The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by SL00b It's a HUGE difference. If God subjects a small part of us to the crucible, it's a test. If he subjects the whole thing to the crucible, it's a refinement. And more importantly... if God is refining us, then none of us have to go to Hell, because at the end of this life, we're all pure. Does that sound like something your Bible agrees with?

It's the same process, put to a higher purpose.

His purpose for testing is to refine. As to your "more importantly . . ." if somebody is stubborn, and won't be refined, the metal is disgarded. It's not that everyone is refined and so everyone is accepted at the judgment. That would fit the general view here that God's creation should be infallable.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD It is simply not possible for a piece of metal to resist the purification process. If something goes wrong, it's the fault of the person who either designed or performed the process. So once again, if we assume your logic is correct, the real enemy is God.

We're using an analogy here. Yes, a metal cannot resist. But a human is not a metal, and can, and quite typically will resist. If a metal could and did resist, at the end of the process it would be disgarded.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD And as usual, what this really shows is that your logic is incorrect.

I doubt that. Besides, there are higher laws than human logic.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Besides Scripture, as I've stated, there are human senses besides the 5 known by science. In particular, a person with a dead spirit, not having been made alive by Christ, has exactly 5 senses. A person with faith in Christ has better evidence than these.

So any real evidence for that or just another baseless claim? And no, scripture is not an evidence. You are just twisting around your words, to make them look what you want to achieve. When we talk about evidence, we talk about the evidences in the way they are defined in the modern world for the whole mankind, not some obscure definitions from the bronze-age that is not very wide-spread.

It would make you and your religion make look much better, if you would actually give honest answers to questions and comments directed at you, not twisting around with your answers with giving new definitions to words that you obviously know are used in a different way.

Originally Posted by SL00b The funny thing about this post is the assumption that it's possible to know what God's expectations are.

That, my friend, is not an assumption.

Originally Posted by bluegospel That, my friend, is not an assumption.

Then it is a delusion.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD So any real evidence for that or just another baseless claim? And no, scripture is not an evidence. You are just twisting around your words, to make them look what you want to achieve.

Rather you're denying what you know to be true because you hate God.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD When we talk about evidence, we talk about the evidences in the way they are defined in the modern world for the whole mankind, not some obscure definitions from the bronze-age that is not very wide-spread. It would make you and your religion make look much better, if you would actually give honest answers to questions and comments directed at you, not twisting around with your answers with giving new definitions to words that you obviously know are used in a different way.

If I really am twisting the discussion, how is it then, that if permitted here by the audience and by time, I could fairly address every attack against Christian faith from a book that has a finite quantity? It's because its content is eternal.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Rather you're denying what you know to be true because you hate God.

Oh, you got me wrong here. Why should I hate something imaginary?

If I really am twisting the discussion, how is it then, that if permitted here by the audience and by time, I could fairly address every attack against Christian faith from a book that has a finite quantity? It's because its content is eternal.

The point is that you have not addressed one of the "attacks", and no one here (besides other Christians) take the bible as evidence (or eternal). You just twisted your way around the questions with baseless claims and new definitions of words.

If I look through your last posts I can only see this:
- Only Christians can be truly happy and satisfied, so Christians must be superior.
- Only Christians are not limited by the known 5 senses, so Christians must be superior.
- The only true believers can be Christians, so Christians must be superior.
- I, bluegospel, actually know god, so I must be superior.
- I, bluegospel, know exactly what god expects from me (despite that this is even not made clear in the bible), so I am superior.
- I, bluegospel, are superior, so I can make any baseless claim I want and call that "addressing the attacks against Christian faith", and I can use some random parts of my superior holy book (renownedly written and assembled by humans) for that.

Actually, all I see is a pride person that seems to be not even able to hypothetically consider that the others may have the possibility to be right. Not only the atheists and agnostics, but everyone that doesn't believe the same stuff you believe. You are so close-minded in your believe that I consider that even as pitiful, sorry.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Rather you're denying what you know to be true because you hate God.

Now you're trying to blame it all on your opponent. People don't hate something they never met. The reason atheists/agnostics exist, is not because they "hate god", but because in their entire life they seen nothing that could even hint them that a god exist. As I already said, it wouldn't take much to change their opinion - they need some kind of evidence. If a god made a personal appearance (or sent something obviously supernatural in its place), that could be a start.

Originally Posted by bluegospel I could fairly address every attack

You probably couldn't.
Judging from this discussion, you have only three ways to deal with every question ever presented to you:

1. "I'm right because bible says so"
2. "I'm right because I'm Christian"
3. avoid answering and hide until the question goes away.

Those kind of arguments won't work. People are looking for a logical basis for your faith and ask tricky questions to see if your faith is actually based on something (who knows, maybe you actually spent 15 years thinking about it and have the answer to everything). If you can't answer "tricky questions", then your opponent will have to conclude that your faith is most likely a combination of delusion, confirmation bias and stubbornness.

Originally Posted by bluegospel It's the same process, put to a higher purpose. His purpose for testing is to refine. As to your "more importantly . . ." if somebody is stubborn, and won't be refined, the metal is disgarded. It's not that everyone is refined and so everyone is accepted at the judgment. That would fit the general view here that God's creation should be infallable.

You're saying that God has created something which is impure. He does not know how much purity it contains, so it must be tested... therefore, he is not omniscient. But he's absolutely certain that this thing he created is definitely and inarguably impure, so he is not infallible. And furthemore, he is incapable of ensuring that the process of refinement will be successful, so he's not omnipotent.

Your case for God gets weaker with your every post.

Originally Posted by bluegospel We're using an analogy here. Yes, a metal cannot resist. But a human is not a metal, and can, and quite typically will resist. If a metal could and did resist, at the end of the process it would be disgarded.

Oh, special pleading. That's a new fallacy.

Originally Posted by bluegospel I doubt that. Besides, there are higher laws than human logic.

So? That doesn't take anything away from the fact that logic works. I mean, sure, there are bigger explosives than dynamite, but that doesn't stop dynamite from going "boom!"

Originally Posted by bluegospel That, my friend, is not an assumption.

Oh? How do you know what God's will is, then?

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Oh, you got me wrong here. Why should I hate something imaginary?

And why would I "twist words," when I aim to please God, who abhors lies?

Originally Posted by TobiSGD The point is that you have not addressed one of the "attacks", and no one here (besides other Christians) take the bible as evidence (or eternal). You just twisted your way around the questions with baseless claims and new definitions of words.

If anyone twists words, it's the agnathiests (sic). The definition I've given is hardly new, and you are avoiding any and every answer whose source is the Bible. You have a uniform, canned answer for that--Bible is illegal (which would be your bliss if it were so by civil law).

Originally Posted by TobiSGD If I look through your last posts I can only see this: - Only Christians can be truly happy and satisfied,

Yes

Originally Posted by TobiSGD so Christians must be superior.

No implication of that in anything I've said. You're obviously the one twisting words.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD - Only Christians are not limited by the known 5 senses, so Christians must be superior.

You've just admitted you believe people who are smarter are better.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD - I can use some random parta of my superior holy book (renownedly written and assembled by humans) for that.

How in the world is it random if it directly addresses the question! I advise you to check your definitions!

Originally Posted by bluegospel Rather you're denying what you know to be true because you hate God.

What's great about this is that in so few words it combines so many elements of poor thinking skills:

- ad hominem
- hasty generalization
- false assumption
- red herring
- appeal to emotion

I can't speak for the person you addressed this to, but for myself, I don't hate God any more than I might hate Severus Snape or the Tooth Fairy.

Originally Posted by bluegospel If I really am twisting the discussion, how is it then, that if permitted here by the audience and by time, I could fairly address every attack against Christian faith from a book that has a finite quantity? It's because its content is eternal.

Do you really think you've fairly addressed ANY attack against the Christian faith?

Originally Posted by TobiSGD If I look through your last posts I can only see this: - Only Christians can be truly happy and satisfied, so Christians must be superior. - Only Christians are not limited by the known 5 senses, so Christians must be superior. - The only true believers can be Christians, so Christians must be superior. - I, bluegospel, actually know god, so I must be superior. - I, bluegospel, know exactly what god expects from me (despite that this is even not made clear in the bible), so I am superior. - I, bluegospel, are superior, so I can make any baseless claim I want and call that "addressing the attacks against Christian faith", and I can use some random parts of my superior holy book (renownedly written and assembled by humans) for that.

Nailed it.

Originally Posted by bluegospel And why would I "twist words," when I aim to please God, who abhors lies?

I have no reason to think that it is your real intent. Also I have no reason to think that there is a god that abhors lies.
As far as I can tell, you aim to prove that you're right, which looks like a good reason to "twist words" (which you've been already doing for last few months).

Originally Posted by bluegospel If anyone twists words, it's the agnathiests (sic). The definition I've given is hardly new, and you are avoiding any and every answer whose source is the Bible. You have a uniform, canned answer for that--Bible is illegal (which would be your bliss if it were so by civil law).

The thing is, if we allow that the Bible can count as evidence, we must equally allow any religious text to count as evidence, from the Koran to The Upanishads, which of course is hardly helpful for you position either. It's astonishing that you don't see that fervent believers from every religion make the exact same sort of arguments you are making and support it with quotes from their traditions. If I accept that those arguments count as good evidence, then I'm left in the position that I must believe every religion to be true, which is rather contradictory.

And don't be silly, no one wants to make the Bible illegal. I want to make admitting to belief in God as embarrassing for an adult as admitting they believe in Santa Claus, but I will defend to the utmost your right to believe in Santa Claus or God.

Originally Posted by SL00b You're saying that God has created something which is impure. He does not know how much purity it contains, so it must be tested... therefore, he is not omniscient.

Reverting again to your god, which is human logic, what I said was that in this analogy, God is using a very fine process, which would be used commonly only to "test" a sample, to instead refine the whole lot, or at least that portion that is willing to be refined(sic).

Originally Posted by SL00b But he's absolutely certain that this thing he created is definitely and inarguably impure, so he is not infallible.

In fact, he, is infallable, yes. What he has created is by nature neither immortal, nor infallible. If you or I create something like, say, pottery, and in the process we mess up and yet correct it, we have not failed have we? And if we give up on a certain lump of clay because it's useless, we are not failures are we? In the same sense a perfect God can create something that is, or becomes imperfect.

Originally Posted by SL00b And furthemore, he is incapable of ensuring that the process of refinement will be successful, so he's not omnipotent.

Answered above.

Originally Posted by SL00b Your case for God gets weaker with your every post.

I don't have to make a case for God. Your blood is on your own hands.

Originally Posted by SL00b So? That doesn't take anything away from the fact that logic works. I mean, sure, there are bigger explosives than dynamite, but that doesn't stop dynamite from going "boom!"

In the context of eternity human logic only works (and imperfectly) in time. It doesn't work in the judgment. I for one have a higher plea than human logic in the judgment.