral values and duties. Once again, these arguments are available for you to review at your leisure. Since you have failed to demonstrate that my arguments are bad, the charge of presupposition is without merit.

Bullshit. Fail again.

(21-06-2014 02:31 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Once again, you are asking for proof that God exists who issues commands to human beings. Reference my various arguments for God's existence in this forum and those on the internet.

Lazy fucker. I am not asking for proof that your god exists.
I asked you to prove that the commands had a divine origin, and I asked what criteria your god used, and where she GOT them to decide how to formulate a divine command. You can't. So you evade.

(21-06-2014 02:31 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  What I was or am now in has nothing to do with the arguments I present for the existence of God. What I am concerned with is what is true.

No you're not. And neither is Craig. And he's admitted it. This is not about the existence of your fairy tale. It's about the CRITERIA for making a decision between good and bad, or "being maximally good" IF your deity meets the criteria for "all good", then SOMETHING ELSE always existed in REALITY, or the definition is meaningless, and she was not the originator of ALL of Reality. THAT is the point, and the question.

(21-06-2014 02:31 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Either God exists and His divine commands constitute what is moral and immoral for us or He does not.

If God exists and His divine commands constitute what is moral, then what is morally superior is determined by Him, not you, not me, or anyone else.

She does not exist. But I do see your NEED to think in your childish simplistic terms only, and are unable to break free.

(21-06-2014 02:31 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I seek to serve God because He is the Only One truly worthy of serving and worshiping. In serving Him, paradoxically, I am served. The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever says that shorter catechism.

So you assert with no evidence. No one here gives a shit about you presuppositions, or your simple-minded opinions, or delusional motives. You have in no way demonstrated that the "Shorter Catechism" has any value or authority, or that it is anything someone here would look to. So why would you even bother to mention it, UNLESS you main aim here it to try to impress us with your background in your cult, (your Dunning-Kruger showing again?) Why would a perfect deity need to be "glorified" ? How could a human add something to the glory of a perfect being ? It's all just meaningless rote pious drivel, you memorized somewhere. And BTW, it's not "paradoxical" at all. That's a complete exaggeration, and an attempt to make your servitude look special and "righteous". You're not special Wanker. ALL DEDICATED people, what ever their field, are fulfilled by service. It's a common experience.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
21-06-2014, 08:09 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
[Image: off-is-the-general-direction-i-wish-you-to-fuck.jpg]

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored- Aldous Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like devilsadvoc8's post
22-06-2014, 03:42 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 06:09 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 05:09 AM)morondog Wrote:  You mean, those who claim to speak for God...

No.

God defines what sin is.

No. You think God defines what sin is. You have not seen God, you have not heard God, you don't know shit about God. All you have is second hand knowledge or the empty noises made by your own imagination. A little logic applied to your second hand God knowledge shows it to be nothing.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
22-06-2014, 04:45 PM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2014 04:52 PM by Mathilda.)
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(20-06-2014 01:46 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I am free. I am free to choose to serve Christ.

You are not free to choose to serve Him. Whoever commits sin is a slave to sin.


Does that mean that we don't have free will?

How come you have a free choice to serve Christ and we don't? Is it because we commit sin?

Does this mean that born again Christians aren't actually real Christians because they never had a free choice to serve God after having committed sin?


(20-06-2014 04:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I am a slave to sin whenever I commit sin and I do this whenever I fail to live up to God's Holy standard which is nothing less than perfection.


Does this mean that no one is free to serve him because it is impossible to be perfect and avoid sin?

And doesn't the Bible state that humans are born in sin? And if we aren't then why did we need Jesus to die on the cross?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Mathilda's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: