Total Posts:88|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective Evidence (A tutorial)

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 1:50:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's just amazing that (some/most) theists can rattle on all day about science and evidence, and yet demonstrate such a childish ignorance about what evidence is, what makes it evidence, and how evidence works. When a theist demands evidence for God's non-existence, they're shouting to the world that they have not a clue what evidence is, what makes it "evidence", or how evidence works.

- Evidence exists for that which DOES exist.

- Evidence does not exist for that which DOES NOT exist.

This is very simple and yet several here *cough*Neutral/Fatiaha/Mhykiel*cough**cough*, still don't seem to grasp it.

- Do I have to provide evidence against the pride of lions in your living room before you'll walk into your house?
- Do I have to show you evidence for the absence of cross traffic before you'll pull away from a stop sign?
- Do I have to show you evidence that the rattlesnake in your pocket doesn't exist before you'll reach for your keys?
- Do I have to show you evidence for the non-existence of a second sun in our solar system for you to realize it doesn't exist?
- If someone steals your car, do police demand evidence that it's no longer at the point where you left it?

NO! For those things even theists grasp the reality of how evidence works. But when it comes to God, it's like their brains just leaked out of their ears... most of them, anyway. We conclude non-existence when we note the lack of evidence for existence. And everyone - even theists - apply this methodology continually, throughout their day. How do you know if your child is missing? How do you know if you're out of cheese? How do you know if you're missing a sock?

In each case, you know due to the lack of evidence for those things. And atheists note that since there is a lack of evidence for God (who, if he exists should be massively evidenced), the rational conclusion is that God doesn't exist. The claim that God interacts with the physical makes it a certainty that if he existed, objective physical evidence would be present. And yet, even the most devout theists can't provide objective evidence for God.

Science has a very simple and logical fundamental methodology. If you claim that something exists, you're required to show the objective and logical evidence for its existence. But science DOES NOT ask for evidence of non-existence, because science demands compliance with logic, and the concept of evidence for non-existence is illogical and contradictive. Evidence ALWAYS indicates existence. Non-existence is indicated by the lack of evidence for existence.

Care to disagree? Then give us the objective evidence which tells us we don't have a second sun, and a third, and a fourth. Give us the objective evidence which acts as the beacon demonstrating that unicorns don't exist.

If you have no objective evidence for God (and another recent thread has shown that you don't), then the only rational and logical conclusion is that God does not exist. And if you have objective evidence for God, why has no one presented it in over 100 posts on the recent thread asking for objective evidence of God?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 3:20:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 1:50:52 PM, Beastt wrote:
It's just amazing that (some/most) theists can rattle on all day about science and evidence, and yet demonstrate such a childish ignorance about what evidence is, what makes it evidence, and how evidence works. When a theist demands evidence for God's non-existence, they're shouting to the world that they have not a clue what evidence is, what makes it "evidence", or how evidence works.

- Evidence exists for that which DOES exist.

- Evidence does not exist for that which DOES NOT exist.

This is very simple and yet several here *cough*Neutral/Fatiaha/Mhykiel*cough**cough*, still don't seem to grasp it.

- Do I have to provide evidence against the pride of lions in your living room before you'll walk into your house?
- Do I have to show you evidence for the absence of cross traffic before you'll pull away from a stop sign?
- Do I have to show you evidence that the rattlesnake in your pocket doesn't exist before you'll reach for your keys?
- Do I have to show you evidence for the non-existence of a second sun in our solar system for you to realize it doesn't exist?
- If someone steals your car, do police demand evidence that it's no longer at the point where you left it?

NO! For those things even theists grasp the reality of how evidence works. But when it comes to God, it's like their brains just leaked out of their ears... most of them, anyway. We conclude non-existence when we note the lack of evidence for existence. And everyone - even theists - apply this methodology continually, throughout their day. How do you know if your child is missing? How do you know if you're out of cheese? How do you know if you're missing a sock?

In each case, you know due to the lack of evidence for those things. And atheists note that since there is a lack of evidence for God (who, if he exists should be massively evidenced), the rational conclusion is that God doesn't exist. The claim that God interacts with the physical makes it a certainty that if he existed, objective physical evidence would be present. And yet, even the most devout theists can't provide objective evidence for God.

Science has a very simple and logical fundamental methodology. If you claim that something exists, you're required to show the objective and logical evidence for its existence. But science DOES NOT ask for evidence of non-existence, because science demands compliance with logic, and the concept of evidence for non-existence is illogical and contradictive. Evidence ALWAYS indicates existence. Non-existence is indicated by the lack of evidence for existence.

Care to disagree? Then give us the objective evidence which tells us we don't have a second sun, and a third, and a fourth. Give us the objective evidence which acts as the beacon demonstrating that unicorns don't exist.

If you have no objective evidence for God (and another recent thread has shown that you don't), then the only rational and logical conclusion is that God does not exist. And if you have objective evidence for God, why has no one presented it in over 100 posts on the recent thread asking for objective evidence of God?

What you're asking for is an utter impossibility.
No one can provide the kind of evidence you're seeking.

God has given us his Word through the apostles and prophets, as well as the light of conscience and of creation.

He has intentionally made it so you have to take his Word for it.
It's designed to elminate human boasting.

There is no evidence that can be submitted to human reason, or to the senses, that would convince anyone to believe God.
Faith in God is a supernatural gift, given by God to whomever he pleases.

All of us, by nature, are spiritually blind, and cannot perceive spiritual realities.
And unless God gives you "eyes"to see spiritual realities, you simply will never see them.

They cannot be grasped by the intellect, or the senses, or anything else that is natural to man.
Spiritual understanding is a result of a miracle wrought in a person by the Spirit of God.

Christ said:
"Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Look at John 3:1-21 :


1 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."

3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother"s womb and be born?"

5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, "You must be born again." 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, "How can these things be?"

10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 3:26:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 3:20:35 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 7/31/2014 1:50:52 PM, Beastt wrote:
It's just amazing that (some/most) theists can rattle on all day about science and evidence, and yet demonstrate such a childish ignorance about what evidence is, what makes it evidence, and how evidence works. When a theist demands evidence for God's non-existence, they're shouting to the world that they have not a clue what evidence is, what makes it "evidence", or how evidence works.

- Evidence exists for that which DOES exist.

- Evidence does not exist for that which DOES NOT exist.

This is very simple and yet several here *cough*Neutral/Fatiaha/Mhykiel*cough**cough*, still don't seem to grasp it.

- Do I have to provide evidence against the pride of lions in your living room before you'll walk into your house?
- Do I have to show you evidence for the absence of cross traffic before you'll pull away from a stop sign?
- Do I have to show you evidence that the rattlesnake in your pocket doesn't exist before you'll reach for your keys?
- Do I have to show you evidence for the non-existence of a second sun in our solar system for you to realize it doesn't exist?
- If someone steals your car, do police demand evidence that it's no longer at the point where you left it?

NO! For those things even theists grasp the reality of how evidence works. But when it comes to God, it's like their brains just leaked out of their ears... most of them, anyway. We conclude non-existence when we note the lack of evidence for existence. And everyone - even theists - apply this methodology continually, throughout their day. How do you know if your child is missing? How do you know if you're out of cheese? How do you know if you're missing a sock?

In each case, you know due to the lack of evidence for those things. And atheists note that since there is a lack of evidence for God (who, if he exists should be massively evidenced), the rational conclusion is that God doesn't exist. The claim that God interacts with the physical makes it a certainty that if he existed, objective physical evidence would be present. And yet, even the most devout theists can't provide objective evidence for *God.

Science has a very simple and logical fundamental methodology. If you claim that something exists, you're required to show the objective and logical evidence for its existence. But science DOES NOT ask for evidence of non-existence, because science demands compliance with logic, and the concept of evidence for non-existence is illogical and contradictive. Evidence ALWAYS indicates existence. Non-existence is indicated by the lack of evidence for existence.

Care to disagree? Then give us the objective evidence which tells us we don't have a second sun, and a third, and a fourth. Give us the objective evidence which acts as the beacon demonstrating that unicorns don't exist.

If you have no objective evidence for God (and another recent thread has shown that you don't), then the only rational and logical conclusion is that God does not exist. And if you have objective evidence for God, why has no one presented it in over 100 posts on the recent thread asking for objective evidence of God?

What you're asking for is an utter impossibility.
No one can provide the kind of evidence you're seeking.

God has given us his Word through the apostles and prophets, as well as the light of conscience and of creation.

He has intentionally made it so you have to take his Word for it.
It's designed to elminate human boasting.

So we have to accept claims on people's say-so? We have to accept written stuff that could be fact or fiction, and in fact bears strong evidence of alteration, deterioration and invention?

If I told you I could fly, would you believe me? Because this is literally the sort of thing your bible is doing.

There is no evidence that can be submitted to human reason, or to the senses, that would convince anyone to believe God.

Then why believe it? Sounds like stupidity to me. There is a reason why we demand evidence for everything else in life.

Faith in God is a supernatural gift, given by God to whomever he pleases.

Faith = belief without good reason = gullability.

All of us, by nature, are spiritually blind, and cannot perceive spiritual realities.
And unless God gives you "eyes"to see spiritual realities, you simply will never see them.

They cannot be grasped by the intellect, or the senses, or anything else that is natural to man.
Spiritual understanding is a result of a miracle wrought in a person by the Spirit of God.

Christ said:
"Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Look at John 3:1-21 :


1 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."

3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother"s womb and be born?"

5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, "You must be born again." 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, "How can these things be?"

10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."


Why should I believe any of that stuff? They are just words, written by men.
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 3:44:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 3:26:15 PM, Envisage wrote:
Why should I believe any of that stuff? They are just words, written by men.

Your problem isn't lack of sufficient evidence to believe.
Your problem is that your deeds are evil.
And rather than come to the light and acknowledge your sin, you attempt, in vain, to avoid the light.

Everything will be exposed for what it really is, so there's no point in trying to hide from the light.
You had better come to the light and receive God's mercy, or else be condemned for eternity.

Again, in that passage from John that I quoted, Christ said:
19 "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil
.
20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."
(John 3:19-21)

You must come to Christ. There is no other hope for you.
Believe on him, and you will be saved.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 3:54:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 3:44:23 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 7/31/2014 3:26:15 PM, Envisage wrote:
Why should I believe any of that stuff? They are just words, written by men.

Your problem is that your deeds are evil.

Why should I believe that?

And rather than come to the light and acknowledge your sin, you attempt, in vain, to avoid the light.

Why should I believe I am in sin?

Everything will be exposed for what it really is, so there's no point in trying to hide from the light.
You had better come to the light and receive God's mercy, or else be condemned for eternity.

Again, why should I believe any of that is true?

Again, in that passage from John that I quoted, Christ said:
19 "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil
.
20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."
(John 3:19-21)

You must come to Christ. There is no other hope for you.
Believe on him, and you will be saved.

Again, these are just words on a page. Why should I believe this is remotely true? If God doesn't exist, much less your specific one then I don't see why I should care what any of that has to say.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 3:58:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 3:20:35 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:


What you're asking for is an utter impossibility.
That's true. Objective evidence for the existence of that which doesn't exist, is an impossibility.

No one can provide the kind of evidence you're seeking.
Because God doesn't exist. But if God did exist (as theists claim), then objective evidence for him would be plentiful.

God has given us his Word through the apostles and prophets, as well as the light of conscience and of creation.
No he hasn't you silly, Duck! Men wrote down a lot of crap that they considered to be highly profound, and centuries later, another group of men decided - on their own bias - whether or not it was influenced by God. Of course all of those men already believed in God, and already formed beliefs. And it was the beliefs they already held, against which they measured the writings for "divine inspiration". Not a single word of any of it came from God.

He has intentionally made it so you have to take his Word for it.
No he hasn't. Men have simply insisted that I have to take THEIR word for it. God has never said a single thing about it.

It's designed to elminate human boasting.
Barks out the "proud Christian". Ever drive by a modern church? Most of them are multi-million dollar structures of pure extravagance. Many of them make the homes of the top celebrities appear humble by comparison.

There is no evidence that can be submitted to human reason, or to the senses, that would convince anyone to believe God.
Because God doesn't exist. Therefore, the evidence for God doesn't exist. That's how evidence works.
But... if God did exist, granted prayers and interacted with the physical, evidence for God would be abundant.

Faith in God is a supernatural gift, given by God to whomever he pleases.
No it isn't. It's a simple denial of reality.

If I insisted that you're a cannibal, and yet you showed me the contents of your refrigerator, your freezer, your cupboards and your pantry, and then invited me to spend a month with you and eat with you; and throughout all of that, there wasn't a shred of evidence that you were consuming human flesh - yet I continued to insist that you're a cannibal - THAT would be faith. Faith is simply a refusal to accept that your beliefs are wrong, and therefore, inconsistent with the evidence.

All of us, by nature, are spiritually blind, and cannot perceive spiritual realities.
There isn't any such thing as the "spiritual". It's an imaginary realm, created to hide imaginary entities.

And unless God gives you "eyes"to see spiritual realities, you simply will never see them.
Then it would be God's fault for each and every instance of disbelief. And yet, we're told God wants us to believe in him, and will punish us if we don't. But the bottom line remains that you're continuing to make claims of God, when you don't have a shred of evidence to support those claims, nor a shred of evidence to support the existence of God. So back up... first things, first. Before you can credibly make any claims of God, you need to show that he exists.

One can ramble on all day about Morality Fairies, how they work and what they want. But if they can't show you that Morality Fairies exist, are you going to pay any attention to the rest of their rhetoric?

They cannot be grasped by the intellect, or the senses, or anything else that is natural to man.
That's because they make no rational sense. They can only be grasped through ignorance and gullibility.

Spiritual understanding is a result of a miracle wrought in a person by the Spirit of God.
No it isn't. It's a bullcrap imaginary concept, designed as an imaginary hiding place for other bullcrap imaginary concepts.

Christ said:
"Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

No he didn't. The BIBLE claims Jesus said that. The Bible doesn't contain a single word uttered by Jesus, if indeed, Jesus ever existed. None of the gospels were written by anyone who ever knew Jesus. None of the gospels were even written until decades after the time we're told he existed.

"John" is one of the least credible of the gospels, and none of the canonical gospels hold any credibility. The oldest is "Mark" (60 - 80CE), which was originally written in Koine Greek, misquotes the 10-Commandments, and attributes what Jews attribute to God, instead to Moses. The author was clearly never Jewish, clearly never knew Jesus, and clearly wasn't Mark.

John contains information taken from "The Gospel of Mark", and other information taken from "Antiquity of the Jews" and "Jewish War" by Flavius Josephus. It obviously isn't an eye-witness work, wasn't written by anyone who knew Jesus, and doesn't contain any quotations of Jesus.

Look at John 3:1-21 :


1 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."

3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother"s womb and be born?"

5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, "You must be born again." 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, "How can these things be?"

10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."


Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah... those are just stories. If you'd do some research on the origin of the Bible, you'd find out that the gospels are just stories written by non-witnesses, and that none of them contain a single word of Jesus. And if they did, it wouldn't make any difference. Jesus - if he existed - wasn't an authority on anything. He's most likely a myth, and if not, he was just a common lunatic.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 4:04:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 3:44:23 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 7/31/2014 3:26:15 PM, Envisage wrote:
Why should I believe any of that stuff? They are just words, written by men.

Your problem isn't lack of sufficient evidence to believe.
Your problem is that your deeds are evil.
What do you know about their "deeds"? I'd love to put my "deeds" up against yours.

And rather than come to the light and acknowledge your sin, you attempt, in vain, to avoid the light.
No, they're just not being so gullible as to accept the absurd claim that God wouldn't be able to deliver his own message, in a credible manner.

Everything will be exposed for what it really is, so there's no point in trying to hide from the light.
No, once again - you're regurgitating the claims of a book written by a multitude of men, and then cherry-picked by a group of men in the 4th century. God didn't have anything to do with any of it.

You had better come to the light and receive God's mercy, or else be condemned for eternity.
Yes, and the Big Bad Wolf is going to huff and puff, and blow your house down. Grow. Think.

Again, in that passage from John that I quoted, Christ said:
19 "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil
.
20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."
(John 3:19-21)

You must come to Christ. There is no other hope for you.
There's no such thing as "coming to Christ". It's a meaningless phrase you've learn to regurgitate.

Believe on him, and you will be saved.
And here it is again. Believe "on" him? Meaningless Christian rhetoric.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 4:22:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 3:20:35 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 7/31/2014 1:50:52 PM, Beastt wrote:
It's just amazing that (some/most) theists can rattle on all day about science and evidence, and yet demonstrate such a childish ignorance about what evidence is, what makes it evidence, and how evidence works. When a theist demands evidence for God's non-existence, they're shouting to the world that they have not a clue what evidence is, what makes it "evidence", or how evidence works.

- Evidence exists for that which DOES exist.

- Evidence does not exist for that which DOES NOT exist.

This is very simple and yet several here *cough*Neutral/Fatiaha/Mhykiel*cough**cough*, still don't seem to grasp it.

- Do I have to provide evidence against the pride of lions in your living room before you'll walk into your house?
- Do I have to show you evidence for the absence of cross traffic before you'll pull away from a stop sign?
- Do I have to show you evidence that the rattlesnake in your pocket doesn't exist before you'll reach for your keys?
- Do I have to show you evidence for the non-existence of a second sun in our solar system for you to realize it doesn't exist?
- If someone steals your car, do police demand evidence that it's no longer at the point where you left it?

NO! For those things even theists grasp the reality of how evidence works. But when it comes to God, it's like their brains just leaked out of their ears... most of them, anyway. We conclude non-existence when we note the lack of evidence for existence. And everyone - even theists - apply this methodology continually, throughout their day. How do you know if your child is missing? How do you know if you're out of cheese? How do you know if you're missing a sock?

In each case, you know due to the lack of evidence for those things. And atheists note that since there is a lack of evidence for God (who, if he exists should be massively evidenced), the rational conclusion is that God doesn't exist. The claim that God interacts with the physical makes it a certainty that if he existed, objective physical evidence would be present. And yet, even the most devout theists can't provide objective evidence for God.

Science has a very simple and logical fundamental methodology. If you claim that something exists, you're required to show the objective and logical evidence for its existence. But science DOES NOT ask for evidence of non-existence, because science demands compliance with logic, and the concept of evidence for non-existence is illogical and contradictive. Evidence ALWAYS indicates existence. Non-existence is indicated by the lack of evidence for existence.

Care to disagree? Then give us the objective evidence which tells us we don't have a second sun, and a third, and a fourth. Give us the objective evidence which acts as the beacon demonstrating that unicorns don't exist.

If you have no objective evidence for God (and another recent thread has shown that you don't), then the only rational and logical conclusion is that God does not exist. And if you have objective evidence for God, why has no one presented it in over 100 posts on the recent thread asking for objective evidence of God?

What you're asking for is an utter impossibility.
No one can provide the kind of evidence you're seeking.

God has given us his Word through the apostles and prophets, as well as the light of conscience and of creation.

He has intentionally made it so you have to take his Word for it.
It's designed to elminate human boasting.

There is no evidence that can be submitted to human reason, or to the senses, that would convince anyone to believe God.
Faith in God is a supernatural gift, given by God to whomever he pleases.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." That's how faith is produced, not by some mysterious, better-felt-than-explained supernatural act on the part of God.

As I said, your doctrine is, "Just sit there. Hang tight. Perchance God will illuminate you - and if not, tough luck." That kind of mentality was a joke when Calvin first concocted his system, and it's moreso now.

"Men and brethren, What shall we do?"
"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"

If you ever attempt to answer that all-important question, it'll be about as clear as mud. You want to say, "Nothing", but for some reason you can't bring yourself to do it. I guess it sounds so ridiculous that you shy away from it.

You do what around here we call the Hardshell Baptist Hokey Pokey: "There's nothing you can do, so here's what you have to do, but there's nothing you can do, but here's what you have to do ...." And it's endless.

The question has already been asked, more than once. "Men and brethren, What must we do?" or "What must I do to be saved?". I'll guarantee that your theology will not allow you to give the same answer as was given in Acts 2 and Acts 16.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 4:30:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 4:22:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/31/2014 3:20:35 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 7/31/2014 1:50:52 PM, Beastt wrote:
It's just amazing that (some/most) theists can rattle on all day about science and evidence, and yet demonstrate such a childish ignorance about what evidence is, what makes it evidence, and how evidence works. When a theist demands evidence for God's non-existence, they're shouting to the world that they have not a clue what evidence is, what makes it "evidence", or how evidence works.

- Evidence exists for that which DOES exist.

- Evidence does not exist for that which DOES NOT exist.

This is very simple and yet several here *cough*Neutral/Fatiaha/Mhykiel*cough**cough*, still don't seem to grasp it.

- Do I have to provide evidence against the pride of lions in your living room before you'll walk into your house?
- Do I have to show you evidence for the absence of cross traffic before you'll pull away from a stop sign?
- Do I have to show you evidence that the rattlesnake in your pocket doesn't exist before you'll reach for your keys?
- Do I have to show you evidence for the non-existence of a second sun in our solar system for you to realize it doesn't exist?
- If someone steals your car, do police demand evidence that it's no longer at the point where you left it?

NO! For those things even theists grasp the reality of how evidence works. But when it comes to God, it's like their brains just leaked out of their ears... most of them, anyway. We conclude non-existence when we note the lack of evidence for existence. And everyone - even theists - apply this methodology continually, throughout their day. How do you know if your child is missing? How do you know if you're out of cheese? How do you know if you're missing a sock?

In each case, you know due to the lack of evidence for those things. And atheists note that since there is a lack of evidence for God (who, if he exists should be massively evidenced), the rational conclusion is that God doesn't exist. The claim that God interacts with the physical makes it a certainty that if he existed, objective physical evidence would be present. And yet, even the most devout theists can't provide objective evidence for God.

Science has a very simple and logical fundamental methodology. If you claim that something exists, you're required to show the objective and logical evidence for its existence. But science DOES NOT ask for evidence of non-existence, because science demands compliance with logic, and the concept of evidence for non-existence is illogical and contradictive. Evidence ALWAYS indicates existence. Non-existence is indicated by the lack of evidence for existence.

Care to disagree? Then give us the objective evidence which tells us we don't have a second sun, and a third, and a fourth. Give us the objective evidence which acts as the beacon demonstrating that unicorns don't exist.

If you have no objective evidence for God (and another recent thread has shown that you don't), then the only rational and logical conclusion is that God does not exist. And if you have objective evidence for God, why has no one presented it in over 100 posts on the recent thread asking for objective evidence of God?

What you're asking for is an utter impossibility.
No one can provide the kind of evidence you're seeking.

God has given us his Word through the apostles and prophets, as well as the light of conscience and of creation.

He has intentionally made it so you have to take his Word for it.
It's designed to elminate human boasting.

There is no evidence that can be submitted to human reason, or to the senses, that would convince anyone to believe God.
Faith in God is a supernatural gift, given by God to whomever he pleases.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." That's how faith is produced, not by some mysterious, better-felt-than-explained supernatural act on the part of God.

As I said, your doctrine is, "Just sit there. Hang tight. Perchance God will illuminate you - and if not, tough luck." That kind of mentality was a joke when Calvin first concocted his system, and it's moreso now.

"Men and brethren, What shall we do?"
"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"

If you ever attempt to answer that all-important question, it'll be about as clear as mud. You want to say, "Nothing", but for some reason you can't bring yourself to do it. I guess it sounds so ridiculous that you shy away from it.

You do what around here we call the Hardshell Baptist Hokey Pokey: "There's nothing you can do, so here's what you have to do, but there's nothing you can do, but here's what you have to do ...." And it's endless.

The question has already been asked, more than once. "Men and brethren, What must we do?" or "What must I do to be saved?". I'll guarantee that your theology will not allow you to give the same answer as was given in Acts 2 and Acts 16.

My record speaks for itself.
I have constantly said, "Believe on Christ and you will be saved."

But I'm not going to waste my time gathering all my posts to prove it to you.
As always, you're welcome to remain in ignorance.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 4:52:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 4:30:40 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 7/31/2014 4:22:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/31/2014 3:20:35 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 7/31/2014 1:50:52 PM, Beastt wrote:
It's just amazing that (some/most) theists can rattle on all day about science and evidence, and yet demonstrate such a childish ignorance about what evidence is, what makes it evidence, and how evidence works. When a theist demands evidence for God's non-existence, they're shouting to the world that they have not a clue what evidence is, what makes it "evidence", or how evidence works.

- Evidence exists for that which DOES exist.

- Evidence does not exist for that which DOES NOT exist.

This is very simple and yet several here *cough*Neutral/Fatiaha/Mhykiel*cough**cough*, still don't seem to grasp it.

- Do I have to provide evidence against the pride of lions in your living room before you'll walk into your house?
- Do I have to show you evidence for the absence of cross traffic before you'll pull away from a stop sign?
- Do I have to show you evidence that the rattlesnake in your pocket doesn't exist before you'll reach for your keys?
- Do I have to show you evidence for the non-existence of a second sun in our solar system for you to realize it doesn't exist?
- If someone steals your car, do police demand evidence that it's no longer at the point where you left it?

NO! For those things even theists grasp the reality of how evidence works. But when it comes to God, it's like their brains just leaked out of their ears... most of them, anyway. We conclude non-existence when we note the lack of evidence for existence. And everyone - even theists - apply this methodology continually, throughout their day. How do you know if your child is missing? How do you know if you're out of cheese? How do you know if you're missing a sock?

In each case, you know due to the lack of evidence for those things. And atheists note that since there is a lack of evidence for God (who, if he exists should be massively evidenced), the rational conclusion is that God doesn't exist. The claim that God interacts with the physical makes it a certainty that if he existed, objective physical evidence would be present. And yet, even the most devout theists can't provide objective evidence for God.

Science has a very simple and logical fundamental methodology. If you claim that something exists, you're required to show the objective and logical evidence for its existence. But science DOES NOT ask for evidence of non-existence, because science demands compliance with logic, and the concept of evidence for non-existence is illogical and contradictive. Evidence ALWAYS indicates existence. Non-existence is indicated by the lack of evidence for existence.

Care to disagree? Then give us the objective evidence which tells us we don't have a second sun, and a third, and a fourth. Give us the objective evidence which acts as the beacon demonstrating that unicorns don't exist.

If you have no objective evidence for God (and another recent thread has shown that you don't), then the only rational and logical conclusion is that God does not exist. And if you have objective evidence for God, why has no one presented it in over 100 posts on the recent thread asking for objective evidence of God?

What you're asking for is an utter impossibility.
No one can provide the kind of evidence you're seeking.

God has given us his Word through the apostles and prophets, as well as the light of conscience and of creation.

He has intentionally made it so you have to take his Word for it.
It's designed to elminate human boasting.

There is no evidence that can be submitted to human reason, or to the senses, that would convince anyone to believe God.
Faith in God is a supernatural gift, given by God to whomever he pleases.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." That's how faith is produced, not by some mysterious, better-felt-than-explained supernatural act on the part of God.

As I said, your doctrine is, "Just sit there. Hang tight. Perchance God will illuminate you - and if not, tough luck." That kind of mentality was a joke when Calvin first concocted his system, and it's moreso now.

"Men and brethren, What shall we do?"
"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"

If you ever attempt to answer that all-important question, it'll be about as clear as mud. You want to say, "Nothing", but for some reason you can't bring yourself to do it. I guess it sounds so ridiculous that you shy away from it.

You do what around here we call the Hardshell Baptist Hokey Pokey: "There's nothing you can do, so here's what you have to do, but there's nothing you can do, but here's what you have to do ...." And it's endless.

The question has already been asked, more than once. "Men and brethren, What must we do?" or "What must I do to be saved?". I'll guarantee that your theology will not allow you to give the same answer as was given in Acts 2 and Acts 16.

My record speaks for itself.
I have constantly said, "Believe on Christ and you will be saved."

But I'm not going to waste my time gathering all my posts to prove it to you.
As always, you're welcome to remain in ignorance.

I said, "I'll guarantee that your theology will not allow you to give the same answer as was given in Acts 2 and Acts 16."

That's proven true. You gave the answer as supplied in Acts 16, and totally left out the answer in Acts 2:

"And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

It does you no favors to state that anyone is in ignorance, including atheists.

1. Do you teach that a person repents of his sins before he even believes?
2. Do you teach that a person believes for one reason, yet repents for another reason?
3. Do you try to tell people that the person who believes actually did nothing - or did he do something?

You see, answering simple questions is not your forte. You know, just as everyone else knows, that you'll get yourself so mixed up that you'll wind up more lost than the Israelites in the wilderness.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes; for the Jew first, and also for the Greek."

"When the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power."

Why don't you enlighten this forum as to (1) WHAT is the power of God unto salvation, then (2) exactly how one OBEYS it. Surely you aren't on here trying to tell people that they've obeyed the gospel when all they've done is believe it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 5:02:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 4:22:32 PM, annanicole wrote:


"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." That's how faith is produced, not by some mysterious, better-felt-than-explained supernatural act on the part of God.
Faith is how people held belief in Zeus, Horus, Ra and all of the other gods you don't believe exists. It's nothing more than refusing to be rational, and to accept the most likely conclusions, when they conflict with what you WANT to believe. Faith is simply a practice of intellectual dishonesty - lying to yourself for the sake of emotional pacification.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 5:40:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 4:52:13 PM, annanicole wrote:

2. Do you teach that a person believes for one reason, yet repents for another reason?

What does that even mean?

I don't have the slightest idea what you're asking.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 6:11:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 5:02:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/31/2014 4:22:32 PM, annanicole wrote:


"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." That's how faith is produced, not by some mysterious, better-felt-than-explained supernatural act on the part of God.
Faith is how people held belief in Zeus, Horus, Ra and all of the other gods you don't believe exists. It's nothing more than refusing to be rational, and to accept the most likely conclusions, when they conflict with what you WANT to believe. Faith is simply a practice of intellectual dishonesty - lying to yourself for the sake of emotional pacification.

Well, that's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Based upon your analysis of the word "gift", your proclamation that adding an emphatic to a warning alters the meaning of the warning itself, and other things, I'm sure you won't mind if your analysis is ultimately rejected.

Do we have records of Zeus and Horus so accurately predicting events, including the timing, that we have difficulty explaining it? If so, I guess I'd be stumped just as you are. I'd probably try to concoct a date after the event, and defend it by, "So-and-so told me" - even if I knew that I knew zilch about the subject.

Faith is not, as you think, a leap in the dark. I've never said it was. It is based upon an analysis of the evidence. Every single "argument" that you've advanced has been a vain attempt to re-date the NT books forward, and to prove it, you've cited men who for the most part believe just as you do on the subject. Here's how they do it:

(1) Fact 1: Every last bit of the internal evidence for the date of the Book of Acts places the composition at around AD 63-64. The last portion of it is a running narrative that for some reason ends very, very abruptly.

(2) Fact 2: The Book of Luke was written prior to the Book of Acts. Within reason, that puts the latest date for composition of Luke at AD 60-62 perhaps. Nothing prevents a date in the AD 50's.

(3) Fact 3: You have repeatedly told us, with no proof whatsoever, that the Book of Mark was written first. Fine. German liberal scholars first advanced this claim in the 1800's, and other liberals/skeptics have latched on it. But your theories would force you to date the Book of Mark back into the AD 50's!

(4) Fact 4: Paul wrote, "For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. And, The laborer is worthy of his hire." (I Tim 5: 18) The first saying comes from Deuteronomy, but what of the second? It comes from Matt 10: 10 and Luke 10: 7. So now you have to re-date I Timothy, I guess.

(5) Fact 5: As early as the AD 90's, Clement of Rome was already quoting from the gospels. Thus they had already been penned, copied, and translated - probably multiple times - and were viewed as evidence in favor of certain view. Your view demands that all of this happened in a few years.

And I can rattle off 10 or 15 more, inter-relating all the books if you'd like. More if I sat down and thought about it.

The truth is: I have more evidence than you, and more substantial evidence. The best you can do is whine, "He couldn't have made those predictions before the fact, so I'll re-date them - and I'll cite some liberals and skeptics to support me." That's not an argument. That's an assertion. And it goes against the preponderance of both internal and external evidence. And the kicker: you've never studied any of it. You place 100% of your "faith" in just believing what you want, with or without evidence. If you think you have some real evidence, then bring it forth - and I don't mean some crap lifted from websites or books. I mean evidence gleaned from your own study.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 6:21:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 5:40:39 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 7/31/2014 4:52:13 PM, annanicole wrote:

2. Do you teach that a person believes for one reason, yet repents for another reason?

What does that even mean?

I don't have the slightest idea what you're asking.

I'm asking if a person believes (1) in order to be saved or (2) because he is saved. Did God save him first, then illuminate him - quicken him supernaturally - and turn him into a believer? If so, he was saved while yet an unbeliever.

Then I'm asking whether a believer repents of his sins (1) unto, in order to reach a yet-unreached end, the remission of sins, or (2) with a view forward to the remission of his sins.

And I didn't ask it, but I'll ask it now: is a penitent believer baptized (1) unto the remission of sins, or (2) with a view BACK to the fact that his sins have already been forgiven.

The passage, an answer to a question, is "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

I'd also like to know at what point the folks on Pentecost "obeyed the gospel". That's pretty important. One has to obey it, somehow. When exactly would one "obey" the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. You can't obey it literally, unless you want to physically die. You can't obey it by simply believing it. Exactly by what process does one die, then be buried, then be raised?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 7:14:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 6:11:47 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/31/2014 5:02:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/31/2014 4:22:32 PM, annanicole wrote:


"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." That's how faith is produced, not by some mysterious, better-felt-than-explained supernatural act on the part of God.
Faith is how people held belief in Zeus, Horus, Ra and all of the other gods you don't believe exists. It's nothing more than refusing to be rational, and to accept the most likely conclusions, when they conflict with what you WANT to believe. Faith is simply a practice of intellectual dishonesty - lying to yourself for the sake of emotional pacification.

Well, that's your opinion, and you are entitled to it.
No, Anna... NO! Your denial of a pure fact doesn't make it an opinion. This is one of those things that even intelligent theists can't seem to understand. Disbelief in that which is fully supported by both objective evidence and logic, doesn't become an "opinion" just because you can't manage to think rationally long enough to recognize the reality. Is Zeus real, sweetie? Is Horus real? What about Ra, Attis, Tammuz, Krishna, Mithra, Osiris, Isis, Thor, etc., etc., etc.?

NONE of them are real. And since they're not real, and there's no credible evidence upon which to build the belief that they're real, anyone who believes (or "believed"), they were real, did so by faith - holding beliefs for which they had no objective evidence. THAT'S what faith is. And it's purely dishonest. It's lying to yourself because you find a false belief to be more emotionally pacifying than reality.

Based upon your analysis of the word "gift", your proclamation that adding an emphatic to a warning alters the meaning of the warning itself, and other things, I'm sure you won't mind if your analysis is ultimately rejected.

I expect nothing more from you. Rejection of the obvious, the evidenced, the rational and the logical is all you have.

Do we have records of Zeus and Horus so accurately predicting events, including the timing, that we have difficulty explaining it?
You're obviously suggesting the supposed predictions of Jesus. You're the only one having trouble explaining how a document written after the event, could accurately predict the event. And that's because you don't like the obvious, rational, and logical conclusion. You willfully reject the rational, evidenced and logical, in your fervor to accept the irrational, ridiculous and obviously fallacious.

If so, I guess I'd be stumped just as you are. I'd probably try to concoct a date after the event, and defend it by, "So-and-so told me" - even if I knew that I knew zilch about the subject.
The people who "concocted" the dates are the ones who insist that it was an accurate prophecy. Those of us who accept a later date do so on the basis of the language used in the manuscript, the dialects, etc. We also try to apply a little logic. How amazed would you be at the following card trick?

1. I ask you to pick any card from the deck.

2. Show me the card you picked.

3. Now put the card back in the deck.

4. I sort through and pick out the same card.

Oooooooo, spooky! How did he do that? IT MUST BE GOD!!!!


Faith is not, as you think, a leap in the dark.
That's not what I said, Anna. I never even suggested it to be a "leap" or to have anything to do with the "dark" (or uniformed). It's belief, despite the lack of evidence and the need for irrationality, for the purpose of emotional pacification. And every believer in every god has believed by faith, because NONE of those gods have existed. And you agree with me on every single god, except one. For that God, you engage in a continual string of special pleading.

I've never said it was. It is based upon an analysis of the evidence.
You HAVE NO EVIDENCE! That's what my last two threads are all about! And you - like every other theist posting in both of them - have done nothing but support the fact that you HAVE NO EVIDENCE!

Every single "argument" that you've advanced has been a vain attempt to re-date the NT books forward, and to prove it, you've cited men who for the most part believe just as you do on the subject. Here's how they do it:

(1) Fact 1: Every last bit of the internal evidence for the date of the Book of Acts places the composition at around AD 63-64. The last portion of it is a running narrative that for some reason ends very, very abruptly.
WRONG! Acts and "The Gospel of Luke" are believed to have originally been two parts of the same manuscript. And since "The Gospel of Luke" contains information taken from "Jewish War" and "Antiquity of the Jews", and since both of those writings were completed in 93CE, it's pretty obvious that "The Book of Acts" wasn't written when you claim. It was written post 93CE.

(2) Fact 2: The Book of Luke was written prior to the Book of Acts. Within reason, that puts the latest date for composition of Luke at AD 60-62 perhaps. Nothing prevents a date in the AD 50's.
Again, this is false, and for the same reasons noted above.

(3) Fact 3: You have repeatedly told us, with no proof whatsoever, that the Book of Mark was written first. Fine. German liberal scholars first advanced this claim in the 1800's, and other liberals/skeptics have latched on it. But your theories would force you to date the Book of Mark back into the AD 50's!
Not at all. The commonly accepted scholarly findings for "The Gospel of Mark" is 60 - 80CE.

(4) Fact 4: Paul wrote, "For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. And, The laborer is worthy of his hire." (I Tim 5: 18) The first saying comes from Deuteronomy, but what of the second? It comes from Matt 10: 10 and Luke 10: 7. So now you have to re-date I Timothy, I guess.
Why would you guess that when I haven't dated Timothy?

(5) Fact 5: As early as the AD 90's, Clement of Rome was already quoting from the gospels. Thus they had already been penned, copied, and translated - probably multiple times - and were viewed as evidence in favor of certain view. Your view demands that all of this happened in a few years.
And how did you date the quotations of Clement?

And I can rattle off 10 or 15 more, inter-relating all the books if you'd like. More if I sat down and thought about it.
I'm sure you can. And how did YOU arrive at the dates you utilize to inter-relate them? By reading a very select and biased set of writings.

The truth is: I have more evidence than you, and more substantial evidence.
No you don't. If you think you have objective evidence for the existence of God, why aren't you posting it? Many people today can monitor political tensions growing and can accurately predict an upcoming war. And while there doesn't really seem to be any evidence that this was done where you claim, it's still not evidence of God. Not in the least!

The best you can do is whine, "He couldn't have made those predictions before the fact, so I'll re-date them - and I'll cite some liberals and skeptics to support me."
I've never once even suggested that no one could have predicted certain events before they happen. People commonly do this by tracking the evidence. Not only do you ASSUME the predictions predated the events, but you ASSUME they were made without following the evidence, and ASSUME it had something to do with God.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 7:48:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 7:14:33 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/31/2014 6:11:47 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/31/2014 5:02:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/31/2014 4:22:32 PM, annanicole wrote:


"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." That's how faith is produced, not by some mysterious, better-felt-than-explained supernatural act on the part of God.
Faith is how people held belief in Zeus, Horus, Ra and all of the other gods you don't believe exists. It's nothing more than refusing to be rational, and to accept the most likely conclusions, when they conflict with what you WANT to believe. Faith is simply a practice of intellectual dishonesty - lying to yourself for the sake of emotional pacification.

Well, that's your opinion, and you are entitled to it.
No, Anna... NO! Your denial of a pure fact doesn't make it an opinion. This is one of those things that even intelligent theists can't seem to understand. Disbelief in that which is fully supported by both objective evidence and logic, doesn't become an "opinion" just because you can't manage to think rationally long enough to recognize the reality. Is Zeus real, sweetie? Is Horus real? What about Ra, Attis, Tammuz, Krishna, Mithra, Osiris, Isis, Thor, etc., etc., etc.?

NONE of them are real. And since they're not real, and there's no credible evidence upon which to build the belief that they're real, anyone who believes (or "believed"), they were real, did so by faith - holding beliefs for which they had no objective evidence. THAT'S what faith is. And it's purely dishonest. It's lying to yourself because you find a false belief to be more emotionally pacifying than reality.

Based upon your analysis of the word "gift", your proclamation that adding an emphatic to a warning alters the meaning of the warning itself, and other things, I'm sure you won't mind if your analysis is ultimately rejected.

I expect nothing more from you. Rejection of the obvious, the evidenced, the rational and the logical is all you have.

Do we have records of Zeus and Horus so accurately predicting events, including the timing, that we have difficulty explaining it?
You're obviously suggesting the supposed predictions of Jesus. You're the only one having trouble explaining how a document written after the event, could accurately predict the event. And that's because you don't like the obvious, rational, and logical conclusion. You willfully reject the rational, evidenced and logical, in your fervor to accept the irrational, ridiculous and obviously fallacious.

I've asked repeatedly ... REPEATEDLY ... for your evidence. You have none. It's "so-and-so told me". Can't you do any better than that?

If so, I guess I'd be stumped just as you are. I'd probably try to concoct a date after the event, and defend it by, "So-and-so told me" - even if I knew that I knew zilch about the subject.

The people who "concocted" the dates are the ones who insist that it was an accurate prophecy. Those of us who accept a later date do so on the basis of the language used in the manuscript, the dialects, etc. We also try to apply a little logic. How amazed would you be at the following card trick?

So you've studied "the language used in the manuscript", eh? The "dialects"? Somehow I doubt that, but again, I'd love to see your evidence. Thus far, for all of your rambling inconsequential rhetoric, you haven't produced even a bad example.

Every single "argument" that you've advanced has been a vain attempt to re-date the NT books forward, and to prove it, you've cited men who for the most part believe just as you do on the subject. Here's how they do it:

(1) Fact 1: Every last bit of the internal evidence for the date of the Book of Acts places the composition at around AD 63-64. The last portion of it is a running narrative that for some reason ends very, very abruptly.

WRONG! Acts and "The Gospel of Luke" are believed to have originally been two parts of the same manuscript. And since "The Gospel of Luke" contains information taken from "Jewish War" and "Antiquity of the Jews", and since both of those writings were completed in 93CE, it's pretty obvious that "The Book of Acts" wasn't written when you claim. It was written post 93CE.

Prove that either the Gospel of Luke or the Book of Acts "contain information taken from" the writings of Josephus. I mean P-R-O-V-E it. Why, neither book says a thing in the world about the destruction of the temple as an accomplished event.

(2) Fact 2: The Book of Luke was written prior to the Book of Acts. Within reason, that puts the latest date for composition of Luke at AD 60-62 perhaps. Nothing prevents a date in the AD 50's.
Again, this is false, and for the same reasons noted above.

The fact that Luke contains predictions of the destruction of the city, and Josephus later records the fact that it was destroyed does not even come close to proving that the former copied from the latter.

(3) Fact 3: You have repeatedly told us, with no proof whatsoever, that the Book of Mark was written first. Fine. German liberal scholars first advanced this claim in the 1800's, and other liberals/skeptics have latched on it. But your theories would force you to date the Book of Mark back into the AD 50's!

Not at all. The commonly accepted scholarly findings for "The Gospel of Mark" is 60 - 80CE.

So it's "so-and-so told me." That's what it always is. You never really tell us why, specifically.

(4) Fact 4: Paul wrote, "For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. And, The laborer is worthy of his hire." (I Tim 5: 18) The first saying comes from Deuteronomy, but what of the second? It comes from Matt 10: 10 and Luke 10: 7. So now you have to re-date I Timothy, I guess.

Why would you guess that when I haven't dated Timothy?

I notice that you do not provide a date. What happened? Did Dr. Ehrman not explain it to you?

(5) Fact 5: As early as the AD 90's, Clement of Rome was already quoting from the gospels. Thus they had already been penned, copied, and translated - probably multiple times - and were viewed as evidence in favor of certain view. Your view demands that all of this happened in a few years.

And how did you date the quotations of Clement?

By multiple sources who state that he died in circa 100 AD. If he died in AD 100, I presume he didn't write much after that date. Also, I Clement addresses issues that did exist in the Corinthian church at the time as evidenced by Paul's epistles. I am assuming the Clement wrote the epistle after AD 90.

And I can rattle off 10 or 15 more, inter-relating all the books if you'd like. More if I sat down and thought about it.
I'm sure you can. And how did YOU arrive at the dates you utilize to inter-relate them? By reading a very select and biased set of writings.

The truth is: I have more evidence than you, and more substantial evidence.
No you don't. If you think you have objective evidence for the existence of God, why aren't you posting it? Many people today can monitor political tensions growing and can accurately predict an upcoming war.

"Accurately predict an upcoming war"? It's the DETAILS, not the fact itself.

At any rate, you be sure to prove that Luke used Josephus as a source, then come up with some sort of story regarding Paul's first epistle to Timothy. Heck, just make something up! You might as well. Don't bother to cite your reasons. We'll assume "so-and-so told you." Or try this. Just look over the proposed dates, and pick the latest one for no reason at all.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 8:00:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Anna,

I tell you the same thing over, and over. You do the same dishonest and disingenuous crap, over and over. I've never claimed to be trained in paleography. I've specifically told you that I'm not. So what do we see here?

We see more of your ridiculous and disingenuous attempts to suggest that I've claimed exactly what I've never claimed, and specifically denied. But that doesn't mean paleographers don't exist, and it doesn't mean they haven't determined exactly what I said they've determined.

Now... lets pull your head out... Listen for the *POP* sound!

This thread is about objective evidence, what it is, what it isn't, how it works, and why existence is supported by objective evidence, and non-existence is supported by the lack of objective evidence for existence.

Do you understand that?

That's what we're discussing here. And I WILL NOT, allow you to do what you ALWAYS do. You enter a thread and say to yourself, "Well, I don't know a damned thing about what's being discussed here. So let me turn the entire discussion toward something I do feel I know something about."

Sorry, but you're not going to pull your spoiled brat routine here. You don't seem to understand anything about objective evidence. So either ask, or don't post here. Capisce?

You remind me of the old Lloyd Bridges series where he played the part of a scuba diver. But in your case, the name isn't "Sea Hunt". it's more about the "C".
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 8:28:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 7:14:33 PM, Beastt wrote:

I've never once even suggested that no one could have predicted certain events before they happen. People commonly do this by tracking the evidence. Not only do you ASSUME the predictions predated the events, but you ASSUME they were made without following the evidence, and ASSUME it had something to do with God.

No, I'm saying that at the time that Jesus reportedly uttered the prophesies, no such evidence could have existed. There's no evidence that He has any evidence. Not only that, there's no evidence that there was any evidence to be had.

I am assuming, out of charity, that you've never studied the matter - and thus you are unaware of how extremely accurate the reported prophesies were. They were so accurate, of course, that "so-and-so told me" that .... man .... I guess whoever wrote Luke musta read Josephus! But you see, the gospel of Luke contains some information that is only verified by Josephus in his Antiquities (circa AD 94). However, I Timothy quotes from Luke, so the natural move would be for you to climb further out on your limb and say, "Paul didn't even write 1 Timothy, and it was authored after AD 100, yet Clement cited the 1 Timothy - and he died in AD 100!"

Then again, Paul said, "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world" (1 Cor. 6:2) Reckon where that came from - and how they would have known it? The allusion is evidently to Matt 19: 28. Since there are numerous other allusions, I'd like to know when I Corinthians was written. Do you want to date it at AD 55 or so? That'd be dangerous to you.

I'll ask this as a generality: the destruction of the Jewish temple (along with the city of Jerusalem) in AD 70, an event which resulted in 1.1 million deaths, is a major event in 1st-century religious history, so much so that it is still talked about today. Could you give us the NT references to this event as an accomplished fact? If there aren't any (and there aren't), could you elaborate on why such a pivotal event would be wholly overlooked?

The narrative of Acts ends with Paul's imprisonment in Rome in AD 60-62), with no mention of (1) the fire of Rome, (2) Nero's resulting persecution of Christians in AD 64, or (3) the beginning of the Jewish revolt in AD 66. The book doesn't even have an ending: it just STOPS. Yet you come along and say, "Oh, it was written in AD 90-100". How did you extrapolate that date?

******

I'll give you these dates:

Mark: AD 50
Matthew: AD 55
Luke AD 59
Acts AD 63

Alright (and I'd love to see the answer to this), excluding in preconceptions on either side, i. e. disregarding consequences of prophesies and fulfillments, could you please give us two or three good reasons that the above dates are inaccurate? Don't just brush it off with broad statements like "dialects" and "linguistics". Tell us EXACTLY why they are wrong - and why you do not accept them.

I think we'll find that you don't have a single reason! Heck, for all the racket, you don't know. But we'll see.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 9:50:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 7:14:33 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/31/2014 6:11:47 PM, annanicole wrote:

The truth is: I have more evidence than you, and more substantial evidence.
No you don't. If you think you have objective evidence for the existence of God, why aren't you posting it? Many people today can monitor political tensions growing and can accurately predict an upcoming war. And while there doesn't really seem to be any evidence that this was done where you claim, it's still not evidence of God. Not in the least!

The best you can do is whine, "He couldn't have made those predictions before the fact, so I'll re-date them - and I'll cite some liberals and skeptics to support me."
I've never once even suggested that no one could have predicted certain events before they happen. People commonly do this by tracking the evidence. Not only do you ASSUME the predictions predated the events, but you ASSUME they were made without following the evidence, and ASSUME it had something to do with God.

Of course her "evidentialist" apologetics don't work.
God never intended for such methods to work.

A person who does not possess God's Spirit CANNOT and WILL NOT BELIEVE.
No matter how much evidence you show them, they will suppress and ignore it, because they are determined to justify their sin.

Annanicole's problem is that she does not possess faith herself.
She has never repented or believed herself.

She thinks she came to "faith" by examining the evidence.
So her "Gospel" is: "look at the evidence!"

Now, that's a false "Gospel", and has no power to save anyone.
"Evidentialism" accomplishes nothing.

The Gospel is that Christ accomplished salvation by the offering of himself as the Sinner's Substitute.
And all who BELIEVE on him are justified by faith, and reconciled to God through his blood.

A person comes to faith by taking God at his Word, by BELIEVING the TESTIMONY of GOD.
And in our natural state, we have NO SPIRITUAL LIFE IN US.
We must be "born again" by God's Spirit, to believe.

Atheists are RIGHT that there is no reason for anyone to believe what the Bible says based PURELY on EVIDENCE.

Most things in the Scriptures DEFY human logic, and are to be believed with a child-like faith.

How can God be three persons in one?
The honest answer is: "I don't know."

It's simply to be believed, not explained.

How can Christ be both 100% God, and at the same time, 100% man?
The honest answer is: "I don't know."

It's simply to be believed, not explained.

And just about everything in the Bible is like that.

Annanicole is a false prophet. And she does not know God.
If you would know God, you must take him at his Word.
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 10:28:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 6:21:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/31/2014 5:40:39 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 7/31/2014 4:52:13 PM, annanicole wrote:

2. Do you teach that a person believes for one reason, yet repents for another reason?

What does that even mean?

I don't have the slightest idea what you're asking.

I'm asking if a person believes (1) in order to be saved or (2) because he is saved. Did God save him first, then illuminate him - quicken him supernaturally - and turn him into a believer? If so, he was saved while yet an unbeliever.

Your question is a deliberate trap.
There's no way to answer it, because it doesn't make sense.

Look,
A person is SPIRITUALLY DEAD until GOD GIVES him LIFE.
So, a person CANNOT and WILL NOT believe unless he's "born again."

Furthermore, in the sight of God, the elect were already justified from eternity, and they were justified in time, when Christ died on the cross.
And at the appointed time, God's Spirit testifies to the elect sinner's spirit that he is a blood-bought child of God.

And of course that elect sinner is an unbeliever before God regenerates him!
It's not as though he was BORN a believer!

The Holy Spirit turns that unbeliever into a believer, UNDER the PREACHING of the GOSPEL.

Then I'm asking whether a believer repents of his sins (1) unto, in order to reach a yet-unreached end, the remission of sins, or (2) with a view forward to the remission of his sins.

Again, your question is a trap.
The way you ask it is impossible to answer.

God gives the elect sinner repentance and faith at the moment of conversion, and gives him continual repentance and faith throughout his life.

And I didn't ask it, but I'll ask it now: is a penitent believer baptized (1) unto the remission of sins, or (2) with a view BACK to the fact that his sins have already been forgiven.

The passage, an answer to a question, is "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Again, it seems like you're trying to lure me into a trap.

Baptism is merely symbolic.
It's not a meritorious work contributing to one's salvation.

It's simply a public confession of three things:
1. The believer's identification with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection.
2. The believer's identification with the people of God.
3. The believer's identification with a faithful local ministry.



I'd also like to know at what point the folks on Pentecost "obeyed the gospel". That's pretty important. One has to obey it, somehow. When exactly would one "obey" the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. You can't obey it literally, unless you want to physically die. You can't obey it by simply believing it. Exactly by what process does one die, then be buried, then be raised?

They obeyed it when they believed it, and the fruit of that belief was being publically baptized.

You know, you are just like a Pharisee. You're not asking because you want to know.
You're asking to try and catch me in a trap.

You are a despicable false prophet, and most of the time I don't even respond to you because it is a waste of my time.

I elected to answer you this time, but if my answers are not thorough enough for you, that's too bad. That's all you're going to get.

Go ahead and think you've "won", or make accusations.
Your opinion means nothing to me.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 11:35:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 10:28:33 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 7/31/2014 6:21:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/31/2014 5:40:39 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 7/31/2014 4:52:13 PM, annanicole wrote:

2. Do you teach that a person believes for one reason, yet repents for another reason?

What does that even mean?

I don't have the slightest idea what you're asking.

I'm asking if a person believes (1) in order to be saved or (2) because he is saved. Did God save him first, then illuminate him - quicken him supernaturally - and turn him into a believer? If so, he was saved while yet an unbeliever.

Your question is a deliberate trap.
There's no way to answer it, because it doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense. Belief is either a condition of salvation - or it isn't.

Look,
A person is SPIRITUALLY DEAD until GOD GIVES him LIFE.
So, a person CANNOT and WILL NOT believe unless he's "born again."

Then you believe in "pre-regeneration", i. e. salvation without belief. That is, unless you want to tell us that a "born again" person who has not yet believed is lost.

Furthermore, in the sight of God, the elect were already justified from eternity, and they were justified in time, when Christ died on the cross.
And at the appointed time, God's Spirit testifies to the elect sinner's spirit that he is a blood-bought child of God.

Then your more-correct answer to "What must I do to be saved?" is, "Nothing. Not a thing. You were justified while yet in unbelief."

And of course that elect sinner is an unbeliever before God regenerates him!
It's not as though he was BORN a believer!

The Holy Spirit turns that unbeliever into a believer, UNDER the PREACHING of the GOSPEL.

Yes, but you do NOT believe that the Holy Spirit turns an unbeliever into a believer BY the PREACHING of the GOSPEL. No, you do not believe there's that much power in the gospel, do you?

Then I'm asking whether a believer repents of his sins (1) unto, in order to reach a yet-unreached end, the remission of sins, or (2) with a view forward to the remission of his sins.

Again, your question is a trap.
The way you ask it is impossible to answer.

Good grief! A man either repents of his sins before he is saved, or after he is saved.

God gives the elect sinner repentance and faith at the moment of conversion, and gives him continual repentance and faith throughout his life.

But you teach that he is saved before he does either. Thus, the answer to the question, once again, "What must I do to be saved?" is, according to your doctrine, "Nothing. Absolutely nothing. You can't do anything. Just sit there."

And I didn't ask it, but I'll ask it now: is a penitent believer baptized (1) unto the remission of sins, or (2) with a view BACK to the fact that his sins have already been forgiven.

The passage, an answer to a question, is "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Again, it seems like you're trying to lure me into a trap.

No, I merely asked you a question.

Baptism is merely symbolic.
It's not a meritorious work contributing to one's salvation.

I thought the passage said, ""Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins".

It's simply a public confession of three things:
1. The believer's identification with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection.
2. The believer's identification with the people of God.
3. The believer's identification with a faithful local ministry.

Again, the passage says, "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins". That's not a trap. Peter wasn't trying to trap the people. You simply have no decent explanation.



I'd also like to know at what point the folks on Pentecost "obeyed the gospel". That's pretty important. One has to obey it, somehow. When exactly would one "obey" the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. You can't obey it literally, unless you want to physically die. You can't obey it by simply believing it. Exactly by what process does one die, then be buried, then be raised?

They obeyed it when they believed it, and the fruit of that belief was being publically baptized.

So one has not obeyed the gospel until he has been baptized. Paul states that those who have not obeyed the gospel are lost.

You know, you are just like a Pharisee. You're not asking because you want to know.
You're asking to try and catch me in a trap.

Not at all. Those are all very easy questions.

You are a despicable false prophet, and most of the time I don't even respond to you because it is a waste of my time.

I elected to answer you this time, but if my answers are not thorough enough for you, that's too bad. That's all you're going to get.

Thorough enough? All you did was bitch and whine and make a fool out of yourself. In addition, you are patently dishonest - and every can see it - when I ask, "What must I do to be saved?" You answered, "Believe." The trouble is: you believe that people are saved before they ever believe! Get it good: you believe that when a man believes the gospel, all he's done is gone from a saved unbeliever to a saved believer.

Go ahead and think you've "won", or make accusations.
Your opinion means nothing to me.

No, sir, neither my opinion nor God's Word mean a thing to you, but the Institutes of Calvin mean a lot. I didn't intend for the questions to point out your dishonesty; I intended them merely to point out that you contradict a host of scriptures. The dishonesty comes when, of all things, you misrepresent when asked the question, "What must I do to be saved?" You said, "Believe". However, you don't believe that. You tell us that a person is "born again" without belief or repentance! So what if this "born again" person dies before he believes?

Remember, the passage still states: "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins." You do not even believe that - and I surmise that if someone asks you "What must I do to be saved?", you'd never in a thousand years say it. You can't.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 12:49:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 11:35:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/31/2014 10:28:33 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 7/31/2014 6:21:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/31/2014 5:40:39 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 7/31/2014 4:52:13 PM, annanicole wrote:

2. Do you teach that a person believes for one reason, yet repents for another reason?

What does that even mean?

I don't have the slightest idea what you're asking.

I'm asking if a person believes (1) in order to be saved or (2) because he is saved. Did God save him first, then illuminate him - quicken him supernaturally - and turn him into a believer? If so, he was saved while yet an unbeliever.

Your question is a deliberate trap.
There's no way to answer it, because it doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense. Belief is either a condition of salvation - or it isn't.

Look,
A person is SPIRITUALLY DEAD until GOD GIVES him LIFE.
So, a person CANNOT and WILL NOT believe unless he's "born again."

Then you believe in "pre-regeneration", i. e. salvation without belief. That is, unless you want to tell us that a "born again" person who has not yet believed is lost.

Furthermore, in the sight of God, the elect were already justified from eternity, and they were justified in time, when Christ died on the cross.
And at the appointed time, God's Spirit testifies to the elect sinner's spirit that he is a blood-bought child of God.

Then your more-correct answer to "What must I do to be saved?" is, "Nothing. Not a thing. You were justified while yet in unbelief."

And of course that elect sinner is an unbeliever before God regenerates him!
It's not as though he was BORN a believer!

The Holy Spirit turns that unbeliever into a believer, UNDER the PREACHING of the GOSPEL.

Yes, but you do NOT believe that the Holy Spirit turns an unbeliever into a believer BY the PREACHING of the GOSPEL. No, you do not believe there's that much power in the gospel, do you?

Then I'm asking whether a believer repents of his sins (1) unto, in order to reach a yet-unreached end, the remission of sins, or (2) with a view forward to the remission of his sins.

Again, your question is a trap.
The way you ask it is impossible to answer.

Good grief! A man either repents of his sins before he is saved, or after he is saved.

God gives the elect sinner repentance and faith at the moment of conversion, and gives him continual repentance and faith throughout his life.

But you teach that he is saved before he does either. Thus, the answer to the question, once again, "What must I do to be saved?" is, according to your doctrine, "Nothing. Absolutely nothing. You can't do anything. Just sit there."

And I didn't ask it, but I'll ask it now: is a penitent believer baptized (1) unto the remission of sins, or (2) with a view BACK to the fact that his sins have already been forgiven.

The passage, an answer to a question, is "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Again, it seems like you're trying to lure me into a trap.

No, I merely asked you a question.

Baptism is merely symbolic.
It's not a meritorious work contributing to one's salvation.

I thought the passage said, ""Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins".

It's simply a public confession of three things:
1. The believer's identification with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection.
2. The believer's identification with the people of God.
3. The believer's identification with a faithful local ministry.

Again, the passage says, "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins". That's not a trap. Peter wasn't trying to trap the people. You simply have no decent explanation.



I'd also like to know at what point the folks on Pentecost "obeyed the gospel". That's pretty important. One has to obey it, somehow. When exactly would one "obey" the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. You can't obey it literally, unless you want to physically die. You can't obey it by simply believing it. Exactly by what process does one die, then be buried, then be raised?

They obeyed it when they believed it, and the fruit of that belief was being publically baptized.

So one has not obeyed the gospel until he has been baptized. Paul states that those who have not obeyed the gospel are lost.

You know, you are just like a Pharisee. You're not asking because you want to know.
You're asking to try and catch me in a trap.

Not at all. Those are all very easy questions.

You are a despicable false prophet, and most of the time I don't even respond to you because it is a waste of my time.

I elected to answer you this time, but if my answers are not thorough enough for you, that's too bad. That's all you're going to get.

Thorough enough? All you did was bitch and whine and make a fool out of yourself. In addition, you are patently dishonest - and every can see it - when I ask, "What must I do to be saved?" You answered, "Believe." The trouble is: you believe that people are saved before they ever believe! Get it good: you believe that when a man believes the gospel, all he's done is gone from a saved unbeliever to a saved believer.

Go ahead and think you've "won", or make accusations.
Your opinion means nothing to me.

No, sir, neither my opinion nor God's Word mean a thing to you, but the Institutes of Calvin mean a lot. I didn't intend for the questions to point out your dishonesty; I intended them merely to point out that you contradict a host of scriptures. The dishonesty comes when, of all things, you misrepresent when asked the question, "What must I do to be saved?" You said, "Believe". However, you don't believe that. You tell us that a person is "born again" without belief or repentance! So what if this "born again" person dies before he believes?

Remember, the passage still states: "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins." You do not even believe that - and I surmise that if someone asks you "What must I do to be saved?", you'd never in a thousand years say it. You can't.

You are a Pharisee. Plain and simple.

You are way beyond a troll, you're the mouthpiece of Satan.

You don't have anything to say. You just twist words for fun. And you are lost and on the highway to Hell.

Repent and be baptized in the name of Christ unto the remission of sins.
Believe on Jesus Christ and you will be saved.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 1:05:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/1/2014 12:49:37 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 7/31/2014 11:35:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/31/2014 10:28:33 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 7/31/2014 6:21:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/31/2014 5:40:39 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 7/31/2014 4:52:13 PM, annanicole wrote:

2. Do you teach that a person believes for one reason, yet repents for another reason?

What does that even mean?

I don't have the slightest idea what you're asking.

I'm asking if a person believes (1) in order to be saved or (2) because he is saved. Did God save him first, then illuminate him - quicken him supernaturally - and turn him into a believer? If so, he was saved while yet an unbeliever.

Your question is a deliberate trap.
There's no way to answer it, because it doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense. Belief is either a condition of salvation - or it isn't.

Look,
A person is SPIRITUALLY DEAD until GOD GIVES him LIFE.
So, a person CANNOT and WILL NOT believe unless he's "born again."

Then you believe in "pre-regeneration", i. e. salvation without belief. That is, unless you want to tell us that a "born again" person who has not yet believed is lost.

Furthermore, in the sight of God, the elect were already justified from eternity, and they were justified in time, when Christ died on the cross.
And at the appointed time, God's Spirit testifies to the elect sinner's spirit that he is a blood-bought child of God.

Then your more-correct answer to "What must I do to be saved?" is, "Nothing. Not a thing. You were justified while yet in unbelief."

And of course that elect sinner is an unbeliever before God regenerates him!
It's not as though he was BORN a believer!

The Holy Spirit turns that unbeliever into a believer, UNDER the PREACHING of the GOSPEL.

Yes, but you do NOT believe that the Holy Spirit turns an unbeliever into a believer BY the PREACHING of the GOSPEL. No, you do not believe there's that much power in the gospel, do you?

Then I'm asking whether a believer repents of his sins (1) unto, in order to reach a yet-unreached end, the remission of sins, or (2) with a view forward to the remission of his sins.

Again, your question is a trap.
The way you ask it is impossible to answer.

Good grief! A man either repents of his sins before he is saved, or after he is saved.

God gives the elect sinner repentance and faith at the moment of conversion, and gives him continual repentance and faith throughout his life.

But you teach that he is saved before he does either. Thus, the answer to the question, once again, "What must I do to be saved?" is, according to your doctrine, "Nothing. Absolutely nothing. You can't do anything. Just sit there."

And I didn't ask it, but I'll ask it now: is a penitent believer baptized (1) unto the remission of sins, or (2) with a view BACK to the fact that his sins have already been forgiven.

The passage, an answer to a question, is "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Again, it seems like you're trying to lure me into a trap.

No, I merely asked you a question.

Baptism is merely symbolic.
It's not a meritorious work contributing to one's salvation.

I thought the passage said, ""Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins".

It's simply a public confession of three things:
1. The believer's identification with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection.
2. The believer's identification with the people of God.
3. The believer's identification with a faithful local ministry.

Again, the passage says, "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins". That's not a trap. Peter wasn't trying to trap the people. You simply have no decent explanation.



I'd also like to know at what point the folks on Pentecost "obeyed the gospel". That's pretty important. One has to obey it, somehow. When exactly would one "obey" the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. You can't obey it literally, unless you want to physically die. You can't obey it by simply believing it. Exactly by what process does one die, then be buried, then be raised?

They obeyed it when they believed it, and the fruit of that belief was being publically baptized.

So one has not obeyed the gospel until he has been baptized. Paul states that those who have not obeyed the gospel are lost.

You know, you are just like a Pharisee. You're not asking because you want to know.
You're asking to try and catch me in a trap.

Not at all. Those are all very easy questions.

You are a despicable false prophet, and most of the time I don't even respond to you because it is a waste of my time.

I elected to answer you this time, but if my answers are not thorough enough for you, that's too bad. That's all you're going to get.

Thorough enough? All you did was bitch and whine and make a fool out of yourself. In addition, you are patently dishonest - and every can see it - when I ask, "What must I do to be saved?" You answered, "Believe." The trouble is: you believe that people are saved before they ever believe! Get it good: you believe that when a man believes the gospel, all he's done is gone from a saved unbeliever to a saved believer.

Go ahead and think you've "won", or make accusations.
Your opinion means nothing to me.

No, sir, neither my opinion nor God's Word mean a thing to you, but the Institutes of Calvin mean a lot. I didn't intend for the questions to point out your dishonesty; I intended them merely to point out that you contradict a host of scriptures. The dishonesty comes when, of all things, you misrepresent when asked the question, "What must I do to be saved?" You said, "Believe". However, you don't believe that. You tell us that a person is "born again" without belief or repentance! So what if this "born again" person dies before he believes?

Remember, the passage still states: "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins." You do not even believe that - and I surmise that if someone asks you "What must I do to be saved?", you'd never in a thousand years say it. You can't.

You are a Pharisee. Plain and simple.

You are way beyond a troll, you're the mouthpiece of Satan.

You don't have anything to say. You just twist words for fun. And you are lost and on the highway to Hell.

Repent and be baptized in the name of Christ unto the remission of sins.
Believe on Jesus Christ and you will be saved.

Just quote John 3:16... She'll give up.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 1:23:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/1/2014 12:49:37 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 7/31/2014 11:35:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/31/2014 10:28:33 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 7/31/2014 6:21:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/31/2014 5:40:39 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 7/31/2014 4:52:13 PM, annanicole wrote:

2. Do you teach that a person believes for one reason, yet repents for another reason?

What does that even mean?

I don't have the slightest idea what you're asking.

I'm asking if a person believes (1) in order to be saved or (2) because he is saved. Did God save him first, then illuminate him - quicken him supernaturally - and turn him into a believer? If so, he was saved while yet an unbeliever.

Your question is a deliberate trap.
There's no way to answer it, because it doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense. Belief is either a condition of salvation - or it isn't.

Look,
A person is SPIRITUALLY DEAD until GOD GIVES him LIFE.
So, a person CANNOT and WILL NOT believe unless he's "born again."

Then you believe in "pre-regeneration", i. e. salvation without belief. That is, unless you want to tell us that a "born again" person who has not yet believed is lost.

Furthermore, in the sight of God, the elect were already justified from eternity, and they were justified in time, when Christ died on the cross.
And at the appointed time, God's Spirit testifies to the elect sinner's spirit that he is a blood-bought child of God.

Then your more-correct answer to "What must I do to be saved?" is, "Nothing. Not a thing. You were justified while yet in unbelief."

And of course that elect sinner is an unbeliever before God regenerates him!
It's not as though he was BORN a believer!

The Holy Spirit turns that unbeliever into a believer, UNDER the PREACHING of the GOSPEL.

Yes, but you do NOT believe that the Holy Spirit turns an unbeliever into a believer BY the PREACHING of the GOSPEL. No, you do not believe there's that much power in the gospel, do you?

Then I'm asking whether a believer repents of his sins (1) unto, in order to reach a yet-unreached end, the remission of sins, or (2) with a view forward to the remission of his sins.

Again, your question is a trap.
The way you ask it is impossible to answer.

Good grief! A man either repents of his sins before he is saved, or after he is saved.

God gives the elect sinner repentance and faith at the moment of conversion, and gives him continual repentance and faith throughout his life.

But you teach that he is saved before he does either. Thus, the answer to the question, once again, "What must I do to be saved?" is, according to your doctrine, "Nothing. Absolutely nothing. You can't do anything. Just sit there."

And I didn't ask it, but I'll ask it now: is a penitent believer baptized (1) unto the remission of sins, or (2) with a view BACK to the fact that his sins have already been forgiven.

The passage, an answer to a question, is "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Again, it seems like you're trying to lure me into a trap.

No, I merely asked you a question.

Baptism is merely symbolic.
It's not a meritorious work contributing to one's salvation.

I thought the passage said, ""Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins".

It's simply a public confession of three things:
1. The believer's identification with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection.
2. The believer's identification with the people of God.
3. The believer's identification with a faithful local ministry.

Again, the passage says, "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins". That's not a trap. Peter wasn't trying to trap the people. You simply have no decent explanation.



I'd also like to know at what point the folks on Pentecost "obeyed the gospel". That's pretty important. One has to obey it, somehow. When exactly would one "obey" the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. You can't obey it literally, unless you want to physically die. You can't obey it by simply believing it. Exactly by what process does one die, then be buried, then be raised?

They obeyed it when they believed it, and the fruit of that belief was being publically baptized.

So one has not obeyed the gospel until he has been baptized. Paul states that those who have not obeyed the gospel are lost.

You know, you are just like a Pharisee. You're not asking because you want to know.
You're asking to try and catch me in a trap.

Not at all. Those are all very easy questions.

You are a despicable false prophet, and most of the time I don't even respond to you because it is a waste of my time.

I elected to answer you this time, but if my answers are not thorough enough for you, that's too bad. That's all you're going to get.

Thorough enough? All you did was bitch and whine and make a fool out of yourself. In addition, you are patently dishonest - and every can see it - when I ask, "What must I do to be saved?" You answered, "Believe." The trouble is: you believe that people are saved before they ever believe! Get it good: you believe that when a man believes the gospel, all he's done is gone from a saved unbeliever to a saved believer.

Go ahead and think you've "won", or make accusations.
Your opinion means nothing to me.

No, sir, neither my opinion nor God's Word mean a thing to you, but the Institutes of Calvin mean a lot. I didn't intend for the questions to point out your dishonesty; I intended them merely to point out that you contradict a host of scriptures. The dishonesty comes when, of all things, you misrepresent when asked the question, "What must I do to be saved?" You said, "Believe". However, you don't believe that. You tell us that a person is "born again" without belief or repentance! So what if this "born again" person dies before he believes?

Remember, the passage still states: "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins." You do not even believe that - and I surmise that if someone asks you "What must I do to be saved?", you'd never in a thousand years say it. You can't.

You are a Pharisee. Plain and simple.

You are way beyond a troll, you're the mouthpiece of Satan.

You don't have anything to say. You just twist words for fun. And you are lost and on the highway to Hell.

Repent and be baptized in the name of Christ unto the remission of sins.
Believe on Jesus Christ and you will be saved.

And you're a Calvinistic dimwit who can't even consistently (or accurately) answer the question, "What must I do to be saved?" You answer it - then answer it dishonestly, for you actually believe and teach that the person was saved before he ever believed - yet you claimed he had to believe in order to be saved.

That's not "twisting words". That's "pointing out false doctrine" - and you are full of it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 5:17:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
2 weeks into his stay attaccking people for believing differently than him, and I'm convinced Beastt has no understanding of what either of the words objective or logical mean.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 5:30:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/1/2014 5:17:53 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
2 weeks into his stay attaccking people for believing differently than him, and I'm convinced Beastt has no understanding of what either of the words objective or logical mean.

.... or "gift". I've never seen anything like it. He makes up his own philological/grammatical rules
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 11:12:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/1/2014 1:23:51 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/1/2014 12:49:37 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:

You are a Pharisee. Plain and simple.

You are way beyond a troll, you're the mouthpiece of Satan.

You don't have anything to say. You just twist words for fun. And you are lost and on the highway to Hell.

Repent and be baptized in the name of Christ unto the remission of sins.
Believe on Jesus Christ and you will be saved.

And you're a Calvinistic dimwit who can't even consistently (or accurately) answer the question, "What must I do to be saved?" You answer it - then answer it dishonestly, for you actually believe and teach that the person was saved before he ever believed - yet you claimed he had to believe in order to be saved.


Annanicole,

I would strongly advise you to listen for once, instead of carping like an ignorant Pharisee.
Who knows, God may be pleased to give you understanding if you will just take a breath and read what's being said.

Listen,
God's people were saved from eternity because there was no chance that Christ would fail.
He still had to accomplish their redemption at the appointed time.
And he still had to regenerate them by his Spirit at the appointed time.
Those things still had to happen in time.

But in God's sight, the works were finished from eternity, so his people were saved from eternity.
They just didn't KNOW it until the Spirit gave them faith to believe it.

Now, if you think there's a contradiction in that, it's because you have no light in you.
You just don't have understanding.
You don't even have a basic intellectual understanding of the Scriptures, much less do you have God's Spirit.

BUT: "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and
without reproach, and it will be given to him."
(James 1:5)

And: "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; In
all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths."
(Proverbs 3:5-6)
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 11:17:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/1/2014 11:12:35 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/1/2014 1:23:51 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/1/2014 12:49:37 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:

You are a Pharisee. Plain and simple.

You are way beyond a troll, you're the mouthpiece of Satan.

You don't have anything to say. You just twist words for fun. And you are lost and on the highway to Hell.

Repent and be baptized in the name of Christ unto the remission of sins.
Believe on Jesus Christ and you will be saved.

And you're a Calvinistic dimwit who can't even consistently (or accurately) answer the question, "What must I do to be saved?" You answer it - then answer it dishonestly, for you actually believe and teach that the person was saved before he ever believed - yet you claimed he had to believe in order to be saved.


Annanicole,

I would strongly advise you to listen for once, instead of carping like an ignorant Pharisee.
Who knows, God may be pleased to give you understanding if you will just take a breath and read what's being said.

Listen,
God's people were saved from eternity because there was no chance that Christ would fail.
He still had to accomplish their redemption at the appointed time.
And he still had to regenerate them by his Spirit at the appointed time.
Those things still had to happen in time.

But in God's sight, the works were finished from eternity, so his people were saved from eternity.
They just didn't KNOW it until the Spirit gave them faith to believe it.

Now, if you think there's a contradiction in that, it's because you have no light in you.
You just don't have understanding.
You don't even have a basic intellectual understanding of the Scriptures, much less do you have God's Spirit.

BUT: "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and
without reproach, and it will be given to him."
(James 1:5)

And: "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; In
all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths."
(Proverbs 3:5-6)

Then why don't you take it up yourself to try once again to answer the question, "What must I do to be saved?" Don't bother saying, "You must believe" because your record indicates that you believe certain people are saved before they believe.

And why don't you explain for us why repentance and baptism are both unto the remission of sins?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 12:08:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/1/2014 11:17:49 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/1/2014 11:12:35 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/1/2014 1:23:51 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/1/2014 12:49:37 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:

You are a Pharisee. Plain and simple.

You are way beyond a troll, you're the mouthpiece of Satan.

You don't have anything to say. You just twist words for fun. And you are lost and on the highway to Hell.

Repent and be baptized in the name of Christ unto the remission of sins.
Believe on Jesus Christ and you will be saved.

And you're a Calvinistic dimwit who can't even consistently (or accurately) answer the question, "What must I do to be saved?" You answer it - then answer it dishonestly, for you actually believe and teach that the person was saved before he ever believed - yet you claimed he had to believe in order to be saved.


Annanicole,

I would strongly advise you to listen for once, instead of carping like an ignorant Pharisee.
Who knows, God may be pleased to give you understanding if you will just take a breath and read what's being said.

Listen,
God's people were saved from eternity because there was no chance that Christ would fail.
He still had to accomplish their redemption at the appointed time.
And he still had to regenerate them by his Spirit at the appointed time.
Those things still had to happen in time.

But in God's sight, the works were finished from eternity, so his people were saved from eternity.
They just didn't KNOW it until the Spirit gave them faith to believe it.

Now, if you think there's a contradiction in that, it's because you have no light in you.
You just don't have understanding.
You don't even have a basic intellectual understanding of the Scriptures, much less do you have God's Spirit.

BUT: "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and
without reproach, and it will be given to him."
(James 1:5)

And: "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; In
all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths."
(Proverbs 3:5-6)

Then why don't you take it up yourself to try once again to answer the question, "What must I do to be saved?" Don't bother saying, "You must believe" because your record indicates that you believe certain people are saved before they believe.

And why don't you explain for us why repentance and baptism are both unto the remission of sins?

Well, Anna,
You know what Christ said about those carping Pharisees?

He said: "Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted.
Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind.
And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch."


Anna,
You are lost, and you need Christ.
And you need to learn the Scriptures.
You don't even understand the basics.

And your behavior is totally unbecoming of any human being, but especially unbecoming of a woman.
What makes you think you have the right to set yourself up as a Bible teacher, and berate men on an internet forum?

If you think that's sexist, then go ahead and take it up with God.
You're just as brazen and rebellious as Jezebel.

Unless you start demonstrating a sincere willingness to learn, I see no point in continuing with you.
Go ahead and use your "free will" and give glory to yourself.
God will deal with you as he sees fit.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 1:19:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 9:50:21 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 7/31/2014 7:14:33 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/31/2014 6:11:47 PM, annanicole wrote:

The truth is: I have more evidence than you, and more substantial evidence.
No you don't. If you think you have objective evidence for the existence of God, why aren't you posting it? Many people today can monitor political tensions growing and can accurately predict an upcoming war. And while there doesn't really seem to be any evidence that this was done where you claim, it's still not evidence of God. Not in the least!

The best you can do is whine, "He couldn't have made those predictions before the fact, so I'll re-date them - and I'll cite some liberals and skeptics to support me."
I've never once even suggested that no one could have predicted certain events before they happen. People commonly do this by tracking the evidence. Not only do you ASSUME the predictions predated the events, but you ASSUME they were made without following the evidence, and ASSUME it had something to do with God.

Of course her "evidentialist" apologetics don't work.
God never intended for such methods to work.

A person who does not possess God's Spirit CANNOT and WILL NOT BELIEVE.
No matter how much evidence you show them, they will suppress and ignore it, because they are determined to justify their sin.

Annanicole's problem is that she does not possess faith herself.
She has never repented or believed herself.

She thinks she came to "faith" by examining the evidence.
So her "Gospel" is: "look at the evidence!"

Now, that's a false "Gospel", and has no power to save anyone.
"Evidentialism" accomplishes nothing.

The Gospel is that Christ accomplished salvation by the offering of himself as the Sinner's Substitute.
And all who BELIEVE on him are justified by faith, and reconciled to God through his blood.

A person comes to faith by taking God at his Word, by BELIEVING the TESTIMONY of GOD.
And in our natural state, we have NO SPIRITUAL LIFE IN US.
We must be "born again" by God's Spirit, to believe.

Atheists are RIGHT that there is no reason for anyone to believe what the Bible says based PURELY on EVIDENCE.

Most things in the Scriptures DEFY human logic, and are to be believed with a child-like faith.

How can God be three persons in one?
The honest answer is: "I don't know."

It's simply to be believed, not explained.

How can Christ be both 100% God, and at the same time, 100% man?
The honest answer is: "I don't know."

It's simply to be believed, not explained.

And just about everything in the Bible is like that.

Annanicole is a false prophet. And she does not know God.
If you would know God, you must take him at his Word.

You have ignored my other post, and I want a response on the questions I put to you.