The Gospel

[Ossai]

kurious_Kathy

You have a really messed up point of view if you say something like that. Are you really that arrogant that you could even make that statement? It churns my stomach!

Want to be a bit more specific as to which statement ‘churns your stomach’ and why.

So sorry, but both my replies to you are supported by scripture.

ceo_esq

Actually, yes, according to Scripture (Jn 3:17; Jn 12:32; Jn 14:2; Rom 11:32; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9; Titus 2:11; Eph 1:10; Col 1:20...). I understand Kathy's point.

Revelations 7:4 – Referenced by Jehovah’s Witnesses as to how many will ascend to heaven. The reset will live in an earthly paradise.
Are you saying that the Jehovah’s Witnesses have it wrong? Or are they not TRUE Christians?

Christian Dude

Anytime a guy in my camp refutes an evolutionist's claim, or defends his/her own claim, you have tons of guys to jump all over it and make an argument against it.

Now this is news, assuming it’s real. A creationist refuting a scientist’s claim. Got any evidence for it? Scientist don’t just make arguments against creationists/ID claims. They usually don’t have to. All that need do is present the evidence and watch the creationist/ID argument fold.

ID scientists do research and you know it.

Really, so where are the breakthroughs, where are the patents, where are the commercial endeavors all based on ID. There are none. ID is a political and religious movement, not scientific.

How do you create an experiment that shows how a God, that exists outside our physical universe, actually did create everything. ID does equal God, there is no way around that.

At least your admit that ID is religious. You also said that god exists outside the physical universe which also removes it from the realm of science.

Antiquehunter

As to the suggestion Ossai is into the occult - I've never met Ossai. I have a hunch, however, that he is equally unafraid of the devil, as he is equally unafraid of the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Merlin the Happy Pig.

You’re right. But I do live in awe of Peter Porker the Spectacular Spider-Ham.

Ossai

 

[Hawk one]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian Dude
Come on foulsound. ID scientists do research and you know it. I do agree with you though about their taking, in your words, “mainstream scientists” research started by others, and then showing the flaws in the theories.[/fquote

Claim CI001

[fquote]As far as peer review goes, even Hawking said that the debate was a valid one and worth pursuing.

---

Please give a reference of exactly what he said and in what context he said it in. Quote mining is so often used by creationists that it's simply not possible for anyone with critical thinking senses to take this at face value.

[fquote]And for ID scientists initiating new research. Yes I hope some interesting and compelling new and unique research will come up. I don’t know though. How do you create an experiment that shows how a God, that exists outside our physical universe, actually did create everything. ID does equal God, there is no way around that.[/fquote]

And this is exactly why ID is NOT a science. Let me give you a rundown:

In a real science, any theory and hypothesis must be falsifiable through experiments. In other words, one must be able to say, for example, that "If X behaves like Y, that supports my theory, but if X does not at all behave like Y, then it doesn't."

So, if ID is to be counted as a science, the first thing you must do is to stop assuming there is a designer/god, you must stop making this a premise. And more importantly, you have no other option than to allow for the opportunity that there isn't a designer/god.

But creationists never allows for this, do they? Creationists are coming up with claims like "How could the bombardier beetle evolve?" and say that the bombardier beetle is a result of a creator. If ID had been a scientific theory, then obviously proving that bombardier beetles evolve would have been an argument against a designer.

Well, we know pretty damn well at least one possible way the could have evolved. The creationists reply to this is basically: "Evolution is still false and god still exists". And then they repeat the procedure with other things found in nature. Leading to an endless amount of claims that in essence are [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html]arguments from incredulity. If they had been honest, if they had been doing scientific research, then they would have found out on their own how the bombardier beetle could have evolved. THey would have found out what is the real deal about transitional fossils. They would have found out what the theory of evolution actually is and what it isn't.

Instead, they throw out the same lies over and over. Darvin's recanting of evolution on his deathbed, for example. That one was thoroughly debunked a bloody century ago, and yet I heard the claim personally over the phone less than five months ago!

It is sickening and disheartening to see how the creationists keep behaving like this. And considering they most definitely claim a "moral high ground", it is also disgustingly hypocritical.

[fquote]I did put a post in the thread titled "Why is ID so successful" in the Religion and Philosophy forum. You could read it and give me some recomendations on material I asked for. See you.[/fquote]

I will take a look at that post after this reply. Let's just hope that you aren't asking for material I have already given you. Right now, it seems you haven't looked at any of it, because you are constantly ignoring my replies.

 

[Christian Dude]

I will take a look at that post after this reply. Let's just hope that you aren't asking for material I have already given you. Right now, it seems you haven't looked at any of it, because you are constantly ignoring my replies.

Hawk one, I am not ignoring you on purpose. You started commenting to me later than some other people that I have been dialoging with.

Yes, it seems you have given me some of the types of resources I want to read in this post. Thanks. I have read extensively on this subject which should be obvious from my comments. Because my world view is a Christian world view, which starts with the premise that God does exist, and has created all that exists besides him, I am not a hypocrite because I approach everything from that world view. I would be a hypocrite if I did not demonstrate, in the way I live and view things, my faith.

 

[Ducky]

Come on foulsound. ID scientists do research and you know it. I do agree with you though about their taking, in your words, “mainstream scientists” research started by others, and then showing the flaws in the theories.

As far as peer review goes, even Hawking said that the debate was a valid one and worth pursuing.

And for ID scientists initiating new research. Yes I hope some interesting and compelling new and unique research will come up. I don’t know though. How do you create an experiment that shows how a God, that exists outside our physical universe, actually did create everything. ID does equal God, there is no way around that.

Kathy's topic is the Gospel and the offense. We need a new thread for this. If it is OK with you, I will pm you when I am ready to spare with you about this. Is that OK? And yes, don't hold your breath, I don't know if it will be a month, six months or whatever.

I did put a post in the thread titled "Why is ID so successful" in the Religion and Philosophy forum. You could read it and give me some recomendations on material I asked for. See you.

-dude

I see.

You're not going to show me and you don't want to hijack the thread (though you have already done that.)

troll.

 

[ceo_esq]

Revelations 7:4 – Referenced by Jehovah’s Witnesses as to how many will ascend to heaven. The reset will live in an earthly paradise.
Are you saying that the Jehovah’s Witnesses have it wrong? Or are they not TRUE Christians?

What I am saying, Ossai, is that there is demonstrably at least as much prima facie scriptural support for Kathy's reference to what is often called the "universal salvific will", as there is for the contrary proposition. What the Jehovah's Witnesses think or do not think doesn't enter into it. If you meant to tell Kathy "Not according to the Jehovah's Witnesses," you should have said so instead of saying "Not according to Scripture".

Incidentally, if you'd understood that thread you linked, which explains the pitfalls of applying the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in the context of religion, you might be more circumspect about raising it.

 

[Hawk one]

Well, we know pretty damn well at least one possible way the bombardier beetle could have evolved. The creationists reply to this is basically: "Evolution is still false and god still exists". And then they repeat the procedure with other things found in nature. Leading to an endless amount of claims that in essence are arguments from incredulity. If they had been honest, if they had been doing scientific research, then they would have found out on their own how the bombardier beetle could have evolved. THey would have found out what is the real deal about transitional fossils. They would have found out what the theory of evolution actually is and what it isn't.

Nothing new to post so far, just fixing the links in the above paragraph, as I didn't notice the mistake until the editing limit expired. My apologies to everyone for this sloppy editing.

 

[Ossai]

ceo_esq

What I am saying, Ossai, is that there is demonstrably at least as much prima facie scriptural support for Kathy's reference to what is often called the "universal salvific will", as there is for the contrary proposition.

That’s nice and I agree with you about there being just as much scriptural support. But, it’s completely irrelevant!

Her claim was that Heaven was big enough for all. I pointed out that scripturally only 144,000 people (male virgins specifically) will ascend to heaven. Now kurious_Kathy has the option of denying Revelations or denying one of the other bible passages. Once she does that we may be able to ascertain her criteria as to which parts of the bible are figurative vs. which are literal. Especially since I’ve already ask that question and received no reply.

What the Jehovah's Witnesses think or do not think doesn't enter into it. If you meant to tell Kathy "Not according to the Jehovah's Witnesses," you should have said so instead of saying "Not according to Scripture".

I recall that there is another passage in the bible that actually gives the dimensions of heaven (vague memory here so I’ll have to look up the verse later) which would again indicate that heaven isn’t big enough to hold everyone.

Incidentally, if you'd understood that thread you linked, which explains the pitfalls of applying the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in the context of religion, you might be more circumspect about raising it.

Ahem, I threw the smiley on to indicate I was joking. If you had bothered to read some of the linked thread you would know I was arguing against the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Ossai

 

[Christian Dude]

I see.

You're not going to show me and you don't want to hijack the thread (though you have already done that.)

troll.

Yes I will show you, I just need some more time. I already told you about the other thread that is on this topic. What you asked me for will take me a while to come up with thoughtful answers. I don't have good answers right now, and if I can't come up with any, I will admit it to you.

Maybe some day you will be nice to me, I hope.

 

[ceo_esq]

Her claim was that Heaven was big enough for all. I pointed out that scripturally only 144,000 people (male virgins specifically) will ascend to heaven.

I'm not sure what to make of that verse, but strictly speaking it is not inconsistent with a heaven that is, nevertheless, big enough for all.

Now kurious_Kathy has the option of denying Revelations or denying one of the other bible passages. Once she does that we may be able to ascertain her criteria as to which parts of the bible are figurative vs. which are literal. Especially since I’ve already ask that question and received no reply.

Yet that sort of figurative vs. literal exercise is the sort of thing that manages to keep Christians from needing to deny one or the other. Kathy can affirm both (assuming, for the sake of argument, that their "literal meanings" - whatever that expression signifies - are in formal contradiction). By the way, it would seem that the verse from Revelations, written in the style of apocalyptic visionary literature, is the obvious candidate for receiving the "figurative" reading. I think Kathy could elect to do that (if that is, in fact, her preferred interpretation) on perfectly defensible grounds. Believing any of it, of course, is another matter.

I recall that there is another passage in the bible that actually gives the dimensions of heaven (vague memory here so I’ll have to look up the verse later) which would again indicate that heaven isn’t big enough to hold everyone.

You may be thinking of Revelations 21:16: "The city is laid out as a square, and its length is as great as the width; and he measured the city with the rod, fifteen hundred miles; its length and width and height are equal" (referring to the heavenly Jerusalem). If one were to take this literally, and assuming for the moment that it means a square-based city roughly 1,500 modern miles on a side and (even more improbably) 1,500 miles tall, then the author is describing a heaven that could easily hold everyone - even if it sounds more like a Borg spaceship than a place you'd want to spend eternity.

Using a population density akin to that of the most densely populated modern cities, I estimate that a hypothetical 2,250,000-square-mile city could hold more than a quarter-trillion people - many, many more than the total number of human beings who ever lived. And that's only for a city with a modern-sized skyline, not one 1,500 miles tall.

Why did I bother calculating that? Who knows.

Ahem, I threw the smiley on to indicate I was joking. If you had bothered to read some of the linked thread you would know I was arguing against the No True Scotsman fallacy.

I realize you were making a joke. But I think you misunderstood me. You were arguing in the other thread that the fallacy applied also to the "True Christian", whereas I was endeavoring to explain why the "True Scotsman" and the "True Christian" are not analogous.

 

[Ducky]

Yes I will show you, I just need some more time. I already told you about the other thread that is on this topic. What you asked me for will take me a while to come up with thoughtful answers. I don't have good answers right now, and if I can't come up with any, I will admit it to you.

Maybe some day you will be nice to me, I hope.

Fair enough.

Though I at times am prone to a silver tongued response, and apologise if you are offended, let me explain why I and others would be quick to this response.

You can imagine I am sure the type of evangelist christian that would target this forum, then as things progress through discussion, and logical fallacies are pointed out, or evidence refuted (by either side) how often we are subject to the newcomer believer resorting to nasty attacks and name calling. This happens repeatedly and often here, as many people feel the need to try to convert us.

I can't speak for everyone on the forum, but the prevailing attitude I have is to dismiss all things outside the scope of evidence and argument. Often when a newcomer cannot answer our questions they do not take a moment to research their position as you are, and move into direct attacks of character.

While this may be unfair to those willing to debate rationally and in a civil fashion, it is an understandable, though rash response to think "here we go again" and skip straight to a defensive position. Of this I admit I am guilty.

I felt the need to explain why you would encounter hostility here. I apologise if you were offended.

I await your research and response in another thread. feel free to PM me when you have posted this.

 

[kurious_kathy]

What I am saying, Ossai, is that there is demonstrably at least as much prima facie scriptural support for Kathy's reference to what is often called the "universal salvific will", as there is for the contrary proposition. What the Jehovah's Witnesses think or do not think doesn't enter into it. If you meant to tell Kathy "Not according to the Jehovah's Witnesses," you should have said so instead of saying "Not according to Scripture".

Incidentally, if you'd understood that thread you linked, which explains the pitfalls of applying the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in the context of religion, you might be more circumspect about raising it.

1 John 4:2-3
By this you know the Spirit of God:"every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that is coming, and is now already in the world.
This is sound doctrine. Everything outside of Christ leads to death!
I have included this link for any that are serious about researching the false teachings in the world today. http://www.watchman.org/natools.htm

 

[Atlas]

1 John 4:2-3
By this you know the Spirit of God:"every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that is coming, and is now already in the world.

This is sound doctrine. Everything outside of Christ leads to death!

Kathy, this is an intereresting verse you've chosen as an example of sound doctrine. John seems to identify that the spirit of the antichrist leads all spirits who do no confess Jesus. I read it like this... We know the antichrist, that we've all heard is coming, is already in the world. We know it is here because it's spirit pervades causing many other spirits to deny Christ came in the flesh.

Did John mean something else? Since you supplied this quote I'm wondering if you'd clarify the meaning for me. Thanks.

 

[kurious_kathy]

Kathy, this is an intereresting verse you've chosen as an example of sound doctrine. John seems to identify that the spirit of the antichrist leads all spirits who do no confess Jesus. I read it like this... We know the antichrist, that we've all heard is coming, is already in the world. We know it is here because it's spirit pervades causing many other spirits to deny Christ came in the flesh.

Did John mean something else? Since you supplied this quote I'm wondering if you'd clarify the meaning for me. Thanks.

Yes, I would say your paraphrase is a valid one.

 

[Ossai]

ceo_esq

By the way, it would seem that the verse from Revelations, written in the style of apocalyptic visionary literature, is the obvious candidate for receiving the "figurative" reading. I think Kathy could elect to do that (if that is, in fact, her preferred interpretation) on perfectly defensible grounds. Believing any of it, of course, is another matter.

Ah, but kurious_Kathy claimed that the bible was literal. She didn’t make exceptions. Once she does that opens the whole thing up as being part figurative. I probably should have gone with one of the direct contradictions like how many disciples were present after Jesus’ resurrection?

You may be thinking of Revelations 21:16: "The city is laid out as a square, and its length is as great as the width; and he measured the city with the rod, fifteen hundred miles; its length and width and height are equal"

Yep, that’s the one I was trying to think of, although I got my measurements mixed. I was thinking it was close to 1500 rods not miles. There are 320 rods per mile, which would considerable reduce the size of the city.


Ossai

 

[Kimpatsu]

ceo_esq
Ah, but kurious_Kathy claimed that the bible was literal. She didn’t make exceptions. Once she does that opens the whole thing up as being part figurative. I probably should have gone with one of the direct contradictions like how many disciples were present after Jesus’ resurrection?

Yep, that’s the one I was trying to think of, although I got my measurements mixed. I was thinking it was close to 1500 rods not miles. There are 320 rods per mile, which would considerable reduce the size of the city.


Ossai

FYI, if you're interested, an average Biblical Middle Eastern city was approximately the size of one New York city block. I know that doesn't add to the discussion, but it might help with your visualising of the said size.
HTH,

 

[Atlas]

I read it like this... We know the antichrist, that we've all heard is coming, is already in the world. We know it is here because it's spirit pervades causing many other spirits to deny Christ came in the flesh.

Yes, I would say your paraphrase is a valid one.

We seem to have differing ideas on who the Antichrist is in Christian tradition. I thought of him as a human being - perhaps an incarnation of Satan - born of woman in sin, different but similar to Jesus being born of woman without sin.

He would be a marker for the end times and would do signs and wonders to lead people astray.

I always figured John felt he was living in the end times and the world of sin around him convinced him that Jesus must return soon. How much more evil would He allow the antichrist to spread before He returned?

But John's Antichrist could not be human in the world as a sign of the endtimes, could he? He'd be dead by now or very old. Was John mistaken? Is the antichrist not human? What's your take on it?

 

[jjramsey]

We seem to have differing ideas on who the Antichrist is in Christian tradition. I thought of him as a human being - perhaps an incarnation of Satan - born of woman in sin, different but similar to Jesus being born of woman without sin.

I think that's more the "Hollywood" version of the antichrist. The word "antichrist" is only in the first and second letters of John, and in one of those instances, 1 John 2.18, it's in the plural. The word isn't even in the book of Revelation, oddly enough. Often it seems to be used simply as a generic word for anyone who opposes Christ, rather than as a reference to a specific person. There is a reference to "the lawless one" (or "man of lawlessness") in 2 Thessalonians 2:8-12 who does signs and wonders by the power of Satan, and this is often identified as the Antichrist. There is not that much detail given about this Antichrist.

 

[kurious_kathy]

In order to answer this question a little better, it is helpful to know a bit more about spiritual warfare. Our adversary the devil seeks those whom he can destroy.

Check out this article if you are interested in the unseen war?
http://www.sounddoctrine.net/Nick/spiritualwarfare.htm

 

[Christian Dude]

We seem to have differing ideas on who the Antichrist is in Christian tradition. I thought of him as a human being - perhaps an incarnation of Satan - born of woman in sin, different but similar to Jesus being born of woman without sin.

He would be a marker for the end times and would do signs and wonders to lead people astray.

I always figured John felt he was living in the end times and the world of sin around him convinced him that Jesus must return soon. How much more evil would He allow the antichrist to spread before He returned?

But John's Antichrist could not be human in the world as a sign of the endtimes, could he? He'd be dead by now or very old. Was John mistaken? Is the antichrist not human? What's your take on it?

Atlas, I agree with you that John felt he was living in the very last days and thought Jesus was going to return in his life time. He did face a very evil type of antichrist, Nero. I do believe he thought that Nero was the very last antichrist that the Lord had given him revelation about.

In Eschatology (the study of last things), most Christians believe the antichrist is a man born just like any other man that Satan grooms to become the last and premier antichrist. Many also believe that Satan will perform counterfeit miracles through him and even possibly possess him.

There have been many types of antichrist over time. But thee antichrist is the last one. The one who will end up ruling the world and proclaiming himself God. Then Jesus returns as Lord of Lord and King of Kings.

 

[Zep]

Atlas, I agree with you that John felt he was living in the very last days and thought Jesus was going to return in his life time. He did face a very evil type of antichrist, Nero. I do believe he thought that Nero was the very last antichrist that the Lord had given him revelation about.

In Eschatology (the study of last things), most Christians believe the antichrist is a man born just like any other man that Satan grooms to become the last and premier antichrist. Many also believe that Satan will perform counterfeit miracles through him and even possibly possess him.

There have been many types of antichrist over time. But thee antichrist is the last one. The one who will end up ruling the world and proclaiming himself God. Then Jesus returns as Lord of Lord and King of Kings.

It may interest you to know that Nero was born after Christ left this Earth, so references to a yet-to-be born person as "the antichrist" by biblical characters would seem highly unlikely. Unless you are willing to credit the characters with prescience.

Augustus’ family line ended in disgrace in 68 A.D. with the Emperor Nero, who came to power when he was a young boy at the age of 17. Nero Claudius Caesar was born in December of 37 A.D. at Antium and reigned as the fifth emperor (Princeps) of Rome, from 54-68 A.D. under the political system created by Augustus after Civil War had finally put an end to the Roman Republic.

http://www.bible-history.com/nero/NEROOverview.htm